The massive contradictions in the "draft will end the war" argument

[ButterflyBlood]

Honestly, the logic here is so awful I can't comprehend it. Sure, people will get more pissed at the war if there's a draft. But let's look at the flaws in implementing it.

First, there's a real double standard in opposing a draft if some Bush war advisor calls for it, but supporting it if Rangel does. And since a draft would cause massive backlash against the war, that's exactly why I'm certain Bush is not going to implement it, especially since it would lock up a Democratic landslide in 2008. Plus the draft chicken littles have been screaming this since 2005, but let's ignore that for now.

If the Democrats in Congress attempt to implement a draft solely to cause backlash that can end the war, well this is where the lack of logic comes into play. First of all, what no one ever mentions, THE WAR IS ALREADY UNPOPULAR. And that's the whole reason for Bush sinking in the polls. But let's assume they decide to actually take action on Rangel's bill, and it actually passes despite the political consequences for everyone who voted for it (another reason it has no chance). What happens?

Bush vetoes. Duh. Bush isn't going to sign a bill that's sole purpose is to fire people up against the war. Jesus Christ, he's stupid, but not THAT stupid. And of course, the Democrats in that case would've just done Bush his biggest favor ever, by allowing him to veto an unpopular bill and make themselves look like the bad guys while he looks like the good guy. Say hello to the GOP retaking Congress and holding the White House in 2008.

But let's just assume the hypothetical we had enough votes to override a veto. Then why bother passing it? Why just pass a bill to you know, end the war? Of course that's been tried and failed, but if that's the case, a draft to end the war sure as hell isn't going to pass.

And let's say somehow it does pass. Do you really think Bush is going to listen to the people and end the war? OF COURSE NOT. The only way I could see it ending the war is if the domestic instability and rioting over it turns the US into a new failed state that effectively cripples the military. But then the US becomes a new version of Iraq, which I sure wouldn't look forward to.

The bottom line: There is no point in a draft. If you have the support to do something THAT unpopular, why not just use that support to do something popular, like directly end the war? There isn't the support for either, but it makes far more sense to push for the latter than the former.

[acmavm]

1. And who, pray tell, is going to 'end' this war? Right now we even

have to fight the top three democratic candidates on that issue. They all say if they're elected they will not withdraw all the troops.

[ButterflyBlood]

3. Then why would they allow a draft?

This whole plan only makes sense if there was a button you could push and magically instate the draft.

Though considering the top candidates vote against war funding, I don't really care about you using Nader-esque out of context claims. Go worship St. Ralph some more.

[acmavm]

5. Nader? Well, that remark totally invalidates everything you've

said and probably everything you'll ever say.

Good bye.

[DrDan]

7. could it be a matter of economics? The war is propping up the economy.

The rePigs know it. A couple of our candidates know it. They are all willing to risk a few thousand lives to keep it from tanking. We had our tech bubble - then our real estate bubble. We now need something to buoy the economy until the next bubble comes along.

[acmavm]

9. It may be a matter of economics for some people, Cheney is making

money, GE is making money, Halliburton is making money, KBR is making money, etc.

But the taxpayers can't afford this war. And the people who are cashing in aren't the ones paying the taxes. So, it sure can't be a matter of propping the economy for the country as a whole.

[TwilightGardener]

2. The very discussion of it in the public sphere should be enough

to provoke some national soul-searching on just what we're actually achieving with our war/occupation, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt the draft will be started, but I certainly welcome the spectre being raised.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. That's just the point of the draft bill advocates --

it highlights the absurd inconsistancies of the pro-war Dems, as well as the repubs who are willing to squander the next generation's inheritance, but unwilling to put themselves on the line.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. That wasn't the point of my post at all

My point was to show just self-contradicting the "the draft will end the war" argument is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. I realize that - I'm just saying that I don't believe anyone really

is advocating the draft with intent of bringing it about, but only with the intent of creating discussion of the use of the military. Talking about the draft makes it much more real.

That's why Rangel talking about it is OK, but some general talking about it is not (although there are generals out there who see that this course is breaking the military and are justly worried).

[Totally Committed]

10. Yesterday I posted a poll about the draft -- straight up, yes or no.

I was astounded at the results. Currently, the results and the thread can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3445117&mesg_id=3445117

As you can see, the Nos have finally (but just barely) edged out the Yesses. Now, while I understand no one on this board is here to make me happy, but I have to tell you, this poll depressed the hell out of me. (Has this party really moved so far to the right that a draft of our young men and women is seen as a "tactic" or a "ploy"?)

Anyway, there are some VERY good arguments against the draft in this thread. If you get the chance I hope you'll read some of them. The whole thread is really interesting, actually, but very long!

TC