Yeah ive had the same idea myself when I was younger, but it is not really worth much consideration. Many of those who are in power want to keep it that way and would most certainly not allow such a system of problem resolution come into play. Such an agreement would mean no dirty tricks and no propaganda, but also no public opinion. Hitler when he was doped up on meth could have eaten FDR alive! You assume that all wars are fought for some abstract dispute between leaders, this is not true at all, there are ideals that some are willing to die to protect and when they are threatened they do die to protect them. Leaders are not the war, some might say that all wars are political, and this is to some extent true, but there are some who would also die for political beliefs, we are not talking about shows of bravado and physical superiority of leaders, but contesting ways of life, things worth fighting a guerilla war over, struggle at any cost. This is the spirit of any war worth fighting.

It would be fun, but it wouldn't solve the problem the war is being fought over. The Champion idea was employed historically in settings where there was a monarchal or feudal leader. The onus for the descision for surrender etc... was soley upon the leader. In the modern world where most nations are Republics and Democracies this could not work. The leaders are theoretically subject to the populace, thus the decisions of surrender and the conditions thereof are not theirs to make.

Yes it would be fun. Better than this perspective.

Let time to load.

Iraq War Coalition Fatalities

Holiday,

Your thoughts underline why many liberals want to re-institute the draft in the United States. When the possibility exists that anyone can be called up for active duty, then the issue seems to get a lot more thought. Even the leaders themselves and their family members would be subject to the war they may have instigated.