Mark Steyn has an article on the Cindy Sheehan story in which he takes issue with a particular tactic of the anti-war crowd. Of the servicemen and women in Iraq, he writes:
They’re not children in Iraq; they’re grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as “children.” If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton’s Oval Office, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee “child” who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing.
Further on he says:
The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd’s purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that “of course” they “support our troops,” because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.
This highlights the flaw with the “why doesn’t Bush send his daughters to fight?” line of attack. It is not Bush’s place to send his daughters, just as it isn’t the place of any parent to send their son or daughter to fight. The armed forces are voluntary. The men and women that choose to serve are just that, “men and women”. But that’s not how the anti-war crowd sees it. To them all of the soldiers and marines in Iraq are a bunch of children. With condescending views such as this in the Democratic party, it’s no wonder that the military vote trends Republican.