Rhetoric about armed combat should routinely prompt three key questions.

A politician or other public figure may broach the subject of America’s battle against terrorism and make a statement he or she clearly hasn’t thought through: “I don’t want my children being sent into battle when I’m not totally sure it’s the right approach.”

Immediately, reporters covering the incident should ask three questions:

1. “Do you have any children currently serving in the armed forces?”

2. “Will you have any children, or even grandchildren, who are likely to be involved in any such actions?”

3. “Are you fully aware that today’s military units are all-volunteer entities, for which people willingly subscribed?”

It is so easy to slip into the rhetoric of “not my kids.” People who do so need to be asked to justify it.

No question about it, few parents, guardians, grandparents or other family and friends relish the notion of loved ones and relatives being sent into harm’s way, regardless of the cause or how just it might be. During World War II, the “popular war,” for example, many a mother and father cringed at the notion that their children might wind up in enemy gunsights. That will never change.

But we have to be realistic about America’s status in the world and what it might take to maintain or enhance that status and protect others, as well as ourselves. The time comes when there is no alternative and violent action is inevitable. All we can hope for is that it occurs in the spirit of “The Star-Spangled Banner” lyrics (fourth verse): “then conquer we must, when our cause it is just. Let this be our motto: In God is our trust.”

Many times in the past, a draft has been instituted to call people into military service. That is not currently the case. People sign up for active or reserve duty of their own volition. Even though it may come as a shock when they actually have to enter a combat situation, there always is the underlying realization that anyone wearing a uniform accepts that risk.

As international issues heat up and the likelihood of American armed forces being forced to operate in hostile conditions increases, discussions should look at the possibility that a renewed draft may be needed. Meanwhile, a solid program of universal military training seems a far better choice. Young people of both sexes upon reaching age 18 would be required to serve one year of active duty and then spend five years in reserve units. Favoritism is greatly minimized in such a plan. The nation, its morale, its youth and a national sense of unity would benefit tremendously.

Few are eager for American armed forces to have to combat people in Iraq or North Korea. All possible avenues for negotiation should be explored by our leaders. But if and when there is the need for combat to be initiated, we need to remind ourselves that it will be done at this point by volunteers rather than draftees and conscripts.

That is something that should temper the comments of emotional speakers who make passionate references to family members when no one related to them actually is in a position to serve.