There are very few kids in the military. I get sick of people overlooking the adult status of our servicemen and women whenever it's politically conveniant. Jeez, during the war people on the left were actually referring to them as "babies"- as in "we're sending our babies off to die". (and this also ignores the fact that we don't send the military off to die- we send them off to whip the living sh!t out of our enemies)
Tell me something John, you took Monsieur Galt's name as your screen name out of respect for the character I take it? What do you think John Galt would've had to say about someone who cavalierly signed their name on a military contract? Do you think he would've said "they entered that agreement willingly and with full cognizance of its possible repurcussions"? Or do you think he was the type of guy that was willing to overlook a contract when it wasn't conveniant to his beliefs?
No, you don't have to answer that question- it's a doozy all right- you can skip it if you like.
In your argumentation, nobody who isn't in the military can make a moral argument for war or for using the military as a means of defense or deterrence. But this clearly is against the contract the American people have with our gov't that says the military shall be governed and controlled by the civilian (ie- nonsoldier) populace. It is for the civilianry to decide via proxy when and to what end the military should be used.
That's the contract we live by. To do otherwise would be to live in a military state. This is not an unfair conclusion to draw either. Observe, if all the military got together (under your system) and decided "Tomorrow, we attack Canada" the civilianry could not object because they have no moral claim to do so. Were they to object to this military interventionism, the members of the military would simply tell them "When you sign the paper and wear the uniform, then you can have a say- until then, shut up!" The other drawback to this state of affairs is it would effectively unionize the military (a thing I know John Galt from the book wouldn't like). There could be a legitimate need to deploy the military and they could basically say "Not so fast, Roscoe! We don't particularly care to go off and fight"
Obviously, this is not a desirable state of affairs.
Further implications of this bit of logic would be that nobody who was excluded from military duty for legitimate medical reasons would be able to decide either- after all, fair is fair- if they can't fight they shouldn't get a say in whether the Army has to go or not. Also, there's the elderly to think about. Don't they get a say? Couldn't have it you see?
No, what it would boil down to is only those who served in the combat arms or had served in them in the past would be allowed a say- this excludes all females right there except for those precious few who currently fly attack aircraft. Military truck drivers, clerks, water purification specialists- they're not supposed to engage in the fighting so why should they get to decide to send in the grunts? For that matter, radar operators and bomb loaders on aircraft carriers shouldn't get a say either- they're not the ones flying through the flak are they?
Overall, this is a pretty silly state of affairs, isn't it? You'd never be able to call the police if you weren't out there on the thin blue line yourself.
The people in the military are grown men and women. They made their choices and took the possible consequences into account when they signed their contracts. The civilians in our nation have every right in the world to petition their gov't to put the military to the use they deem fit. I believe this is how John Galt- the real John Galt- might've seen it.