Ted Rall does a pretty good job of rounding up the facts of what’s going on with the Selective Service System these days in addition to speculating about whether or not the draft will be reinstated and when.
The draft has been on my mind a lot since just before the United States invaded Iraq because I’m in that 18-26 age bracket that the draft applies to and happen to think that the war in Iraq is pointless and morally reprehensible.
I’ve always thought that not having a draft was a good way to keep a nation’s imperial ambitions in check because before they invaded another country it would be necessary to figure out if they have enough troops to make it happen. Apparently that check didn’t work out so well this time, though. Now the U.S. is in a situation in which I think it’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t have the boots on the ground needed to accomplish its objectives, so if things heat up more (or if we invade another country) I don’t think it’s unrealistic to believe that the draft could be reinstated.
There is, undoubtedly, sexual and economic factors that play into the draft. Only men are drafted, and those men tend to be from lower classes because men of higher economic classes can afford the easiest way to get a deferment: college enrollment. This economic underpinning has an inevitable racial impact as minorities generally make less money than whites.
I’ve noticed that there seem to be three schools of thought when it comes to the draft:
- Those who think that the draft is always wrong because nations should not be fighting wars that do not have popular support and a war with true popular support would not, theoretically, need a draft.
- Those who think that a draft is wrong in an “unjust” war–Vietnam is the most common example–but is acceptable in a “just” war–World War II being the most common example.
- Those who think that the draft is always acceptable because if you live in the United States you should be willing to defend the United States in all of its endevors.
If you indulge your fear and pessimism for a moment, it’s not hard to imagine a situation in which the war in Iraq (or potential conflicts in the other places where the United States is at tense odds with another country, like North Korea) could become a “just” war. For example, I think most people would support invading North Korea if they nuked Portland (in which case, come to think of it, many of you wouldn’t have to worry about the draft any more) or letting slip the dogs of war on Syria if a Syrian terrorist let loose some nasty chemical or biological weapons in, say, Washington D.C.
But what if Syria attacked Israel, or North Korea attacked South Korea or Japan? I think more people would call the subsequent invasion a “just” war and wouldn’t have a problem reinstating the draft.
I can’t help but think, though, bitterly, that the people who would most vocally support reinstating the draft (even for the current situation in Iraq, but certainly in the case of a “just” war) are people too old to serve or well-off enough that they, or their children, are safely tucked away in college.
So, Alas readers, male and female, left and right, what do you think of the draft? If it comes up, what will you do? Would a change in the situation in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world change your reaction?
Ted Rall article found via Raznor’s Rants..
You need to read the legislation introduced last January by Rep. Ranger and others about the ‘new’ draft legislation. It includes the conscription of women equally with men. So if you are in that age group, you too will be eligible to serve your country and die bleeding in a dusty ditch somewhere at the whim of a dictator. As for my daughter in the same age group, I will drag her to Canada if they come looking for her.
What about those of us who believe the draft is wrong because we think that forced labor, even for a good cause, is immoral? Even if a war has popular support, people can support something without wanting to join it, and so there may not be enough troops to fight every war our people support. I’d go so far as to say I’d rather that a just war I supported not be fought than that any person be conscripted into what I consider to be military slavery. If Syria attacked Israel, I’d be all in favor of the U.S. sending troops there. However, if the only way to protect Israel would be to draft American citizens against their will, then I’m sorry for the people of Israel, but we’ll just have to find another way to help. Slavery is wrong, no matter what the reason or who the enslaver is.
I wouldn’t want my own kids or anyone else’s conscripted to fight Israel’s wars for ’em-we already fund their military machine with our tax dollars. and Syria is not going to invade unless Sharon continues provoking them.
there is an alternative to conscription: it’s called “avoiding war.” that’s the purpose of the UN. in general having a consensus of nations is the best way to avoid wars altogether, sadly ever since the bAdministration gave the giant middle finger to the UN its influence has suffered.
Bush and company will likely reinstate the draft if they “win” election on ’04 and keep the meat grinder of colonial wars going for the forseeable future.
I’m 40. Half my family is career military: there’s a fifth floor on the Pentagon thanks to my grandpa. I believe that nations can and perhaps should require citizens to serve their country: for instance, in Australia not voting earns a $50 fine. I’d be happpy to see two years national service for all, men and women. However, I do not believe our implicit contract with our state (yes, I believe in one) can require us to die for it. I refuse that contract. Compelling people to kill and die for their state strikes me as immoral.
I cannot begin to establish philosophical justification for a draft only for “just” wars. Who makes that distinction? How can that compel unwilling death, where unjust wars are not allowed to? I would refuse the concept of a draft if America were invaded. A state that deserves to survive will find volunteers to defend it, as I’m sure America would. As WW II did.
May I offer one quibble with an otherwise interesting post?
College is no longer an acceptable deferment: if your name comes up for SS while enrolled in college, you get to finish up your current semester or, if you’re in your last year, graduate. Then off to war you go.
It’s possible that that would affect the decision-making process about the draft.
I also believe that National Guard service is no longer a sure-out… while we haven’t had a draft since Vietnam, the SS has certainly been working to close the loopholes that made the draft such a mess during that time period.
I hardly expect that the truly rich, connected, or powerful would be unable to maneuver their children out of harms way, though.
I’m in line with the second option: Those who think that a draft is wrong in an “unjust” war–Vietnam is the most common example–but is acceptable in a “just” war–World War II being the most common example.
War sucks, but sometimes it’s just. And sometimes the draft is needed. In an ideal world, an all-volunteer military would be able to handle long, drawn-out wars. In reality, fewer people seem to volunteer when things start getting dangerous.
Disclaimer: I’m a 37-year-old woman with two young children. I can think of only two family members right now who are of draft age or who will be in the near future.
I’m just barely out of the draft age and have siblings (not children) who are still in that category.
I feel we should either have mandatory enlistment for a set period of time (ie- you serve 2-3 years when you are 18-21), college or not, male or female (maybe exclude pregnant women and those physically disabled), or no draft at all, complete free will.
Think about it…
By and large, as a culture, North Americans are obese, lazy, addicted to creature comforts and selfish. Hard, back-breaking labour and taking orders is a good, character building experience for all of us. The possibility that during that time you may actually have to serve in combat would make everyone think carefully (one would hope) before casting their vote.
I say if you’re old enough to vote, you’re old enough to possibly die over the decisions that your elected government has made. And it would elminate the problem we have here in Canada, which is simply that we do not have enough people to draw on if we were to enter a conflict.
Mandatory enlistment (as I understand it, and I’ll admit my understanding is limited to the very simple basics) gives a country a large base of reserves to draw on if nessecary.
Did anyone remember Heinlen’s Starship Trooper’s (the movie) where you had to serve in the army to be a citizen?
When they say 18-26, does that mean 27-year-olds are exempt?
In that case, fuckola, I’ve got a year and a half before I reach the safe zone. At least my boyfriend’s got too many illnesses for them to want him.
I doubt Canada would be a very safe place this time around, as the US has already begun to pressure Canada to cough up AWOL soldiers who run there, and it looks like they might fold. If conscientious objectors started to get serious penalties here or there, I’d take my passport and canoe to Canada, and then get a flight to New Zealand or somesuch as a tourist.
As a Quaker, it’s pretty easy for me to provide the credentials that I’m a conscientious objector. For others Objector.org has good information on what they can do to document themselves before a crisis. Such documentation is very useful for convincing the US Military, as well as for asylum in peaceful countries.
Jennifer:
Unless I’m mistaken, you — as a woman — don’t have to register for Selective Service and therefore wouldn’t be drafted.
PinkDreamPoppies says:
Only men are drafted, and those men tend to be from lower classes because men of higher economic classes can afford the easiest way to get a deferment: college enrollment.
As it should be. You see, since we are turning into a country where only the rich can afford to run for elective office, we need to keep our future rulers from harm. Otherwise we’ll have no one to order those lower classes to suit up and fight it out for the good of our fabulous nation.
I’m for the draft as suggested by someone online (I forget who) where the top draft spots (no deferments) going to the kids and grandkids of elected officials, starting with the Executive branch and Congress, next in order of family wealth, etc., with the poorest and least connected last on the list. Then we’d have wars when we really needed them, and a whole lotta negoiating most of the time.
College enrollment is no longer a deferment, and National Guard service isn’t an out, since we’ve already deployed the National Guard. In Vietnam, Johnson enstated a draft specifically to avoid mobilizing the reserves, so things are different now.
The fact is, conscription is an important element in industrial war, so whether we should or shouldn’t isn’t as important as if we do. Clearly, we shouldn’t enter into unnecessary wars, but the Bushies seem to enjoy doing that. But if the war is necessary, and it is major enough to require conscription, then I don’t see too much of a problem with that. What entails a necessary war being, of course, a matter of debate.
You need to read the legislation introduced last January by Rep. Ranger and others about the ‘new’ draft legislation. It includes the conscription of women equally with men. So if you are in that age group, you too will be eligible to serve your country and die bleeding in a dusty ditch somewhere at the whim of a dictator. As for my daughter in the same age group, I will drag her to Canada if they come looking for her.
Even if the new legislation had continued to rule women out, I’d still be elligible for being drafted.
. . .
College is no longer an acceptable deferment: if your name comes up for SS while enrolled in college, you get to finish up your current semester or, if you’re in your last year, graduate. Then off to war you go.
It’s possible that that would affect the decision-making process about the draft.
I also believe that National Guard service is no longer a sure-out… while we haven’t had a draft since Vietnam, the SS has certainly been working to close the loopholes that made the draft such a mess during that time period
I wasn’t aware of the changes made to the draft in its latest incarnation, recently introduced. As I understand it, though, the draft bill was introduced with the intent of dissuading popular support for the war in Iraq, so it would have to close all of the loopholes that made it possible for some of the people in the Administration to have not served in Vietnam.
In reality, I think that in order for a draft bill to pass Congress right now, it would have to change from the essentially-no-deferments form that it’s in now. For instance, I think that the Republicans would argue pretty hard in favor of not drafting women, or at least not drafting them into roles in which they might encounter combat, while using Jessica Lynch and stories of rape as their reasons.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the “finish your semester” rule was changed as well. Do you really think that many of the Representatives and Senators (on both sides fo the isle) would be willing to let their college-age children/nephews/nieces/grandchildren get drafted out of college and so find, in the words of Kipling, “Five thousand pounds of education / Felled by a five-rupee jezail” and all that fall-out that would ensue.
. . .
I tend to agree with Amy Phillips that the draft is a form of forced labor and is, therefore, always unjust. I also very heartily disagree with wookie that forced conscription as a way of determining citizenship would be a good thing. Because while I tend to agree with the sentiment that Americans need more discipline, I don’t think that forced enrollment in the military is the best way to get this “discipline” (in fact, I think it’s one of the worst) and I think that mandatory service would do anything to alleviate the violence-first principle that pervades American culture.
. . .
The fact is, conscription is an important element in industrial war, so whether we should or shouldn’t isn’t as important as if we do. Clearly, we shouldn’t enter into unnecessary wars, but the Bushies seem to enjoy doing that. But if the war is necessary, and it is major enough to require conscription, then I don’t see too much of a problem with that. What entails a necessary war being, of course, a matter of debate.
So what is a “just,” or “necessary” war? I mean, if you’re willing to set up a situation in which I’d be (and you’d be, I assume) packed up and shipped off to war against my will, I’d really like to know what conditions you think justifiably bring about that situation.
two points.
1) Only men are drafted, and those men tend to be from lower classes because men of higher economic classes can afford the easiest way to get a deferment: college enrollment.
yes, it’s interesting that this is changed in the current legislation. the lack of most educational deferrments and National Guard outs rather alters the potential effects (and who might support it)…
2)I’ve noticed that there seem to be three schools of thought when it comes to the draft:
I can think of a fourth school: those who oppose obligatory service, and also war or other aggressive actions, but who feel that having a universal draft (note the absence of entitled outs) keeps the politicians honest — their own offspring and those of their friends and relatives are up for being sent overseas, not just the faceless inner-city masses. if we’re going to have bellicosity at the helm, I want it to feel the price personally…
oops, have to add a third note, for wookie.
Hard, back-breaking labour and taking orders is a good, character building experience for all of us.
this indicates to me a relative naivete about the effects of basic training. most of it is designed to break down the personality, basically through dehumanizing treatment, and rebuild it in the model of an order-nonquestioning worker bee. we’re not talking about some cross-country team here, we’re talking about something that I’m not at all sure is the way to build ideal citizens . . .
I said conscription is an essential part of industrial war. I should have said total war, a relatively recent phenomenon which began with the Levy en Masse in Revolutionary France, which called for a total mobilization of the French population, and continued to a greater extent throughout the great powers in the 19th century, and became unnecessary in times of piece as populations grew. In America drafting civilians for a year or two of service was still common into the late 1950’s, but became unnecessary as the National Guard and volunteer regular Army became sufficient for a peacetime Army, and since the fear of nuclear war kept nations from engaging in total warfare.
I’m not sure of others, but in the event that America is involved in a total war, victory would be necessary to completely ensure survival, thus the war, once in, becomes entirely necessary. As a citizen, I wouldn’t like but wouldn’t object to being conscripted. The thing is, we have a series of mismanaged, useless, unnecessary wars that the Administration is engaging as its pet projects, and that’s the reason why they’d consider a draft. It’s not worth forcing civilians into military service so we can engage in an endless guerila war for the control of the Arabian peninsula.
I realize in the first paragraph I made a messy transition from talking about total war in Revolutionary France to conscript Armies in other nations in the 19th century. Sorry.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that conscription *should* be used to determine citizenship, I was intending to draw a comparison between Heinlen’s Starship Troopers and the discussion at hand. It is an interesting idea, albiet one that is flawed by the current issue at hand.
Is the right to vote an inalienable right (I *think* I’m using that word right), or should the right to vote be earned in some way? That is what I meant to bring up, not that I felt conscription was the answer to that question.
And I apologize as well for not being more clear on what I mean about the value of basic-training … I think what I meant to get across is that even an exercise in pointless labour and brainwashing can have a valuable lesson for anyone, should you (mentally and physically) survive it. It can also be argued that those who do not have the mental capacity to resist brain-washing may benefit in some way from the structure and order that the meta-organization offers.
Sheesh, corporations, politicians and media practice brain-washing all the time, at least in the military I’d *know* I was being brainwashed. They’re many things, but subtle isn’t one of them.
I’m aginnit. My first problem is the completely stupid way registration is handled. When you turn 17 you get a postcard saying that you MAY register at 17 and are REQUIRED to register within 30 days of your 18th birthday. When you turn 18 you get the same card. Over the course of the next year you get 2 threatening postcards.
Now I ask you….. if they know that you haven’t registered, why don’t they register you automatically? Then, if you had valid reason, you would fill out the form at the P.O. to get yerself unregistered. The way it is now just feels like a trap.
Secondly, I don’t believe that anybody should ever be forced to kill or support an organization with the express mission of killing. Just morally wrong. I’d go to jail before working for the armed forces. Hell, I’d be executed before working for the armed forces. I’m not killing anybody. But that is my set of morals. If you don’t have a problem with it, go ahead and sign up.
As to Heinlein & “Starship Troopers”. You realize that Heinlein’s politics (as put forth in his writing) tended towards fascism….. or at best benevolent dictatorship? Hell, yeah I think voting is an inalienable right. You were born into our society, you are currently a member of society…. so you are entitled to a say in society.
On the other hand, conscription certainly did some good things for our military. The large number of non-career soldiers filtering through made sure that military law & life didn’t stray too far from what civilians feel comfortable with.
But, still, I’m agginnit.
Sorry, I can’t resist playing devils advocate on this one…
What’s wrong with a benevolent dictatorship? Democracy sure as sh*t isn’t benevolent and look where it’s gotten us today! Child poverty, racisim, education is a privelege for the rich… like really, how is a benevolent dictatorship bad in comparison? (provided you don’t happen to fall in dis-favour of the dictator)
Interesting that you peg Heinlen as a facist… while I see where you’re coming from, I think he would have pegged himself as a… what did he call it in “Moon is a Harsh Mistress”… responsible anarchist?
Well, if you can name me one existing benevolent dictatorship I will concede the point. I tend towards believing “Power corrupts, absolute…” yadayadayada. Although I have a hard time seeing any dictator what conscripts as benevolent.
Actually, it’s mostly others who have pegged Heinlein as a fascist. I think of him as an extreme libertarian. Gov essentially controlled by market forces. I think it’s his horrible later novel, “The Number of the Beast” (I think that’s what it’s called) in which that gets pounded on you chapter after chapter. But I could be mistooken.
Heinelein’s an odd creature, at least so far as his politics goes, in that they changed over time. His early works have a very distinct wiff of fascism while over time he moved more toward, as Jake put it well, extreme libertarianism. If I remember correctly, his last few books contained hints of government regulation in them, but I found them, as with most of his work, so unreadable that I wasn’t able to get far before I decided to stop wasting my time.
Still, if one were to read Starship Troopers, an early novel of his, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, from the middle of his career, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset, his final novel, one would get three different views of governance.
I’ve noticed, though, that Heinlein is turning into a sort of science fiction Ayn Rand, one of those writers who was never really a philosopher and who doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but who a lot of people quote as though they were philosophers. I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve met who regard Stranger in a Strange Land as some sort of holy text.
PDP, I can’t be one to judge on that. I regard Cat’s Cradle as a sacred text. But then Vonnegut does rock much more hardcore than Ayn Rand and Heinlen put together.
Jake Squid, read your history, particularly Old Regime, what with the enlightened despots. Like Frederick II and Louis XIV and so on. Not that they were great, mind you, but not horrible. (although neither particularly enlightened nor despotic, but hey, what’s a label?) Of course that’s before mass conscript armies became necessasry for a great power, but the concept of the dictator, as we know the term in the modern sense, really didn’t arise before the 20th century to my knowledge.
Anyway if I’m rambling on it’s because I’m tired. I believe I shall now sleep for several hours and in the morning be coherent again.
I say if you’re old enough to vote, you’re old enough to possibly die over the decisions that your elected government has made.
What about the fair number of us who didn’t vote for the current government? Are we exempt?
If those exemptions applied to the people who didn’t vote for the current gov’t, then they’d have to apply to everyone, if only to preserve the anonymity of voting.
It seems to me, just in reading this thread that the number of reasons to do away with the draft completely exceed the number of reasons I’ve ever heard for maintaining it. There are a couple of things I’d like to add:
I think the threat of “mutually assured destruction” has rendered total war obsolete. I know that the Cold War is over, but the missiles haven’t gone anywhere, or at least anywhere they ought to be. If this is true then we have to think: when was the last time that either the very existence of our nation or the liberties that we enjoy by living in our nation were actually legitimately threatened by a foreign power? It certainly isn’t happening now, and it certainly hasn’t happened in my lifetime. Could it happen? From where I sit it doesn’t seem likely. And if it isn’t happening then I think a volunteer army is enough.
Prohibiting a draft is also a necessary component to discourage imperialism in our own country. It’s a way of saying to our government “don’t let your mouth write a check our asses can’t cash.” Granted that that would also diminish our role as police of the world, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. All I’ve really learned from being the police of the world is that if it’s African on African, then it’s not genocide. I think it would be nice if we had an international body to serve the policing function. Oh, wait… And anyway as regards most dictators, I can’t really see past the SEP field, call me insensitive. The people of those countries aren’t exactly helpless. So until national sovereignty is finally abolished worldwide (would that I were around to see it), maybe we should take care of our own first. And bringing it back around to the draft, well, abolition of the draft would strongly discourage our national hobby of throwing bodies at hopeless, pointless causes.
Actually Louis XIV was horrible, starting with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1687. Louis XVI wasn’t so bad, though they guillotined him for a despot, and Louis XV mainly partied. His funeral cortege was booed.
I believe that every citizen should perform 2-3 years of National Service. I further think that unless one is a Pacifist in every respect, one’s service should be in one of the major branches of the military. I do not think there should be a lottery or a college deferment. Medical deferments should lead to placement in positions where one can perform useful work with one’s condition. Quite simply, every American should serve in the U.S. military for 2-3 years, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Pacifists should have to work for the alloted time + 1 year in a nonviolent form of public service. I believe that people should be free, but I also believe that people owe their nation service through taxes, public service, etc. However, because I do not think we will get a program like this anytime soon, I do not believe that we should have a draft in general (though it may be necessary for this war, which I did not support.)
Louis XV died at an inoppurtune time, and Louis XVI wasn’t able to handle the mounting debts of France and was later executed for treason. Although hundreds of people were guillotined the same year Louis XVI was, mostly for economic charges and for violating the Levy en Masse, but anyway.
Dan J, what you say about mutual destruction doesn’t quite work. It was believed after World War I that any future war would destroy civilizations and destroy great portions of the earth. So we’ve been here before, but that didn’t stop another large war from happening. So although I’d agree that another total war is unlikely, it’s not impossible. Seeing, though, as we are the only superpower if it does happen, it’s probably at least, say, 40 years off. And then anyone who would be drafted aren’t even born yet, so ha ha ha.
MDtoMN – I’m curious: what civil service roles would pacifists be forced to serve in, how would one’s pacifism be determined, and why would they have to serve one year longer than everyone else? Are pacifists to be punished for not being willing to kill people?
Raznor – I wouldn’t necessarily agree with your assessment that since the U.S. is the only superpower that a total war, akin to the Great War, is not likely to happen for another 40 years. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if one sprang up in ten. I mean, we hear all the time about how “no possible alliance of nations could defeat the United States right now,” but we also didn’t expect a bunch of rag-tag Iraqis to be able to knock us around in the Middle East.
Regarding those rag-tag Iraqis, that’s what happens in guerilla warfare. The guerillas have really no hope of defeating us militarily, but they can and are making Iraq ungovernable, which may cause us to leave for political reasons (hopefully).
40 years was pulled out of my ass, I admit. Going back to the World War I scenario, who would have thought after Germany’s defeat in 1919 that they would rebuild their war machine and take over most of Europe in a mere 20 years?
Reinstating the draft to fight in Iraq would be political suicide for every politician who voted for it. At the end of the day, that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, but I hope it won’t. If Bush wants to invade somewhere, he should use the people who volunteered to join the army. That’s why they volunteered.
Reinstating the draft to fight off an invasion or potential invasion would not be political suicide, and would, in fact, be a good idea. If China were to ally with or annex (I know this is improbable, despite the fact that the Chinese run the Panama Canal) portions of South America, and start working their way up through Central America, I would support a draft. And if you didn’t want to serve, you would be free to leave the country to avoid arrest.
As members of a nation state, we owe certain duties to the state – one of which is to defend the state, if it is necessary. Whether it is necessary isn’t up to you, that’s why we have elected officials. Whether we need a 100,000 people to repel the invasion or 500,000 isn’t your decision – it is the decision of the career soldiers in the military, and the elected officials.
If it is a choice between watching the annihilation of the US because people were too frightened to volunteer (and war is scary, who can blame them?) or conscripting people to fight to defend it, my choice is the continuation of our country.
And conscription isn’t slavery – at worst it is a period of indentured servitude – slavery is a very loaded word. Conscription is as much slavery as imprisonment, and yet I don’t hear people saying that no one should be imprisoned. Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to, because you live in a nation state, not in the wild.
I don’t really buy the whole pacifism argument either. Ok, you are fundamentally opposed to killing. Fine, you work for the quartermaster, or drive a desk in headquarters. Are you part of the great green killing machine? Sure, but you are if you pay taxes too. Until there is a pacifist nation somewhere, or you live completely underground, you will be part of the killing. But in exchange for living in the US, you can publicly and loudly proclaim your opposition to any war, and to the one in Iraq in particular. You’d probably be happier in a society where everyone already agreed with you, but there isn’t one. In exchange for paying taxes, serving under the draft and obeying the law, you get to work to create a pacifist society here. That’s the best deal you’re going to get anywhere.
Although I don’t agree with MDtoMN that pacifists should serve extra time, the army doesn’t differentiate whether you work at HQ or on the front line – you are a soldier if you serve, whatever your contribution may be.
If it is a choice between watching the annihilation of the US because people were too frightened to volunteer (and war is scary, who can blame them?) or conscripting people to fight to defend it, my choice is the continuation of our country.
I agree, but I also think that if it were to come to that point, we would not necessarily need the draft. Boys were lying about their ages to draft boards after Pearl Harbor, after all, just to get into the war. Obviously this is a different day and age, but most young Americans seem pretty adamant about defending their country against actual attacks. It’s the sort of war we’ve been fighting lately that I take issue with.
I don’t really buy the whole pacifism argument either. Ok, you are fundamentally opposed to killing. Fine, you work for the quartermaster, or drive a desk in headquarters.
I can’t speak for people who are true conscientious objecters, as I’m fairly certain I don’t actually fit the definition. I would find it morally reprehensible to be ordered to kill over certain things the current administration deems as important or worth it, but if it were a choice between prison or the quartermaster, I’d take the quartermaster any day. I have no record or history of objection to war beyond finding it generally horrible and usually unnecessary; i.e. I do believe that while war is fair from the ideal solution, some have been necessary, specifically WWII. Actually that may be the only major war I would have agreed with at the time. Perhaps the Civil War. At any rate… I’ve lost my train of thought. Back later I suppose ;)
Tor, read the Rall article, he argues that Bush would be saving the draft for after re-election for pet projects in Syria and North Korea. Maybe he wouldn’t, but it’s entirely plausible. I don’t want to go into another Korean war (I always wanted to visit Southeast Asia, but NOT LIKE THIS) when we could avoid conflict with Korea if Bush would take an actual diplomatic approach to foreign policy. Anyway, this has been a rant, I know. But dammit, I’m pissed!
Darcy, although people were lying about their age to go to war, a draft in this country was still necessary in World War II (in fact even started before we even entered the war). So if America’s survival was at stake, a draft would still be necessary.
I’m reminded, for my history class I recently read an article about a couple of British upper class people who volunteered for service in the Officer Corps during World War I for noble ideological reasons, like honor and country and all that. But they were given command over mass armies of conscripts, who thought that these British officers were crazy beyond comprehension for actually volunteering to enter this bloodbath. Just thought that was interesting.
Tor writeth: “I don’t really buy the whole pacifism argument either. Ok, you are fundamentally opposed to killing. Fine, you work for the quartermaster, or drive a desk in headquarters. Are you part of the great green killing machine? Sure, but you are if you pay taxes too.”
There is a difference between the US government & the US military that I note. Perhaps you don’t & that’s OK too. But just to make my thinking clear here: the major (if not sole) mission/issue/point of the military is to kill people, while the military is one of the things supported by tax $$$$, killing people is not the major mission/issue/point of the government is other than that of killing people.
Sure, if I could find a way to pay only the tax bucks that fund things other than the military, I would. But it doesn’t really seem possible.
And how, precisely, do you force pacifists to serve in the military? Sure there are some who will fire weapons & even more who will willingly work non-combat – but what about those of us who won’t do either? I remind you that Quakers have historically been exempt from the draft if they so chose. Maybe it’s just that you don’t really believe that anybody can truly be a pacifist? If so, there ain’t much we can say to one another.
Darcy, although people were lying about their age to go to war, a draft in this country was still necessary in World War II (in fact even started before we even entered the war).
Of course, you’re right. I’m the lamest history major ever. It’s not my fault, I have that damned flu! You don’t know how many times I had to retype “necessarily” in that post.
“… killing people is not the major mission/issue/point of the government is other than that of killing people.”
Wow, did I screw that sentence over.
the major mission/issue/point of the government is other than that of killing people
is what that sentence should have been.
Our Declaration of Independence guarantees us the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, a draft takes away the our right to life and gives it over to the government, how can the draft be right when it takes away the one right that should be held sacred: life?
Our Declaration of Independence guarantees us the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, a draft takes away the our right to life and gives it over to the government, how can the draft be right when it takes away the one right that should be held sacred: life?
I think what I meant to get across is that even an exercise in pointless labour and brainwashing can have a valuable lesson for anyone, should you (mentally and physically) survive it.
“O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
That’s what I think about brainwashing and pointless labor. Obviously, you have never worked in fast food.
Pingback: Open Source Politics: United States
Pingback: GDay Mate