McDermott plays risky draft game

[icymist]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001914539_danny28.html


Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Danny Westneat / Times staff columnist
McDermott plays risky draft game



"The military draft is coming!" said a recent e-mail, one of two dozen such warnings I've received in the past month. "Bush is quietly pushing it because he needs more troops. Can't you look into this before we're all hauled off to fight?"

OK, I looked into it. It's true, there is a proposal to revive the draft. Only not from Bush — from Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott.

In fact there he was on CNN last Friday, arguing that Americans aged 18 to 26 should be conscripted into two-year terms in either the military or a civilian service.

"I think every man and woman ought to be subject to service in this country, just like the Israelis or a lot of other countries," he said.

(more)

[russian33]

1. Is this the same McDermott...

..who went to Iraq before the war, and was dragged thru the mud as a 'Saddam lover'? Or am I really off base?

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. The same

[a560]

2. whats up with these idiots trying to bring back the draft

the dems are fucking themselvs.

[denverbill]

3. I guess it boils down to "What's more important?"

Is it more important for Democrats to regain the Whitehouse, or to end the use of US troops as the world's policemen?

Personally, I think it's retarded for Rangel and McDermott to keep pushing this, because they are making Democrats take the fall for a Republican screw-up. But I guess if the ultimate goal is changing US foreign policy, maybe the draft is the way to go.

[a560]

5. if you draft there will never be an end to US troops policing the world

duh, you're giving them the manpower to invade and occupy most of the world. And once a draft starts they aren't going to stop again. The people manufacturing guns and bombs wont let it.

[denverbill]

20. Yeah? And how long before Joe Freeper starts voting for peaceniks?

When his ass or his kids ass is suddenly on the line, and he has to either put up or shut up with his ass-kickin rhetoric, my guess is 'bring them home' candidates will suddenly get quite popular, and 'nation-builders' like Bush will get their asses handed to them.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. but the logic is circular

since in order to reinstate the draft, the peaceniks would have to be in power to begin with. It's a Catch-22. A minority party can't reinstate the draft to remove a majority party, and even if it was possible it's using kids' lives as political chips which is just as bad as what Bush is doing.

[Just Me]

7. Oh,...I see their tactic now.

I don't agree with it, though, since the freon neocons need a draft to keep their perpetual 40-year war going.

[denverbill]

21. I don't agree with it either. But I can understand it.

Personally, I think Democrats should be seen as the 'anti-draft, anti-war' party. But democratizing the war would certainly unpopularize it.

Can you imagine the selfish little College Republicans being forced to give up a year of their lives to help people in Iraq, and possibly lose their lives or limbs?

Do you really think someone who isn't even willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the war would be willing to sacrifice an entire year or their life, and possibly their life?

[Lefty_the_Right]

10. I disagree

And don't you call yourself a Dem?

He is being what is called "Honest".

Something that right wing christians are very unfamiliar with.

When you tell yourself that the earth is only 7,000 year old, it's easy to imagine that a volunteer force of 130,000 can police a country of 36 million.

And that if you don't see the coffins, I mean, transfer tubes, no one has really died, and everyone over in Iraq is doing great.

The reality is that we have to have a draft if we plan on staying in Iraq and not releasing the contracts to the UN to diperse.

The reality is that the US corporate media isn't going to tell anyone that little secret until after the election in November.

The reality is that the majority of Americans don't believe anything until they see it on television.

The Dem's are trying to put the issue on the boob tube, hoping the boobs accidently suck the teat at the right moment.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

16. Who's a "fucking retard"?

[calimary]

37. Maybe not, but I think it's a "put up or shut up" ploy, really.

I don't like it either.

But I think there's some reasoning behind this. bush so far has said (as has rummy and everybody else) that there's no need for a draft. Yet, somehow, our military is coming up short, understaffed, under-manned, and we're supposed to be fighting an endless war on terrorism. How the hell do they expect to do that with a lot of pie-in-the-sky promises that there'll be no draft? Answer: they can't. They're lying. And fooling themselves. McDermott and Rangel, I think, are attempting to call them on it. They're playing brinkmanship with the bushies' "bring 'em on" mentality, I think.

I've followed Jim McDermott. His credentials cannot be assailed. He's definitely a Good Guy (and he's not even mine!). And NO I don't like it. I don't support a draft. As a Vietnam-era teenage girl who saw a lot of elegible boys go to war (and more than a few of 'em sent home in boxes), I celebrated the abolishment of the draft. I do NOT want to see it come back. Especially to populate a reckless, useless, stupid, lie-based war.

bush is just being chicken AGAIN, and being called on it. He's too chicken to face the truth, or tell the truth to you or anybody else.

[Just Me]

4. I don't mind at all the notion of civil service,...

,...but, the draft? Oh, Jim,...this is terribly disappointing coming from you unless you plan to put the kids of ALL elected officials (federal first) and all large corporations at the front of the list.

[Scooter24]

48. The only problem

...would be that 99% of those drafted would choose the civil service option over the military. What good would that do for our troops on the battlefeild? If some are forced into the miltary option, you will then have another Vietnam-style draft where the classes will once again be segregated and the public will backlash. Not a pretty sight IMHO.

[demdave]

6. Here it is...

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. (introduced 1/7/2003)

COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003

And don't forget this one.....

S. 89—Universal National Service Act of 2003

Official purpose: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


The language of this bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. It authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service, and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years.


S. 89 language permits:



Deferments for education only through high school graduation, or until the age of 20.


Exceptions are made for those with 1) extreme hardship, or 2) physical or mental disability.


Conscientious objectors are defined and directed by the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j)).



Introduced: January 7, 2003 by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings


Cosponsors: None.

[Sunny_Sunshine]

19. So where does "Don't ask, don't tell" fit into all this?

Is my son safe since he's an out gay? Will the number of gays increase? Will they have to prove they are gay (OK that brought up some strange thoughts).

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. What is "and for other purposes"

That sounds like the standard "other duties as assigned" on a job description.

[Christ was Socialist]

8. I think it might be because

of the same reason rangel did it. Let's see how support for the war is when the little hannity loving frat boys get drafted. But it could backfire, because bush could order parents to murder thier children and they would still say look what my boy did for america and you whiny liberals protest etc etc. Evidence is vietnam where 89% opposed the students

[Jeezwhiz]

9. Dr. Jim

Say it ain't so Dr. Jim...the draft idea sucks.

[Bandit]

11. I saw Hagel on the news saying the exact same thing

Mandatory government service with the option of going into the military. Ya right I'm sure it will be optional

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. good...i hope there's a draft

It's the ONLY thing that will stop these wars from happening in the future.

Vietnam wasn't a heavily-protested war because Americans cared that we were killing 4 million Vietnamese. It was protested because of the draft.

Hey, whatever works.

Dems can propose the draft all they want, Bush will take the heat if it ever comes to pass.

Congressman are heros and villians only to political junkies. The rest of the world looks at the president. If the draft is brought back under Bush's watch, then it's his neck on the line, politically.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. i know you are, but what am I?

[Just Me]

18. You like calling people that name,...a lot,...huh!

[Bandit]

22. I would guess from your post that you are well beyond draft age.

Doesn't mean I don't agree with you, just an observation. Would you be for a draft if you were say 18 years old? I remember when we fought against the draft during the sixties as well as the war. Like Kerry, I said some things in my earlier years I may not agree with now, some thirty-five years later. :shrug:

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. I'm 25

If the draft were today, I could be called...maybe (not likely).

And I don't mean to sound like I support the draft. I don't. I just think in this instance, at this point in history, it would serve our cause to have a draft.

[rinsd]

33. Good point....

I'm beyond the age of draft. I refuse to call others to serve under penalty of law for some I would be exempt from.

I think it is incredibly short sighted to call for draft, play orwell and call it democratization of the war for the brief and perverse pleasure of watching a few freepers got to war in addition to many more of the lower classes. And I do mean few, those with power and influence will always be able to avoid the draft.

[northzax]

17. I like the idea, actually

and have long been a supporter of mandatory nationa service (before you ask, yes, I spent two years in Americorps) I believe that making all young people spend two years, or even one year, doing something in the service of the nation will do nothing but help the next generation build a spirit of community and national identity.

Let me expound on several reasons this will help:

1: it is the great leveler, there is no way out. Everyone, from a Bush to a Chavez, will spend time together. We will all have a common experience of some sort to build on. The children of the idle rich will have something in common with the children of sharecroppers and migrant labourer, and the children of lawyers and dentists.

2: it will give momentum to those people unfortunate enough to have started life in less than fortunate circumstances, the urban and rural poor especially. Too many young men and women have no incentive or drive to leave toxic neighborhoods and dedicate themselves to something.

3: It will help develop a generation that has spent time in the service of others, something too few people do today.

4: it will keep young men and women 'off the streets' and provide alternatives to negative lifestyles, be they running with a gang or blowing a trust fund on fine living.

5: it would provide a perfect opportunity for a 'clean start' for young people who had problems (perhaps legal or other) while teenagers, if you complete your national service honorably, we can wipethe slate and allow you to enter adulthood as a fully functioning member of society.

The first alternative would be military, but I see no real problem with providing alternatives such as Americorps or other civil service alternatives. In fact, I would love to see any real objections people have to this idea, and the reasonsings behind those objections.

[info being]

24. I understand your points. My objection is lack of freedom.

I don't think its right to take people's freedom away. Its as simple as that.

[northzax]

29. we're not taking people's freedom away

we are exchanging a short term of public service in exchange for the full rights of citizenship. You may, at your lesiure, decline to serve, but until you do, you decline the full rights of citizenship, namely any government benefits (student aid, welfare, voting, etc.)

[info being]

31. Of course you realize how ridiculous that argument is.

[northzax]

35. what, that there is a universal price for citizenship?

how is that ridiculous?

[info being]

39. Dude, the ends doesn't always justify the means

Some things are just plain wrong...regardless. I agree with your points, but I still think taking people's freedom away is wrong.

As for your "citizenship" argument...its ridiculous. Everyone is a citizen of some place. You can't just take it away.

[northzax]

52. sure you can

if you fail to enlist in the military at the age of 18, the country of Switzerland will deny you the right ot vote. Israel does the same. As does Germany.

[Kellanved]

61. not true

In Germany that is. Yes, there is a draft going on. Yes, most male High School graduates have to serve, especially graduates from pre-academic High Schools.
However, one can claim conscientious objector status and perform an equal time of social service instead.

Even a total 'no' to any service does not result in a loss of civil rights (like voting). Prison time yes, loss of civil rights no.

[nodehopper]

58. I thought the universal price was taxes.

So in your model, if I refuse public service and forfeit benefits, can I not pay taxes as well?

[FeebMaster]

36. Hey it will be just like Starship Troopers.

And here I thought you would throw people who didn't comply in jail.

[rinsd]

41. No offense....

But that sounds alot like Starship Troopers "Service guarantees Citizenship!"

"we are exchanging a short term of public service in exchange for the full rights of citizenship. You may, at your lesiure, decline to serve, but until you do, you decline the full rights of citizenship, namely any government benefits (student aid, welfare, voting, etc.)"

Voting? Government student loans are one thing but you would deny voting? Really?

[northzax]

51. yup. If you can't be bothered to be a part of society

and realize I'm not just talking about military service, although that would be an option, you don't get to make decisions for those who do.

Are you also opposed to taxation? what is that except taking people's liberty away for the common good? and in fact, their own good (since they use the services provided)

If the US were to be involved in a war against say, Nazi Germany, would you oppose compulsory military service? without a draft, we never would have won that war, spechen sie deutsch? nihongo oh hanashimaska? if compulsory service is acceptable in the context of civil defense from outside forces, then it is certainly acceptable to address internal threats.

[nodehopper]

59. WHOA, what's with the german/japanese ad hominims?

Are you going to ask ARE YOU A COMMUNIST next?

Don't make it sound like involvement in WWII was some big altruistic gesture on the part of the US because it was not.

also, would military service be an "option"? would you get to pick which sector you worked in? would you say conscioncious objectors add less to society than those who enlist?

[Barkley]

25. You don't need a draft to keep youth "off the street" a good job will do.

[northzax]

30. are you going to make them take those good jobs?

and where are these good jobs coming from, exactly? who's going to make upper middle class children become members of society, if they don't need a job? who's going to provide skills and a work history to get these 'good jobs' for students from failing communities and schools? why not give everyone, at the age of 18, a fresh start on life that is not linked to their socio-economic, education or any other status? make everyone more equal as they enter adulthood?

[info being]

32. its already available. why make it mandatory?

[Just Me]

40. Actually, you articulate precisely the reasons why civil service,...

,...is a very good thing. EVERYONE should serve their communities. Usually, the ones who don't or won't are those who care far more about just themselves than they do contributing towards a better world.

I am definitely against forcing people to commit violence (e.g. the military). But, I am totally for requiring everyone to invest their fair share into building a better world. If we have to pay taxes for living in a civilized country, we certainly should be advocating that everyone invest a piece of themselves into the compassion necessary to sustain a compassionate society.

[Barkley]

44. I don't see the military draft as social policy tool.

I think the military draft should be used to defend and secure the country.

Many people that have signed up in the military to get an education have been disappointed.

Many public schools are failing because they're underfunded. I teach in a high school that doesn't even have a intercom system.

Failing communities and schools are not going to improve by drafting (and possibly killing) its youngest and most promising members.

Why send our kids overseas to "rebuild" Iraq or any place else? Iraq's long-term economic, social and political development is not the responsiblity of the U.S.

We should hire and and train our youth to fix their own communities, schools and neighborhoods. That's a way of creating 'good jobs'.

And "no" I don't advocate making people work against their will. Free choice is one of the bedrock principles of our society.

But changing incentives that shape behavior in the context of opportunities can go a long way; its way better than teaching people how to kill.

We're spending $1 billion week in Iraq and Afghanistan but there's no extra money for jobs and youth programs at home...

[northzax]

50. you'll note that I specified

that there are civilian alternatives to the draft. and draft is a bad word for what I'm articulating, I need a good word to sum up compulsory community service. One way to serve the community is through civil defense. Antoher is to build new dikes along the river, or help reclaim brownfields, or tutor children, or rebuild housing projects, or rebuild schools, or landscape highways. There are literally hundreds of ways to help. and all my plan would do is make it compulsory for a short time. I know few 18 year olds who wouldn't be helped with a year or two of service. I know few 22 year olds who are in the same position.

Some people may choose to spend their time in the military, that's fine. Some people may choose to spend it as classroom aides in underfunded schools. also fine.

The fact remains that most everyone is served by getting a clean break from High school and going somewhere else for a year. the problem with providing financial incentives is that it doesn't make the program appeal to those who don't need the financial help. I don't want to have young people from less affluent households in this program while the wealthier don't participate. I want everyone.

In my belief, one of the things that really made this a country, rather than a federation of states, was world war I and world war II. For the first time, the draft pulled young men from literally everywhere, and all walks of life, into the same situation. All of a sudden, the fact that you were a westerner, or a southerner, or a Texan, didn't matter as much as being a unit. It really broke down a lot of the boundaries between people and regions. This is where the stereotype from every war movie made since came in, the jewish kid from brooklyn and the farmer from Ioaw, who had to learn to be one unit. Yes, it's idealised, but it happened. It's why my Harvard educated grandfather from Cape Cod was close to a Farmer's son from Iowa (in fact he married his sister) they never would have met, otherwise. America is becoming increasingly fractured and factionalised because few people really meet people from outside their socio-economic-racial group. Compulsory service, bringing together young people from all over the US who otherwise wouldn't meet is bound to have salutory effects.

[Barkley]

56. I still don't like "compulsory community service" because

it denies free choice and I think that alone would generate resentment and alienate the very people your programs seek to help.

I'm less concerned about (and somewhat skeptical) of using public policy tools and resouces to educate affluent kids about less affluent kids.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative black economists has made an analogous arguements that 'wealthier blacks should help poor blacks' (although he hasn't called for compulsory action - yet).

Sowell's recommendation has happened and probably won't for the same reasons "compulsory community service" is flawed: the incentives are just not there.

I agree that "America is becoming increasingly fractured and factionalised because few people really meet people from outside their socio-economic-racial group."

I also think these differences arise from and are sustained by the workings of our capitalist free market economy.

Compulsory service, may indeed bring "together young people from all over the US who otherwise wouldn't meet..." But I don't believe that it will fundamentally change the peoples' attitudes or behavior because it doesn't seriously alter the underlying economic status quo.

[icymist]

60. Forcing our youth into conscription can become flawed and abused.

You have an Utopian argument in that, somehow, by being forced to work in service together, all the different classes in this country will 'have a common experience' and become less 'fractured and factionalised'.

There is a flaw in your argument in having all young people conscripted for either military or civil service. In watching this war, we are seeing more and more of the military contracting out to multi-billion dollar corporations for services that were, in past wars, done exclusively by the military. This has been argued to me as being more cost effective than how the military did these jobs in the past. When young people are forced to serve in such ways as you describe, don't you think that it won't be long until these same corporations see them as a source of cheap, forced labor? It is my opinion that, unless strict and explicit safeguards be put in place, your plan won't work and our nation's youth would be wasted, working to make multi-national corporations stronger and wealthier.

Admittedly, my entire line of thinking is with the assumption that our government will eventually contract out the management of this labor source. Seeing what is happening in this war is making me increasingly pessimistic. Yes, I know that in spelling assume makes an 'ass of u and me'.

Seeing how rich and powerful Haliburton has become from this war should serve as a warning.Your plan, however noble it's intentions, could back-fire big time.

[Snow]

26. Here's something I posted in editorials - let's see how it flies here:

With the controversy swirling around what to do about the mess Iraq is in, the possibility of the draft, the mercenaries, the poor kids joining the military so they can get those military scholarships, an idea is fermenting in my mind that we need another branch of service.

The National Guard, when they're not being shipped off to build democracy, is pretty good at helping out with natural disasters in the US. I remember, for instance, when an early season wet snow storm, with thunder and lightnening, made a mess of Omaha in October of 1997, the national guard came in & really helped us all get streets and even driveways cleared, get heat back in our houses, and generally start recovery. And my uncle, as well, served during WWII as a sailor in the pacific, but he was a seabee - he helped build stuff (he was an architectural engineer). As many of you know, I was in the Peace Corps, a perpetually underfunded volunteer outfit that nevertheless does very valuable work. A lot of that includes changing stereotypical thinking about Americans. I managed to persuade my future uncle-in-law that the American who intended to marry his favorite niece was a decent sort - especially after hoisting a few with him.

I propose a new branch of service that would specialize in relief work - reconstruction of infrastructure after disasters, medical care, epidemic control, the obvious flood, fire, earthquake help, even reconstruction after wars - something that there are very few groups doing, and those mostly church-related - the American Friends' Service Committee comes to mind. Fund this service branch well. Offer all the same enticements that the other branches offer. Give them all the shiny gadgets that the other branches get - just not weaponry. Make it the most prestigious branch of service there is, and the best way to do that is probably to give them the most money. Then send these soldiers in where there are messes. No weapons, no back-up guys, & if things are too dangerous, then these guys have to hold off until it's safe to go in. My daughter is an EMT, sometimes rides ambulances - they are not allowed into a situation where they are put in danger, ie, gang members in the midst of hostilities. It tends to calm things down very quickly when the rescue squad can't come in.

There's the bones. What do you all think? Is this worth passing along to Kerry? Has it been tried already, & if so what was worng that it didn't work?

[Just Me]

27. Yeah,...I like that "new branch of service".

I consider non-military civil service a sort of payment for living in a civilized nation. Plus, it helps that nation to flourish. Although my family and I have voluntarily invested a great deal of ourselves into civil service activities, there really are way, way too few volunteers. I guess that's to be expected in a "me, me, me" oriented culture.

[loudsue]

34. I really don't like the Democrats pushing this...

No matter how many republicans vote for it, or how many are making it necessary (!), I don't want the Dems to be blamed for it.

Let the repukes tie the nooses around their own necks. After all, we had relative peace until they took over.

:kick:

[Rebellious Republican]

42. I am glad that the draft is being pushed, no matter who does it!

No I do not support the war! But believe that many people would not support the war if they knew that they would actually have go or send there loved ones to their death. Hell yes, lets hear more talk of the draft. Just as soon as people realize that war is not a reality TV show that we all sit and watch comfortably on the couch, I guarantee that you will see more mari333's popping up everywhere!Say it loud DRAFT, DRAFT, DRAFT!!!!!!!!, I apologize to mari if I did not get your pseudonym correct,I was not sure of the number behind your name.

[robcon]

43. I'm sad than any Democrat wants to reinstate the draft.

It's a dark day for us if McDermott gets his way.

[Christ was Socialist]

57. i think he is doing the same as rangel

trying to show how real this is

[nonkultur]

45. Support HR 487

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00487:

H.R.487
Title: To repeal the Military Selective Service Act.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 1/29/2003) Cosponsors: 7
Latest Major Action: 3/26/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Selective Service Comm.

COSPONSORS(7), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003
Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003
Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003
Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003

[Scooter24]

49. I find it...

...ironic that this bill is sitting in the same committee as the other pro-draft bill. I wonder which one would gain more support?

[Liberal Gramma]

46. Before we institute a draft

let's first airlift all the chickenhawk commentators, congressmen, and administration talking heads over there to pull their stints. Women should not be excepted from this policy: I, for one, want to see Ann Coulter slogging through the desert carrying an 80 pound pack in 110 degree heat while dodging grenades. She might change her mind about what constitutes a hero.

[Bigmack]

47. Everybody is taking McDermott seriously...

It ain't gonna happen. All he wants to do - like Rangell - is open the debate. Imagine the shitstorm that's gonna happen when you get people talking about drafting Debbie along with Don!

I think Mc and Charlie are crazy like foxes. Start the fight, and just stand back and watch the fur fly. It'll give lots of people a chance to bring in some statistics (Gulf War Syndrome, cuts in Vets care, etc.) and make speeches about just what causes are worth getting little Johnny's (or Suzy's) ass shot off. My guess... voted down bigtime.

I'm reading a lot of posts about community service and civilian service and all like that. I'm totally opposed. If the Fatherland can take your freedom when you're 19, why not when you're 50?

If we want something done, we should pay for it. The No Tax people have had it their way too long... people need to know that if you want services, you have to pay.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

53. I agree with those on this thread who think it is a big mistake for Dems

to be promoting this, even as a "devil's advocate" or to open the debate. You don't have to convince Dems/Dem oriented to vote our way, but the practical effect is that you reinforce idiot Repubs who immediately have a talking point that "the Dems want to bring back the draft." I've seen this in action on other forums I participate in. Granted, those idiots are not likely to be swayed to vote JK anyway, but they can use those talking points to sway mushy middle voters of weak intelligence.

I am speaking as a Navy vet with over a decade of service (none in war) who joined the military for economic reasons, as I believe most do, and do think that Bushco leans unfairly on the middle class/poor skewed, CURRENTLY volunteer military. I live in an affluent area in a Repub state (TX), where virtually none of the wealthy shrubco supporters/war cheerleaders I know have military experience or would likely dream of sending their precious offspring to feed the maw of the war machine. For them, it's all good to fly US flags from the antennae of your Lincoln Navigator, but the guy who plants the flag in the oil fields of Iraq and comes home in a flag draped box? That's for poor people, baby.

So you see, I agree with the essential ideas (equality of military service, shared cost makes us more thoughtful/reluctant about war as a society) behind this, but as a strategic matter in this election year, I think it's a loser for us.

Let the Repubs who gave us this war be the only ones to hint and talk about the "need" for a draft.

[Rebellious Republican]

54. Sorry , but I disagree MM

I to am a Navy vet with over a decade of service, and combat experience! Combat Aircrew also Combat Camera Group, Atlantic Fleet. Spent time in Beirut right after the barracks were blown up, thats why I was sent there! I served with the FMF(Fleet Marine Forces)while on the ground there. I have never felt my mortality more in my life, I watched the battleship New Jersey train her big guns on what used to be a mountain and is now a hill. Marines were living in CONEX boxes buried in the ground at the airport because of the the daily mortor attacks. I escorted patrols with French UN forces photographing what ever the French General pointed at, I remember one instance where a kid came up to our JEEP with an unexploded live mortor round in his hands to give it to us. The General just put in the back next to me to take it back to EOD for disposal. I have a rack of ribbons stacked three rows high. The only two items that were pinned to my left breast that meant anything to me were my Navy Wings of Gold and my Naval Expeditionary Forces Medal, the rest were gee dunk. Yes lets talk about the DRAFT very loudly and often. Yes the draft would change a lot of republican mothers minds, you would also be able to bring in those non voting 18 to 25 year olds that might just get their ass shot off. Then you have the swing voters that may get a little concerned about sending their loved ones or themselves off to fight in a war for big business. Oh yes, do not think for a minute that it would not have an effect!!!! I do respect your military service and your opinion, but remember that old Navy saying, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

On Edit: I found this post, thought you might like to read it, do you suppose this young repub would change her tune if she really believed she would have to actually go and get shot at? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1074148

:toast: