Soldier objects to liberal infantilization: we are not your "sons and daughters"

Democrats/liberals often try to understand a situation by analogy to childhood or to a family. A soldier in Afghanistan patiently explains the error in this (hat tip DrSanity and the Corner):

In a column, Mr. Putney has again raised the debate about the sacrifice of America's "sons and daughters" in uniform. Some have argued that we must continue the fight to honor their memory "so that they have not died in vain." Others argue we must stop the wars to save soldiers from this fate. I think an essential understanding of what motivates those of us in uniform is missing in this debate.

We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.[emph. added]

While liberals may see soldiers as children, they also frequently confuse the role of president with that of father as, for example, here, here, and here.  In a bizarre twist on this, liberals often also sexualize leaders, both their heroes, here and here, and their enemies, such as Gov. Palin.  Does this indicate a disturbed childhood?  It is only anecdotal, but the answer is yes and yes.  (Possibly related, a McDaniel College study found that children of liberal parents were less able to form close positive relationships.)

The importance of the family analogy to liberals was explained by one (liberal) professor as a longing for an "imaginary golden age of well-being and security in the bosom of a harmonious, loving family."  Just because they want such a family to exist does not, however, mean that the role of either soldiers, as explained above, or that of presidents can be understood by analogy to a family.