Now Do You Believe We Need A Draft?

[shawn703]

This came from the Washington Monthly (which I understand is a progressive publication), and I feel they make a good argument FOR reinstating the draft. Thought I'd like to see what other DUers thought about it. (This is an older article, and may have been posted before, but I don't remember seeing it discussed on here in the past.)



<snip>

We are calling up large numbers of reservists, but because so many of them work as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians, our municipalities are being drained of precisely the people we will need if (when) the terrorists return.

<snip>

Consider this: Between 1980 and 2000, surveys showed that the number of young people saying they would definitely not serve in the military rose from 40 to 64 percent. The only reason this change of attitude did not destroy military recruiting efforts is that the need for new recruits plummeted with the end of the Cold War. But the military is feeling the pinch nonetheless. The armed services have had to double starting pay to recruit half as many enlistees, and the quality of new recruits is not what it should be. The number of enlistees scoring in the top half of the armed forces qualification tests has dropped by a third since the mid-1990s. In fiscal year 2000, the Army took in some 380 recruits with felony arrest records, double the number in 1998. Desertions are also on the rise. Most telling, over one-third of those entering the military fail to complete their enlistments. Contrast this with the one in ten of draftees who did not complete his two-year obligation during the Cold War. Much better to have a soldier serve a short term honorably than to be discharged for cause.

<snip>

Part of what makes Americans dubious of conscription is our memory of how the class-biased draft of the Vietnam War-era helped drive America apart. We tend to forget that the more equitable draft that existed during World War II and for 20 years afterwards helped bring the country together. During the peaceful years of the 1950s---a time not unlike our own, when the threat of mass destruction hung in the air---most Ivy League men had to spend two years in uniform, before or after college, working and bunking with others of very different backgrounds and races (the military, remember, was about the only racially integrated institution at the time).



more...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.moskos.glastris.html

[GainesT1958]

1. No, actually...

Just a permanent shelving of the PNAC Blueprint, and a committment to fight one war at a time!:mad:

B-)

[E_Zapata]

2. You are either preparing for war or you're preparing for peace.

There ain't no middle ground.

So, NO, we do not need a draft, unless we need another hole in the head (and our souls)

And I did not read the article (sorry). I don't NEED to know the facts and figures and rationalizations when I know there are certain universal truths that, as far as universal truths are concerned, stand true no matter the temporary periodic perceptual problems.

[LittleApple81]

3. Not with my son. Sorry. Not with Bush. Sorry. We need to draft young

people into a program to educate them about what CIVICS, CHRISTIANITY, CIVILIZATION stand for.
I would volunteer myself and encourage my children to participate in something similar to the Peace Corps (they might still lose their lives but it would not be by killing people that have suffered enough from dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and all they bring onto their populations.)

[denverbill]

4. No, that's not true, IMO.

Anyone with connections could get a deferment, or get a cushy safe assignment in WWII, just like Vietnam.

Only those wealthy men who chose to (Jimmy Stewart, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt Jr) actually faced danger. Ronald Reagan sat out the war in Hollywood, and I never heard of any Rockefellar, Ghetty, or DuPont dying in a foxhole.

[shawn703]

5. What if

They tied it to college educations, like in the article. Everyone has to do their service before they can go on to higher education. Sure it could be argued that the rich could just skip college and live off their inheritance... but after a few generations of the upper class being less educated than everyone else, they may not be the upper class for very long.

[uberotto]

8. A free college education...

should be offered as a reward for voluntary service. Service should not be a requirement for a college education.

That way, those that can pay for it, can pay for it. Those that can't still have an option. That way by the time you are 30, you will be on equal educational footing with everyone else.

And as for those rich kids who spend their entire lives living off of their inheritance, I've known enough of these people to know not to envy them, if anything I pity them for all the experiences they will never have and all the things they will never learn to appreciate.

[shawn703]

9. But doesn't that guarantee that mostly the poor will be sent off to die?

I understand what you're saying, but I think that even those who are fortunate enough to afford their college education should have a personal stake in securing the freedom of this country. If only the poor and disadvantaged are going into the military, some people may not care as much when they come home dead or disabled. If this nation's military conflicts affect EVERYONE'S family, the politicians may think twice about putting Joe Voter's kid in harm's way. They better be pretty sure the fight is worth it.

[Martin Eden]

11. Securing the freedom of our country?

Is that what you think we're doing in Iraq?

The folks who told the lies that got us into that war are similtaneously making us less free at home (ever heard of the Patriot Act?).

I believe you're sincere and well-intentioned, but really -- making a college education contingent on military (or some other form of national) service -- is a dramatic curtailment of our freedom.

Given a legitimate need (such as arose in WWII), I would support a draft. The invasion of Iraq was neither needed nor legitimate, and without that invasion and subsequent occupation, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[shawn703]

14. But don't you think

that if everyone, even the families of the Bush campaign donors, would have to send their kids to fight an illegitimate war, that Bush may think twice about fighting the war in the first place?

I'll give you that it's a curtailment of freedom, but maybe it will sensitize people to what it really means to sacrifice for your country and your freedoms. I think most of these neo-cons who wrap themselves in the American flag while they praise those who die on their behalf don't have the faintest idea about what they're actually going through.

Didn't someone once say "Nobody dislikes war more than warriors."? It could have a positive effect on our foreign policy in the future - needless wars would no longer be tolerated.

[Martin Eden]

15. Yes, and no.

I agree that more people would oppose these wars if they or their loved ones were exposed to a draft. In fact several months ago a Democrat (I can't remember who) was proposing a draft for exactly that reason.

But I doubt if Bushco would be hesitant to use these troops for more invasions except to the extent that the domestic political considerations mentioned above constrained him.

The Bush administration has been opposed to a draft, chiefly, I suspect, for those reasons.

But this whole issue is a bit of a cart-and-the-horse scenario.

There won't be a draft without sufficient public support, and that support is unlikely to be forthcoming unless something happens to rekindle and multiply the fear and anger and jingoistic patriotism that enabled the Iraqi invasion.

And even then, I would question whether the troops are really needed, because they would likely be deployed in more Middle East wars that will feed the frenzy of the terrorists. If there is a draft, the troops will defimitely be used, and their missions will likely perpetuate rather than win the "war" on terrorism.

We're talking escalation and vicious cycle.

When it comes to providing the likes of Bushco with more troops, I prefer a strategy similar to the Republican agenda for the federal budget. It's called "starve the beast". They cut taxes and create enormous budget deficits so that the government will no longer be able to afford the social programs that they can't get rid of through normal legislative means.

If we starve the military machine that Bush so irresponsibly uses, he won't be able to send increasing numbers of our young people in uniform to die for all the wrong reasons.

[Virginian]

23. If the rich kids are going to live off their inheritance,

they shouldn't go to college. They are only taking a seat away from someone who may actually make a difference in this world if given the opportunity.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Don't forget my personal favorite draft-dodger...

John Wayne.

[freesqueeze]

12. Took the Family Deferment

All the while living away from his wife and kids with his latest mistress.

John Wayne total hypocrite and still a hero to the right.

[uberotto]

6. There is absolutely no argument....

that anyone could give that could convince me that reinstating the draft would be a good idea.

I served, I am proud that I served, but the majority of that pride lies within the fact I did it voluntarily.

[freesqueeze]

13. How about this ...

I believe that a fair draft (including the wealthy and well connected) would end this elective war within 2 months.

[TXvote]

21. This War Might End, Draft Won't

Once the draft machine is up and running with the consent of our citizens you can be sure we will continue to throw the bodies of our children at foreign powers well past the Iraq war. There is no condition that with the end of this conflict, the draft would become moot. It is possible we would be truly in a war with no end.

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com

[Martin Eden]

10. NO!!! Do NOT enable PNAC.

One of the few constraints on the ambitions of the neocon hegemons is the limited number of troops available for deployment. Providing more troops will enable further military aggressions that are turning the world against us and draining our treasury.

The author of the article makes the fundamental mistake of equating the war in Iraq with efforts to quell terrorism. The opposite is true. Invading Iraq not only diverted resources needed for pursuing al Qaeda (which was not allied with the Iraqi regime), it has spurred terrorism and alienated the countries whose cooperation we need against terrorist organizations.

More troops will not win the "war" against terrorism -- it will perpetuate it.

All the needs for national service described by the author will be compunded by the policies enabled by the expansion of our military forces, which will be used for offensive operations and occupations that will increase anti-Americanism throughout the world and spur recruitment of terrorists in Islamic countries.

We don't need more troops. What we need is to reject the foreign policy that sacrifices them for imperialistic ambitions and corporate profits.

[weldon_berger]

16. I would support mandatory two-year national service

for everyone—with 7 years to fulfill it, between 18-25—if it included options other than the military and if it included absolutely everyone, and if it included safeguards against abuse by rich little snots who might one day grow up to be president. The latter of course isn't particularly likely, but I do believe that mandatory national service makes people feel as though they have a stake in their country, and boy, do we need that feeling.

[TXvote]

22. But Would You Be Eligible?

Seems this mandatory service has a lot of support particularly from those over the age of 25.....

Also, how do you propose to serve this mandate and pursue a college degree? Is the future of America: Education Interrupted?

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com

[weldon_berger]

27. I spent two years in Vista after college,

and I would have benefitted from doing it beforehand. An interrupted or delayed education isn't a catastrophe, and I do feel strongly about the sense of ownership that doing something for the country, particularly something that doesn't involve killing other people, would impart.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. If you want to accelerate the destruction of this country, go ahead...

...and restart the draft. Then we will see our sons and daughters go off to war for the next couple of decades. Is that REALLY what you want?? It also increases the risk, if the constant warfare and economic slide continue at the current rate, of outright revolution in this country. How long will the poor and middle class put up with paying for the excesses of the rich before that becomes a distinct possibility?

As far as the draft helping to bring Americans together during WWII, please allow me to explain a few points:

1) Blacks and other minorities were originally drafted into the U.S. Army and Navy to do basic labor and other menial tasks. Some of the labor involved the most hazardous duty you could possibly find, that of loading ammo aboard ships in port.

2) Other duties included preparing meals and other menial tasks at the various Army and Navy bases, on the hundreds of Naval vessels at sea, and behind the front lines in the European and Pacific Theaters.

3) Integration did not take place until casualties forced the high command to allow Blacks and other minorities into front-line combat roles. Even the famed Tuskegee airman didn't get combat roles until that time.

[shawn703]

19. Can't predict the future

But I would tend to think those in power would want to remain in power. They would not want a fair draft, because they know they could not use the military to make their corporate buddies rich without putting the sons and daughters of their corporate buddies at risk . If they tried to use a class-based draft like in Vietnam, they would risk the scenario you described, which is also not good for them. I think for the most part, the political powers on the right who run this country may be evil, but not stupid. (Bush may be stupid, but I don't really know how much he runs this country anyway.)

As far as integration in the military during WWII, I'm not learned on the subject, and I will take your word that what you say is true. But wouldn't the article still be correct when it says it was one of the first integrated institutions, even though it didn't happen until 1944 or 1945?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. I'd love to see them mention the draft

at a press conference. Oh that would be a good one. Talk about ensuring a Democratic presidency in 04. I hope they start talking about it soon, so we can determine who we want to be our president.

[Virginian]

24. We currently have an economy based draft.

When the economy is bad, jobs are hard to come by and the poorest enlist in order to feed their families. The poor little rich boy is lounging around living off his tax free inheritance. He doesn't need a job. He won't enlist.

[shawn703]

25. Exactly

People were fed up with the draft in the 60's and 70's because it was based on class - the poor were sent off to die while the sons of senators and rich kids like * got off the hook. In 1973 when they ended the draft and made it an all-volunteer military they really fooled the American people. Now the poor can still die for the rich, but the Chickenhawks will no longer have to look like draft dodgers.

[TXvote]

20. NO means NO

This administration is rapidly moving towards "Universal Mandatory Service" formerly known as the draft. The new improved draft is non gender biased and could place conscientous objecters in combat theatres unarmed in non combat roles. As much of a pacifist as I am, no way in hell would I consent to being weapon free in a combat zone.
The cost of sending generations to war is TOO high. Not just monetarily, but the cost of our humanity is immesuarable.
The whole argument for the draft is based on the argument that we need to be at war, a severely faulty argument.
I say NO. And beware the spin machine softening you to the idea.

Peace,
Teresa

[PATRICK]

26. the new Citizen Pledge softens "service"

The kinder gentler draft, but once you are "in" you are in the Bush army now. I don't think the left again needs to offer arguments of use to the other side asthey went along with the terror War because Bush was 50% President and 50% manipulative dictator.

Stick to the inevitability of war and draft under Bush, the inevitability that war will fail to provide secuirty while growing enemies, that fear equals hate and hate means violence. Bowing to the juggernaut and arguing debating points is dumb, and useful if at all only to the twists of Right is propaganda. Neocons, neoliberals. If you are on the same page it is the wrong page.

This kind of sham to sell a widening of war will expand, not limit human involvement and casualties no matter how many nukes are waved around and how much PR tries to intimidate the entire world.

Trying to blur non-com and combatant roles with pacifism as theb harsh contrast needs to be fought. Conscientious objector used to be a broadening of the right citizen's attitude toward national war. They will banish that from the books with sleight of hand.

[TXvote]

28. Be Gay

As far as I know, the hundreds of high school students I know personally that are soon to come of age are all GAY GAY GAY. Must be all the hormones in the commercial beef. That or the friggin ozone. Any way, they are ALL GAY.

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com