Best Peace Initiative--Bring Back the Draft

[Vinnie From Indy]

Bringing Back the Draft Is the Best Bet for Peace

By Fran Quigley

I am in favor of the third- most impactful peace initiative the U.S. government could ever adopt: bring back the military draft.

My first choice for an anti-war policy is to require each cabinet Secretary and member of Congress to serve six months as a guest member of the Afghan wedding parties we seem to always be bombing with so-called “precision strikes.”

Second choice is to have all the war-happy leaders in the world give up air raids and roadside attacks in favor of a mixed-martial arts tournament among themselves.

Obama is pretty fit, so the U.S. should be in good shape there, especially now that judo black belt Vladimir Putin is no longer officially in charge of Russia. (No tag-team though: Obama could take Medvedev, but Putin vs. Biden would be ugly.)

In the unlikely event the world’s leaders retain their affection for deadly firepower even in this tournament, I am OK with them re-staging their own Hamilton-Burr duels—single-elimination, presumably.

Why a draft? It’s about accountability. We howl in outrage over CEO’s laying off underlings to remedy the bosses’ fiscal blunders, but blithely send off other people’s kids to die for our own goals of vengeance and/or energy savings and/or gauzy sense of personal safety when we head out on spring break.

During the height of the Iraq War, U.S. Rep. and Korean War combat veteran Charles Rangel sponsored legislation to re-institute the draft, saying, “ the majority of American families were forced to send their children in harm’s way, our military men and women would be on the first flight home . . .The cruel irony is that this so called ‘all-volunteer’ fighting force is already being fueled by a draft. It’s an economic one that lures minorities, women and poor whites in rural and urban areas.”

Granted, this assertion that the poor are fighting our wars is hotly contested. A Heritage Foundation study shows that the family income of military recruits matches that of the U.S. overall. More recent analysis by the National Priorities Project shows that U.S. Army recruits are more likely to come from poorer neighborhoods.

The larger issue is that most Americans now are confident that we won’t be forced to bear the ultimate costs of war, including Obama’s disappointing commitment to the Sisyphean conflict in Afghanistan. The draft ended in 1973, after Richard Nixon cynically but correctly concluded that college students who were not at risk for going to Vietnam would lose their commitment to the peace movement.

Reinstituting the draft is not a popular cause—an informal survey of my own household produced a consensus well outside the margin of error that this column is off-base.

That is understandable. If the draft was in place during this time of pre-emptive and futile wars, I would be so worried about my kids being in harms’ way that I would spend night and day working to end the violence.

I bet a lot of other parents and young people would be doing the same thing. Which is the point.



This column is online at http://www.indystar.com/article/20090323/OPINION12/903230310/1002/OPINION



Fran Quigley
Indiana-Kenya Partnership/USAID-AMPATH
www.iukenya.org
www.ampathkenya.org

[JTFrog]

1. Another class war tool. Fucking awesome.

ALL the poor will have to go while the rich make sure they have their deferments in place.

A draft is a stupid fucking idea. It's just another tool to be used in this lovely class war we have going on.

[elleng]

3. With the right rules,

essentially EVERYONE would have to serve: NO deferrments. Watch the people actively prevent their representatives from taking any pro-war positions.

[JTFrog]

4. It would NEVER HAPPEN. It's bullshit to think that there would ever be a draft without deferments.

They going to send the mentally ill and the handicapped? At some point they pick and choose who gets some kind of deferment. Whatever the qualifications, the wealthy will be sure to get theirs.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Agreed, the rich would always find a way to get out

[uppityperson]

16. Do you seriously think the rich/powerful would allow those rules to happen?

Look at congress, what they have done even so far this term.

[Angleae]

17. Ever hear of the term "champaign unit"

That's what the wealthy will serve in while the others serve in combat units.

[elleng]

18. No, never have.

.

[Fumesucker]

20. It's not all that unheard of..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_unit

Champagne unit is a pejorative term used to describe US military units that had been staffed by celebrities or people from wealthy or politically powerful families. Such units were often part of the National Guard, and assigned to lower-risk duty inside the United States. The connotation is that such units were havens for those with connections who wish to avoid conscription into more dangerous duty while still gaining the prestige afforded in the United States to military service. Over a century earlier, a term used to describe the same type of unit was silk-stocking regiment after the New York's 7th Regiment, whose well-heeled members actually built their own armory on Park Avenue in the upper East side of Manhattan.

[elleng]

24. I can understand that such would occur.

I certainly know that FAIR draft is virtually impossible here, esp now watching Cong dems vis a vis Prez O. Very distressing, all of it (and I'm in a lousy mood at the moment!)

Oh yes, the silk-stockings! Heard of them!

[OhioChick]

10. Bingo! n/t

[TahitiNut]

22. Nonsense. The "volunteer" military is the class war ... coerce the poor.

Want medical care? Enlist! Want a college education? Enlist! Want training and job skills? Enlist! Want room, board, and clothing? Enlist! Can't find a job? Enlist!

The change to a lottery draft in the early 1970s wiped out 90% of the "entitlement class's" "Not My Kid" faux patriotism. THAT'S why Viet Nam got wound down. Student deferments ended. Most occupational deferments ended. Hell... that's a lot of what precipitated Kent State.

It's "fun" (and oh so self-righteous) to protest and party afterwards. Never REALLY have to accomplish anything. Not really. Hell ... it gives people cover for DECADES to call it an "illegal war" .... but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER actually carry it to the courts of law and make it so. Naww.... not necessary. Too much trouble. Too expensive.

Just bloviate on the internet.

Pass the chips. :popcorn:

Get me another beer. :beer:

What's on TV? :banghead:

:eyes:

[Thor_MN]

2. Better yet, pass legislation such that the only people that can declare war are those who eligible

to serve.

Voting Yes means you just enlisted. Not voting puts you in the second wave while voting No means you are the last to be called. In case of foreign invasion, of course, we are all fighting so this doesn't matter.

With this in place, no more chicken hawks, no old white men sending young (non-white) men off to do their fighting for them. Would the 18-30 year olds have sent themselves into Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

5. Would the 18-30 year olds have sent themselves into Iraq? Lot of them did

There are just as many mercenaries in Iraq as troops.

Don

[Thor_MN]

12. Define "Lots". Half the people of age to serve in the military?

If war were only able to be declared by simple majority of the people that are eligible to serve, do you really think that we would have gone into Iraq and Afganistan?

Trillions of dollars, millions of lives shot to hell for nothing.

[Cid_B]

8. Right...

No white guys fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan... get bent..

[Thor_MN]

9. How many Congress Critters are there in Iraq or Afganistan?

You know what I meant, so get bent yourself.

[droidamus2]

6. great idea

Peace will be brought by forced slavery, domination, indoctrination and brainwashing, great idea! :sarcasm: I understand the idea that by people having more of a 'vested interest' in the military adventures of this country that they should be more likely to rise up and say they don't want anymore of their's to die but I sure as hell wouldn't count on it.

[droidamus2]

7. Another idea

How many wars do you think we would have if the old man Generals and Admirals and industrialists had to actually go out and do the fighting. Instead of the possibility of forced military service starting at 17 and ending around 32 how about we start it at 32 and extend it until death. The poor get deferments just because they need to be here working to take care of their families and the rich are required to go because they take the most advantage of what this country offers so they should be the most interested in 'protecting' it. Yes I am being sarcastic but I have never had much love for the 'necessary evil' of the military/industrial complex. I think what originally brought this home when I was a kid was a show on Sunday morning tv (I believe it was presented under the auspices of some religious group) that showed a group of soldiers caught in a Vietnamese hut expecting to be saved by the higher ups but when we were shown the higher ups they were explaining why these guys were just a decoy for operations elsewhere and they were expendable in the name of the greater 'victory'. No way I will ever consider myself, mine or anybody else expendable.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. I would rather see 2 years of military service mandatory for all Americans

of legal age. I would suggest that once they finish High School they get 2 years in the military. If someone drops out then they go in earlier and maybe for a longer period of time since they will need to finish their education while in the service. (I think you will get fewer drop outs)

Get everyone on the GI bill, that helps with health care and education.

Have everyone spend 2 years in a situation where drug or alcohol addiction will not be tolerated, and instead be treated.

Have everyone trained in the proper use of firearms, since we are not having any luck outlawing them the next best solution (IMO) is to teach everyone how to handle and store them safely.

I could go on and on, I didn't even start on the effect on foreign policy or the ability to respond with national guard and reservists in an emergency.

[Cid_B]

13. An Army of crackheads...

no thanks. While I do like the idea of national service I like the German model. The military is not a day care or a rehab center. Those who are too sensitive to fight or too drugged out or whatever can opt out of the military portion and go change bedpans for a year. Govt still gets it service and military doesn't have to deal with em either.

[TahitiNut]

21. Agreed.

:patriot:

[ddeclue]

15. Disagree - when politicians have access to conscript armies they

are much more willing to wage war than when they have to fight them with volunteer armies.

Fundamentally, the draft is unAmerican and something the Founding Fathers would abhor.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ShortnFiery]

19. NO WAY!

:thumbsdown:

[H2O Man]

23. Baloney.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
-- Amendment 13; US Constitution

The draft is absolutely "involuntary servitude." It discriminates against both individuals, and a particular group -- young adults. Those who advocate a draft lack either an understanding or appreciation of the Bill of Rights.