Moral health tip to America: Stay out of draft

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/156042,CST-EDT-greel01.article

December 1, 2006
BY ANDREW GREELEY

<snip>Rangel's argument is patently sick. It assumes that Bush would be cowed by riots in the street. Moreover, there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet in this country, from elections to street demonstrations (except maybe in Florida, where ballots don't count anymore). To create social unrest through a draft is to shortcut the electoral process.

Moreover, if there had not been a draft to provide unlimited young bodies for the jungles of Vietnam, that war would never have started -- nor, for that matter, would the Korean War. As the world should have learned in 1914 and 1939, the availability of conscript armies is an open invitation to leaders to make war. If Bush could have mustered conscript armies of men and women, he might have taken on Iran and Korea, too -- whatever was required for victory.

The suggestion of "National Service" brought a lot of authoritarian liberals out of the woodwork. All young Americans, they argued, should be obliged to do two years of service either in the military or in some other form of indentured servitude to the government. They owe the duty of such service to their country.

To which the only valid reply is, "Who says?" Isn't this the United States of America, not ancient Sparta? The government has no claim on the time and life of anyone, except the people who volunteer for military service (often, alas, because they have not many other choices in life) and convicted criminals. Conscription is just barely tolerable in times of great national emergency, if then. The government doesn't own Americans simply because they are young. The late economist Milton Friedman argued that the draft was an inequitable tax levied against the young and in favor of the middle-aged and the old. snip

Veterans of military service usually weigh in on this issue by announcing that the military "made a man out of me." What kind of man, I wonder, has to brag that military brutality was essential to his manhood? Will it make a woman out of his daughter?

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. So who the F is Greeley, and where's he come up with this crap?

"Authoritarian liberals"?

"..if there had not been a draft to provide unlimited young bodies for the jungles of Vietnam, that war would never have started -- nor, for that matter, would the Korean War."

There was no draft when the Korean War started - it was re-instituted for that war, primarily drawing on veterns of WW2 first.

Does he really think the purpose of the bill was to get it passed, so there would be riots in the streets? It was to get the discussion going, to pre-empt the discussion BEFORE some manufactured emergency could be used to start a draft.

WTF?

[NNN0LHI]

3. No draft when the Korean war started? Sure there was

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0844347.html

>>>A new selective service act was passed in 1948 that required all men between 18 and 26 to register and that made men from 19 to 26 liable for induction for 21 months' service, which would be followed by 5 years of reserve duty.

When the Korean War broke out, the 1948 law was replaced (1951) by the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The length of service was extended to 24 months, and the minimum age for induction was reduced to 18 1/2 years.<<<

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. But it was inactive. Everybody had to register,

but nobody was being drafted. They were still drawing down the military after WW2, and getting all the troops they needed for a peacetime force from enlistees. Once Korea started the new draft act was instituted, and an active draft was maintained until the 70s.

I don't know this from personal experience - I'm not THAT old - but that's what I've gotten from everything I've read. The point is, the draft did not make Korea possible - if anything it was the opposite situation. The garrison force in Korea was undermanned and underequipped and not a credible deterrant to the N Koreans.

[NNN0LHI]

7. This fellow was drafted in 1949

http://www.illyria.com/irish/quinn.html

Patrick Quinn, Former POW, Speaks on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the End of the Korean War

Delivered July 27, 2003 - Kennedy Park

I am honored to be here today to share my experiences as an Ex-Prisoner of the Korean War, , and as a representative of the Korean Ex-POW Association as this is the 50th anniversary of the end of that war. A .37 postage stamp is being issued today honoring the Korean Veteran's Memorial in Washington, D.C.

I immigrated from Ireland in Nov.of 1947, was drafted in 1949, released to the Reserves in Feb. of 1950 and recalled to active duty in Sept. of 1950. Joined the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea in Nov. 1950. Anyone entering the United States as a permanent resident was subject to the draft. Total years of service - 5.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Wow. I was wrong.

It's never happened before.

:(

Oh well.

It doesn't change my primary contention that Rangel was NOT seriously proposing a draft - that he was pre-empting a draft by generating serious discussion of it to get the idea rejected, before Bushco invents an excuse to start one.

[Dhalgren]

2. The United States of America is dead. It no longer exists except

in name (USINO). The people no longer control their elected representatives; no longer control the administration of justice or government; no longer has any say-so in its military. The citizens of the US are just impotent, high-tech peasants who need to learn to be grateful to their masters for whatever they have. It is the ideas and attitudes expressed in this op-ed that go a long way in showing who is to blame for where our country has gone....

[TahitiNut]

4. Why am I not surprised that the Sun-Times and its pet columnists ...

... are apologists for the corporatist privateering of all government functions? Heaven forbid that The People actually assert their sovereignty and participate in every level of their own government.

Know your place, oh employee of the corporate state! The CEO and Security Department know what they're doing. Just do your jobs and shut up.

[John Gauger]

5. A number of things are wrong with that article.

First, Bush would not have invaded North Korea or Iran if he had an umlimited supply of bodies. Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to, and he didn't invade North Korea or Iran because he didn't want to. There was no debate over whether or not they should be invaded. North Korea and Iran have real military apparatus and therefore are not valid candidates for invasion, even if we do have a draft. We always ivade the weak. We had a draft during Vietnam, but we did not attack China. We attacked Vietnam because it was a week, backwards, agricultural nation with almost no means of defending itself. Military planners do not but weight on the strength of infantry. The monkeys in the Pentagon all believe that planes, bombs, and tanks win wars. Powell tried to impart a hard-learned lesson upon the Bush Administration: infantry wins wars, not fancy technology. That was one of the lessons of Vietnam that we failed to learn. If the Neocons were interested, they would have invaded those nations anyway, because they have an unlimited supply of bombs and tanks to draw on.

Secondly, it assumes that there will be riots in the streets if the draft is reinstituted. Riots don't happen in this country. Look what happened in Mexico when the election was stolen. People got seriously pissed. Isn't that the cause of the late unpleasentness in Oaxaca? The three of the last four elections in this country were stolen in the same way, with significant attempts to steal our most recent one. This country just doesn't have the fighting spirit. Look at Enron. If that had happened in the 19th century, there would have been blood. Look at Katrina. The failure of FEMA was a crime against the people of this nation. Did anyone raise a fist in protest? That kind of thing just doesn't happen in this country anymore. I doubt that a draft would be enough to bring that back.

Lastly, Freidman's quote is not quite on target. He is talking about a draft supporting old men's war policy. A European style draft does real good for a nation, not just for the benefit of the old but for the benefit of future generations as well. A European style draft is about being a community. However, I don't support such a policy because I don't trust a single thing the government does.

As for Rangel, I don't know what he is trying to accomplish, so I don't know if what he is doing is right.