NYT LTTE: "Unjust wars make drafts immoral."

[BurtWorm]

My sentiments exactly. :patriot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/opinion/l22draft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

To the Editor:

Re “Rejecting the Draft” (editorial, Nov. 21):

If, as President Bush insists, the Iraq war is the ultimate struggle for civilization, a draft seems like the least our country should ask of its citizenry.

Of course, there won’t ever be a draft for this fiasco because while the military, Congress and to a large extent the mainstream media are championing and enabling this war, the American people are not, especially not the children of the chattering classes.

So Representative Charles B. Rangel is shrewd to call America’s bluff. We haven’t taken any of the steps that dignify a commitment to war: a declaration of war, universal conscription, the reorientation of the economy and tax increases primarily to support the war effort, and sacrifice as a civic given.

If you can’t decide if you’re really in a war, then, trust me, you aren’t. Despite what you say, drafts are not inherently unjust, but many wars (Vietnam, Iraq) turn out that way. Unjust wars make drafts immoral.

Richard Roth
Seattle, Nov. 21, 2006

[Straight Shooter]

1. Well said, Mr. Roth.

We haven’t taken any of the steps that dignify a commitment to war: a declaration of war, universal conscription, the reorientation of the economy and tax increases primarily to support the war effort, and sacrifice as a civic given.

:thumbsup:

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Dude, that's what I been sayin'!!! k&r

[Poiuyt]

3. Excellent logic

[ThomCat]

4. That's great!

:applause:
I'm glad they published that.

[Virginia Dare]

5. That's it in a perfect nutshell...n/t

[progressoid]

6. Perfect. In just 6 sentences.

[meganmonkey]

7. Universal service makes immoral wars much less likely

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

8. Do you have evidence of that?

The last six or so US engagements--Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan--have all been conducted under the volunteer army. How many of those were not immoral, in your opinion? How many of the wars conducted via conscription before then were immoral?

[meganmonkey]

9. I'm talking about universal service

Wartime or not, every person (male/female, rich/poor) serves a year in the military. Objectors can do community service instead.

You don't need a 'draft' for a specific war because you always have a large number of qualified soldiers. And you don't really need those, because since everyone is involved (incl families of politicians) no one wants to enter into a pointless, immoral war.

Evidence? See Germany. They have universal service (at least for males) and they don't enter into very many wars these days, do they?

Those who oppose military service in principle do community service in hospitals, homes for the elderly and disabled, schools, etc. I never heard anyone complain about it, and many females did the community service after high school even though they weren't required to. The benefits are endless.

[BurtWorm]

10. I'm sorry Meganmonkey!

I didn't see the *less* in your subject line. :blush:

I agree with you 100%.

:hi:

PS: I guess I actually misread the "less" as "more." :crazy:

[endarkenment]

11. Germany is a bad example.

They don't enter into many wars these days precisely because they entered into so many wars of such catastrophic nature previously. You might want to check and see if Germany 1933-45 has something like universal military service.

Israel has universal service and is fighting all the time.

Switzerland has universal service and doesn't ever fight in recent history.

So I think that it is safe to conclude that universal service does not correlate with either fighting wars or not fighting wars. Perhaps instead we should be looking at the history of specific nations, do they tend to be belligerent or peaceful? A fair answer for our nation is that since WWII we have a record of almost nonstop belligerence.

Anything we do as a society that enables our belligerence, such as for example providing a generous supply of soldiers, is in my opinion a very dubious idea if one's goal is to reduce our belligerence, not increase it.

[meganmonkey]

13. I only chose the example of Germany because I am familiar with it

We have entered into many horrible wars in the past and it doesn't stop us from continuing to do so, so the point you make goes both ways.

Regardless of any nation's belligerence, if we purport to be a democracy our military should reflect that, and it doesn't. If we go to war, we do it as a nation. Not just uneducated people, not just rural people with few economic options, not just those who have been manipulated by deceitful recruiters, but everyone.

The majority of Americans say they are against the war in Iraq now, right? So it isn't simply a case of being 'belligerent' as a nation. It is about a lack of commitment to minimize our shared sacrifice. Well, since there IS no shared sacrifice, there is nothing to minimize here. The majority of those who are 'anti-war' put a bumper sticker on their car, maybe write a letter to a legislator or go to a rally once a year. That is not going to stop the war. If it was, it would have already.

Until we share the sacrifice, we won't work for a solution. As long as it is the 'other guy' (or 'the other guy's kid), the overwhelming majority of Americans, even those who claim to be anti-war, it becomes a personal lifestyle choice, not a political stance with meaning behind it. But for those dying in Iraq right now (US troops and Iraqi civilians alike) there is no choice.

[endarkenment]

17. I simply do not agree that Democracy implies Conscription

I have heard this argument here for days now and it is stated as if it were an obvious fact. Conscription - involuntary service - is at odds with a free society. If our nation were actually in peril and we could not muster enough volunteers to rescue it from attack, then I cheerfully submit we did not deserve to survive. Our nation is not in peril. We have no adversaries capable of launching a conventional military attack against us who would actually pose a serious threat, and those with nuclear capabilities are beyond the means of a conscription army to defend against.

So we need a draft for what? In order to have a vast standing army that then we have to make sure that our military industrial complex doesn't abuse for its own profit and vile purposes? Why give them that opportunity? They've demonstrated time and again over the past century or so that they have no problem at all sending us out to die for dubious purposes.

Conscription might be justified in a condition of total mobilization of society for major war - such as for example WWII. Conscription outside of a true military emergency is tyranny and does not belong in a democratic republic of free citizens. There is no such emergency. There hasn't been for 60 years.

[meganmonkey]

20. I see what you are saying

and ultimately, I agree with you about the draft. I think universal service as I described it above is a very different thing. If we had that, I don't think we would have this war. I don't think we would have the chickenhawk militaristic culture and gov't. I also understand what you and others are saying about Israel as an example, but I don't think it is comparable to the US situation (and maybe Germany isn't either, but I think in theory it is closer).

And for the record, this is the first thread I have clicked on regarding Rangel's draft bill since it came up again recently. I don't know what arguments others have made on either side of the issue. And I am not saying that I necessarily support his bill. Given the context of this Iraq occupation, and the fact that this bill is being brought up specifically as a reaction/response to the problems of the Iraq occupation, and the fact that I put no faith in our federal gov't to actually end this occupation, it is difficult to even discuss the concept of universal service in a reasonable way.

The bottom line, for me, is ending the war, and I don't think this bill will do it - the same people who are supporting this bill are voting for funding of this war. I would love to see an honest discussion among our politicians regarding ending the occupation. Universal service can't be honestly considered during a time of endless occupation, I guess, because it has so many more implications now.

But what will it take to get self-proclaimed anti-war people to actually work to end this war? Bumper stickers, letters to legislators, and annual marches aren't gonna do it. We're still paying their taxes and we are still legitimizing the gov't actions by playing by the rules of the system. But the system is broken. Until people refuse to deploy, there will be war. Until people block the doors to the house of representatives, there will be war. Until people are in the streets 24-7, defying police and pulling down barricades and disrupting our own lives and everyone else's, there will be war.

So I will give in on the concept of universal service, for the time being, but I demand from the American people (including myself) some risk and sacrifice. We need to put our own asses on the line or this war will never end.

[exlrrp]

26. Draft or universal service: unworkable

Do you know how many people we're talking about? Several million people turn 18 every year.
In its biggest expansion the drafft NEVER took the majority of people eligible, the people it could absorb were only a minority of those eligible.
The US government does not have the capacity to employ several million more new, untrained people in almost ANY endeavor.
I'm assuming you want to give these kids more to do than filling sandbags--training, OJT, etc. but you'd HAVE to take virtually ALL of the new 18 year olds if you want to be "fair," all I hear is "no exceptions."
Do people realize the HUGE machine that would have to be set up to accommodate, to train and discipline several million new teenagers every year? Do you realize how big this would be? It would dwarf the Pentagon as it is now, dwarf every company, or agency now existing.
It would not be physically possible to absorb all those eligible so there'd have to be "exceptions" that would have to be "decided" by someone. Sounds a lot like the last time, which was also supposed to be "fair."
You think the rich won't find a way around this? If your goal is to get the rich more involved with the wars they bring, this is no way to do it, they write the loopholes.
Rangel has done none of this analysis and evidently has solved none of these major objections, his whole endeavor is to prove a point. HEY!!! I have a draft age son--go prove your fucking point with your own kid. I enlisted and volunteered for Vietnam and thats the last time my family sacrifices for a useless war.
Everybody who talks abot how great the draft would be obviously never lived through the last time wwe had a draft or forgets why we ended it.

[panzerfaust]

31. I support a draft

“... Everybody who talks abot how great the draft would be obviously never lived through the last time wwe had a draft or forgets why we ended it.”

I am sympathetic to your strong emotion, but not to your conclusion.

The draft was ended, not because of popular outcry, but because the military wanted it ended.

The military recognized the truth set out in Galbraith's book (How to Control the Military, John Kenneth Galbraith) that the citizen-solider, as opposed to the professional solider, would always be a danger to the command structure. This was well shown in Viet Nam, and is a major factor in why were are not still there fulfilling the presidential vision of never giving up.

Galbraith's book truly changed my mind. Prior to reading it, I was completely opposed to a military draft except in time of 'real' war. After reading it, I came to see the draft as a protection from loss of liberty.

A draft can be more fairly implemented than in the past.

Yes, of course it is true that the well connected will always escape if they want to. That does not offset the advantages – after all, those connected ones are not serving now.

There is likely no greater threat to a nation's liberty than a standing professional military, which, in the end, owes its loyalty to the command structure, not to the nation.

Citizen-soldiers maintain the balance.

Likely, if we did not have an 'all-professional' military in Iraq, the war would be over by now – because returning citizen-soldiers, those who had been forced to serve by a draft, would not be reluctant to share what was really going on.

Professional soldiers, by definition, enjoy war, and are very reluctant to criticize higher command ... draftees have another life, and other values.

In the 'Nam, you surely must remember the tension between the lifers and everyone else. That balance is lacking in Iraq, and our nation is the poorer for it.

[westerebus]

28. Mixing the message.

Unjust war(s) is not the outcome of the draft. Two different issues here. While it is not necessary to draft today, it is necessary to stop unjust war(s).
First, the US military opposes the draft. Why? Having people who want to be in the military is a whole lot less hassle. They buy into and conform to the structure of the services willingly. If they don't, their contract is terminated. Makes going to war simpler.
We have the all volunteer military which is not representative of the nation's demographics. That is dangerous. They are a culture apart. They defend the culture by all means necessary. It is not easy being green.
War,declared/undeclared/conventional/unconventional,is an extension of diplomacy. Usually failed diplomacy. It is the last option any nation should want to take. We have BushCheney. Iraq is an unjust war.
Now just what do you want to do to stop it? Scare the begesus out of folks and put the draft into operation? It will get you air/blog time. Every MOM in america knows about this
and it will be a very cold day in hell before my...enter name of son or daughter..goes!
Now,volunteering is a whole different animal. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Tom Joad]

15. That is idiocy. Israel has universal service, and its up to its eyeballs

in military aggression.

[meganmonkey]

16. You are the second person to point that out to me

and I responded above. Bottom line, there are examples supporting this and examples contradicting it, so that part of my original point has been shot down, fwiw.

Although the other person who pointed it out did so much less rudely than you did. I seldom bother addressing people's tone around this place, but seriously, man :wtf:

[endarkenment]

18. Oh I've been guilty of bad tone too.

This is a hugely emotional subject for a lot of us here. For me, having gone through a bad draft for a bad war, I know why this discussion is causing me grief, I don't know about Tom.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

12. Excellent letter, but I'm not sure how many in the military champion this war

I think this particular war was and is a lot more popular with the DOD civilians than with the uniformed military.

[Tom Joad]

14. Get a Freakin Hint, Rangel. Or you will drafted into retirement

[ima_sinnic]

32. as usual you don't get it (nt)

[Minnesota_Lib]

19. Bingo Mr. Roth! Well said.

[BridgeTheGap]

21. Here's the one I sent them on this topic

Letter to the Editor - Submitted to the New York Times
Your editorial "Rejecting The Draft" evoked so much in me that it's difficult to know where to
begin. First, a personal story. My older brother, an enlistee in the Marine Corp, was killed in
action in Vietnam the day before my 16th birthday. After the lottery system was initiated during
this war, my "lucky number" made me a sure bet to be drafted. I was opting for Canada when
Congress passed a law that kept me (and others) from being drafted.
I am also reminded of Jay Gould's famous quote: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill
the other half." Then there's Michael Moore's famous ploy in "Farenheit 9/11" of offering
military recruitment brochures to members of Congress to pass on to their children. They didn't
seem very interested. U.S.M.C. General Smedley Butler also made a wonderful recommendation: take
the profit out of war. You'll quickly find many powerful people losing intestest in promoting it.
My own personal recommendation: Limit the draft to the able bodied children of those members of
Congress who support going to war. If these members feel the danger so pressing, surely they
would agree to send their own to the front lines. But, like Dick Cheney during the Vietnam War,
they probably have "better things to do."

[Polesitter]

22. No Richard - you miss a vital point: Conscripts NEVER get

good pay & allowances. The higher costs are to compete in the marketplace - an unnecessary step when servicemembers don't have a choice. Troop costs decline and tax cuts galore - since we don't need to field an Army of 14,000,000 like in WWII.

Valid point about not declaring war - WWII was officially on the books 11 years - Congress didn't end it until 1952.

Today we are at AUMF, not war. Doesn't stop you from taking a bullet, just from doing it during official wartime.

There is one group whose kids serve at a higher rate than anybody else's: General Officer's sons & daughters serve disproportionately.

[tothcarp]

23. the draft

this is not the first undeclared war we have been embroiled
in, and we must as a nation decide if we are going to really
save our military for another day. THE problem we face, and
the reason we are even having this discussion is because the
posture of our military has changed from one capable of
invasion to one that is essentially a killing machine,
lighter, more lethal, certainly not an occupying force. We are
in this situation because we engaged in a war of occupation.
DUH. What were we thinking. We need to enlist or draft more
men, but to draft or conscript men for the military tends not
to produce long term troop levels. Perhaps we could try not
bankrupting the ones we have, or try not cheating them on
expected benefits, or not triple deploying them, or not giving
them shit water to drink, or bad food, or try giving them good
armor, or guns that fit in a Humvee, or maybe if the forces
had a real mission other than supplying other troops trying to
not get their ass blown off, or maybe, just maybe we could
change the public perception of the military if we didn't make
the crippled soldiers buy their own food while they were in
rehab, or maybe we should insist that they try recruiting in
the upscale malls, or some repug neighborhoodds....and then
after all that....then maybe....we gotta consider a limited
draft to cover some small levels, and some back theater stuff.
Then maybe after this is all over we can consider some
mandatory service that the military  may SHARE in. But that
ain't gonna happen. Whats gonna happen is Haliburton will pay
the new bosses, just like the old bosses, and so will
Blackwater, et al. We will have more mercs than regulars,
giving more power to the civilian bosses. Sad to say but it is
all true.
Happy T'Day all

[PennyK]

24. I was really surprised by this editorial

Congressman Rangel has taken this stance in order to make a point, and even though I've heard right wing radio persons vigorously shouting it down, I was quite amazed that the Times took it seriously. Glad when I saw this morning that they got a number of letters explaining what Rangel is trying to do.

[Maryland Liberal]

25. Is this the same Rangel ?

Is this the same Rangel that voted AGAINST HIS OWN BILL the last time it was voted on? I think so. The problem with rangel's bill is that rangel wont support it. I think a better water carrier for the bill is someone who has a son in the war - like Sen. Webb.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Good logic, and good damage control. n/t

[nam78_two]

29. Agreed

:thumbsup:

[Voltaire99]

30. A fairy tale of some comfort to liberal warriors.

Since Vietnam, the following has been the compact between our political class and middle class voters:

Just keep voting for us, ye mild and easily-spooked souls, and regardless of which Tweedle Dee or Dum cheek of the duopoly wins, there'll be no draft. We'll just hoover up the urban poor, the Wal-Mart poor. They'll bring you cheap oil. They'll secure new markets for your cheap goods and your investments. For as long as you shut up, vote and spend, your kids are off the hook.

And how well it has worked! Numerous small and not-so-small "engagements" later, it's still relatively easy, as Bush proved, to get three quarters of the nation behind a war. Easier because the chattering classes are immune.

Oh, yes, you think, though I'll certainly change my mind when a moral war rolls along! Imperialism is grateful to you. Your NIMBYism ensures that the cannon fodder is supplied fresh from the mostly-unrepresented segments of American life--those with no political or economic agency. Meanwhile, you elect leaders content to let the war just chug on.

Happy Thanksgiving, complacentocrats.