I don't know what you're talking about,
Being a politician or a ruler,
Does not prevent one's children from serving in the military.
Many rulers and politicians have been proud of their children in the military,
Societies 'do vary, based on culture/time.
So I'd agree that politicians and rulers 'have exempted their children in some times, places,
Or used their influence to place their kids in safer spots.
But you're ignoring history at large, and all the times children of rulers 'have served in the military.
. . .
One could argue that there are jobs other than the military, where people can contribute to their country,
One can argue that sending a ruler's children to war, paints a bullseye on the unit they are serving with, putting their fellows in danger,
One can argue that rulers are human, and not always immune to their children as bargaining chips, if captured,
One can argue that it is natural for a parent to care more about their children, than other's kids,
That a ruler 'needs be functioning, not always stressed and worried about their children being in danger,
Or go mad/vengeful, if their child is killed in combat,
This does not mean that other parents suffering is less real,
But the non ruler parent, is not on the levers of the country,
It is imperative that a ruler act at best efficiency, not be blinded by emotion.
. . . .
At 'most, a ruler or politician's children serving, would put more into their perspective, their countrymen's stakes, worries,
Which is good,
But it would 'not prevent war. ('I think)
