Would Iraq by back page news if we had a draft?

[dsc]

The all volunteer military was formed in the aftermath of VietNam and the (from the government's prespective) disasterous press coverage of that era. I admittedly don't remember much from back then (I was 6 when Saigon was evacuated) but it is clear from history that the press paid a great deal more attention to VietNam than we are paying to Iraq now.

I can't help but thinking that the fact that every 18 year old in the nation faced the prospect of military service focused the public mind on the war in VietNam in a way that it isn't focused on Iraq. Yes, I know the rich tended to get out of VietNam service, but it isn't the rich who determine what is covered by the media. It is the middle and upper middle classes. And, for those classes, the draft was a very real threat.

How many of us know anyone serving in Iraq? How many in the press do? How many people who can relate to Laci Peterson or the runaway bride? Several months ago, the names and photos of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan were run on Nightline (it was some where under 900 as I recall) and one thing stood out. Far more of them were black and brown than the general population. They looked far more like my students than they did like me.

Sadly while if it bleeds it leads is often called the motto of the press, it is more accurate to say that if it is white and it bleeds then it leads. I literally can't imagine if over a thousand people who knew the likes of Donald Trump died in a war, that war wouldn't be front page news. I also find it more than difficult to believe, that if the average person knew people in the military that the war would still be backpage news.

The volunteer military has allowed the vast majority of people to have a war fought on their behalf without many of them even knowing anyone doing the fighting. We have literally created a mercenary class in our own country. A democracy that doesn't fight its own wars is no less likely to wage wars than a dictatorship. One of the principle checks on war that a democracy provides, is that many of the voters have a real stake in avoiding war.

In the lead up to this war we heard a lot about weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds, and other evils that Saddam supposedly had done. Very little discussion happened about the soldiers we would send. Would the decision to go to war have occured, if the fate of the soldiers were more directly tied to our own? I honestly have no idea. I would like to think so but given the atmosphere of the country we might well have made the same decision. But the decision would have been harder to make. And the likelihood of Bush getting away with the fact that no weapons have yet been found is much less.

Imagine if the mother at the center of Moore's film were replicated dozens of times, and with press agents to get them the full Chandra Levy or Laci Peterson treatment. Imagine if CNN were wall to wall family members of soldiers who died in Iraq. Sadly we have to imagine due to the fact that even the caskets can't get on TV. Would we refuse to show the caskets of a thousand plus middle class and upper middle class white people? Would the President have gotten away with not going to even one funeral? Would he have gotten away with cutting veterans' benefits, combat pay, and benefits for returning soldiers? Again, I can't prove the answer but I think we all know what that answer is.

We need to reunite our ruling and our fighting classes, if we don't, then the next war will be that much easier.

[lolly]

1. Well, a couple of things here.

First, you say

"it isn't the rich who determine what is covered by the media. It is the middle and upper middle classes"

I disagree. The corporations that control the news decide what gets covered. Recent circulation figures and ratings show that the audience for news is getting smaller and smaller--people with access to the internet are simply ignoring corporate news. If coverage were really dicatated by the people, CNN and the big newspapers would stop covering the runaway bride stories that people are annoyed with, and would start carrying Greg Palast. They don't. They're not going to.

Second, on covering the draft, my feeling is that the draft isn't going to come in one impossible-to-ignore swoop, as in, all 19 year-old males (or all 19 year-olds, period) are subject to the draft, and then a large number of them actually get drafted. I think it will come in small enough increments so that the story can still get buried, and the people who still follow corporate news can say "that's not my problem, back to Michael Jackson."

For example, a select group of medical personnel will be subject to the draft first. Then, perhaps, another fairly narrow skill group. And so on. Only after we've become comfortable with one will they start up with another. By the time the average American household takes notice, it will be "old news" that people are getting drafting, and not so much worth headline coverage.

[babylonsister]

2. A draft would make a huge difference. I can't imagine

what this admin could possibly do to avoid a draft due to the (lack of) numbers of recruits and their long-term plans, as sick as they are. This will open a lot of eyes, but at what cost? How many more have to die before this country wakes the hell up?

[dsc]

3. I can't see avoiding it either

We are consistently missing recruitment goals and recruiters are getting more and more agressive.

[dsc]

4. a daytime kick

since this sank like a stone last night.

[dsc]

5. wow

I am truly amazed and more than a little sad at the lack of response to this thread.