Being drafted will not make people anti-war, it will make them anti-draft

[Hippo_Tron]

Yes I think that if we re-instated the draft people my age would register to vote in a hurry. But I'm not sure it would have the same effects that Charlie Rangel is hoping for. I don't think that people my age would be racing to the polls to vote for people who are against the war. I think that we would be racing to the polls to vote for anyone who wanted to repeal the draft, regardless of their views on war.

The fact is that most Americans are tired of this war and young people are certainly included in that category. But as others have already pointed out, not enough of us vote or protest and therefore this anti-war sentiment isn't heard by politicians. Yes, if Bush brought back the draft so that he could send more soldiers to die in Iraq you can bet that would translate into a storm of young voters going to the polls to vote Democratic in the next election.

But if Charlie Rangel and the Democrats, the people who are supposedly against the war, are the ones who will bring back the draft then I don't think it will have the same effect. People will indeed suddenly be going to vote because they actually have something at stake now. But they didn't have something at stake when the war began so there's no reason for them to be voting against the war. The trigger point that made them have something at stake was the draft and that is what they will vote against.

I think that the fatal flaw that people here are doing is comparing this to the Vietnam era. Yes, a draft created anti-war sentiment in the Vietnam era. But back then there was no such thing as an all volunteer army. People automatically made the connection between war and draft because whenever there was a war people were drafted and that is the way it had always been.

My generation has never experienced a draft and we've seen America do countless military operations with an all volunteer army. The all volunteer army is all that we know. We do not have that automatic connection that the draft is what used to happen during wartime. Re-instating the draft isn't going to make us have an impulse that we should be voting against the war. Re-instating the draft is going to make us have an impulse that we should be voting to restore the all volunteer army because things were just fine for us when there was an all volunteer army.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Discussing it will certainly hurry them along to being anti-war...

Or at least to seeing the harsh realities, inequities, and sacrifices of war.

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I'm not so sure of that

I think that it will make them resent Charlie Rangel and in turn possibly the Democrats.

[ClassWarrior]

9. I think we need to not be afraid to discuss things anymore.

NGU.

[Ron Green]

3. It's not just about people your age voting.

It's also about every family in America being better connected to the process of democracy than they are to shopping and watching lots of mindless TV. The "skin in the game" phrase has been overused in this debate, but it aptly illustrates what's at stake: If fewer people participate in politics than in entertainment, our democracy is lost.

[Mythsaje]

4. You know, I'm not sure

there's any constructive debate left on this subject.

[dmkinsey]

5. Rep. Rangel's point is

that the military is composed disproportionately of poor and minority persons because they lack other opportunities.
Mr. Rangel feels that there would be a strong dis-incentive to instigate wars if the duty of fighting and dying were spread more evenly across all social classes.

The goal is to make our government anti-war.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. kick and recommend

:kick:

[TankLV]

7. No - it WILL make them "antia-WAR". Period.

[Zensea]

8. They'd get the connection soon enough

If a draft is reinstated, it won't get repealed anytime soon thereafter at which point people would get the connection.
Unless of course they're just plain stupid which is not an argument I think you want to make.

Also I doubt that any politician arguing against a draft after a draft is reinstated would be arguing in favor of war, they'd also be arguing against war, so even if what you say is true, it wouldn't matter.

[chill_wind]

10. It was Scott Ritter who said not long ago

that the bulk of Americans, long disenchanted with Iraq, are not in any truth all that "Anti-war." And they still weren't went they went to the polls in November. What most Americans are, he insists, are anti- losing.

The tee-vee shock and awe, Super-bowl spectator sport mentality. Americans don't deplore war. They just lose interest when "the glory" begins looking elusive. I think he is right and it nauseates me. The flag-waving nationalism has always nauseated me.



Draft or no draft, this war won't truly come home in all its ungly glaring reality until everyone knows someone who didn't come back, or knows someone who lost someone (a co-worker's kid, a neighbor family's son or daughter.

We've got it under Control, The Fortunate Son has always maintained: "Go shopping."

[Stalwart]

11. Blood and Treasure are Being Expended

A draft would take in a relatively few more to expend blood. Those that declined, those that are close to them as well as those that were candidates for the draft would resist.

Might cause some civil disturbance.

To really make the point, put the war on a pay as you go basis rather than putting the burden on to future payment. (Pay to Play Today or PPT)

The cost of war for the current tax year (increment over peacetime costs due to war) would be computed every year and added as a percentage to income tax. Come April 15, compute your tax and then add X% of your tax liability for the PPT war tax. (An alternative minimum tax to assure that everyone shares some part of the burden?)

Any tax payer that was;

a. ever claimed as an exemption by anyone killed in a current/past war or,

b. has ever claimed as an exemption anyone killed in a current/past war or,

c. has ever served in the military, (years served exemption scale)

would be exempt from paying the war tax.

They have already paid their fair share.

To really get attention, compute all future cost attributed to the current war in the current tax year and add X% of that to the current cost.

Finally, on the tax form the tax payer may, if they choose, check a box that says they voluntarily decline to pay the war tax (no penalty). Consequently, no civil disturbance (unless the names of those that do not pay are made public).

If they want to support the war more than the computed amount there is also a box to check for additional payment. Those that do get a sticker for their car.

"Some say" the real cost of the war is already in the trillions.

Those that died payed the price in their forever current year, why then shouldn't taxpayers share the burden and cost by also paying the full price each year of any war.

Crazy.

[chill_wind]

12. Interesting thoughts, Stalwart...

and re: the economic cost of war alone (always in my sig)

a terrific website that has the figure currently at $344 trillion.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Welcome to DU btw.

[cally]

13. But folks my age would become active to protect their sons and daughters

I know most of my friends and associates have been against this war from the beginning. Few did anything about their opposition. If we had a draft, everyone I know would have acted. It's too easy to intellectualize the war but if your sons or daughters, sisters or brothers, or yourself are going to war then the entire country will take a second look.