I play chess. Not that I could be a grandmaster material but I know a few tricks or two to win some games.
The object of the game is protect your king, using every piece and every possible tactic to defend your highest official. Often, you have to go on the offensive to defend yourself, one of the best ploys not to lose.
Strategies range from sacrificing pieces to gain better position against your opponent’s defense. Or, you can use subtle moves to fork and immobilize higher officials. All of these are part of an elaborate series of moves and countermoves to pin the king into surrender.
In warfare, the leader has to be protected. It is a common belief that a leaderless army could either become ragtags of a useless force, to be prisoners of war, hopeless to fight their battle, or they could become criminals, their allegiance only to themselves, wrecking havoc to life and property without any form of discipline from a higher authority.
However, if the leader himself is the prime promoter of chaos and death, should he protected at all? If the leader send his troops to certain oblivion, should he be charged to lead the same force himself, following and serving his own ideas, ready to sacrifice his own life for his decision?
The kings of old led their armies. Their courage and chivalry were unmatched today.
Current leaders wait in underground and safe bunkers, ready to push the button of global destruction. They are there to survive the annihilation they themselves would have started, designated to lead any survivors, if any at all are still around.
My question: why should we go to war if our leaders are not man enough to fight in the frontlines? They should not be sacred cows, promoting war while the rest of us should do the killing and dying.
True leaders think of ways not to go to war. You don’t sacrifice lives you yourself are not willing to give. Rhetoric is for the cameras. Even the lowliest foot soldier could mouth out what you say. Exchange roles with him so you might realize how difficult it is to be a pawn.