home

Another Argument For the Draft

by TChris

As he has done during the invasion and government-building of Iraq, the president wants to spend money for Katrina-related purposes without asking taxpayers to pick up any part of the additional tab. Michael Rooke-Ley makes a compelling case that this is a time for shared sacrifice:

And so, at home and abroad, the levees have broken, exposing two Americas, rich and poor, from the battlefields in Iraq to the streets of New Orleans. Never before have we been such a divided people. If we are to make meaningful strides toward achieving our goals of equal opportunity and justice - among ourselves here at home, as well as with the rest of the world - we must devote ourselves to building communities, not empires. We must commit ourselves to a principle of shared sacrifice.

He makes the argument that shared sacrifice means equal participation in military service by all economic classes:

Without shared sacrifice, this war has little impact on most Americans. Pay any price, bear any burden? Not the privileged. Rep. Charlie Rangel bemoans the fact that "our young men and women whose economic circumstances make military service a viable career choice are dying bravely in a war with no end in sight. ... The outrage of it all is that no one ... seems to care. ... The silence can be deafening when a war is fought by other people's children."

Clearly, Americans do not want to fight this war. Enlistments have dropped to a crisis level. Now that parents are discouraging their children from volunteering, disadvantaged young people will be even more likely to carry the greatest share of the burden. The affluent stand above and apart from military service, especially from the enlisted ranks - the privates and sergeants - which have suffered more than 90 percent of the casualties and fatalities. Virtually no influential policymakers have children in uniform in Iraq.

...

We have severed the link between the people in power who make the decision to go to war and the people in uniform who pay the price for that decision. "Only when the privileged classes perform military service, only when elite youth are on the firing line, does the country define the cause as worth young peoples' blood and do war losses become acceptable," explains Charles Moskos, professor of sociology at Northwestern University and an expert on military affairs. "The answer to what constitutes vital national interests is found not so much in the cause itself, but in who is willing to die for that cause."

All true, but shared sacrifice is difficult to attain. The draft didn't put George Bush in harm's way. Rooke-Ley calls for "a truly democratic draft" and suggests that sacrifice has been more equally shared in the past.

Those of my generation well remember how the class-based draft during the Vietnam War era helped to divide America. (Under Selective Service rules established after Vietnam, college deferments are, thankfully, no longer allowed.)

But during World War II, through the Korean War and into the 1960s, most Ivy League men had to spend two years in uniform, before or after college, working and bunking with others of very different backgrounds and races.

Professor Moskos recalls that in his 1956 Princeton class, 450 of 750 men served in the military, whereas in a recent year, only three of Princeton's approximately 1,000 graduates served. At a time when the military was, far and away, the most integrated institution on American soil (though, by no means, immune from the ills of societal racism), this experience was a powerful, unifying force for class and racial integration.

Rooke-Ley thinks a bill by Rep. Rangel to mandate 15 months of active duty service, with no post-high school educational deferment, will be rejected out of hand. He's troubled by the nation's willingness to insist that only the poor die.

Whatever lessons we choose to learn from the war in Iraq and from the aftermath of Katrina, from the deepening divisions in our society and our increasingly unpopular role on the world stage, we must acknowledge that the levees have broken, at home and abroad, and that America's only hope for survival is to find, once again, the moral high ground.

< Clinton Rails on Bush | Prison Sex Slave Trial to Begin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    Screw that tired rhetoric. Let's have an truely equal draft--draft 50-year olds. They have skills, experience, and seasoning. Their kids are grown or able to look after themselves. Let's have a no deferment 50-year old draft. Put the fit ones on the front lines and the others in support postings.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    As the mother of a 25 year-old, I think mandatory national service is a GOOD thing. I also think it would make us pay a lot more attention to our candidates for president, senate and congress. That being said, I wouldn't trust W or the repubs with my son's life, not for a minute.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    HILARIOUS. Give us back our IMPEACHMENT RIGHTS. No draft, no national service, NOTHING until then.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#4)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    As a former grunt in the Volunteer Army, if I ever had to got to war, the last thing I'd want on my flank or in my foxhole is a troop nursing 'conscript syndrome'. No matter how you slice it, a draft is still nothing but 'involuntary servitude' of the very worst sort, and is an abomination, a refutation of democratic principles, so I can't blame that troop, but I still would want dedicated personnel beside me in a firefight. A draft won't solve the problem of corp-rat greedheads with grandiose geopolitical aspirations using the military as their marauding privateers to steal what they can't buy. That would just give the chickenhawks that many more 'toy soldiers' to 'play army' with; too many 'Murikans would happily emulate Abraham and sacrifice their own children on the altar of Bush' War, as a few have already publicly acknowledged they would.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    without asking taxpayers to pick up any part of the additional tab.
    not quite true. he will be asking, i suspect, the poor and middle class to pick up the tab. he has already stated that he plans to cut other programs to pay for this. care to take a guess as to which programs might find their necks on the chopping block? SeeEmDee, i believe you're missing the whole point of a draft. it is essentially a referendum on the perceived legitimacy of any military activity. if the activity doesn't have popular support, the draft is the country's safety valve. people, especially those in high places, will resist. the president and congress are then forced to justify, much more so than this president and congress have been required, the burden placed on the country's military. during wwII, the war was popularly perceived as a legitimate defense of the country. though there was a draft, young men of all classes rushed down to the recruiter's offices to volunteer. not being in uniform, if you were an obviously healthy male of age, caused all kinds of questions to be asked. the entire country was asked to sacrifice, not just a specific few. the president and the republicans in congress will resist a draft at all costs, because they realize it will be deja' vu all over again, with bush playing the part of johnson and nixon.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    The draft-era grunt is nothing like the National Guard and highly-skilled soldiers Bush is destroying in Iraq. Bush has employed at least 1,500 S. African white-supremacist terrorists in Iraq, in violation of S. African and International law. No draft is going to hang him by the neck until he is dead for that crime alone. The problem isn't more soldiers -- the problem is the wrong mission, and a criminal in charge.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#7)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    I personally wouldnt want my kid to have to fight for a cause that he doesnt want to fight for, therefore I cannot condone a draft. However, if they're going to draft our youths, dont worry about soldiers having to fight next to someone that doesnt want to be there. That's not a problem. Everybody's pretty much on the same level during armed conflict. Stay alive, watch your back and dont let your brothers get hit. Besides, boot camp pretty much teaches you to be a redass anyways.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    As if there has ever been a shared sacrifice during war. The rich always start them, the poor always fight them. The only exception being revolutions. The only difference is nowadays the rich don't stand at the rear of the battlefield to watch anymore, they watch via satellite.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    peacrevo: "Everybody's pretty much on the same level during armed conflict." Yeah, hilarious. • EXCEPT for the speed-freak pilots who blow up the friendlies as well as the hostiles. • EXCEPT for the mercenaries who make four times what a grunt makes, and who have NO legal duties whatsoever. • And except for the generals, who laugh at how Don Rumsfeld spilled caviar on his sleeve, or the Preznit who makes jokes about not finding WMD behind his pillows.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    NOTHING will end this bullsh1t faster than making the upper class kids go. Period.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    OK, so we should enslave an entire generation in order to win a political argument?

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Ernesto, even in a country (like Israel) with a mandatory national service, the upper crust don't bother, the courts don't make them, and the gov't just keeps whistling about how WONDERFUL they are. This could almost be termed the 'Rangel fallacy,' since it ignores the fact that classism and racism are institutional as well as social. We don't have much justice now -- how are we going to get any with a law that enslaves the population to wars of profit based on the idea that the lawyered up rich kids will serve? It's stupid, or at best rhetorical.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#13)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    EXCEPT for the speed-freak pilots who blow up the friendlies as well as the hostiles.
    Paul, please stop posting things about which you know absolutely nothing.
    EXCEPT for the mercenaries who make four times what a grunt makes, and who have NO legal duties whatsoever.
    And please try to stick to the subject. My post was about the draft. Mercenaries are not drafted.
    And except for the generals, who laugh at how Don Rumsfeld spilled caviar on his sleeve, or the Preznit who makes jokes about not finding WMD behind his pillows.
    Yes generals and presidents are on a different level in rank than say, a private. But they, at least the generals, (I agree that it may be arguable that the pres. does) cares about his men. You can take that to the bank.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#14)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    OH and Paul, Please use some context clues to prevent yourself from refuting the wrong point. For example,
    Everybody's pretty much on the same level during armed conflict. Stay alive, watch your back and dont let your brothers get hit.
    This sentence and this fragment (my english apparently is not that great) go together. Most people could've figured that out by reading the original.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    peacrevol.... Paul, please stop posting things about which you know absolutely nothing. LMAO on that one... That would pretty much elimate Paul from saying anything! And please try to stick to the subject. My post was about the draft. Mercenaries are not drafted. You obviously aren't too familiar with Paulie... He hardly ever stays on topic. I'm very surprised you didn't get the "Bush stole the election" schpeel. But I'm sure he'll still squeeze that in somewhere.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#16)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    BB.... wow, just like clockwork. check out the Kerry on the Katrina Administration thread.

    Re: Another Argument For the Draft (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Posted by peacrevol: "Paul, please stop posting things about which you know absolutely nothing." The British and Canadian air forces, and the US pilots association ALL oppose the use of amphetamines for pilots -- ESPECIALLY IN COMBAT. So you go take your silly comment to them. "And please try to stick to the subject. My post was about the draft. Mercenaries are not drafted." Mercs are NOT LEGALLY DEPLOYED (employed) in an occupation, and any gov't that hires death-squads is not a legal gov't that can call a draft. That's on topic. "at least the generals cares about his men." The general scratches his nose, and a thousand die. In an illegal invasion for profit, the generals are traitors. And you can put that on trial any time you like -- to quote Gen. Zinni, there is malfeasance at the level of treason in the top ranks. As is clear from their support for GENOCIDE. BB, don't forget to lick peac.'s toes. He loves it when you do that.