The Draft Ends Wars

[Warren Stupidity]

We have seen this bizarre theory floated here before. Once again it has reared its ugly head.

The Vietnam War resulted in 50,000+ of ours dead (and 2,000,000 vietnamese but we conveniently ignore that) and did not end until ten years after LBJ escalated it into a major conflict. The draft didn't end that war.

Korean War: 36,516 of ours dead. The draft didn't end that war.

World War II: 407,300 of ours dead. The draft didn't end that war.

World War I: 116,708 of ours dead. The draft didn't end that war.

Our own Civil War: 600,000 (approx) on both sides dead. The draft didn't end that war.


Which war is it that the draft ended? All I see from the draft and its use in our country since the civil war is lots of dead people and lots of wars. The theory that providing an involuntary supply of human cannon fodder for the war machine "prevents wars" is total bullshit unsupported by actual facts.

[1monster]

1. K & R. I was in two minds on whether or not to blast your post (from the title) or to ignore

it.

I decided to read it and then blast you.

Then I read it.

Thank you for this.

I get so tired of people on this site promoting the draft with the false issue that it ends wars.

Even if it did (and it doesn't...after all the draft was in place before the Vietnam War), it would end it at too great a cost.

The cost of war (in people, infrastructure, integrity, etc.) not counting dollars, far to high even without a draft.

Those advocating a draft should immediately report to the nearest military recruiting station.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The misleading title was a deliberate play

on what I view as the manipulative dishonest 'draft ends war' folks who think that by killing my children they will get me motivated to end this war.

[JVS]

2. read the sig

[Lint Head]

3. If there is a draft you will see a lot of young rich pricks leaving the country.

The university campuses will explode with protest. I was around during the Vietnam conflict. The draft means you are basically dead.
It means you will be trained to kill and die for your country whether you want to or not. That's right. The military's main goal is to train people to kill. The majority of upper class rich sons and daughters will not like giving up there Lexus and degrees to go die for the country. Especially for a war that was started by a twit that has the attention span of a gnat. :dem:

[Warpy]

8. The sons and daughters of extreme wealth will be educated

at prestigious universities in Europe and South America. None will return until either the draft has ended or they're too old for it.

You can take that one to the bank.

Patriotic people in this country will support the draft even as they fear for the lives of their children. Their ministers will preach that fulfilling the duty to kill in the name of the holy corporation is one's highest duty to god, who is always on our side.

A madman will have unlimited access to our children.

NO DRAFT! Not now, not EVER!

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Once again a look at the history of the draft shows

that the elites have never had to pay the price for their wars. Postulating that 'this time it would be different' is complete a-historical idiocy.

[Lincolnian]

29. I think we should have selective service

and send them first........just don't tell them ahead of time!

[rzemanfl]

5. Glad to be the fifth recommendation. There is no such thing as

a "fair and equitable" draft. I was in law school with a guy who had the exact same argument to make to his draft board that I had. He lived too far away from his local board to go back home for an appeal hearing, I didn't. I won my appeal. He's been dead many years thanks to his Uncle Sam.

[tabasco]

6. I believe the argument is that a draft will end unnecessary wars.

Like the war for profits in Iraq.

The current volunteer system creates a mercenary system in which a corrupt President can wage war at will, with little political opposition.

I favor national military/civil service, but only implemented during peacetime.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. And the evidence for that is what?

Vietnam was most certainly an unnecessary war. WWI was most certainly an unnecessary war. Which unnecessary war was prevented by a draft? Which was ended by the draft?

[tabasco]

36. I think the draft had a lot to do with ending Vietnam.

You are free to disagree.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. I think Vietnam had a lot to do with ending the draft.

The draft obviously did not end or prevent the Vietnam War. That is simply a fact.

[tabasco]

54. The draft lotteries were not started until 1969.

The war was well underway by then, and the so-called "conscription" was full of holes and deferments for assholes like Cheney. I would never favor a system like that.

[pnwmom]

61. So? Draftees had been serving in Vietnam from the beginning,

under a draft law that had been in place since 1948. Under the old laws, the local draft boards had decided who was sent to serve.

The lotteries were just a new way of selecting the victims. They did NOT mark the beginning of draftees being sent to Vietnam.

[pnwmom]

60. Then you misunderstand the lessons of history.

The draft allowed the continuation of the war in Vietnam, for several years and tens of thousands of deaths beyond the point that it could have been supported by a volunteer force alone. We began sending draftees to Vietman because we didn't have enough volunteers. It helped fuel the flames of the war, not put it out. That's why we decided to end the draft after the Vietnam disaster was finally over.

In the same way, a draft now would provide the neocons with all the bodies they need for their war games.

[CTLawGuy]

80. after 10 years and 50k dead

I don't think that is too effective.

Compare Iraq, after 4 years and 3000 dead, people are already dead set against the war.

[tabasco]

37. Many European countries currently have mandatory service.

It's become a pretty peaceful place.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. 'Many' is an exaggeration. And European conscription and war

have a long and bloody history. UK Ireland Spain Italy France Luxembourg Belgium the Netherlands either have no conscription or are phasing it out.

Conscripts fueled 200 years of European wars: making a claim that conscription correlates with peaceful policies is lunacy. Oh and conscription helped staff the armies of the former Yugoslavia as that nation disintegrated into a huge bloody civil war. That was not exactly a long time ago.

There is no correlation. There is no historical evidence to back the argument that conscription ends or prevents wars. What it does is provide a steady supply of involuntary manpower to the war machine.

[tabasco]

53. So this is not many countries?

Austria
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland



Let's talk about modern democracies, shall we? You know, governments in which the people have some say in the actions of governments? Comparing "conscription" under historical monarchies to modern era practices is not very relevant. In historical monarchies, the people had no control over the war policies of the government. In addition, the rich or "noble" were not conscripted in those systems. We are talking about strict conscription in modern democracies in which the people do have nominal control over war or peace.

Can you tell me a modern democracy with conscription in place that waged a war of aggression? Keep in mind that the Vietnam lotteries didn't start until 1969, when the war was already started.

I would not consider the Vietnam lotteries a strict conscription because of the deferments. Look at all the chickenhawks like Cheney who avoided service. In many of these European countries, there are no college deferments like this. My fiance is from a somewhat wealthy family in Germany and both of her brothers had to serve. I would favor strict conscription in which the rich kids could not avoid service. I would support a civil service option for true conscientious objectors.

I would like to have a discussion rather than calling people lunatics in an attempt at debate. If you are able.

[endarkenment]

55. Vietnam War 1965. Democracy: USA. nt.

[tabasco]

66. The draft lotteries didn't start until the war was underway.

I believe the first draft lottery for Vietnam was in Dec. 1969.

[endarkenment]

68. Conscription was in force the entire time.

Why do you keep bringing up the lottery as if there were no draft prior to that?

[pnwmom]

64. The lotteries do NOT mark when draftees were first sent to Vietnam.

You clearly are too young to know draftees who were sent to Vietnam in the mid sixties, but many of us are not.

Draftees had already been sent there for YEARS when the lotteries started, and there had been years of protests about how the local draft boards selected the draftees.

The lotteries were put into place in an effort to put more fairness into a conscription system that had been in use since the beginning of the war.

[tabasco]

67. Deferments. Get rid of them.

All the rich kids like the Romney punks too.

It was easy for people like Dick Cheney to have other priorities.

I would never support a system like that.

[pnwmom]

70. The point remains

that we didn't suddenly begin to send draftees to Vietnam in 1969.

And during that long war, the longest in American history, more than 57,000 troops died. Yes, the draft sent protesters out into the streets, but it took YEARS of protests and tens of thousands of deaths before public opinion finally brought an end to the war.

What a draft would do now is provide fuel for all the neocons war dreams. It would be the worst possible decision to make, if the goal is peace.

[tabasco]

74. I'm not in favor of a draft for the Iraq war.

As I said, I am in favor of universal service implemented during peacetime.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. we had conscription before we got into vietnam.

It did not stop us from getting into that war. The problem is that with that ready access to involuntary bodies, the military industrial complex will find an excuse to use them up. Peacetime? I'm over 50. There has not been peace in my lifetime. When peace threatened to break out after the fall of the soviet union the MIC made sure that we got us a new boogeyman so that there would be no possibility of peace.

[Phredicles]

73. Do you think this lobbyist-infested congress will get rid of deferments?

I don't.

[TahitiNut]

77. 90% of the deferments went out when the lottery came in.

I see this a lot on DU ... an ignorance of how the draft is currently (since it was deactivated) structured. It gets me a bit peevish that people show they don't really know what they're opposing when they talk about the pre-1970 draft.

Student deferments were once granted to full-time students in a course of study leading to a degree ... as long as they remained in school. No longer. They're only deferred until the end of the semester.

Occupational deferments were once quite extensive ... including teachers, many government employees, people in elected office, employees in defense industries, and others. They've been 90% eliminated.

During Viet Nam, the National Guard was a way to avoid combat - very few were activated. No longer.

It's NOT the same draft that existed prior to 1970!

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Yes it is worse. And it does not prevent or end wars.

Quite the opposite. Conscription has always enabled wars.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. If most of the "defense contractors" would go out and get honest jobs

that don't include disappearing buildings, people and vehicles, the need for war on a large scale just might decrease. I think they could find work in Mexico, perhaps in a free trade zone. They say the wages are pretty good and if you are lucky your boss will let you have a bathroom break.

[slick8790]

11. How many children do YOU have that could be affected by a draft?

The first time one draftee would die out there, all the people who advocated a draft as a political move to try and force bush to change course would have blood on their hands. and as someone draft age, I resent the thought that someone would try to draft me and send me off to fight in a war i don't believe in to try and make a political point to end said war.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Indeed. How dishonest is that strategy?

I have three draft age sons. Everyone advocating for resuming the draft ought to be going to the recruiting office, or sending their children, Monday morning.

[frogcycle]

25. and I damned well resented the fact

that they wanted to send me to 'Nam. I went to college and had a deferment - and don't give me that rich kid with Lexus bullshit - I worked my way through. My family contributed nothing - except when my wife and I were so strapped for cash that we lived with them for a few months. I got an engineering degree, was heading off with wife and child to a job in a "critical industry" when they eliminated all the deferments and called me in for the physical. As it happens, I flunked, but that is beside the point. Life is not fair. Shit happens. In my case, shit almost happened. For some of my friends, it DID happen.

I hate this occupation, want all the troops home. But they are not all coming home any time soon. As Wes Clark so clearly explains, it will take a year just to get them out. And we also need to get out all the contractors - nearly equal in number to the military. And we need to protect the dwindling force while extricating. The people in uniform have been there for extended and repeated tours, they are burned out. The whole damned army is about to implode. If they were a bunch of miners trapped in a cave-in the whole country would be all rah-rah to go rescue them.

I don't believe in bringing back the draft "just" to mobilize opposition. But I sure as hell would not mind seeing some of the chickenhawks told their kids - or they themselves - need to get off their asses and help.

I don't support a draft for combat, but also don't have much sympathy for the "NIMBY" attitude.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq


Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis...

Catching some z's

[Caretha]

51. IMHO

The point you make about "The people in uniform have been there for extended and repeated tours, they are burned out. The whole damned army is about to implode" is what will end the war. NOT A DRAFT.

If there is no "fresh meat" to send into the grinder, how long before the military rebels? When you start reading stories in the press about desertions, very bad morale, and over extended exhausted troops,it means it's much worse than what we are being told. The officers will not continue to put their men in harms way when they know that it is hopeless. The soldiers themselves will begin to disobey orders that they also know will just get them killed.

Two years ago all the media reported or showed were gungho, "we're bringing democracy to Iraq" types. Now the soldiers are saying that the media is not reporting to America what is really going on. But it is so bad now that the media/spinmeisters can't keep it hidden much longer.

This administration failed the troops, and the troops know it, and their officers know it. There were never enough troops to accomplish the mission in the first place. They didn't equip them properly, they didn't train them properly, hell Cheney even knew it before he didn't know, and said that Iraq would be a quagmire. Bush Sr. knew - they all Fucking Knew It!

Don't give them anymore cannon fodder. Our only hope to end this war as soon as possible is to let it fail as soon as possible.

[frogcycle]

52. agree

it just kind of frosts me to read all the indignant posts about "bush's war" and not feeling obliged to lift a finger. Granted. most are objecting to being cannon fodder to prolong it, but the attitude i see is offensive - not all that much different from the RW "they volunteered - its their job - they like it"

I would support a draft if the draftees jobs were support roles in getting us out.

[tabasco]

35. A lot of European countries have mandatory service.

Seems to work for them.

Btw - I served in the military and in combat for several years.

I only support a system implemented during peacetime, as I said in my original post.

[pnwmom]

65. That doesn't make it right.

Europeans brought slaves to North America. That wasn't right either.

[tabasco]

39. In the system I support...

you would have the choice to serve in a civil service capacity if you were a conscientous objector. This is the system they have in Germany now. I only support a system begun during peacetime, not during Cheney's oil wars.

[EFerrari]

19. That might be one way to end it but it's a pretty murderous way.

Another way would be not to throw more lives into the meat grinder but to hold our government fucking accountable.

The voluntary system doesn't create a mercenary system. The corporatists do that.

[tabasco]

38. If you actually read my post ...

you will notice I only support a system implemented during peacetime.

[EFerrari]

57. I did read it but, you're right, I didn't really respond to what you said.

Sorry!

[whistle]

10. Wars end when both sides put down their weapons and bring their

...armies home regardless of whether a draft for new soldiers is in place or not. War is a racket and you can read all about that here free and complete:

<snip>
WAR IS A RACKET

by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:
Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC


Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce , their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
<MORE>

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[cui bono]

23. Our involvement is occupation. We can withdraw.

Btw... I didn't read that entire post, I'm responding to your "headline".

[whistle]

27. I agree, I was supporting the case that this has all been said and experienced before

...."War is a Racket" was published back in 1935 and it still applies and is fresh to the situations we find ourselves in August 2007!

[cui bono]

31. It looks interesting... I'll be reading it later. Thanks. n/t

[lovuian]

14. Woohoo Warren damn right

a draft won't solve anything

whats working is that the most professionally well trained and volunteer army in the world

is losing

why
BAD STUPID WAR in which we are oppressing the population

the whole Iraq war was about stealing oil

[valerief]

15. What if only the wealthiest 1% get drafted first? Ha! That's the stuff of fiction only. nt

[Hangingon]

16. Most of the talk orf the draft I see is here.

I think it is becoming, or would be if more people read us - a negative.

[EFerrari]

17. Draft over my dead body. I will personally go to the Oakland

Induction Center and lay down in front of the bus.

This is bull put out by people who can't be conscripted. Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is. :grr:

[tomp]

24. absolutely! my line in the sand.

no discussion of draft/compulsory service until we institute democracy in the U.S.

[uppityperson]

18. They already ignore us. Why would they pay attention if there was a draft?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3445657
I don't understand the thinking behind this "start a draft" argument. The theory is that if the draft began again, more people would protest and those in political power would listen. Why? They don't listen now? Approval ratings are in the sewer and they don't listen. What makes anyone think they would listen?

Eventually we might get people elected who might listen, after several more elections, but I am not willing to risk more people's lives and health and sanity by reinstating involuntary military service with the naive hopes that there will be no way for the rich/powerful to get their kids out and that more people being upset will somehow make those politicians listen.

I really don't understand this way of thinking.

[Desertrose]

20. I don't get it either....

and you are right. They don't listen to us now.....


Would a Dem congress stop a draft? Somehow I seriously doubt it. Seriously.

DR

[Sadie4629]

21. Actually, I think the Vietnam War ended the draft.

The draft was just an accepted part of life for young American men from the 40's into the 70's, until an unpopular war caused Richard Nixon to end the draft.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Right - so the Bring Back The Draft folks

here who claim it will 'end the war' are reading history backwards. It is pure idiocy.

[NNN0LHI]

30. Some people must be smoking some heavy shit Warren

Thats the only thing I can think of that can explain it.

Good thread too.

Don

[TahitiNut]

47. Yeah. That must be it.

:eyes:

[MrSlayer]

22. I concur. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

Bringing back the draft would only encourage these assholes to expand their wars and send thousands more of our own to their deaths. It would have the opposite effect of stopping the wars.

[AntiFascist]

26. If the Draft allows us to bomb Iran...

how long will take to end World War III?

[Sparkly]

33. Oh perish the thought

If the neo-cons were in charge, it'd NEVER end -- because they seem to believe that enough violence will resolve all kinds of conflicts. Crazy. :crazy:

[AntiFascist]

34. It's called Creative Destruction....

out with the old and in with the (militarized) new.

[Sparkly]

32. Well, those wars did end

I think the draft certainly causes more pressure on the leaders to wind it up as soon as possible, because more people feel the sacrifice. In this case, the military is really being abused yet BushBots spout pro-military slogans and cheer it on.

I don't want a draft, but I think the best way to avoid one is to have leaders whose policies promote peace, and who NEVER use the military recklessly.

[Harry Monroe]

40. There is a difference

Two generations have now been growing up knowing nothing but a volunteer army. IMHO, if a draft were to rear its ugly head, I believe the young of this country would truly wake up out of their apathetic complacency (probably with the chickenhawk Young Republicans on college campuses leading them) and take to the streets in such numbers, this war wouldn't last but another few months.

In Vietnam, the draft was already going on along with the escalation. Now, the Iraq war is already hated by the majority, but young citizens are apathetic about the war as long as someone else can fight it for them. This would all change once a draft started.

[Harry Monroe]

42. And before I get flak from those of draft age...

...I am 45, but I have a 14 year old son. And like many others here, I also will say that there is no fucking way in hell they are getting my boy.

[CGowen]

41. what about "reinstate the constitution"? n/t

[TahitiNut]

43. Intellectual dishonesty and bogus strawmen don't serve either improved comprehension or discussion.

First, read .. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/403

Then ...

1. When folks attempt to downplay the impact of the draft during the Viet Nam War, and portray the draft as insufficient popular motivation to stop the carnage, they fallaciously and imprudently ignore the major change to the draft system beginning with the first lottery drawing in December 1969 for all men subject to the draft in 1970. The draft became far more equitable - in lottery induction sequence instead of 'oldest first,' with student deferments limited to the end of the current term, and with the elimination of a plethora of other deferments. The only escape left was National Guard - which, due to call-ups, isn't quite as attractive today. Let's remember that it wasn't just the wealthy who could shield their precious kids - since tuition was MUCH lower in those days and far more guys could manage to stay in college until they were 26 ... or take a job as a teacher.

I personally regard the Kent State shootings as being precipitated in some significant part by the changed draft laws. Remember, it took place in May 1970 ... merely a month before the term (and the deferment) was up. It was a tragic irony that deferred students confronted national Guard ... both over staying out of Viet Nam. Irony. On steroids.

The current draft doesn't afford the "upper 40%" the opportunity to shield their kids. I've always been a bit suspicious whether those who opposed such "fortunate son" deferments were opposed to the inequity ... or just wanted some of that privilege for themselves. Since then, I'm convinced it's the latter. After all, the 'privileged' includes the "upper 80%" now. I guess it's OK if it's only the kids who have nearly no other option to get a college education and health care.


2. I regard it as remarkable when I read folks talking about how much they'd do IF the draft were reactivated ... and see all kinds of actions promised. Talk about contradictions. If it wouldn't be an enormous motivation for activism and civil disobedience then how are so many saying it would? Even more puzzling is that such diatribes come as a counterpoint to "I'm doing everything I can to get Cheney/Bush out of the White House." What is it? Are we doing "all we can" or would we "do more"??? If we're not doing all we can ... why aren't we? Is it at least partly because we're comfy while other people's kids carry the burden of serving (and often dying) for this mess? Shame on us!

Shame on us!

Democracy is not a spectator sport ... we're all voting ourselves "off the island."

[KittyWampus]

44. thanks for posting this I haven't the fortitude to argue

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Strawman?

The exact argument was made in the poll "A Draft: Straight Up, Yes or No".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3445117&mesg_id=3445257

So before you start in with the insults, perhaps you might want to check the facts.

But once again: the draft was very much in place before the vietnam war and obviously did not prevent it. The pre-lottery draft ran through the war years 65-69 and the war did not end. The lottery draft ran from 69 - 73 and still the war continued. Conscription stopped in 73, but the war continued until 75. Did the draft help fule dissent? Yes of course it did. Did it prevent or end the war? No, obviously it did not.

Would a new draft cause more dissent? Yes. Would it prevent or end another bad war? There is no evidence that supports that claim.

[Martin Eden]

62. Political Reality and THE DRAFT

There are many big differences between the draft during the Vietnam era and the possibility of the draft being revived now, the most significant of which is the fact that the draft was already in place when Johnson escalated our involvement in Vietnam. With most of the country alrady opposed to the war in Iraq, reviving military conscription now would face a tremendous political hurdle.

I'll repost what I wrote in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1571019



Most of the debate about reviving of the draft ignores the most glaring political reality on this issue:

There will be no military draft without a new military intervention somewhere (like Iran), an escalation of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a major terrorist attack in the United States.

None of these things are to be desired, except perhaps by neocons and morons like Stu Bykofsky.

The majority of the American people want an end to the war in Iraq. Who in their right mind thinks there is sufficient political support in this country for military conscription that would subject their sons, husbands, brothers, and themselves to the meat grinder in Iraq?

I understand the arguments that rightwing armchair warriors and chickenhawks should put their money (and their lives) where their mouths are, that the burdens of national sevice and sacrifice should be shared, and that a draft might be the quickest way to get our troops out of Iraq. However, those arguments put the cart before the horse. Try to imagine a candidate for national office running on a platform to revive the draft. As things now stand, it would be political suicide.

If the draft is revived, it will be because the destructive forces of terrorism and our military misadventures have gotten much worse -- bad enough for a selfish and hedonistic public to subject themselves and their loved ones to the kind of horrors our troops experience in Iraq. THE DRAFT means that we'd have a lot more young Americans killing and dying overseas -- cannon fodder for the neocons, Big Oil, and the military-industrial complex.

[TahitiNut]

63. Again, this is a rehash of the same old assertions and are well-understood even though simplistic.

I'm suggesting that the increased resistance to a draft and widening gulf between governance (including the military) and the public SERVES autocratic objectives. As people increasingly eschew direct participation in national service we LOSE the very basis for any form of democracy. We've never had a "pure" democracy ... opting instead for representative democracy. The problem, of course is aligning that representation with the interests of all the people - an alignment that's increasingly skewed.

As Mick Jagger said, "be careful what you ask, for you may get it."

I don't believe the far right WANTS a draft ... not until it's far too late for democracy. Well, the autocrats are getting what they want.

[Martin Eden]

72. I understand your point, but I think you're missing the context

You're essentially saying that the lack of participation by the vast majority of the public -- with military sacrifices being made by the economically underprivileged and those immersed in the military culture -- SERVES autocratic objectives because resistance to war is insufficient when so few are personally at risk.

I believe that is true. I'll bet we'd be out of Iraq by now (or maybe never would have gone in) if all able-bodied young men regardless of economic status were equally subjected to being drafted and sent into a war zone.

I also agree that in a more just and egalitarian society, national service should be a shared experience (and potentially shared sacrifice) with everyone having more of a stake in our national policies. I think this would encourage the citizenry to become better informed and more fully participate in their own governance.

My point is that we're not going to get there from here any time soon. We should always have as our goal a more ideal society but in the current context of our occupation of Iraq, re-instating the draft is politically feasable only under a dire set of circumstances such as another major terrorist attack or war with Iran.

The public is against the war in Iraq. Our military is stretched thin, with tours of duty being repeated and extended. The obvious purpose of a draft in these circumstances is to increase the number of troops that would be rotated into Iraq. Being against the war and not wanting their sons, husbands, brothers, and themselves conscripted to fight in Iraq, where do you think support for re-instating the draft will come from? What would be the reaction on college campuses and from the vast majority on the left? Very few of any political stripe would support a draft for the reasons you put forward and the more egalitarian society I described. Not at this time, under these circumstances. It's just not realistic.

Why is General Lute talking about a draft? Because he realizes our troop levels in Iraq are not sustainable without a draft. In this context, the lack of a draft puts limits on the objectives of the autocrats. As Grover Norquist famously put it, you have to STARVE THE BEAST.

[rinsd]

84. I regard it as remarkable that people want others to die so they can have bigger march numbers

[Jed Dilligan]

45. As it turns out,

there is no need to mobilize popular opposition to this war. It's the most widely opposed war in the history of "democracies" fighting wars.

It's Congress that needs a fire lit under its ass, not the people. Give the beleaguered American people a break, dammit. It's hard enough slipping into Third World status to keep them rich without them also conscripting our kids.

[AwakeAtLast]

46. What he said

Right on, brother! :headbang:

[IronLionZion]

56. well, the civil war ended slavery and kept the south in the union (unfortunately)

what the hell makes you think they wanted to end the civil war, and instituted the draft to end the war? Was Lincoln a madman? Why do you want a separate country down south? Victory ended the war.

Is there some compelling reason you have for wanting the Kaiser's victory in WWI and Hitler's victory in world war II? You think we instituted the draft to end those wars? You think the greatest president this country had was a crippled madman? Victory ended the war.

The Korean war didn't actually end and Vietnam definitely invokes the strongest feelings of all so I'll just avoid it altogether.

In all those wars, the people of this country had to fight and sacrifice and that had a tremendous effect on public opinion and therefore the will to continue fighting. We did, in fact, end the Vietnam war because the people of this country wanted to end it.

Who exactly is fighting and sacrificing for the Iraq war? Our soldiers over there are fighting but the rest of this country is not. Fuck, we don't even know something is going on unless we look on the TV or internet and see something happening far away that doesn't actually affect any of us personally...or at least it doesn't feel like it. The United States of America is not at war. Only our soldiers are. And Republicans support them by denying them health care when they return.

[endarkenment]

69. Way to completely miss the point. nt.

[IronLionZion]

71. that may be, but my point is still valid regarding public support eom

[Warren Stupidity]

79. I made no statement about the merits of any war.

I simply observed that the assertion that 'the draft ends wars' and its corollary 'the draft prevents wars' is unsubstantiated nonsense. Conscription enables wars.

[IronLionZion]

81. OK, well yeah of course the draft was created then to enable war

because it was necessary. The wars were necessary, and we needed soldiers to defend our country from the fascists and confederates who wanted to destroy us. The most controversial one is Vietnam where the war was unnecessary and we can debate till we both turn blue as to whether the draft ended the war or the war ended the draft. Regardless, they both ended.

The merits of the war are relevant to starting/continuing/stopping it and I believe a draft now would turn more public support against the war and the politicians supporting it. Republicans are violently against the draft. Rich or not, republican voters don't want to bear the costs personally.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. You are having a different argument about the merits of war itself.

Once again, my only point in this thread was regarding the assertion that conscription ends or prevents wars. You yourself argue that "the wars were necessary, and we needed soldiers to defend our country", thus conceding that conscription enables war, although you attempt to claim that all of our wars were necessary and just.

WWI was not a war of self defense, which is the only war I find justifiable. Vietnam was not a war of self defense, instead much like the current occupation of Iraq, it was a war of aggression in which we sought to impose our political will on another people in a foreign land. In the long list of wars we have fought in the history of this republic, the revolution, the civil war, and WWII were the only wars that I hold to be plausibly just. That leaves a long list of questionable conflicts, including many that were beyond dubious.

Conscription might provide the manpower for a just war, as it did in WWII, or more likely it will provide the manpower for yet another bad war, which is generally what we have fought, in fact all that we have fought since the end of the Korean War.

[ButterflyBlood]

58. GREAT POST

This is probably the dumbest talking point I've ever seen on the forum.

[LanternWaste]

59. I believe in today's current political climate...

I believe in today's current political climate it would be an additional tool to end the war as it was an additional tool in ending the Viet-Nam conflict.

Hard for me to compare and contrast our most recent, large-scale conflicts against much earlier ones since the political climate, purpose of the conflicts, ans sense of national purpose were so completely different.

As an aside: Is there a Great Mind who is saying that the draft and the draft alone would end the the current conflict, or are you simply calling the opinions of some DU'ers bullshit?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. I'm saying there is no evidence that conscription ends or prevents wars.

Great Minds? Like Charley Rangel? I find the opinion that conscription ends or prevents wars idiocy no matter how great or small the mind is that utters that nonsense.

[RL3AO]

83. I agree with you to most of your points but...

we weren't trying to end those wars when the draft started. In all of the above wars, the draft was started to help win the war, not to pull out.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. The modern draft - the one started for WWI was to get us into war.

Leaving aside WWII, the draft has been used exclusively to provide bodies for foreign adventures where we faced no particular national threat. Once again, the theory that a draft will end war, has no historical basis. What war has the draft ended? What history shows instead is that conscription is associated with military adventures. You want peace? Tear down the military industrial complex and reduce our armed forces to those necessary to defend our borders and our trade routes. You want war? Increase the size of our army, continue the corrupt war machine kleptocracy, bring back the draft, provide the war machine with an endless stream of bodies.

[Perry Logan]

85. In any case, the draft should never be thought of as a political strategy.

Heaven forbid we would ever consider sending anyone to die because it would help us politically.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. And yet that is exactly what we are told here.

It is manipulative and dishonest and STUPID.