Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
There are some questions, such as "When did Serj Tankian stop beating his wife?" and "Why does Serj Tankian collect so much child pornography?" that are tricky to answer because the premise is (and I'll give ol' Serj the benefit of the doubt) untrue. "Why do they always send the poor?" is one of those questions. Turns out that the income distribution of our military recruits matches that of the population at large pretty well. There are perhaps a smaller percentage of pampered rock stars in our all-volunteer Armed Forces than in the population as a whole, but even the sons of one of last year's presidential candidates and both vice-presidential candidates have been serving overseas. This Memorial Day, let's remember the sacrifices of all our soldiers and sailors, whether poor, middle-class, or better-off.
As for presidents fighting the war, the American people don't seem to find that terribly important - the presidential candidate with more military experience has lost five straight elections. Though perhaps what Serj is getting at is replacing war with some sort of one-to-one combat between the leaders of opposing countries. In that case, we'd probably be electing different types of presidents altogether. Both Obama and Bush are pretty fit men (and I can see Clinton holding his own in a bar fight), but we'd be looking for something more - Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps. (Though that would be ridiculous, as everyone knows he is ineligible to run, having been born outside the U.S.)
To find someone well-suited to the new job description, presidential debates would probably end up being less like a series of canned remarks and more like a cross between American Gladiators and Ultimate Fighting... You know, I daresay that might be an improvement. Perhaps Serj is on to something after all...