Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
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

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
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"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!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

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 World! 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]

Mr. Roberts
Posted by: ps2987 on Nov 22, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I see the movie Mr. Roberts I feel a certain similarity between my experiences in the Navy and the events in the movie. We need more people in the services who will question and resist things when necessary and not blindly follow idiotic orders. I think a draft would help that happen.

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

They are missing the point
Posted by: bookwoman on Nov 22, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Mr. Rangel's point is that, with a draft, there is more of a chance of the children of influential people to end up in uniform and under fire. With that scenario, maybe the powers that be would think twice about starting another war.

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

those daring young folks in their rickety chairs
Posted by: jbcm2 on Nov 22, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I simply am in despair when I read articles and comments like these -- so many folks have already pointed out that an all volunteer army is dangerous because of the compliance and careerism that it promotes. National service is needed in times like these to act as a further restraint on politicians who have to face the wrath of mothers and fathers. All I see here is a lot of selfish nonsense. Of course, if you want to argue that this country isn't worth fighting for, then you have some grounds. And let's be clear -- thousands of young men refused to serve in Viet Nam and they were one of the reasons that there was so much protest, that, and having you kid blown to smithereens -- but all we hear now is how proud most of these surviving parents are that their son or daughter made the ultimate sacrifice, etc, ad nauseam. Of course, you can always pursue that pipedream of no more wars! Unfortunately, for this pampered lot no real sacrifice is called, either service or resistance -- here it's let the other asshole do it, a typical American attitude -- not a courageous face in the mob.

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

Correction on Rangel
Posted by: xi_people on Nov 22, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me correct a misapprehension I see running through this thread: Rangel is NOT proposing this bill to prevent further conflicts, but rather to ensure them. Please note that Mr. Rangel has never called for an immediate end to the Iraq occupation, nor has he even openly advocated for a timetable to bring the troops back at all. Worse yet, he is not a proponent of utilizing Congress' mandated power to simply stop bankrolling this disaster, and thus end it in that fashion.

No, Mr. Rangel has stated that he wants more troops, ostensibly for "policing the world," though he didn't put it in those stark terms. Why would you need more troops, other than to fight more wars?

All those parents out there reading this who have draft-eligible children, please understand that if this bill passes Mr. Rangel will have consigned your beloved offspring to become bullet fodder in the Imperial Army. He can talk all he wants about making "the playing field even" in terms of the social classes of draftees, but what he is in effect doing is giving the warmongers more warm bodies to play with.

Rest assured that Mr. Rengel, a legislator for 30+ years and the consummate "insider," knows exactly what he's doing. By introducing draft legislation as an "anti-war" democrat, supposedly in a "good cause" he is forcing the issue out into the national discourse. Of course, once the idea has been bandied about by the talking heads, it will no longer be shocking to hear it. That's his objective. The bill might not pass, but the Pandora's box the discussion has opened cannot be shut again.

Remember that Mr. Rangel, who never saw a camera he didn't try to pose in front of, has led a long, extremely gilded life as a legislator and he wants an Imperial Army to ensure that he and his ilk can continue to live like Kings by securing the last remaining large sources of oil. Bottom line: that's what this is all about - forming an military large enough to intimidate the world, which has been less than impressed with its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

» RE: CORRECTING Correction on Rangel Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Oh ... "whatever." Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Correction on Rangel Posted by: veive
» RE: Correction on Rangel Posted by: xi_people
» "Sharing the Pain" Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Two problems . . . Posted by: JCR
» Yes ... exactly !! Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Rangel= Monster Posted by: rwa
HitlerYouth
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 22, 2006 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mussolini had them, Mao had his cultural warriors, Russia had them, Cuba had them, Chavez has them. All totalitarian states seek to gain access to the youth to mold them into believing the state's, or dear leaders, message and propaganda. This is the primary purpose of the public schools also, in indoctrinate youth. Until recently though the indoctrination was based on local controls and ideas. Now they are seeking to control the schools on a national level. We are becoming a police state in which you are either a part of the system or the abused. They are building watch towers in Harlem! They are having a huge police presence on I-40 this weekend (an officer every 10miles from NorthCarolina to California!) They want use to 'get used' to seeing cops and military everywhere.....stop the police state now!
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=64500
http://www.kristv.com/global/story.asp?s=5715701

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

"Ask not what your country can do for you,
Posted by: veive on Nov 22, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask what you can do for your country." When JFK spoke those words most Americans deserved the nation that others fought and died to secure. Nowadays we're largely comprised of selfish assholes who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. To them, patriotism is for suckers. This is why the nation is in decline. We've had our time and it's about over. If you don't think you owe anything to your country why bother having one? What's this allegiance crap? Grab what you can while you can.

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

Voting with our lives
Posted by: Gaubladt on Nov 22, 2006 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We now live in the most perfect of worlds. We are allowed to vote for or against any existing conflict by choosing whether or not to enlist. The fact that all these right wing bible thumpers haven't beaten the trail to their local recruiter constitutes a resounding vote against their Iraqi adventure. The next step is to pack up and get the hell out of Iraq now!
If the American people didn't tolerate the abuse of reservists or the use of mercenaries, US involvement in the Iraq war would probably have ended by now as well.
Don't forget that without a draft, there couldn't have been a Vietnam War.

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

Draft: Imperial Cannon Fodder
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Nov 22, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" 'You bet your life', says Charlie Rangel when asked if he's still prepared to reinstate the draft." As the father of a 19 year-old son and a 17 year-old daughter, and a draft resister during the Vietnam war era, my Congressman (and I voted for him) is not going to bet on my kids' lives to fill the ranks of the armed forces to enforce the U.S.'s imperial ventures.
Bug off Rangel; over my dead body you will reinstate the draft.
Shame on you, Charlie! You seem to feel genetically disconnected from your ancestors, most of whom were victims of involuntary servitude; you know Charlie, slavery.

Dennis Dalrymple
Upper Westside, NYC

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

Not a chance
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 22, 2006 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The draft doesn't "level the playing field", it only pretends to. I know, I was one of those who avoided it during Vietnam.

It's true that a draft makes for a much more passionate peace movement, and I think that's what Rangel's really after. But he's being too clever by half: it really just makes him look like a traitor and a fool.

The draft is really "involuntary servitude" = SLAVERY. The only excuse is a real war of self-defense, which is not on the horizon.

The real reason we didn't, and wouldn't, have the "universal service" you're talking about is that it's far too expensive. They don't need all those people and can't afford to carry them or find work for them, so they get selective and let out the ones who have the clout or are undesirable. That's why the WWII experience is misleading: they really needed as many as possible.

My generation ended the draft, we're still here, we remember, and it's our kids you're talking about drafting. It would produce instant, effective rebellion. Rangel isn't that stupid - he's fooling around, and he shouldn't.

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

» RE: Not a chance Posted by: staringatthesun
Ok, let's do it - no exceptions!
Posted by: JCR on Nov 22, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll accept a draft when NO ONE is exempted except for those with physical limitations. The thing is that men AND women must be included in this fantastic scheme. I believe Rangel mentioned this and it is an important point to make. One can argue that men start wars so it is men who should fight them but that tired argument is wasted when one considers that Condi and Hillary were more than happy to send young men and women off to die in the desert.

I refuse to fight for some fascist like Dumbya or Bill O'Reilly nor for some neo-con fuckhead like Anne Coulter or Condi Rice. The reason I mention why it's necessary to draft women, the same as men, is because I cannot for the life of me imagine that I would be in basic training with a certain set of "first twins" . . . . Of course the most sensible solution is to steer clear of wars of aggression to begin with but as we can't seem to manage that . . .

I've got another idea - let's send the old men (especially those who dodged the draft in the past) to fight while the young men sit it out and have the same opportunity to grow old and raise their children.

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

» RE: Ok, let's do it - no exceptions! Posted by: oregoncharles
National Service, not draft
Posted by: ggmurray on Nov 22, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people have suggested that America needs a 2-year period of national service for young people between the ages of 18-25. There could be a choice of military service or some kind of Peace Corps or Americorps service at home or abroad. The benefits to the young people would be immeasureable - a chance to travel, test themselves, and grow in a totally different environment - before committing to jobs, life careers, marriage, college or graduate school. The corresponding benefits to the country would likewise be ongoing: energetic young people put to work solving all kinds of human and environmental problems.

Think what an infusion of energy and hope this would bring!

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

» RE: National Service, not draft Posted by: may261989
Unanswered questions
Posted by: davidbdr on Nov 22, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I served voluntarily in the US Air Force during the mid 1980's. I am not against a person serving in the military. My questions are this:

1) How exactly does throwing more bodies into a military used by this and former governments for wars based on lies to protect and gather resources for corporate greed actually reduce the possibility of their use? I see salivating over the possibility of unlimited numbers being the real end result.

2) who gets to choose between civil service and military? Given a free choice, I would expect most would choose the safer civil service leaving the military short once again. I guarantee that the "more educated" will get the civil service assignments and us poor slobs who couldn't afford college or just didn't make the grades to end up being more flesh bags to stop bullets. Gee thanks.

The statement that many other countries have mandatory service leaves out one simple fact. Of those countries, how many use their military for purely defensive purposes and how many send them at every opportunity into other countries on mad campaigns? If it weren't for the ridiculous "coalition building" so often used by the Bush war family, I think there would be a very short list. Those who have been sucked into the idiotic Iraq fiasco now find themselves facing an irate citizenry.

Rangel is playing a idiotic political game. I think this is all about showing that Democrats are just as supportive of the military if not more than the insane Republican Party. This is just another of the many reasons I left the Democratic Party last year. When I actually see the party show a spine and actually oppose corporate America and think about the needs of the masses, I will change my mind. The one thing you can be certain of with Centrists. As long as they straddle the rail, they will never do anything to upset their balance.

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

Politics are always deceptive
Posted by: staringatthesun on Nov 22, 2006 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Rangel's real intentions may be those discussed in this article, a social leveling of the armed forces, I am of the opinion it probably is not. Rangel wants us out, he has said this will get us out by forcing the politicians to realize the weight of their decisions. Then maybe we need to look at this a little bit differently. If the draft were re-instated we would probably have a reaction similar to that experienced during Vietnam, great social outcry. Only it would be much more sudden. Realizing our brothers and sisters are being arbitrarily selected to go stand in the line of fire would we not cry out. We have vocal resistence to volunteers being sent, how can we think then that we would not have a much more overwhelming response to forced service overseas? This I think is what Rangel is hoping to see. Hoping it will play out this way because it will suddenly be shockingly clear how much we do not like this war as a people. Taking us off Iraqi soil sooner and hopefully saving the reputation of the American people in the international community.

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

I must have woken up in a parallel universe
Posted by: may261989 on Nov 22, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cant believe some of the shit I'm reading here. A draft for all American's? and progressives are talking about it?
What the fu*k?!
My suggestion is that whoever says the word draft should be the first to sign up along with their children ( if they have them) and go straight to the front lines. Then we can talk. I figure folk may be a little reluctant to suggest such a thing if their flabby arses end up in harms way.
Yeah sure, we hear about how military service brings a bit of discipline into a wayward youngsters life. Good grief, that old chesnut, people who join the American military become pawns for the neo-cons world chess game , nothing more.
While living in Europe, Dutch and German friends always said what a load of crap their national service was. A complete waste of time, you generally ended up cleaning hospital floors or painting schools as the regular army wanted nothing to do with a bunch of people forced into service. The alternative of course is sending a bunch of kids whose lack of motivation means they should be cleaning hostpital floors or painting schools to Iraq.

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

what the...
Posted by: Cornfused on Nov 22, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives support the draft....what poll did I miss?...am I a progressive? My head is swirling....Is the author an idiot?...a republican with a secret agenda. I couldn't bother to read the rest of the tripe....ok...kick me for it and tell me that I'm wrong not to read it...then I will read it...and I will say... Progressives support the draft....what poll did I miss?...am I a progressive? My head is swirling....Is the author an idiot?...a republican with a secret agenda. I'm assuming this is a mistake or I woke up in bizarro world or there are folks playing political games with people's lives..."yah...drafting folks and having them killed will really teach us a lession"....worked before in that other war. How about just pull out? I know it is risky...

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

» RE: what the... Posted by: rwa
Zip-code draft
Posted by: AndyF on Nov 22, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we're going to consider a draft let's make it interesting. If you're a congressperson and your kid is draft age they get such a low number that it guarantees that they'll be drafted and a MOS which guarantees combat. If you're in a district where your congressperson voted for the war you get a low number.

Set up a system which will guarantee that the warmongers have to get some skin in the game and that they can't experience war vicariously - instead they can see what it's really all about. And if you want to make it really fun, allow people to buy their way out, but make it expensive - at least the equivalent of 4 years at an Ivy League school and publish the names of everyone who buys their way out. If we did this, I'd be willing to bet that the US would rediscover diplomacy and get real creative in solving problems rather than using war as a first resort.

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

» RE: Zip-code draft (nice) Posted by: aburritt
http://www.nodraftnoway.org/index.shtml
Posted by: rwa on Nov 22, 2006 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We believe:

Youth have the right to resist conscription to serve in an illegal war of conquest and occupation. They have a right to refuse to be inducted, to refuse to register, and to defy the Selective Service System and any form of the draft. The government has no right to force youth to fight wars driven by corporate greed and an agenda of global empire.
Young people have the right to expose, resist, and drive off military recruiters who come onto their campuses or into their neighborhoods to lie to them and exploit their economic hardship in order to drag them away to fight on behalf of Wall Street. While many people, including ourselves, recognize that the return of the draft is a real possibility, it is also important to realize that there is already an economic draft, that forces youth from disadvantaged communities into the military because of the lack of job training and education. Addressing the issue of military recruiting must also include challenging racism, economic inequality, and all forms of oppression and exploitation.
Members of the military have the right to refuse to obey criminal orders to fight in an illegal war of aggression. The antiwar movement has an obligation to support members of the military who resist. We not only support those who resist--we encourage this resistance.

copy and paste title line for info

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

Put Barbra Bush (24y/0) in my Platoon
Posted by: LtL on Nov 22, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That bitch is hot

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

» OH C'MON !!! Posted by: may261989
And the alternative?
Posted by: dkm on Nov 22, 2006 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a lot of posts against the draft based on how it would affect them or their families. This is the whole point of reinstating the draft. If what the military does affects you, you will be a whole lot more active politically seeing to it that the military doesn't let itself get involved in anymore stupidity like what we have now.

As for the objections that there will still be discrimination based on socioeconomic status, I wonder if it can be any worse than it is now? Now the upper levels don't serve at all. With a draft they would at least have to go through basic training, and remember what happens to officers who don't look out for their men.

It's not the draft that we have to attack. It's the way the whole military thinks and behaves. Civilian armies are a lot better behaved than mercenary armies.

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

A dissenting view on the idea of national service...
Posted by: mjabele on Nov 22, 2006 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most of those posting here, I'm firmly against the idea of a draft, but admittedly mystified by the amount of opposition put forth to the idea of any sort of national service for young people, whether compulsory or "incentivized" in some way by the state. Most of this opposition seems to be expressed in terms of how this would "limit personal freedom", represent a form of "serfdom", or cause resentment among young people who may not want "to be controlled".

Philosophically speaking, it seems to me that much of the business of living entails accepting a variety of limitations on one's personal freedom, both minor and major, many of which we may be opposed to personally and many of which may arise from circumstances quite beyond our control. On the one hand, we follow traffic rules - or at least most of us do - on our way to work; on the other, we accept the obligations imposed on us, both financial and personal, by aging parents and growing children. Ensuring the proper upkeep and education of the latter, I might add, is not merely a personal obligation, but a societal and legal one as well, regardless of whether the child was desired or is well-behaved (!). We accept - or, once again, most of us do - our financial obligation to local and national government by paying taxes, and give our time to serve as jurors when called upon to do so, even though it may temporarily conflict with personal or work-related responsibilities.

Why so much fuss, then, about the idea of having young people give 1 or 2 years to do some sort of national service, either military or non-military? Do we think our young people are, as a group, already so civically active and involved that this is unnecessary? Do we think that the process of growing and maturing into adulthood only requires "limitations" on one's freedom up till age 18, at which point individuals suddenly ripen on the bough into fully mature adults, unlikely to benefit from any further constraints on their conduct whatsoever, whether state-imposed or otherwise? I certainly wouldn't argue for the latter based on my own personal experience of being an 18-year-old...!

Considering that many progressives argue for things like universal health care and more environmental regulation/protection - both of which I support, but which would arguably place even more constraints on my own personal freedom - it seems a bit strange to me that we're so willing to let our youngest citizens - most of whom are not yet paying significant taxes or raising families - more or less entirely off the hook in terms of civic responsibility. Perhaps this explains to some extent why they've been so much less politically involved in recent decades compared with their elders, up until this most recent election.

I can't help but wonder, by the way, to what degree their increased participation a few weeks ago was related to the perception that a draft might in fact be looming.....

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

That was one rambling, incoherent and inaccurate article
Posted by: aburritt on Nov 22, 2006 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion, this is an incoherent article, which basically just asserts over and over, that a fair draft is impossible, end of story. Let’s not enact a draft because it would be impossible to be “fair.” Instead, lets just pay out more money so that the poor will still fight and die for the rich who are making the policy.
This article is also quite inaccurate, when it is not apparently cutting and pasting text from other sources. (See paragraphs 4-7 which I would bet came from a different writer altogether.) Any number of privileged young men fought and died in WW2, including Joseph Kennedy Jr who died while flying a bombing mission(the single most dangerous place to be in WW2), not sitting in some cushy Naval desk job as the writer claims. It’s true that his brother Jack took that cushy Naval position......right up until the Jap destroyer ran over his boat and, after a miraculous survival, he ended up with severe back pain for the rest of his life until someone blew out his brains. And then there is WW1....I guess it was all just our collective imagination that this war physically wiped out much of the aristocracy from all the nations involved. And then there is the Civil War, which the author sums up with this statement “The draft in the Civil War was limited by 179,000 blacks enlisting.” What the hell does that mean?
The Vietnam War, which is the most relevant historical parallel to our current situation, is where the author is at his most bizarre, saying “people believe that a draft would limit political options” (ie require politicians to not engage in immoral and aggressive wars without massive backlash) and then attempts to refute this by stating that this is “unproven.” Why is this “unproven?” Well, “After all, there was a draft during the Vietnam War.” And what the hell does that mean?!! It was precisely the draft which galvanized opposition to this war and which ultimately doomed it. Why do you think the Bush Administration and the Neocons have no interest in reestablishing a draft? Unlike people like John Kerry, the Neocons actually learned their lessons from Vietnam.
The current situation in the US is one in which a mercenary army exists which has been set overseas to invade and destroy another country with no legal or moral justification. Because the majority of young Americans aren’t being required to die for this war, and because their financial burden for this war is being hidden for another day, Bush and the Neocons have not been impeached and prosecuted.
By all accounts, the current volunteer army is being stretched to its limits. The author’s response is to continue a mercenary army of the poor, just pay them a little more to make their wounds or death more acceptable.Regardless of how many draft-aged children the writer may have, I think this article, given its constant claim about being concerned with fairness, is simply absurd.
Incidentally, I’m not convinced that a draft would necessarily bring a conscience to the political elite and the chickenhawks who promote unjustified wars, as envisioned by some draft proponents. On the other hand, it WOULD lead to an sudden and pressing desire among the middle and upper class youth to learn what is really happening to their country (Vietnam.) It would also significantly increase the level of anger among the older generations who, in addition to having significant educational, financial and political power, would be confronted with the possibility of the criminal murders of their own flesh and blood. At that point, calls for impeachment and criminal prosecution would become mainstream, and future wars of naked aggression would probably become much more problematic.

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

Twilight Zone
Posted by: slydad on Nov 23, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you people must be living in the twilight zone or something.

The only people who have suggested having a draft are the Democrats and that's the only place that the debate seems to be. Our military is far from being over extended and folks are enlisting in record numbers. The only place where we're over extended is where the Democrats are sabotoging things.

You people are arguing about something that isn't in any military plans right now and probably won't be. The war in Iraq can and will be won with an all-volunteer military. Hell, I'd enlist right now if my wife would let me.

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

Good Arguement, except.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 23, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you draft everyone during war, it better be a necessary war or the ruling elite is going to have major political problems, a.k.a Vietnam style protests and riots.

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

Why we need the draft
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 23, 2006 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes the naive attitudes of the anti-war movement leave me shaking my head. Look, people: better reasoned arguments are not going to end this (or future) wars, no matter how passionately you call for Bush's impeachment is not going to end this war. The only way you are going to end this and future wars is by ensuring that the pain and sacrifice is spread among ALL Americans.

The way it is now, the financially comfortable upper middle class can simply yawn about the prospect of new military adventures. If we had a draft, the next time the politicians would say "we need your Johnny (or Jane) to bring democracy to North Baluchistan", the cry would go up "not MY Johnny or Jane!"

The draft would ensure that the sons and daughters of these upper middle-class Republican suburbanites who support the war, that now THEIR lily-white asses would be on the line.

If we had a draft, with NO exemptions, we would be out of Iraq in 6 weeks.

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

» RE: Why we need the draft Posted by: slydad
addendum
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 23, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read this excellent article supporting Rangel:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1122-24.htm

"Well over 95% of Americans, including Congress and White House staff, have no personal connection to this war--no relative or friend serving in Iraq. Over 99% of us have made no sacrifice for this war--we have not paid one more penny of taxes nor shed a drop of family blood. One of my military relatives thinks of it this way: "The American military is at war, but America is not at war."

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

It is only college kids who don't like the draft
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 24, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it is always the most adavantaged who jump all over any calls for a draft, it ignores the simple facts: nobody is offering the poor and uneducated any other leg up in life. I have never seen NGOs step forward and offer a life-changing opportunity to ALL 18 year olds like a draft would.

And just because the draft is a bummer for college kids chomping at the bit to make big cash in the civilian economy doesn't mean the draft is a bad idea. At this point in human evolution, it is the best option on offer. I would love to see something else on offer where poor and the disadvataged don't have to learn to kill to get ahead, but so far nobody is offering anything.

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

junebug
Posted by: junebugg53@aol.com on Nov 24, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article in absolutely right on. I joined the Navy in 1972 and got a good job as an air traffic controller and did not have to deal with the crazy side of the military. But I noticed that the kids who did not do well in school or tested poorly went to sea and chipped paint. The military is just a reflection of our culture and will always have inequities until benifits are increased and a true college education is offered like the program that existed when I got out and went to college. Civil service jobs do not attract the best and brightest ... just look at the idiots running our government.

I rest my case.

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

» RE: junebug Posted by: srjustice
Force and fraud are good strategies?
Posted by: Anarc1ssie on Nov 27, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's start out by remembering that the draft and "national service" of the civilian sort are both forms of involuntary servitude carried out at the point of a gun. That much is incontrovertible.

There are two possibilities to Rangel's suggestion. First, he does want some kind of a draft. The other is that the draft proposal is a fake.

In the first case, the suggestion is that besides throwing money at our perpetually warmongering great leaders, we should also throw bodies at them. You all should be able to imagine what a large, cheap army would encourage. A war with Iran and Syria would be a foregone conclusion. And if your idea is that the draft and the consequent wars are desirable because they will fill the ranks and coffers of your movement, then you're as bad as the people you're fighting against.

In the second case, Rangel and other draft supporters are faking. I disagree vehemently with this way of doing politics. The Left, that is, the people who favor peace, freedom and equality, can't afford faking because it is a way of taking advantage over other people, a power game. It pollutes and destroys their, our own principles.

If you believe in the principles of the Left, which are (or used to be) peace, freedom and equality, and you can think straight, then it is going to be very, very difficult to justify either a real or a fake draft proposal. Rangel is just a politician from the Democratic Party, enough said, but it is pretty depressing to see "progressives" supporting a draft. Can't you people do a little thinking?

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

Some persepective?
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Nov 27, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every informed commentary I've seen on Rangel's proposal says that no one (including Rangel) expects it to pass. The man's just trying to make a point, bring up a subject. There's no need for alarmism.

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

» RE: Some persepective? Posted by: aburritt
Reality
Posted by: srjustice on Nov 27, 2006 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is a draft...It would not level the field for which class of people are on the front lines. If you are rich or educated you will not be in the direct line of fire. The working class (upper-middle class to poverty) make up the majority of the people and it would still be a greater number of these than the rich that would be drafted.

If there is a draft - The rich who are benefitting from war and welfare reform (because Government has to encourage spending on commodities - e.g. food, clothing, etc (where the majority of welfare funds are directed in "programs") to stabalize the economy and the influx of those previously on welfare not contributing to the economy now working and producing for their employers and producing tax dollars) would rise up to demand our withdrawal from Iraq to protect their sons. They realize that while a draft would open more jobs at home, when wartime is over there is going to be a problem economically when our soldiers come home. When there are not enough jobs. You'll have more people than there is already protesting a war that is so simmilar to vietnam (and other wars e.g. WWII with respect to war and reform) that we will have to withdraw.

If there is a draft... It will bring our troops home. This is the whole purpose for talking about re-instituting one anyway.

The U.S. has had enough and our legislaters are trying to get that message across loud and clear.

The working class and the poor have had enough. It's time to get our "population" back into "control".

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

Foolish Idea
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Nov 28, 2006 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Charles Rangel and John McCain are calling for a draft, eh? Why won't both of these bozos enlist? Why does this lousy country need soldiers anyway? Why must we always fight? Why must we support the military-industrial complex whose tentacles reach down to the bottom of our society?
The draft is a foolish idea. As in that old song "War", "Induction, then destruction; who wants to die-" Yes, if you don't know what to do with yourself after high school, join the military, travel to exotic lands and kill people.

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

» John McCain did enlist Posted by: Ayla87
RE: in my opinion
Posted by: symcokid on Dec 21, 2006 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
marinabluff, I think you're on to something there, makes about as much sense as our "DECIDER".

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