The war effort is the first and paramount consideration. A politician who thinks about re-election during the war deserves to be taken to the courtyard and face a firing squad.
Churchill was quite aware that when the war is over the "public opinion" (that whore, I repeat once again) would vote him out of office - and he was right, they immediately put in his place a socialist (Athlee).
War is won with absolute determination only - the stakes are all or nothing.
Elections (and football, Herr Rummenigge!) are for the time of peace.
So we both demand politicians that stand for the points they have found to be vital for a country - in certain questions they should stand in for them with their lives.
And certinaly it's especially important to seek the resolve and support of the people in a country going to any war. That's the most important job of a politian in charge.
If there's not trust in your leadership you need not try to go to war .
Finding the resolve and support of the nation was easy the days when war was war and a nations duties where clear to man and women.
But these days we are fighting a war on terror. Can you show that to me on a map - or better show me where it not is ?
And who are the guys we are fighting ?
What conditions have to be met to end it ?
I mean your absolutely right with your posting - but where's that resolve going to come from if you can't define the enemy clearly - if you can't define a contralable aim of the struggle ?
If we where at war with japan and just had to fight until they give up - then it would be easy to motivate people for support.
If you had elections next week - do you feel the resolve of your compatriots would be enough to elect a guy sending another let's say 500000 men to war ?