The best argument yet for the military "draft"

Basically, he says that if a war is worth fighting, it is worth all of us fighting...
===================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04BROY.html

<snip>
The men and women on active duty today — and their companions in the National Guard and the reserves — have seen their willingness, and that of their families, to make sacrifices for their country stretched thin and finally abused. Thousands of soldiers promised a one-year tour of duty have seen that promise turned into a lie. When Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told the president that winning the war and peace in Iraq would take hundreds of thousands more troops, Mr. Bush ended his career. As a result of this and other ill-advised decisions, the war is in danger of being lost, and my beloved military is being run into the ground.

This abuse of the voluntary military cannot continue. How to ensure adequate troop levels, with a diversity of backgrounds? How to require the privileged to shoulder their fair share? In other words, how to get today's equivalents of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney — and me — into the military, where their talents could strengthen and revive our fighting forces?

The only solution is to bring back the draft. Not since the 19th century has America fought a war that lasted longer than a week with an all-volunteer army; we can't do it now. It is simply not built for a protracted major conflict. The arguments against the draft — that a voluntary army is of higher quality, that the elites will still find a way to evade service — are bogus. In World War II we used a draft army to fight the Germans and Japanese — two of the most powerful military machines in history — and we won. The problems in the military toward the end of Vietnam were not caused by the draft; they were the result of young Americans being sent to fight and die in a war that had become a disaster

<snip>
If this war is truly worth fighting, then the burdens of doing so should fall on all Americans. If you support this war, but assume that Pat Tillman and Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back.

I always judge these things by, would I want my son to have to go & fight?

If not, it is not worth fighting.

it is not worth anyones family. this is a greed war to enrich the criminals in the White House.

Are we really talking about standing armed forces of 10-20 million people? Has anyone even begun to contemplate the costs or the practicality of such a huge force?

And if you're not talking about this big a force, then you're talking about inequalities. Only a few would be actually fighting.

Equal probability of being called to service would be sufficient to distribute the risk/cost -- though I wouldn't mind a rider on the bill to require service for any offspring of US Senators and Congressmen, and the President.

At the front.

Just because there's an equal probability to be selected for a toll doesn't mean there's equal treatment. That's nonsense.

While I adamantly agree that a draft of solely males is appallingly unfair, it isn't sufficient to have a universal draft where only some (2%?) are called upon to make such a service sacrifice.

The only approach that approaches being equitable is a Unversal National Service system, where every citizen is required to perform national service of 18-48 months before the age of 32. Options can include military, Peace Corps, VISTA, Park Service, Public Health Service, and others. If that service is, for example, as an infantryman in a combat zone then that service obigation could be as short as 18 months. If, however, one serves in the Park Service then that obligation might be as long as 48 months.

Everyone. Male, female, rich, poor, white, black, yellow, brown, red, gay, straight, physically challenged, and all combinations. Everyone.

The statement was "randomness reduces inequalities", not "eliminates inequalities."

I'm all for requisite national service for all, regardless of the outcome with the Iraq debacle. But would couple such service with a national health care program and other guaranteed benefits.

One problem with national service, though, is determining who gets assigned to which service. If only a percentage of national service personnel get assigned to military service, then you haven't effectively changed the current Draft mechanism.

... once National Service is universal.

Let's think about the dynamics of an equitable Universal National Service using a simplistic example where an combat infantryman has an 18 month obligation and a Public Health Service volunteer has a 44 month obligation. (Let's assume that annual pay for any service is equal to 2000 times the minimum wage - i.e. a full-time job at minimum wage.) The rich kid might look at the incremental 24 months of service as a greater "opportunity cost" as compared to working for Daddy's cronies at an inflated salary of $250K/year. Thus, the rich kid may be more inclined to choose being a combat infantryman. The poor kid looks at the experience of becoming a Health Care professional afforded by choosing to serve in the Public Health Service - and isn't "giving up" quite as much dollar value of civilian earnings. Because of this dynamic, we arrive at a point where there's an inherent "fairness" dynamic where the greater inequalities in our socioeconomic system are reflected in reverse in a Universal National Service system.

For me, it's almost axiomatic that the people who have the greatest socioeconomic advantages in our nation are those who should have a greater national service obligation. Call it a systematized "noblesse oblige." The current "system" is almost the complete antithesis of this fairness - about as unfair as it gets.


On edit: Oh, and by the way ... given our current overall tax system where the poor-to-upper-middle-class pay a 42-46% tax rate and the wealthy pay a 32-38% tax rate, it's the poor who'd be taxed to pay for a "volunteer" military -- not the people who benefit the most, but those who benefit the least.

Would we be in this situation in Iraq if OPC (other people's chidren), including Senators and Congressmen, were sent to fight and die for our country. Maybe they would read the resolution before they rubberstamp it for sick leaders like George W Bush??

would be sent into combat even if drafted then you are naive. No, it's not worth the risk to my children. People want to volunteer , fine by me.

And if they die fighting for me in Afghanistan, then that is fine by me. I will stay here where it's safe because I am too important to fight and die for my country or any country. Anyway, I have a party to go to tonight and I wouldn't want any military commitment to interfere with my life. Let the volunteers do it. There is nothing in this world worth me volunteering to fight and die for, seems to be the attitude of some.

didn't threaten our sovereignty and/or security. We invaded them without provocation.

2. It isn't worth it on several levels. First the number of soldiers who were compelled to go to Iraq but went with the attitude of serving this country and found 755 of their brethren killed in and out of combat. Second, the military was under-equipped, not being given body armor and other necessary gear to protect them during their occupation. Third, the management of this endeavor is so slipshod that even under-secretary Paul Wolfowitz was off by a couple hundred soldiers in his estimation of the "war" dead, conveys are routinely ambushed by less-than-grateful Iraq citizens, the American politicos have patronized and antagonized these citizens by choosing THEIR flag instead of allowing democracy to prevail and by interfering with the allegedly free press in Iraq.

Just read any post on DU and you quickly get the idea.

And to voluntarily offer one's children as a blood sacrifice for political hubris and lust for power is insanity. If there is an attempt in Congress to resurrect the draft, let there be a worthy debate, a considered argument for and against, not a blank check written in our children's blood.

They can be sent anywhere, anytime because they "volunteered" for it. These troops have been treated like dirt. They were in the hot desert sun of Baghdad without enough water. They are like pawns to be moved around wherever their leaders wish and nobody gives a damn because they don't have a dog in the fight nor a child in the fight. They can go back to the NBA playoffs.

is to cede the argument against the legitimacy of this war and amplify the madness until the bloodshed becomes untenable for everyone? Give the idiot president with electoral/oedipal ambitions a fresh human wave to throw into the hellpit, and hope that enough sons of mandarins (or few enough that people get outraged) get snagged to turn public opinion? That's wrong, utterly wrong. The deployed soldiers need to be withdrawn, not joined by compulsory reinforcements for Dubya's insanity.

and total disregard fo what is being done by a volunteer army, because it does not really concern us - we are safe and protected by those that are "stupid" enough to volunteer - for whatever reason, to become pawns in the military games of some megalomaniacal leader. The idea is that we should not go into any war unless it is to defend our nation and our families. Volunteer armies make it easy for leaders to move them around like little chess pieces. It is not so much an argument for the draft as it is for some sane and legitimate reasoning for going to war to begin with....

to a degree, jibe with yours. Start up the draft to test the resolve of the public, see if this war is "worth fighting." In other words, widen the burden of deaths and see if they'll bear it.

He doesn't waste much time with the fact that this "war" is elective and unnecessary. That fact is the primary crime, from which all other outrages, including the abuse of the currently deployed, follow. Ending the occupation now, thwarting Dubya's cynical ambition and further bloodshed is the solution, not giving him the latitude to indulge his insanity until enough cry "no more!"

Fixing the perils of an all-volunteer force should be done in peacetime, before we're committed to war.

That is your interpretation. Perhaps we would not have gone into Iraq at all, if there were more people that knew they were going to sacrifice. I think that is more the author's argument. I do not know if I buy that but I think it is a better argument than the all-volunteer army.

It's "we" and "they" ... a contradiction of democracy. That's not a 'nation', that's rampant animosity and greed.

same old crap warmed over and served up again.....

anyone who thinks that any child of the rich or powerful will serve in combat is very very naive.


There is not one single argument that can made that will justify the forced enslavement of any human being. The whole 'economic draft' thing is bullshit. The very idea that anyone has the right to sacrifice my child for any war , just or not, is ridiculous.

:) And well said, also, I might add. How could we ever assure there would be an "equal" draft - if indeed there were one? We would still have deferments and the well-to-do would escape doing their share to defend the nation, just as they always have done? It would be a fraud to get the poor and unemployed into the military, just as they did during the Vietnam years?

We should let the volunteer army idea continue, even though they are not equipped to fight a war, even if we needed to? We cannot fight a prolonged war with a volunteer Army, it is plain to see. Yet, if we are not all ready to fight the war, then the war is not worth fighting. That is the basic issue that our Congress should face when confronted with the question of whether or not to go to war.

Do we amend the Constitution to say:

"All Declarations of War must be put to a national vote of its citizens"

I'm getting tired of the same old rhetoric that natural born citizens of the US somehow inherit a de facto debt of service to the nation.

...our young people so they can fight and die in The Great Stupid War! Draft Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell and send them into the fighting. Let's see how they do.

For me and everyone else in my generation. You support the draft, young voters will be mobilized everywhere to take you down.

:)

Not bad... but we take no prisoners. Rangel-types beware. I feel 100% strongly on this issue.

I'm sure you could get all of them to the polls and put on a united front....I'll believe it when I see it.

claims "If elected, I will pursue the draft."

I believe young people will flock to the polls like never seen before. I believe we'd be united like never before. Men, women, Republican, Democrat -- all but the neo-CONs.

All too many young people either refuse to vote at all, vote for Bush, or vote for vanity candidates. As long as the overwhelming majority of young people have as much chance of winning the lotto as serving in Iraq, they and their parents will continue the behavior that got us in Iraq. That roll call on Nightline was easily twice as Hispanic and African American than the proportion in the population.

dsc hits the nail on the head...

---

As long as the overwhelming majority of young people have as much chance of winning the lotto as serving in Iraq, they and their parents will continue the behavior that got us in Iraq.

---

The public need to start taking their political choices more seriously. And mandatory service may be the only way to cattle prod them into doing so.

Will all supporters of a military draft please explain what social programs will have to be cut in order to field an armed forces of 10-20 million?

This is a real world question, not pie in the sky. There is only so much money and the defense budget is already grossly gigantic. I cannot even begin to imagine the cost of a WWII size armed forces.

Every worthwhile program, Social Security and the rest, would have to be axed in afford to finance this monstrosity.

I think you make a good point. However, I think it would be safe to assume that those in college and the wealthy would once again escape having to serve in the military. They could get all the fodder they need from the poor and unemployed - just as they did in Vietnam...
Every eligible person would not serve.

then how will the nation progress scientifically, or in other research areas? Those going to college had deferments for good reason. After a few years of declining enrollment and lower output of highly trained individuals to stay on the cutting edge of various subjects, the quality of the entire society will decline, and that includes the military.

A double edged sword. Draft all and make it equitable or leave deferments in place to ensure the future growth of the society.

(My personal choice would be a draft for all and free, or low-cost, quality education available to all regardless of economic status, but that's a pipe dream)

It's going into the toilet. During world war ii, many more classes of people served, including college students, who just deferred their study.

just as there is no argument for a war. Fruit from the poisonous tree, to misuse a legal phrase I learned on Law & Order.

A draft could act as a deterrent for war. Politicians might be more cautious about starting wars if their constituents and/or their sons and daughters' lives are on the line. Theoretically, requiring conscripts for any war should serve as a brake. Between wars, the volunteer army might hold--or there might be alternative national service--but during wartime, all persons of draft age would be required to serve according to their ability.

the draft has never deterred war before. In theory, if there was such thing as a draft that passes economic barriers, then the draft would deter the people in power from going to war.

The reality is that war, for the United States, is mainly an economic and political decision. Take Iraq as an example, the only reasons we are there are: a)Bush needed to take the focus of the American people off the miserable failure that was his presidency & b)Bush owed Halliburton and other companies a great deal of money for handing him the pesidency.

As long as it holds true that war is the decision of the economic elite, you will never see a rich kid drafted into war.

The solution is not to wash one's hands of the situation but to ensure that the draft makes no exceptions.

To wage war? Or for defense? Where is the threat to America coming from? Russia? China? NK? I really don't see a major threat outside of the manufactured ones that the Bush wars have engendered and perpetuated. What we need is a State Department that is focused on diplomacy instead of an advance PR dept. for these wars of opportunity. The all-volunteer defense forces have served well outside of these unnecessary excursions to consolidate our false authority as in Iraq. Before we hijack the lives of our peace oriented youth to some militarism scheme, we should check our ambitions and rid ourselves of any vestiges of military corporatism.

Grenada. Lebanon. Libya. Panama. Kuwait. Bosnia. Kosovo. Afghanistan. Iraq. Only one of these (Afghanistan) was in answer to a legitimate national emergency. Another two--maybe three if Kuwait is tossed in--were legitimate international emergencies. The rest have been wars of choice--bad choice, usually. Panama is laughingly referred to among the military as "Operation Just Because."

The drive to militarize America is a manufactured notion mostly driven by wrongheaded imperialism. I would allow that some agressions, like Afghanistan may be valid, but even there we have bombed indiscriminately and are loath to identify most of those culpable for 9-11 from the innocents killed.

Any military draft would undermine the 'freedoms' that folks would have us defend. Any conscription of unwilling Americans outside of a national emergency would deny many impressionable young adults the chance to lead a life without aggression. It would result in a generation of warriors resigned to a world at war, with only a rejected few left to pursue a life without weapons or conflict.

Ours is not a nation under seige, in any sense. Even as we face threats from terrorists and uncertainty from North Korea, the United States remains militarily secure and dominant. Our volunteer force is not only sufficient but the nation likely could not afford the increase in ranks that would result from a permanent draft.

We need to encourage service as teachers, tutors, coaches, and mentors. We need more doctors, police and rescue workers. We should inspire our youth toserve in our government, on the city council, on the school board, as mayors, governors. Our country thrives on our philosophers, poets, actors, artists, musicians, atheletes, scientists, and peacemakers.

Do all of these have to begin with military service?

Me Book

Our lead in the sciences has dwindled to nothing. Our literature, arts, music, etc., have all degenerated. Our political life is in the gutter.

Perhaps an era of common purpose and sacrifice would revive the culture of the US. Perhaps.

war has served the purpose of bringing this country together, I keep hoping that humans can evolve past the whole need for killing each other off periodically. I wish we could come together to explore space or to destroy disease. I wish I did not feel the daily need to weep for the suffering of my fellow humans.

I wish...I wish...

But, animal nature is against me. War will always come when overpopulation threatens the balance of resouces. At least until we expand into the stars...

Your posts are a breath of fresh air. Hold fast to your idealism.

I'm striving for a time that savage indignation will no longer lacerate my heart...

(orginal inscription on J. Swift's tombstone: "He has gone where savage indignation will no longer lacerate his heart."

:toast:

I don't think our "animal" nature is the problem, frankly, and I don't think it will go away even if we escape to the stars.

I'm just hoping that escaping to the stars will relieve the pressures of population. This planet wasn't meant have 6 billion of us living here.

As for our animal nature, it wouldn't be a problem if people would admit that we do have it.

Up with mammals! :toast:

:toast:

I love mammals. ;)

Another war of choice--Bush's welcome-aboard gift to the Clinton Administration.

How do you propose to hold the economic elite to the laws that normal citizens have to obey? Especially considering these are the same people who control the military...

From each according to his or her abilities to the common defense according to its needs. ;)

...who writes the laws? Who passes the laws?

Remember, we do not live in a true democracy. We live in a representative democracy...or a Republic. When Plato wrote The Republic, he envisioned a society led by the intellectual elite in this country, we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by an economic elite and until we remove money from politics, the system of privilege (which means private law!) will remain.

You're defeated before you even start. Great politics, there. :eyes:

...is the answer, doesn't mean that I'm apathetic. I've just been saying that in this system, there is no way that the rich will not opt out of the draft.

Personally, I believe in education not conscription.

The best check on an unjust war is nobody showing up to fight it for them.

If the War Machine knows it can requistion more and more bodies, it'll just keep on digging a deeper and deeper hole

I think that if you believe this war is justified, you should go ahead and join up. Really! People who believe that the United States should be killing Iraqis should sign up, no matter what their age. This would alleviate the need for the draft.

So Senators, Representatives, Republicans, warmongers...ready yourselves to stand by your convictions. It's going to be a draft of "the willing".

That sounds like "I wash my hands of this." I think one reason we're in Iraq right now is because the Bushists felt no pressure from the people. Yes, there were demonstrations, but the Bushists did not have to fear the same kind of backlash they might have if the children of their base supporters' lives were on the line.

frightened of any kind of backlash. Why should they be? What kind of effect did demonstrations have? Do you really think that if there is a draft, the Bush kids will go to Iraq? How about the Cheney kids? Or the place your favorite Conservative Congressperson's family here kids?

As for their base of supporters children it took the warmongers killing a hundred thousand of their kids before people started taking to the streets en masse. So, how much death would they be willing to swallow this time? Judging by the comments of middle-class Republicans, quite a bit. Hell, most middle-class Reps think that it is Unpatriotic to question this war and this president at all.

Geez, how many times have you heard "Speaking out against the war harms our troops overseas?" These are normal people spewing this stuff from their mouths. They've been indoctrinated by their t.v. sets.

I should have made that clear. I don't think it's legitimate for a government to start a war without the people's permission and then conscript their sons and daughters to fight it.

But I believe there should be a policy of conscription at the ready once this Iraq mess is over with.

Do you believe that conscripts will actually love this country more because they were forced to serve in the military? I think it would be reasonable to believe that people forced into the military would come out of their service resentful. At least considering my own reaction to authority, I would certainly be resentful.

I would bet good money, that if this country were ever attacked directly that there would be no need for a draft. Millions would willingly serve. The armed services would be overwhelmed with the sheer volume of volunteers.

In spite of the strife within the political system at the moment, I truly believe that most citizens love this country enough to put their lives on the line if their freedom was threatened.

Don't you?

Your argument in favor of a volunteer military in time of emergency makes sense--until you consider that we're supposedly in a time of emergency now (since 9/11) and I don't see people rushing to enlist.

It's not that I think patriotism needs to be instilled. It's that I believe politicians should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. And the people in a democracy must be invested in their government's actions, or the government will take actions in its own interest and not the people's.

...is it actually possible to instill patriotism? I would argue that patriotism is the child of a just government and the product of education. I am a patriot because I love the Constitution that allows me to question my leaders. I am a patriot because I love this land and the spirit of this land. I am a patriot because I believe in the high-falutin', intellectual, atheistic values of our founding fathers.

As for people not flocking to volunteer in the military right now it is because there is no well defined enemy when it comes to terrorism.

The best way to fight terrorism is not militarily. It is economically. Do you realize that this administration has 4 times as many people working on cutting off economic resources to Cuba than it has working on cutting off resources to Al Qaeda? And really, do you think killing Muslims is the way to convince would-be terrorists that their cause is unjust?

The point is to invest the people in their democracy, so the government does not feel free to act in its own interest and to disregard the people's wishes. It's not about patriotism. It's about people's lives and who should be in control of them: the people or the government. If the people are invested in the nation's foreign policy, the government is forced to be cautious with their lives or they'll lose the next election. This may seem counter-intuitive, because it may seem as though with a conscripted army the government calls the shots. But look at the history of conflicts since the all-volunteer army was put into effect and you'll see a history of the government--the executive in particular--getting involved in all sorts of conflicts in every corner of the globe. Would there have been wars in Panama or in Grenada if conscripts' lives were at stake?

Sorry about my misunderstanding. I didn't read your previous post closely enough.

You are arguing that the citizenry would pay closer attention to who they vote for if they understood their lives were dependent upon their vote.

Again, I apologize.

I think you are right. The problem lies within the structure of responsibility for the military. The Chimp in Chief and most regular citizenry have nothing to lose in supporting an unjust war at this point. If everyone were in the military, everyone would have a stake.

Still, I have to think that there is a better way to get people to wake up. I'll have to consider what that is, though...

I'm opposed to war as a first reort, which it has been too often with the volunteer army. Would the Bushists have rushed the nation to war in Iraq if they'd have had every mother and father in the country (or many more than those of the volunteer army) to face for their rashness? It's possible that they would have, but I believe the backlash would have been hard for them to mistake if it came from their base as well as the opposition's.

at home. I will enjoy everything you are willing to fight for but I don't really want to go myself....

...but which one of my freedoms are they fighting for in Iraq?

What is the "everything" that I am enjoying because we have troops fighting and dying in Iraq?

I am trying to play the devil's advocate to a degree. However, I am not pleased with the present setup of the all-volunteer army either. Too many people have good jobs, good homes, bright futures and they want someone else to defend those if the times come. I don't agree with that principle either. There must be a different way????

How do you know what people with good jobs, good homes and bright futures will do? A lot of the good people in the Reserves and Guard have good jobs, beautiful families and bright futures and they invest their time into the military on a regular basis. Who is to say that "When the Time Comes" more people, more regular folks like you and me will not answer the call of our country for willing and able soldiers voluntarily? OBVIOUSLY the Operation Iraqi Oil for Bush is not such a time.

There will not be a rush to join a war..any war. Just as there is no rush at this time to go to Iraq, there would be no rush to go any where else in the world. Just as people "sneaked" off to college to get their deferments during the Vietnam War. :) But perhaps that would be a good thing? We would fight if we were threatened but not at the whims of the military industrial complex. Basically, I lean anti-draft, but I see some inequities that need addressing.

But perhaps that would be a good thing? We would fight if we were threatened but not at the whims of the military industrial complex.

This is exactly my point. :)

Sorry, I must have mis-tagged the quote from your reply Kentuck. The following:

"But perhaps that would be a good thing? We would fight if we were threatened but not at the whims of the military industrial complex."

is a direct quote.

That's what our military is for. But in the Bush league our military is nothing more than a mercenary force to be used to further their corporatism around the globe, from oil interests to weapons proliferation, to domination of military and commercial space.

The election of George Bush and Dick Cheney was a watershed for the military corporations. Both had been stalwart supporters of the multibillion dollar military industry; Bush in his home state and Cheney, wherever he could exploit his tenure as defense secretary during the first Iraq war, and build on his past deal-making with the coalition members.

Bush administration hawks would project U.S. influence around the globe like mercenary carpetbaggers; through intimidation from the force of our weaponry; with our soldiers; and through the supplying of ‘commercial’ armies whenever a commitment of our forces is politically difficult, or prohibited by Congress.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We need more teachers, engineers, care workers, artists. I am not willing to commit generations of our youth to a life girded by preparations to kill others. More responsible would be efforts to teach these young people how to live together in peace.

Me Book

We can talk about a draft when Shrubbie and Rummy and Cheney and Condi and Wolfy and Perle and Rummy and Feith and the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Think Straight get handed a rifle, their kit, and a one-way ticket to Fallujah.

and I have a draft age son, that being said I think there are fundamental flaws with our current draft laws. First it should be every young man and woman, and secondly it should not interupt a young persons college education merely postpone it and thirdly not neccessarily have all to do with striclty military service. If all 18 year olds would have to sign up for the draft or service for this country and be on some type of "call up" for a standard period of time there could still be a voluntary force for combat within that particular group. Better pay and benefits for those who volunteer for the more dangerous jobs. Tax incentives for companies that hire "veterans" whose time in the work force that have been interupted, there are various ways for for a greater percentage of people in this country to protect and defend the constitution of this country, and if you don't think that people would pay more attention to who is elected than not if there was mandatory "civil/military service" your not paying attention. People vote when it affects them. If every young person had to put in time with the possiblity of going to a war you bet they would vote for the best foreign policy guy or gal and so would their parents. Lastly who do you think should save our asses if we the United States were actually attacked by another nation? This war is definetly not the war our children should be giving their lives for, but unless we hold our leaders accountable for their actions these wars will continue. How many repukes would vote for the * if there was a draft, they would have been afraid of his stupidity, and who do you think the nominee would be right now if there was a draft already implemented. Do the initals DK ring a bell. Think about it, but maybe it should not be called the "draft", but when a nation of "people" do not have to sacrifice to keep their "luxuries" they tend to turn the other cheek, we are a nation of "well I've got mine so who cares about the homeless guy down the street" and this president is the epitome of this culture, but who will stop him and others? The "draft" will or whatever we will eventually call it.

bush* desparately needs more troops...for his torture-chamber prisons, to quell Iraq into submission, to quell Afganistan into submission, to quell Palistine into submission....and to continue the bush* stated conquests of the other countries of evil.....every Congressperson have said LOUDLY that there are not enough soldiers in Iraq AND Afganistan....

and it's real true that YOUNG people still have done very little to protest bush* and his world-wide crusade....recent primary elections showed little participation by draft-age people...at protests both before and after the Iraq march to Baghdad, us older people were totally amazed at the lack of participation by young people...the last one in NYC was mostly us old people....we're totally amazed because for Vietnam, MOST of the protestors were YOUNG draft-age people....

so there is absolutely NO RISK for bush* to implement the draft today....just like Vietnam, IMO, there'll be LOTS of parents who are sick of the their useless teenage and twenty-ish jobless kids, and thrilled with the idea of getting those slugs out of their house, and bragging about patriotism, and enthralled with the idea that their kids will come home in a uniform, disciplined, AND with job training...that's the dream....it was true in Vietnam, and it WILL happen again soon.....

the majority of Vietnam soldiers were volunteers....please correct me, because I don't have the exact numbers, but I think only about 20-25% were drafted...just the fact that they could be drafted and KILLED on the front lines caused many families to rush their children down to sign up for the BETTER jobs: Navy ships, flight school, etc....if you waited to be drafted, you would be KILLED...

added plus, many chickenhawk reTHUGlicans feel that the military will get lots of those useless unemployed teen-age misfits off the streets this summer and reduce crime....and for certain, it will reduce bush* outrageous unemployment numbers just in time for his re-Selection....

good morning Vietnam...bring out the flags...the send-off parades and the Patriotic rhetoric.....

"be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box"....

Between 9 and 10% of the males in "my generation" are Viet Nam Veterans. About 2.6 million guys (including about 7,500 women) served within the borders of South Vietnam.

The statistics regarding "volunteers" vs. "draftees" tend to ignore the number of 'volunteers' who did so to gain some safer duty assignment (including an officer/OCS/ROTC billet) than they'd get by being drafted. (Note the draftee death rate.)

the draft to get some trained for the current escalation of world wide domination....listen carefully, and you can hear that 'BIG SUCKING SOUND" already.....donald rumsfeld in January 2003...the Vietnam Vets were "sucked into the intake...and had no value to the United States military"...


"About 2.6 million guys (including about 7,500 women) served within the borders of South Vietnam."


here's rumsfeld degradation of Veterans right here for all to watch....'BIG SUCKING SOUND' coming soon to YOUR neighborhood....

thanks to Symbolman for this reminder of rumsfield degradation of OUR soldiers' service...and the rumsfeld explanation of the 'sucked into the intake' for what he consider's USELESS Vietnam Veterans...

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/pentagoon.html

they will evade/minimize the danger. Their daddies will make sure that they are kept as far from harm's way as money and influence can make happen. That's how GWB ended up flying an obsolete jet in a non-deployable squadron. Granted, flying entails risk, but it is ever so much safer when no one is shooting at you.

Now, if you make an ironclad rule that all inductees MUST be deployed to a forward area within 90 days of completion of AIT (Advanced Individual Training), you would definitely get their attention. That will happen right after I win a couple of lotteries.

If the draft is re-instated, the golden rule will still apply.