Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

The Draft: No Solution to Social Inequality

By Steve Gilliard, AlterNet. Posted November 22, 2006.


Progressives are drawn to Charlie Rangel's call for a draft, but a draft only inducts people. Class determines what job they will be assigned once they are in the military and, often, how happy they will be.
Advertisement

"You bet your life," says Charlie Rangel when asked if he's still prepared to reinstate the draft. With the Democratic takeover of the House, the 18-term representative from New York is slated to chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee giving him a powerful seat from which to push his legislation.

As recently as August, word that the Marines were calling up their last line of reservists had reignited draft chatter for the first time since Rangel's previous draft push during the run up to the 2004 elections. "This move should serve as a wake-up call to America," said Jon Stoltz, former Army captain in Iraq and head of VoteVets.org, who called it "proof that our military is overextended," and "one of the last steps before resorting to a draft."

There's a temptation among progressives and liberals to view the draft as a potentially positive force, both in bringing about an end to the war and in evening the playing field in terms of whose children actually have to fight. Unfortunately, to the extent that it ever was true, this simply isn't the case anymore. The draft will only pull more unfortunate men and women from the ranks of the underprivileged and underrepresented.

The Vosges Mountains, Fall, 1944

They had been in classrooms only a few months ago, now they were tramping down some muddy road in a strange place, flinching from explosions. Annoyed by their flinching, someone would explain they were outgoing rounds, nothing to worry about.

Shipped overseas, sent to a replacement depot, greeted with indifference by their new platoon mates, expected to be dead or wounded in a few days, they were infantry and all their problems boiled down to surviving the German Army. Thousands would find themselves in Belgium, France, Italy, the Pacific, fighting on the front lines.

Casualties in Normandy had been higher than the Army planned for. Eisenhower was desperate for manpower. He sent one memo asking for 100,000 Marines. The Navy didn't have them, but the Army had two large untapped pools of men, the Army Specialized Training Program and the Air Cadets. Both were ended and their men sent to where the need was greatest, facing the Wehrmacht in France. The ASTP was designed to create a class of Army bureaucrats, the future administrators of ruined allied countries and the defeated Axis states, but too many had been trained. The same with the Air Cadets. The Army had overestimated the clerks they needed and underestimated the infantry required to win the war. Eisenhower was so desperate for bodies that soldiers facing court martial were often sent to front line units. Late in the war, they created black platoons to serve in white infantry units.

Most came home to start or resume educations under the GI bill, changing who ran America. Once, college was reserved for the rich and the lucky. Now, all that was required was an honorable discharge. So whether you were a Marine armorer (Art Buchwald), a sailor (Pat Moynihan), air crew (Howard Zinn, Joseph Heller) or an infantryman (Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut, Mel Brooks, Malcolm Forbes), you had a radically different future ahead of you: college, a mortgage, a middle class life after a childhood of poverty. Even if you were wealthy, combat service was a key to social acceptance and political success among the masses.

When we talk about the draft, it is through the prism of World War II and the GI Bill. We see the mass armies of World War II as leveling -- one where people served without class distinction.

This is Hollywood's fantasy.

In reality, rich kids gravitated to the Navy and Air Corps, or the OSS, the Office of Strategic Services. They didn't sign up to be Rangers or Airborne, much less infantry.

It was the GI Bill, not the army, which made for a more equal America. There isn't space to discuss the fight for the GI Bill here, but it was a struggle to extend it to every soldier, regardless or race or social background or service. And in the end, it was probably the most revolutionary legislation passed until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No other bill did more to change the face of America.

Charles Moskos, who is a draft proponent, has stated that the class structure of the US Army has not changed since the Revolution, poor and working class soldiers led by middle class officers.

In the historical reality, immigrants and minorities have always filled the ranks of the US military.

The Union Navy was half black. The draft in the Civil War was limited by 179,000 blacks enlisting. Many of Custer's troops were immigrants; at least two Italians who barely spoke English were killed with him.

So when many people talk of the draft, they talk of the images of war movies and not the reality of the US Army.

First, class rules the draft. Howard Dean's back problem was only noticed because he had regular medical care. If his father had been a bus driver, the odds are high he would have spent a year in Vietnam. The medical exemptions for the draft will still exist and they will still be used to avoid military service. It then influences who gets what job in the military. College-educated kids would be far more likely to get staff jobs, while the poor would be shunted into the combat arms, regardless of testing. The draft has nothing to do with the assumption of risk. It is the testing which determines which jobs are open. And the poor and unconnected get the combat arms.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, draft

Read more of Steve Gilliard's writing at The News Blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Exile or Prison?
Posted by: Kafwood on Nov 22, 2006 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should the draft become a reality here, Charlie Rangel and those who support him (like Thom Hartmann) will be sentencing my sons, who have protested this war for the past 4 years, to prison or exile.

But like so many old men before them, the current batch of politicians and pundits are unlikely to care about the individual young lives they'll be disrupting - it's social engineering they're after, nothing personal.

My boys will not submit to being pawns to this gov't - either as soldiers or as CO alternative service workers. Serving this corporate-led empirical gov't involuntarily in any form is a violation of conscience.

How could anyone in their right mind have ANY confidence that the US Govt will administer the draft "equitably"? What planet have they been living on?

The last we checked, even CO's were going to be required to go to boot camp. You see, it's so vitally important to stamp the authority of the state on our youth; physical and psychological imprinting is a must. And I'm sure the boot camp sergeant will have no "issues" training CO's along with the combat troops...as my kids say: "NOT!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xile or Prison? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: xile or Prison? Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Exile or Prison? Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Exile or Prison? Posted by: badkitty
» RE: xile or Prison? Posted by: pocomoco
Rangel calls for a draft, McCain says we need more troops, the military is overstretched
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 22, 2006 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do the math.

We have long needed national service. I would like to see a program where all Americans are required to serve 30 months between age 18 and 32. This service can be in the military or a cvilian corps, domestic or international.

During the month around your 16th birthday you go in for an evaluation and if any physical, emotional or mental problems are identified then they are treated as a prerequisite for your national service. You are also informed of your obligations and options regarding the national service program.

Many countries in the world require that their citizens participate in a national service program, it's time we do too.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» coersive "service" is serfdom Posted by: monkopotamus
» leftwright is rightwrong Posted by: monkopotamus
I'm from a poor area
Posted by: cmd on Nov 22, 2006 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm from a poor area, and many kids join the army. I've seen what happens to young people in the army. I know one young man whos mother is a school counselor, who was paralyzed in Iraq. What kind of future will he have now? He may never walk again. What about all of the others who have died? Promises of education afterwards don't help you if you're dead. Also, the military has severe problems with its health-care system. The last thing we need is to flood the public with more untreated PTSD suffers.

This article has it right about class affecting military position. Look at Bush, he sat on his butt in the US while the poor people were sent off to vietnam. You'd get the same thing if you instituted a draft now.

Also, the military descriminates against American citizens. Without fixing other injustices in the military, how can this be a reasonable choice? Straight men can serve in the army, but sorry if you are gay or female you don't count. Has anyone considered how a proposal like this could virtually be a way to hunt down and punish gays (which the military does in its ranks)? Or that it is a way to institutionalize the devaluing of women by society? And what about passifists? There have always been Americans who believe that war and violence are wrong and that it would be immoral to contribute to them. What about people who think that this war we are in now is wrong and immoral?

I think that the place that will see the most positive effects in this situation is Canada. It will get plenty of peace loving, politically conscious, gay, or feminist new citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm from a poor area Posted by: derfb1
» RE: I'm from a poor area Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: I'm from a poor area Posted by: TheNamelessCity
war crimes
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 22, 2006 2:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The time for drafts is over because the time for war crimes is over. We should impeach the Bushies for war crimes, etc. and thus put an end to major wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: war crimes Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: war crimes Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: war crimes Posted by: derfb1
» RE: war crimes Posted by: jwg
» RE: war crimes Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: war crimes Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: war crimes Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: war crimes Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: war crimes Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: war crimes Posted by: Conservasaurus
The rich are always with us
Posted by: Moonray on Nov 22, 2006 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amusing to note the considerable number of square-jawed Hollywood war heroes who were found to have mysterious physical defects that kept them out of the war.

I heard that for $5,000, one could obtain a doctor's certification of a punctured eardrum, rendering one ineligible.
If true, that was the best $5,000 investment those guys ever made.

Let's forget about the draft and concentrate on dismantling our huge military-industrial complex. In the good ol' USA, the next needless war is always just a few years away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The rich are always with us Posted by: Conservasaurus
One question
Posted by: mazel on Nov 22, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does Charlie Rengel have any children or grandchildren who will be eligible for this draft?

This is a stupid idea and if the democrats do this I'll never vote for another one. I'm sure I'm not alone in this and the dems had better keep this in mind if they want to maintain what little power they have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stupid idea indeed. Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Stupid idea indeed. Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Stupid idea indeed. Posted by: halg
Lets "Ramp it up" shall we
Posted by: Captainmagic on Nov 22, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets just draft some more into Iraq and then watch the Iraqi's move the sights onto your GI's/ Marines their quality is the same now.....did that happen in Vietnam...here we go again...we can win it with more bodies....more men more ied's more of everything really, except peace.....Ah well I guess american blood is the cheapest commodity you have for export.....bring them on...what do you care...the more the merrier......The middle east is not finished with america as the ME will be the finish of america as you now know it.... Your governments are laced with cold blooded incompetence...as ye sow so shall ye reap...Only in america

Captain OUT
F&*K you guys take the cake

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets "Ramp it up" shall we Posted by: aonghus36
We Don't Need National Service
Posted by: igoeja on Nov 22, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US shouldn't be engaging in wars, which are really ploys for resource acquisition and self-reward.

Entertaining the idea that the draft makes things fair is ludicrous, since it implies acquiescence to the ideology that war is a necessity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: About as unpatriotic as you can get Posted by: Conservasaurus
Drat...
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 22, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The draft is not a good thing. We need to leave Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

irwin wingo
Posted by: irwin wingo on Nov 22, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When there is a volunteer army, the poor end up on the front lines. When the ranks of the army is filled by a draft, the poor end up on the front lines. Perhaps eliminating armies might be the way to protect us from wars. At the least we should demilitarize so a crazed leader cannot so rapidly deploy soldiers to be killed or to become murders. If it had taken another six months to put the current army together that has induced so much slaughter in Iraq then the entire war might well have been averted. But maybe not, humans seem to love armed conflict even above the lives of their children and only learn from war how to repeat its mistakes in a more brutal fashion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hamish
Posted by: JDBishop5 on Nov 22, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERYONE should be subject to involuntary military service regardless of any except health reasons. There should be no way to avoid an equal risk of being killed in any war the country gets into. During the Viet Nam war we had an active resistance on campuses because people knew they might get their asses shot off. Today, college kids by and large don’t give a shit because they are home free without any personal risk. Rich and powerful parents, who could most easily influence the government’s policies, have less motivation because their little darlings are not marching off. It is the children of the poor who being shipped out. Take ‘em all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hamish Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Hamish Posted by: edith
» Sorry, man Posted by: famouspipeliner
Bush HAD a plan for Vietnam!
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 22, 2006 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many other countries around the world require their citizens to perform "national service" of some sort, and the United States needs to do so as well. However, it would be very interesting to see how the military's paranoid "don't ask, don' t tell" approach to homosexuals would work under a draft.

Methinks the homophobes would have a cow!

And maybe if more children of corrupt politicians were being sent to fight and die in the wars they start, they might think twice about doing so. But, then again, ideologue politicians have been sending their nation's youth to fight and die in wars for centuries.

For, only a nation's war dead has seen the end of war. As the folk song says…when will we EVER learn?

The irony of Mr. Bush's recent trip to Hanoi (of all places) for a "peace conference" is telling. 30 years ago, another (equally stupid) President was sending B-52s overhead to carpet-bomb that nation's civilians. And, as with Japan, Germany and the former Soviet Union, all is now forgiven…and largely forgotten.

However, unlike Iraq, Mr. Bush DID have a plan to get out of the Vietnam war. He sat on his ass in his National Guard fighter jet halfway around the world from the action…and then went AWOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush HAD a plan for Vietnam! Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Please explain... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Please explain... Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Please explain some more... Posted by: mjabele
Progressives?!?
Posted by: kelt65 on Nov 22, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No progressive would support compulsory military service, unless one is some sort of authoritarian progressive, which is an oxymoron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wouldn't the draft be political suicide?
Posted by: Ayla87 on Nov 22, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the democrat controlled congress were to re-instate the draft, wouldn't that basically ensure that they would never hold control again for another decade? No one wants to be drafted (or have thier child drafted) whether they're rich or poor, and few would vote to re-elect an incumbent that took away the freedom of thousands in an effort to make the war the next great equalizer. It seems to me it would guarantee a republican win in the 2008 presidential elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want to see some unwilling rich kids in uniform.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 22, 2006 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have good reasons, if you consider fairness. But, the rich have never been fair to the working class.

It is way past time to draft some of those mother fucking rich privelege types. I just want to see their lives changed from one of pleasure and control to one of service to the community and pain.

Wake up asshole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take Away the Fat Federal Bully's Toys/No Draft/No Powerful Govt.
Posted by: edith on Nov 22, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Military/Industrial/Complex, MIC, needs a large armed force to implement American influence because no one has to buy our products anymore, we are energy gluttons who have no intention of quitting, we thus need energy no matter where it is located, and there are various raw materials around the world that we wnat CHEAP. Finally, because we love toys(like MP3 and imported cars) we have sent most of our recent wealth overseas, but we still want to buy our toys cheap even though our dollar is overvvalued and evetnually will be the worthles piece of fibre that its physical replacement cost is.

A draft simply sends illiterates from the black and hispanic neighborhoods into a system that requires discipline, dedication to external social values and some vague sense of patriotism and thus willingness to die for country. If you have spoken to the average black or Hispanic(legal or illegal) kid about this, they will not even begin to understand why they should fight for the US.

If you want to tie community service to military needs and yet not provide a ready-made expedition force for dimwits like the Duke of Crawford, you might want to aggressively expand the National Guard, give it public service and conservation duties as well as military training. Most importantly, to avoid the de facto draft that Bush used to oust Sadaam and intimidate the Arabs(well try to anyway), we should make the National Guard a true state militia. The President should under no circumstacnes be able to inclued the National Guard into the regular army command unless the legislature of the state of the Unit affirmatively votes to do so. The legislature's approval must be renewed each year or that unit is sent home at federal expense. All medical costs of the unit should be paid in full by the feds for medical costs incurred in combat or merely while under federal control.

We must weaken the avaricious federal govt. The draft makes sense only if the Prez is planning big manpower intensive military interventions overseas. Now WHY would free citizens want to give a total stranger,let alone a notorious drunk and dimwit, that untrammeled power?

We must renew local govt as our primary power over our individual liberty to the extent we yield any of our liberty at all.

Defederalize the National Guard,make it the "State Guard", and you will allow citizens to see real actual practical projects done in your state. Clean up forests, cut firelanes, patrol hgihways w/police on heavily travelled days, patrol high crime areas and escort the elderly to shopping and recreation in thug-filled areas. In Ariz, Cal, and NM/Texas the State Guards have the right to keep trespassers out(illegal immigrants who impose costs on those states but do not reiburse them).

Moreover, if your state is really threatened by Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, or Bosnia, the citizens of the state ought to decide whether to send aid to the inept feds who should have solved. the problem diplomatically.

No draft, no fed military.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Question: Posted by: mjabele
There has to be a more equitable approach.
Posted by: symcokid on Nov 22, 2006 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must find a more defining approach to possible incursions into other Sovereign countries to Liberate the People and install our form of Democracy. We need something besides the "Bullshit" polls that claim 99-44/100% of the folks fully support shipping our troops for this or that cause, usually to overthrow a really bad Dictator. When in fact, ordinarily the main objective is to lay claim to whatever resources we may be able to steal or tie up one way or another.

As the Politicians will force the 'Draft' down the throats of our young sons and daughters, it is just, that their offspring top the list of potential draftee's. Inherently it would seem that as they were born of Natural Leaders, from a privileged class, that they would innately have the Leadership edge to man the front lines. They could lead by example and their parents would be so proud that their kids arms and legs were blown off or their brains scattered for a just cause!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DRAFT = SLAVERY
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Nov 22, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO NO NO NO to any draft. We've all seen what a disaster it is, when people are made to fight involuntarily. Any politician who wants a draft to stoke the war effort should have to nominate a next-of-kin to serve on the front line. That would put a quick end to this nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DRAFT = SLAVERY Posted by: oregoncharles
Who said this was about social inequality?
Posted by: boatboy_srq on Nov 22, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think anyone seriously looks to conscription to produce any social leveling. The military is a hierarchical organisation, with clear vulnerabilities to influence and inclined to place its inductees in either the very best or very worst position for them without any apparent pattern outside those factors.

The reasoning I have heard most commonly for reinstating the draft is simply this: the nation needs a brake on overeager, overambitious, overly naive international ambitions. The purse has obviously failed, public opinion is demonstrably sufficiently malleable to be ineffective, and political opposition from within the government is some polite form of career suicide. The nation needs something that would generate resistance across the electoral spectrum, and if that's the possibility that sons/daughters/brothers/sisters/selves might be shipped out to fight against something we either don't understand or don't agree should be fought then so be it. When the risk is personal we're far more likely to oppose action sufficiently vociferously to make our government pay attention.

Conversely, in the unfortunate event that conflict either cannot be avoided or must be joined for justifiable reasons (World War 2, for example), then the draft makes a much stronger statement to the global community. If we are all willing to serve, and we wage war anyway (without substantial public outcry), it has to be for something significant, and not oil or territory or shallow political gain abroad or at home. A volunteer force, in comparison, is more clearly a tool of the administration and the econo-political elite and not a manifestation of the will of the people to do what's necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MISSING THE POINT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 22, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either we spend our money keeping the peace or making war. The latter requires a military. Our soldiers & marines are being treated badly. There aren't enough of them. Inept leadership has strained our volunteers. I don't want a draft. There is no other way when our leaders insist on "spreading democracy" through the barrel of a gun. Charlie Rangel is not the problem. Our problems got elected and people are dying because of them. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich
Posted by: charemor on Nov 22, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that the wealthy have always managed to wiggle out of the draft, but you can be damned sure that if Bush thought his twins or Cheney's daughters might end up in Iraq there would be a different spin on the war. As far as a volunteer army, are we really doing so well when the recruiters have to lower their standards in order to meet their quota? Some form of national service should be mandatory for all young people in this country, rich and poor alike, and I don't mean having the rich kids pass out coffee and doughnuts to the poor kids going off to war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The rich Posted by: edith
Torn
Posted by: outlander55 on Nov 22, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am torn. I am a veteran. I detest war and I have protested this war, but I am tired of being called un-American by military aged pussy boys who don't know fuck about serving ones` country or what it is like to hold your buddy as he dies in your arms. I am torn. On one hand, maybe we should reinstate the draft, but on the other hand, war is terrible. It changes the most hardened man.
A draft may level the playing field. In peace time, a draft would work to make the self centered pussy boy into a man who takes responibility for his actions. But again, I am torn. War sucks and this illegal war sucks even more. But our military is stretched way too thin. What if something happens that calls for our military to deploy for something really important? Who do we send?
If it were up to me, I would say, draft "all" healthy citizens, aged 18 to 24 (male and female) to serve at least three years in the military. Regardless of class or connections, they would serve in the jobs that need them. No deferments (It would delight me to no end to see every politicians` child in uniform, pissing themselves in fear). After they serve, then they may go to college and party til they puke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Torn Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Torn Posted by: outlander55
» RE: Torn Posted by: aonghus36
Who are these "progressives" who support a draft?
Posted by: SteveB on Nov 22, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"progressives and liberals ... view the draft as a potentially positive force, both in bringing about an end to the war and in evening the playing field in terms of whose children actually have to fight"

Other than Charlie Rangel and someone I've never heard of - "Charles Moskos, who is a draft proponent" the author doesn't name any "progressive" supporters for the draft.

And judging from the comments here, there's no support among Alternet readers either.

Sure, the draft is a bad deal for the antiwar movement -- trading the military a fresh supply of cannon fodder in exchange for the prospect of more 18 year olds at antiwar marches (which don't seem to be effective at ending the war anyway) -- but it's not going to happen, so we'd better find some other way to motivate people to join the movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Path
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 22, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no problem with a public service requirement to qualify for Higher ed benefits, and the Armed Forces are but a few of the options. Being a volunteer fireman, on the local Search & Rescue Squad, Civil Air Patrol, a reserve Deputy in Law Enforcement, a Peace Corps Volunteer, a Literacy Instructor, a volunteer classroom aide in the schools, a youth sports coach, a volunteer shelter worker, meals on wheels volunteer, a Nursing Home volunteer, etc are all options. Friends, our nation is a community and the more we reach out and become interconnected, the better our culture will be. Fear, racism, and intolerance all come from ignorance.

Personally, I think every person who voted for a NeoCon in November who has never served should be drafted into the Army, put in the infantry and sent to Iraq. Nothing like walking patrol in a flack vest in 120∘weather while people are waiting to shoot you or blow you up to clarify the mind. The NeoCons thus employed can console themselves with knowledge that Rush, Sean H & Bill-O support them and what they are doing.

Next, every NeoCon pundit from the beltway should be strapped to a Bradley, Abrams or Stryker as a human shield for the soldiers they have been using as canon fodder for profit.

We will repopulate the force with those who support it and have no skin in the game. We can start with the PNAC crowd and ⅔ of the morons who populate C-Span, Cable News and Conservative radio. The other ⅓ can be sent to Iraq as unembedded political evangelists with "I support Bush" emblazoned on their pink jackets in english and arabic in bright yellow. That ought to get them plenty of opportunities to interact with the locals. Maybe they can win hearts and minds.

After a couple of years we should be fresh out of NeoCon, anti-civil liberty, war-advocating, elitist morons. What a great day it will be. At least they can say they died for what they believe in.

It's time to bring the troops home.☮

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good idea... Posted by: mjabele
A draft? How about a draft copy of Articles of Impeachment.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 22, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am one progressive who does not believe in a draft, especially for the war in Iraq. Let us not forget that this "war" (say: plundering occupation) was started on a pack of lies about WMD and terrorist ties and is being carried out for U.S. control of Mideast oil reserves and the outrageous profiteering by defense contractors and construction conglomerates. In the beginning, Iraq was no threat to America, so fundamentally, this "war" should not exist. Forcing draftees to fight – and die – in this despicable neocon wet dream would be the ultimate in immorality.

I also have a personal reason for opposing his draft: I am the father of one potential draftee who would need one of those medical exemptions for the draft to "avoid" service (as stated in the article). Avoid?! My son's condition would not even let him endure boot camp without seriously risking his health, and possibly his life; but his ailment is not well known, so there is no guarantee that an inhumane and seriously FUBAR'd administration would exempt him. Being drafted could be, for him, a death sentence, whether he sees combat or not.

No, Rangle may think he has the highest purpose in mind, but he would serve the people better if he would devote his energy to exposing the lies, ALL the lies, that got us into this idiotic "war" in the first place, and work to prevent the U.S. from entering – or creating – future "wars" for no good reason.

A draft would just extend and, in a warped way, "legitimize" a "war" which is completely illegitimate and immoral. If Rangle's draft maneuver becomes a draft reality, it will be like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it. Is this the kind of political gamesmanship we want our leaders to play with our son's and daughter's lives? I think not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Militarism + Manichaeanism + Conscription = Peace?
Posted by: rwa on Nov 22, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Matt Barganier

Charlie Rangel and other liberals want a return to the draft on the basis of some ahistorical notion that it will prevent future wars. For one thing, as Scott points out below, no draft would ever be imposed without all sorts of loopholes and exemptions the powerful and politically connected could exploit – and if Charlie Rangel is so convinced the conscription of “fortunate sons” would do the trick, then why not propose a targeted draft? Children of elected officials only…

Not that I would support that, either. It’s quite legitimate to ask why – if this war is so critical to America’s well-being – Jenna, Barbara, Chelsea, et al. (not to mention the children of pro-war pundits) aren’t “serving.” But there’s no justice in forcing Jenna, Barbara, Chelsea, et al. to go kill or die because their parents are a**holes.

The draft should be opposed on first principles of individual rights. Besides, the utilitarian antiwar argument for conscription avoids unpleasant fundamental truths. There’s no quick procedural fix for American militarism. Radical cultural changes are necessary to shift this country from an aggressive, imperial posture to a defensive, noninterventionist one. Switzerland is a peaceful country with no expansionist tendencies; Israel, not so much. Mandatory military service in both countries is a rights violation, of course, yet it leads to very different results because Switzerland and Israel have very different societies. Anyone want to guess which of those two societies American elites (and, it must be said, many, many regular folks) believe we should be more like?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]