In that case, sorry I guess? Since I myself pointed out that that’s how it worked over 100 years ago I thought it was pretty obvious I was aware it didn’t work that way anymore, so I interpreted your comment as refuting my primary point (the one stated explicitly above). If that’s not what you meant to do then I don’t think we really have any disagreement.
With respect to strategic leaders I was more referring to officers than political leaders. Historically, the path from military power to political power was also shorter: A common way to get political power was to first establish yourself as a high ranking officer.
This whole pipeline of “protecting officers, because it makes militarily sense” via “high ranking officers often end up with political power” to todays situation seems a rather natural development to me.
To be fair it probably came from the fact that armies that protected strategic leaders at the expense of common soldiers were, over time, more effective. Military doctrine has a tendency to shift towards whatever works best, because the armies that don’t adopt it lose wars and don’t get to keep fighting.
The point is that history has shown us that people will wage war for profit even if it means putting themselves and their children at risk by being directly involved in hostilities.
The whole “we wouldn’t have wars if rich people and their kids had to fight in them” idea just doesn’t hold up to historical precedent. People with power are likely to start wars regardless, because they see it as a means of increasing their power.
While I agree with the sentiment, you don’t have to go much more than 100 years back before it was common that the upper class led armies more or less from the front. For long stretches of history, leading from the front and in general being in the army has been one of the ways the upper class has held on to its power.
It honestly feels like we somehow have to take back the (very loaded) word “antisemitism”, as Israel and its supporters seem intent on making it mean “anything the Israeli government disagrees with”.
I’m not an antisemite, and have no hate whatsoever for anyone because of theirs religious beliefs or where they come from. My views are antizionist and antigenocide. Which are strictly political views, not tied to any specific demographic of people.
I honestly don’t see what you mean? It’s true that people in power have waged war on each other more or less throughout all of known history, no?
Whether or not said people had to actually take part in hostilities doesn’t seem to have much impact on whether they choose to wage war. Or do you have a counter example (a society that has changed whether it waged a bunch of wars based on whether its leaders had to fight in them)?