The Draft
 

Hoping to reinvigorate the factions, with apologies to Gen. Washington, how do you people feel about the refloating of the draft? The idea is that people would be less willing to accept a war if they knew that kid upstairs was going to be conscripted.

While I think these folks have an interesting arguement, I know that the draft is slavery. If we had a Swiss system where we were certain we'd be defending apple pie, I could see it, rifle in the closet, go back for training once in a while with the absolute certainty that I'd be defending America, not its "interests". There is also that little fortunate son tradition which ensures that most of your legislators won't have to worry about seeing their kids in body bags. Can a draft ever be free of shenanigans?

So anyway, NO!

Aye, Cap'n. I vote no, even though I am in no danger of being drafted (one eye 'n' all). If we get to the point where we need a draft (as in, there aren't enough men willing to stand up and fight), I don't think we should be fighting that war.

The Hon. Rep. Rangel is a Rt. Hon. Fckng. Moron for having floated this.

- The military doesn't want it. They have learned that volunteers get them *real* soldiers, *better* soldiers, the kind that want to be there and want to serve. Strengthening the military at no cost to taxpayers? Good idea.

- The draft is political. Rangel claims to be on the side of the poor and minorities who make up the majority of the armed forces these days. This point is a loser when you consider the amount of political pressure levied to prevent the haves from participating in Vietnam, and the look of the resulting forces. I don't think the draft led to egalitarianism; if you were Dan Quayle's dad you could still pull strings and get your kid into the National Guard or whatever else you could do to get an exemption.

Furthermore, if the poor and minorities are opting for military service, and you want to change that system to possibly prevent them from doing so, how can you claim to be doing it all on behalf of the poor and minorities?

- Everybody knows it's just an anti-war gambit which makes it all the more reprehensible. If Rangel disapproves of the war, he should pull out all the stops to prevent it -- all the stops, that is, except those that would be more destructive than war, which this one is.

Rangel treats the electorate with complete disrespect. He feels they would be more anti-war if their children were on the front line. Never mind that the parents of soldiers represent a very small part of the electorate, that conscription never prevented the US from going to war before, that a charged electorate will send a conscripted generation to war anyway for stupid reasons.

Furthermore Rangel ignores the possibility that the voters would elect to go to Iraq anyway in order to protect their sons and daughters from possibly being blown up at home. The guy is from NY and should really understand that notion.

- War is not what Rangel thinks it is. If the people don't want any lives lost, war can now be fought by predator drones and precision guided missile. Eventually people have to go in, but one could theoretically "contain" Saddam for a pretty long time just taking potshots. Or one could simply flatten Baghdad before sending in troops. Thus Rangel's concept leads to increased politicization of military use and actually causes GREATER death and destruction -- nice goin'!

Meanwhile, the general thinking is that even if WMDs are used on coalition forces this time, the coalition casualties will be less than a thousand. Knock wood.

The US military long ago adjusted to modern political reality, and Rangel doesn't know that. His little trial balloon will go nowhere, or he will be dealt with in Cynthia McKinney fashion: he will be voted out in the next primary. In serious times, when the shit hits the fan, there's no room for idiots like this.

I say no, no, no, no, no and HELL no.

The proposal Rep. Charles Rangel floated recently (which probably spurred on this thread) was for a MANDATORY draft, which would take in everyone physically capable of serving in an age range, regardless of race, creed, religion or other considerations. Its defenders point to the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of the poor and minorities, using it as one of the only escape routes from poverty and bad situations, and that an all-encompassing draft would somehow fix this inequity.

My take on this:

* Anyone who thinks there would ever be a truly "fair" draft is kidding themselves. Consider: no physical exemptions for anyone fitter than Stephen Hawking. No religious or moral exemptions -- Quakers and conscientious objectors would have to tote a gun like everyone else. No hardship exemptions; if you're a single parent, that's too bad, and you'd better find a caretaker. No collegiate exemptions, no running to join the National Guard, no possibility of using financial or political connections to wangle a better deal -- you get the letter, you're in a uniform. What are the odds that THAT would ever go through?

* Likewise, once everyone's in uniform, the distribution of _duty_ needs to be just as equitable. Biff and Muffy need to have just as much chance of toting a rifle in grunt duty in Baghdad as Tyrone, Luis and Billy-Bob. No "Operation Human Shield" and "Operation Get Behind The Darkies," for those who've seen the South Park movie. ;) No pulling strings for the rich and influential to get them assigned to cushier jobs -- say, managing the motor pool at a stateside base instead of marching through North Korea. How is THAT going to be implemented, and (just as importantly) enforced?

The unlikelihood of the previous two points neatly punctures the idea of a "fair" draft. It'll be like jury duty -- those who can escape it will, and those who can't will be stuck with it, which destroys the very premise of Rangel's argument (that the children of the rich need to serve, too).

Next, where do you find the money, facilities, equipment, time and instructors to properly train an exponentially-larger wave of new recruits? (By properly, I mean something beyond "Here's your uniform, here's your gun. Point THIS end of the gun at the bad guys. Your plane is waiting." Taking everyone in an age range for months of training is one hell of an undertaking.)

Next, how do the armed forces cope with millions and millions of people who vehemently don't want to be there? ("Fragging" isn't just a term used in Quake, folks. Figure in desertions, rebellion, and no-shows to be hunted down.)

Next, how is this an improvement for the poor and downtrodden? At present, many of them wind up in the military for lack of a better option, and this is held to be a bad thing. Under Rangel's plan, they would _ALL_ wind up in the military for a period of time. And this is a step in the right direction?

Most importantly -- just what in the hell is our government going to do with millions and millions of soldiers?

Whatever they want to do, wherever on the globe they choose to do it, that's what. Given our current administration and its advisors, the LAST thing I'd want to do is hand them a nearly unlimited supply of cannon-fodder conscripts that have no voice as to their fates.

Justifications for "war" aside, the simple truth is this: when it comes to armed warfare, _no one_ should be placed in harm's way (killing and being killed) who does not choose to be there.

Looks like I hit "save" before you did.

sigh
 

Where's the hate? ;)

Actually, I saw the hate today. A couple of Korean vet ex-Marines from "down the valley" stopped to ask about the local hunting conditions blah blah blah. I hooked them up with some good info, then "it" happened. After finding out my old man also used the Navy as a taxi service, they started up with the GD Gooks this the blankety slant eyes that. End of conversation. War isn't about making nice with people, the Corp understands that . Do we want to keep reintroducing this kind of racism into our culture every few years?

Well, I can't really speak for anyone else, and most good points have already been made.

The only thing I can say is this: They can force me to join the Army. They can force me to hold a gun. They cannot force me to shoot it.

Re: sigh
 

While I myself choose not to buy into racism and hate, I often have found myself wondering whether or not I would have the luxury of such a moral high ground if I had been slogging thorough Korea or Vietnam with every bush and tree a potential hiding place for someone who wants nothing more than to blow me into little pieces as though with a Quake railgun shot.

I might be less than nice to whatever foreign citizen whose country I'd fought in if I'd had to endure that. I can't say, since I was fortunate enough to miss being drafted by a couple of weeks at the end of Vietnam, and had enough marketable skills to keep me out of the service as a last resort for job training.

And don't get me wrong...I understand the connection between our military and the reasons I can sit here and say any of this in the first place, and I am the *last* person to criticize those who serve in order to keep me and my family safe in this country.

Face it, we're all spoiled. The last war we had in the contiguous 48 was us trying to kill each other. Still, racism is never a good thing, and war is always wrong. I believe in self-defense, and unfortunately, the best form of self-defense (against the entire frigging world who wants to take what we have here and shove it up our backsides in many, many cases) is certain and provable strength.

Now, ask me if I think we should blow up Baghdad...I don't know yet, but go ahead, ask me. And as for a draft, well, do we need the people in order to remain strong as a nation? If so, then we need a draft...and I have children approaching draft age.

The world is a scary damn place, isn't it?

BTW...Griff, glad to see you're taking that new title seriously, dude!

Given a situation in which you are under threat and capable of an armed response ... you most likely will.

They won't have to force you.

Yep...if it is the other guy pointing a gun at me and about to pull the trigger, I doubt that I'm going to stand there and let him do it without shooting back (probably right before screaming and running like hell in the opposite direction).

G-man, you won't find that kind of racial de-humanization in the modern army.

Partly because the current generation of soldiers is not quite as ready, as GI-era society was, to buy into racial stereotypes. Partly because it is more accurate to say that we are liberating these people and not defeating them, and so it is in our interests to respect them. Partly because it's been five generations since the US was attacked on its own territory by a culture all of one race that had a racial hatred of the US.

But mostly because, unlike those previous armies, today you'd be just as likely to find a Korean serving with you.

Why might help to explain how Gen. Colin Powell reached the highest levels of our government via the military route.

Re: Re: sigh
 

If we need to force people to fight for it, then it's not worth fighting for.

Mark this day on your calendar kids. Well all agree on something!!!

The draft is wrong for a host of reasons and on that we all seem to agree.

The only thing I can really add is my own comment to this: I think conscription makes us MORE likely to get into wars because politicians know they no longer have to justify the wars they are starting, (not that GWB has justified his imperialistic aggression toward Iraq). They wouldn't have to worry about our ability to fight the unconstitutional wars of aggression they start for imperialistic means because they'd know we have a steady stream of young people ready to die at their whim.

If they must justify their aggression and provide genuine, valid, and constitutional reasons to go to war, we will have less wars.

The government doesn't own us and can't make decisions regarding our lives or deaths no matter how desperate the situation. The people of America have NEVER failed to volunteer in sufficient numbers to DEFEND America.

To pull the trigger, without hesitation, you need to believe the other guys life is worth less than your own. It won't take long for sand-nigger to enter our common language. We may know enough about racism to feel bad about it now, but its a useful tool and will be used. The drill instructor's or later the platoon sargeant's job is to make sure his men survive. If whipping up a little racial hatred is going to secure that outcome, he won't hesitate to do so. I doubt we have enough Arabs/Pushtins etc.. in our army to temper that. We fought along side ARVN to protect their liberty but consider the contempt many vets hold them in. Think back to our photo of the three airbourne guys who were about to search that Afghani's house/hut, how many of those operations do you participate in before your view of Afghanis is diminished? Think of it in the same way as our war on drugs and then factor in total language alienization. Are we so civilized that we can kill people without hating them?

You also know that I believe we are liberating oil not people, brother, only time will tell.

Wars aren't fought by armies anymore; most of the fighting in any invasion on Iraq will be done by Spec-Ops level guys. It's an entirely different and more reflex mentality that they work on that relies on unending training rather than that kind of mentality to work on.

I understand what you're saying about the initial invasion, but I think if we really go the nation building route it will breed contempt in our troops and resentment in their people. Of course I may be wrong, the people of the middle east could choose to ignore our history in the area and embrace us as liberators.

Re: Re: Re: sigh
 

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree to a point, but if we fail to keep a certain level of strength, and to project that strength on an ongoing basis, we're inviting some uppity world power wannabe to kick sand in our face.

If our ability to maintain a deterrent level of military strength falls below a certain point (I don't know what that point is), then I feel that a draft is a viable means of maintaining that strength.

That being said, I agree that the volunteer military definitely brings higher quality, more motivated personnel to the table, and as long as there's sufficient incentive for quality people to sign up, that is the preferable way to go. Given a crisis of defensive ability, that would need to be changed until the problem is rectified.

I'll shut up now before I get more confusing.

William Saphires column rattles off the names of the jackels seeking influence in New Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and France. It seems America and Britain stand alone in seeking only to liberate the Iraqi people. Who has more contempt for the electorate, Saphire or Rangle? Dead heat IMHO.

Superior Quality of an All-Volunteer Force?
 

Does anyone have any real evidence of this? The counter-argument might be that during a volunteer period, those who are most likely to enlist are those with few other options, while during a draft, a wider segment of the population is reached. I have no idea; just wondering.

Interesting how the Republicans are always citing the Liberal Media as being a mouthpiece for the Dems' policies, when they have their own mouthpieces in Safire and Limbaugh. I mean, here we have Safire attempting to lend a hand (by doing what Bush has repeatedly failed to do - presenting evidence...well, claims of evidence, anyway...of actual Iraqi nefariousness), sort of like a Conservative Republican mouthpiece.

On a couple of points, I do agree...the UN Blix-led weapons inspection team is a joke. The only thing the UN ever seems to set out to do is not piss anyone off, ever. And I have no difficulty imagining that Iran and other Arab nations are positioning themselves right now to derive advantage from the probability of war. However, Safire pointing out that "France is not France without Arab oil" seems sort of silly. I mean, we might squeak by here in the US without Arab oil, but there'd be some damn loud and expensive squeaks if our supply got cut off, just like in France. On the other hand, I do tend to agree with the oft-heard opinions that France usually cowers and hopes for the best on the world stage...

War in Iraq will serve several needs...oil and much needed military/industrial appropriations for the sagging economy, retribution for past and future terrorist support, revenge for Iraq's past nose-thumbing of George Sr., and yes, even some moral currency in the liberation of a people who are surely suffering under the bootheel of a classic despot living in the arms of unimaginable luxury while his "people" starve.

War is never a simple matter, and the justification thereof is one of the most difficult and trying things a leader of a nation must ever have to face. I just wish that someone, somewhere, would come up with unassailable proof (like a picture of Saddam standing next to a pile of chemical weapon cannisters or something) of a need to overthrow Iraq for the good of the rest of the world. It would make the whole thing a lot more palatable. All of this "axis of evil" crap is rhetoric. It may well be based in truth, but it is rhetoric designed to rally the homeland around the concept of kicking the ass of someone else's homeland halfway around the world.

The attempts to tie Iraq to 9-11 were a good try, but those ties cited were just too tenuous. We need something as direct as Pearl Harbor's ties to the Japanese before we go in and lay waste to Iraq; at least, we need something like that if this entire nation is to feel secure that war is the only answer.

Re: Superior Quality of an All-Volunteer Force?
 

I have no evidence whatsoever...I only have opinions! :cool:

I agree, but were just not going to find the (slang braces himself) "smoking gun". The circumstancial eveidence is just that, circumstancial. I do believe that Iraq is tied to Al-Qaeda. What leads me to this belief? Intuition.....and the long list of less than conclusive evidence.

Only time (and an G. Edward Griffin book) will tell.

Yes, I know, I'm quoting myself, but I just thought of something...couldn't one of you Photoshop gurus out there make a couple of convincing pictures of Hussein in incriminating situations for us to distribute? Not your pedestrian shots of Hussein with hookers...I think we all assume that he has as many of those as he can handle, and don't think the worse of him for it. No, what we need is Saddam Hussein with Albert Einstein, standing next to Fat Man or Little Boy...something people can really grab onto and be comfortable with. Maybe a picture of Hussein viewing bestiality porn on his computer while caressing a thermonuclear warhead at his side, that sort of thing.

Or, maybe a picture of Bush Sr. giving Saddam instructions on how to make chemical weapons. Would that do it?


Oh, wait. Yes it would but the wrong "it" would be done. :D

No, no...you're missing the point! Sure, we provided Saddam with much of the technology that we now want to punish him for, but the point is that we said to stop and he didn't. I mean, didn't your dad kick your ass for not stopping doing something when he said to?

Maybe if we just bill this whole thing as a parental disciplinary situation?

Yah, like that time I was out too late and Dad shot me in the head and ran me over with a tank. :)

And speaking of N. Korea...
 

Anybody else read the comic strip "Boondocks"? Today's strip articulated something which I had been pondering for awhile now. Namely, why is it imperative that we kick the ass of Iraq, where we cannot seem to find any nuclear weapons, yet we feel no such pressing need to do the same to N. Korea, who not only admits to having nuclear weapons and says it is making more, but is also a member of the same 'Axis of Evil' as Iraq, as indentified by GW Bush?

At first blush, it would seem like it is safer to kick the ass of a country who we claim has such weapons, but does not, than it would be to attempt to kick the ass of a country who we know has nuclear weapons and could easily blow up Japan and South Korea (and even the US, with a little more effort).

Am I just being cynical, or is the US acting like a playground bully picking on the weaker of two kids because that's the way to ensure a victory? Or am I overlooking some deeper political/economic/sociological issue, here?

Quick Capsule Analysis
 

Iraq: has oil, and lots of it
North Korea: has no oil

Iraq: an uncomfortable topic for Shrub's daddy
North Korea: did not interact with Shrub's daddy, challenge his manhood, or cause him subsequent embarrassment

Iraq: leader easily reduced to an evil cartoon character by the American media
North Korea: even with the nation being in the news lately, could 1 out of 5 Americans name the leader of North Korea?

Iraq 2003 is what you do to N Korea in 1994 instead of negotiate in order to guarantee that they don't develop nukes and therefore become ten times as dangerous and resistant to both carrots and sticks. N Korea 2003 is what happens when you negotiate with power-hungry tinpot dictators. Because they love to negotiate; they merely lie to you to get your buy-in, then do whatever they want anyway, very simple.

Re: Quick Capsule Analysis
 

It's Kim. (always a good guess with Koreans, and happens to be right this time)

Wow...wish I could have gotten to this sooner. But, just a few of my own thoughts:

--I thought what Rangel did was cool. As I see it, this "bill" is merely an attention grabber (it isn't meant to pass by any means). The issues raised by Rangel are worthy of attention, IMO...another perspective/issue in the mix that should be considered.

--I applaud folks like Tob and the other soldiers that are doing a job that I simply cannot do...protecting our freedoms by fighting the enemy. My friend Sal from MD was called back to active duty just after 9/11...had to give up his schooling for now. (He served 3 years in the Army, then stayed with the reserves...he's Airborne.) I completely respect that.

--If I were considered fit to serve (Ha! That will happen the minute pigs fly.), the draft were reinstated (though I'm past the age for Selective Service now), and Uncle Sam sent me a draft card in the mail, I'd be on the first flight to Toronto.

--Why do the Chinese and Koreans go with their last name first? That always confused me growing up. And although we refer to the Japanese using the "standard" method, apparently they use the Chinese method when referring to each other. (I watch too much Iron Chef.)

Well, that's honesty.

I actually wanted to join after 9-11. I talked very briefly with a recruiter.

Slang: I wanna be a Marine.
Marine recruiter: (looks at slang's pot belly, flabby upper body, and facial tick) How old are you?
Slang: Th-
Marine recruiter: TOO OLD! ......Sorry.

So, if and when the shit really hits the fan and they actually need me, I'll just say "TOO OLD!.......Sorry." :finger:

(Then Brutus will crack my skull and I'll wake up to some asshead banging on a metal garbage can)

It did cause us to discuss the situation, however, I find symbolic bill writing to be a generally offensive activity. Instead of leading a real opposition to the war against Eastasia or is that Eurasia this week, he floats a little empty gesture, soon to be forgotten. Then when the inevitable shitstorm develops, he'll point to that as his opposition, well bullshit. Rep Rangel do you oppose American adventurism overseas? Did you oppose the Clinton bombings? Stand up and be counted if you oppose this war, you were elected to lead freaking lead, buttwipe. Of course, I could be off base but its better than being on the front end of a double play. wtf? I'll just leave that there, it'll mean something eventually.