DISQUS

JSpencer · 4 months ago

Excellent post Dorian. This is the beauty of a draft, at least theoretically. When it doesn't distinguish between class, income level, education, political bent or politcial connections, then it functions as a great leveler. It requires accountability and honesty for all. Want to cheerlead for a war? Then you, your kids, cousins, brothers, sister will be taking part in it. Looks different from that perspective eh? The way things are currently it's easy to pretend to be a patriot and advocate for a war... knowing you won't be required to make any sacrifice.

merkin · 4 months ago

Another idea for the group. When I say I support my children in graduate school, it means I pay their expenses. It doesn't mean I borrow money they will eventually have to pay back themselves.

What do you say if we actually supported the troops in the Dad paying for graduate school way, not just the open, loan, moral support way. Say a surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes and an extra few percentage points for war contractors. Of course, no surcharge for military, of course.

Let everyone truly pitch in and not just talk.

Father_Time · 4 months ago

People do not fight to the death for what they do not believe is worth preserving more than themselves. We are losing this as a national asset. We are losing it because our government system is increasingly incapable of functioning effectively to solve our domestic problems and our international influence is all but gone. Openly, in our “system“, money buys politicians and thus government. Through mass media, money has the ability to subvert the will of the people, even decide what the will of the people actually is. It is only a matter of time before no one is willing to fight to the death for this country anymore.

Even the military itself is now “professional”. It’s now made into an “attractive career choice“, rather than soley a sacrifice of service. Expecting people to fight to the death as a career choice is ludicrous and shallow.

Since WWII, we have not fought any war for survival. Looking from an outside perspective, one might perceive that we have been fighting wars for sport. Because these wars have done little but feed the entertainment industry with subject material. Since WWII, increasingly the wars that we been fighting are wars that could have been negotiated away with better results than to have wasted lives, national credibility and treasure fighting in vain.

So we talk about the horrors of war and the damage our veterans carry because of them. Only now, without the draft, people can easily say; “well you volunteered. you asked for what you got”. So how long can we expect them to continue to volunteer?

shannonlee · 4 months ago

A lot of countries require high school grads to complete military service or some sort of health care service. I think we should do the same.

Father_Time · 3 months ago

I think there should be a full time draft all the time, war or peace. A mandatory service allotment. No deferment allowed for any reason except for the truly mental and physically unqualified. Small things like, pilonidal cysts (ingrown hair), or any medically correctable infirmities would be made whole when called, then service required. Maybe as much as thirty percent of enlisted forces should be drawn by such a draft. Draft by birth date lottery ages 18 through 25. No “conscientious objector” or “religious objector” status allowed. All serve or a mandatory 15 years and one day prison sentence. Those drafted will serve 4 years active and two years inactive reserve. If we have a total of three million people in uniform, at least one million should be by draft, whether or not we have enough volunteers. First the draft, then the volunteers.
In this way we should have much more socioeconomic equality when it comes to military service.

alphonsegaston · 4 months ago

This piece relates to another here tonight, on whether we could fight another war like WWII. We could only if we had a draft and were willing to be taxed to pay for the war. Unfortunately we seem to be such wimps these days that the draft terrifies us, taxes infuriate us,and we are such cowards that we are afraid to house terror suspects in our own maximum security prisons. We are content to send our soldiers over for multiple tours of duty,then begrudge them adequate care. If I sound like a 75 year old curmudgeon, I am. My cousins fought in WWII, my brother in Vietnam, cousins also (one was killed there), and my son served 8 years in the navy. (My husband was 1Y as he was disabled, or crippled as they said back then.) We just did it. And when we went shopping in WWII, there was not much to buy,even if you had coupons. No ice cream. No chocolate bars. No tires, no gas, goodbye family car. Can you imagine today's patriots putting up with all that?

JSpencer · 4 months ago

I know this is stating the obvious by now, and is echoing other comments, but just to be clear, I see the main advantage of having a draft (one which would force all levels of society onto a common field of sacrifice) as not just about fairness and sharing the load, but even more importantly as a device that would force people to think (to really think, not just react) about the possible consequences of any war - in a way that goes much, much deeper than party, ideology, or any feelings inspired by any popular pseudo patriotic rhetoric. Think of it as a tool to kick brains and hearts into a higher function, a function that would give us a greater potential to avoid unnecessary wars in the first place. Also I like merkin's idea, which would perhaps accomplish the same thing in a different way, although a possible sacrifice of blood is likely to focus the mind more expediently and intensely.

nicrivera · 4 months ago

Wow. I cannot believe how quick you all are--liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike--to reinstate the draft.

There is nothing "patriotic" about forcing young Americans to fight in a war against their will. There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die.

You all seem to be asking the wrong question.

The question shouldn't be, "How do will ensure that Americans of all socioeconomic backgrounds equally shoulder the burden of going to war?"

The question should be, "How do we create the conditions in which no American has to be shoulder the burden of war?"

The answer, of course, is to change our foreign policy. Our government has spent the last sixty years pursuing a militaristic foreign policy--spending more money on our military than the next ten nations combined and installing more than seven hundred military bases in more than one hundred twenty countries around the world. And for what? Are we safer because of it? Are our basic freedoms made more secure by our military adventurism?

Rather, I'd say the opposite is true. As Randolph Bourne noted during World War I, War is the health of the state. History shows us that governments use war to stifle basic freedoms. And there is no more egregious violation of freedom than a bunch of politicians forcing people to go to war against their will.

SteveK · 4 months ago

... There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die.

Exactly nicrivera... EXACTLY! Your logic, reasoning and position on this is why I am in favor of reinstating the draft… a loophole free draft.

The "young Americans" that we [sic] have been "sending halfway around the world to die" have not been children or family of those who have sent Americas Youth to war and therefore the fools that got us into, and are keeping us involved in, this waste of life and national resource have nothing personal at stake.

If a “loophole free” draft were to be instituted these unprovoked wars would end long before the first "chicken-hawks" son or daughter set foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t think it would take long for a 2010 version of a Truman Commission to be formed either.

Polimom · 4 months ago

Actually, nicrivera, I'm inclined to support a draft, but my view of it wouldn't be limited to military service. I think a two-year stint post high-school in service (whether in urban renewal projects, armed forces, conservation efforts) would be a good thing across the board.

We have more than a disconnect between people who serve in the armed forces and people who don't. We have a disconnect as well between people and their country.... and more specifically, between people who expect something of their country. Far too many of them expect something for nothing. I suspect instituting a mandatory 2 year service policy would level the playing field considerably in a number of ways.

TheMagicalSkyFather · 4 months ago

I prefer your idea as this could also help us save money while they were giving to the nation they now desired things from since that is how it is supposed to work. Plus they would learn skills and to be honest moments we share as a collective(similar experiences and stories) bring us together more as a nation and it would be nice to have something that was trying to bring us more together.

kathykattenburg · 4 months ago

There is nothing "patriotic" about forcing young Americans to fight in a war against their will. There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die.

This is the truth. This is the real point. Applause applause to you for stating it so clearly, simply, and straightforwardly.

Thank you, nicrivera.

DdW · 3 months ago

This is in reply to Mr. Smith

"But that is not the issue here, the issue if whether you served or have a child of drat [sic]age you'd be willing to have drafted"

The issue really is whether re-introducing a universal military draft would--when war is absolutely necessary---spread the cost and sacrifice more equitably among all Americans.

The issue really is whether, when the specter of having one's son or daughter being sent to fight in some questionable war in some far-off land, hangs over politicians and the powerful and the wealthy, as it does now over the not-so-wealthy and the not-so-powerful, we might finally begin to see the end to "wars of choice," and to other military adventurism.

I believe that is the issue addressed by the author

Dorian de Wind 1958-1978

DdW · 4 months ago

Have been reading all the comments with interest. Thank you

I don't want to speak for the author, but from closely reading his poignant words, I venture to make the following comments:

I do not believe that the author, when calling for a universal military draft, is calling for drafting those "18-20, or younger," or high school dropouts.

Nor do I believe that he is calling for drafting "our experienced warriors first...the ones over 50, who love nothing better than shootin' up the town for freedom's sake."

I also don't believe that he would object to, or find it "two-faced patriotism" for those who have not served to call for a draft. In my opinion, that means that these people understand the horrors of war and the inequities involved.


I don't think the author is denying that "Serving our country voluntary is patriotic",or that he is somehow equating "being forced to do against your will " to patriotism.

I don't believe that one of his main objectives by calling for a draft is "forcing young Americans to fight in a war against their will."

As a matter of fact, I am sure the author agrees that "There is nothing "patriotic" about forcing young Americans to fight in a war against their will. There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die."

A reader answered:

"This is the truth. This is the real point. Applause applause to you for stating it so clearly, simply, and straightforwardly. And, I believe, that is exactly what he would like to avoid or minimize by having a military draft."

The author said pretty much the same:

"We are sending the same men and women to theaters of combat over and over, without relent. This simply cannot continue. It harms our country to do so. It cheapens any claim to patriotism by Americans who wave flags and profess to honor “our” troops while their children will never know what it means to serve the flag of the United States. Just as their parents have never known."

As one of our commenters said:

The "young Americans" that we [sic] have been "sending halfway around the world to die" have not been children or family of those who have sent Americas Youth to war and therefore the fools that got us into, and are keeping us involved in, this waste of life and national resource have nothing personal at stake.

Another reader asked:


"The question shouldn't be, "How do [we] ensure that Americans of all socioeconomic backgrounds equally shoulder the burden of going to war?"

The question should be, "How do we create the conditions in which no American has to be shoulder the burden of war?"

And he answers as follows:

"The answer, of course, is to change our foreign policy. Our government has spent the last sixty years pursuing a militaristic foreign policy--spending more money on our military than the next ten nations combined and installing more than seven hundred military bases in more than one hundred twenty countries around the world. And for what? Are we safer because of it? Are our basic freedoms made more secure by our military adventurism?"

I agree with the reader. However, if the politicians and others who we rely on for our foreign policy and our resulting defense posture know that their sons and daughters, their grandchildren can be called upon to fight the wars resulting out of their foreign policy (because of a universal draft), I think we might start to approach the conditions implied by the reader's question of "How do we create the conditions in which no American has to be shoulder the burden of war?"

I believe that the author might agree with the following sentiments expressed by other readers (I know that I do):


"We have more than a disconnect between people who serve in the armed forces and people who don't. We have a disconnect as well between people and their country.... and more specifically, between people who expect something of their country. Far too many of them expect something for nothing. I suspect instituting a mandatory 2 year service policy would level the playing field considerably in a number of ways"

"One of the reasons that the draft was suspended was that the deferments of the children of the politically and financially connected were starting to being scrutinized more closely (i.e. - Cheney's five deferments) so they shut it down."





"Now fast forward forty years and we find ourselves in another immoral enterprise that was knowingly started under false pretenses by men who hadn't served in the military AND still there are some on the right who seem to worry more about the qualifications of those calling for a draft then those who took us to war and wasted so much of this countries assets in both lifeblood and financial stability"

"The "young Americans" that we [sic] have been "sending halfway around the world to die" have not been children or family of those who have sent Americas Youth to war and therefore the fools that got us into, and are keeping us involved in, this waste of life and national resource have nothing personal at stake,"

"If a “loophole free” draft were to be instituted these unprovoked wars would end long before the first "chicken-hawks" son or daughter set foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t think it would take long for a 2010 version of a Truman Commission to be formed either."



<BR"I know this is stating the obvious by now, and is echoing other comments, but just to be clear, I see the main advantage of having a draft (one which would force all levels of society onto a common field of sacrifice) as not just about fairness and sharing the load, but even more importantly as a device that would force people to think (to really think, not just react) about the possible consequences of any war - in a way that goes much, much deeper than party, ideology, or any feelings inspired by any popular pseudo patriotic rhetoric. Think of it as a tool to kick brains and hearts into a higher function, a function that would give us a greater potential to avoid unnecessary wars in the first place."

Someone said "I pray that my sons are never drafted."

Someone else said:

"How many of you here have sons or daughters who are the of the age that they could be drafted to serve in the military? And as a follow up, if your son or daughter were drafted to go off and fight in a war they didn't wish to fight in, would you still support the draft?

I truly question have genuine some of you are in supporting the draft. How many of your own family members are you willing to risk in order to have a military draft?

These are people's lives we're talking about. Don't think for one moment that just because were to have a military draft, that our future congressmen/women, senators, and presidents would suddenly be reluctant to wage unnecessary war. You're assuming that politicians will suddenly start acting rationally, and that's not likely to happen."

And someone answered:



"That's why the draft is so necessary... Without fathers and mothers worrying about their children, the monkeys driving this insane "industrial military complex" would keep the world in perpetual conflict... Don't you see this"

I agree. No father or mother wants to see his or her son or daughter drafted and "go off and fight a war" and perhaps never return

But, do we honestly think that those fathers and mothers of those sons and daughters who bravely volunteer don't have the same fears as those who don't want their sons or daughters drafted?

Do we honestly think that the pain of losing a son or daughter to war is any less because he or she volunteered?

So, why don't we try to make it so that fewer Moms and Dads will have to face those horrible prospects, by making military adventures, such as Iraq, less likely, by making the sons and daughters of those who don't think twice of placing the sons and daughters of others in harm's way, face the same prospects..

I believe that this is what the author had in mind.

SteveK · 4 months ago

"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country 'tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

e.e.cummings - 1926

dduck12,

You wouldn't be a registered member of the "Party of NO" would you?

It took two rereads of you comment to realize that you've said nothing. You have offered no solutions, you simply chosen to call people who are offering one "propeller heads". Than politely asked everyone not to state the obvious... IF the Republicans hadn't start a unjustified, unprovoked, and unnecessary war in Iraq we wouldn't be sending Americas Youth back for their fourth and fifth deployments.

dduck12 · 4 months ago

You wouldn't of the party of NO-Sense would you. Rep or Dem, they all stink if we don't help out the existing troops with some relief. I was registered for 40 years as a Ind., but am now a republican.
Better than being a NO-Sense. Thank goodness, not all Dems are like you, however, the moderate ones I like.

SteveK · 4 months ago

if we don't help out the existing troops with some relief

You've yet to suggest what you think would work. How about a few suggestions in lieu of ad hominem and personal attack?

dduck12 · 3 months ago

"You've yet to suggest what you think would work. How about a few suggestions in lieu of ad hominem and personal attack?" First of all, who are you to tell me what to do?

If I was that smart, I certainly would try to tell you and the others my ideas.
I don't have any ideas to help our worn out heros, do you?
I also did not personalize, you did: "You wouldn't be a registered member of the "Party of NO" would you?"

You also said: It took two rereads of you comment to realize that you've said nothing. You have offered no solutions, you simply chosen to call people who are offering one "propeller heads"

I have nothing against prop. heads, I'm asking them for ideas tgo solve this problem.
Finally, I don't think a full draft is doable (no political will) or necessarily good at this point. And I've stated, all those extra troops in a non-critcal environment could be a temptation to deploy.

SteveK · 3 months ago

I don't have any ideas to help our worn out heros, do you?

Yes... Re-institute the draft, a LOOPHOLE FREE draft where ONLY legitimate 4Fer's were exempt.

Young men (and women?) of draft age are already required to register for the draft so it would take no time to put their names in the hat and get our military up to a strength that will no longer require 4th and 5th tours of duty in a combat zone.

Those who think this is a bad idea had best go to their next "Town Hall Meeting" and tell... nay, demand that their congress person take the steps required to keep you children out of harms way. (i.e. end the pointless, unprovoked war in Iraq)

I personally believe, as stated above, that once a draft was called American would very rapidly correct the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush years and that we'd extricate ourselves from the war that Bush and Cheney knowingly mislead congress and the American people into allowing them to start. This would end the hawkish, confrontational military posturing of the last 9 years and need for a draft would be short lived... Until next time.

If you don't think it can be done and/or would rather spend time arguing over how low the President should bow then you're part of the problem... Part of the reason 'our heroes are worn out' and not part of a solution.

dduck12 · 3 months ago

You miss the point. It is highly unlikely that either party would have a chance of getting the full draft.

vey9 · 4 months ago

"or high school dropouts or early leavers (for the military rather than for college)."

Why does DLS want to send only the least qualified? Does he think the Army wants drug addicts?

Polimom · 4 months ago

I'd support a return of the draft as well. Glad you posted this, Dorian. It was on my list of "things we need to talk about at tmv".

DdW · 4 months ago

Thanks, Polimom, and I guess worthy of another "great minds think alike" :)

Dorian

Ron Beasley · 4 months ago

I was caught in a draft in 1968 but in spite of that I think the draft should be brought back.

spirasol · 4 months ago

yes, it did, rock hard solid as far as the fire burns and as deep as the ice can reach. Let's send our experienced warriors first though, the ones over 50, who love nothing better than shootin' up the town for freedom's sake.

JSpencer · 4 months ago

Did hell just freeze over?

SteveK · 4 months ago

Did hell just freeze over?

I agreed with your comment until I got to DLS's "or younger under certain conditions for high school dropouts or early leavers...". This is a obvious loophole that once again would lay a larger portion of 'cost' (in blood and tears) on the lower end of the income and educational sector of our population.

One of the reasons that the draft was suspended was that the deferments of the children of the politically and financially connected were starting to being scrutinized more closely (i.e. - Cheney's five deferments) so they shut it down.

The 'Greetings' I got from Uncle Sam didn't tell me to "go shopping" and I think if a few more letters like that started showing up in the neocons mailboxes we'd see amazing breakthroughs in both these wars.

EDIT: In other words... I don't think America would buy into the idea of the righties forming a army of 'children soldiers'.

kathykattenburg · 4 months ago

Steve! Thank you for this response to the "did hell just freeze over?" comment. I was sitting here, thinking, Did hell freeze over? Am I missing something? How is this a departure from DLS's usual thinking? I mean, who else would propose (with enthusiasm!) to send children to war to punish them for being high school dropouts or unemployed?

I'm sorry, this sounds like classic DLS to me.

JSpencer · 4 months ago

Not a true freeze then, just a little frost. ;-)

Yes, the way the draft functioned during the Vietnam war was far from equitable, and that was complicated by Vietnam being a bogus and disastrous war to begin with. Draft resistance in many cases was an act of conscience, an unwillingness to be pawns in an immoral enterprise.

SteveK · 4 months ago

JSpencer wrote: "... an unwillingness to be pawns in an immoral enterprise."

Absolutely JSpencer. Now fast forward forty years and we find ourselves in another immoral enterprise that was knowingly started under false pretenses by men who hadn't served in the military AND still there are some on the right who seem to worry more about the qualifications of those calling for a draft then those who took us to war and wasted so much of this countries assets in both lifeblood and financial stability.

caveat: I was drafted 1966 but thought RA would look better than US... So I volunteered.
RA18966XXX

DdW · 4 months ago

JSpencer (Did hell just freeze over?) :

Wow! Brilliant minds think alike,

Dorian

JSpencer · 4 months ago

Yah, DLS and I are like twins in that respect. :-)

DdW · 4 months ago

JS:

Actually, I meant you and I :))

DLS · 4 months ago

"Sawyer points to the need to again have a universal draft"

Actually, there's much to said for it. Especially useful would be a draft for those ages 18-20, or younger under certain conditions for high school dropouts or early leavers (for the military rather than for college).

Libertarian "purists" or those who miss the esssential points might object at "conscription" and the collectivist nature of such a thing, but it would really be suitable.

(Just make it a truly military commitment, not converting them into social workers and disaster relievers.)

Leonidas · 4 months ago

Got no problem when military vets call for a draft, when civilians who haven't served do, I wonder if they will volunteer on their own first. Although I come from a military family, I have not served myself and thus know to keep my mouth shut when others call for a draft, I have not earned that right. Mr. Sawyer has that right, I hope all others who call for it have it as well. I think anyone who hasn't served that calls for it is as guilty as any Sawyer accuses of "two-faced patriotism" who might call for it despite having no chance of being called upon to serve themselves.

dduck12 · 4 months ago

The comments on Sawyer's article should also be read. I'm ambivalent on this topic. I volunteered in 1957, but it was because I felt some prospective employers were wary of hiring me because of the potential draft potential. In any event, I was lucky and nobody shot at me. However, the brave servicefolks nowadays seem to be over exploited. Whether, I think the draft is good or bad, I sure think they are over deploying these now captive troops. Therefore, some way short of a full fledged draft would be nice.
One downside I see, and don't like, with the draft is more bodies would make it more tempting to deploy them. It's like leverage on Wall Street or overbuying with no-skin in the game mortgages.

redbus · 4 months ago

None of these arguments convince me of the necessity of a draft. Most leaders in the military now argue against it, since those they lead are more highly motivated since they volunteered to be there. In these recessionary times, recruitment goals for the army were exceeded in October 2009. What's more, if a non-U.S. citizen volunteers fights in war-time, his or her naturalization is fast-tracked. From what I've been reading, the down-side of this all is the higher rates of suicide for those returning from war. No, I'm not a vet. My father served in the Navy during the Korean conflict, and my nephew is retired Army. My father joined the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army. My nephew was ROTC. Both were glad to be done with it. I pray that my sons are never drafted. They have much to contribute to our country, but in other ways.

SteveK · 4 months ago

None of these arguments convince me of the necessity of a draft.

redbus... why am I not surprised?

I pray that my sons are never drafted.

That's why the draft is so necessary... Without fathers and mothers worrying about their children, the monkeys driving this insane "industrial military complex" would keep the world in perpetual conflict... Don't you see this?

redbus · 4 months ago

Steve, if we were attacked in a massive way, we wouldn't need a draft. We'd have more than enough volunteers. Reinstating the draft now would just be a sick political ploy.

nicrivera · 4 months ago

I understand the logic of reinstating the draft. It would make it more likely that those serving in the military would be more representative of the nation, and it would also make Americans less likely to support unnecessary wars if they know their sons and daughters could be drafted to fight in such wars.

However, I really question the principle behind this entire idea.

How many of you here are of the age that you could be drafted to serve in the military?

How many of you here have sons or daughters who are the of the age that they could be drafted to serve in the military? And as a follow up, if your son or daughter were drafted to go off and fight in a war they didn't wish to fight in, would you still support the draft?

I truly question have genuine some of you are in supporting the draft. How many of your own family members are you willing to risk in order to have a military draft?

These are people's lives we're talking about. Don't think for one moment that just because were to have a military draft, that our future congressmen/women, senators, and presidents would suddenly be reluctant to wage unnecessary war. You're assuming that politicians will suddenly start acting rationally, and that's not likely to happen.

We had a draft during the late 60's, and that didn't stop LBJ from sending tens of thousands of American boys to die in Vietnam. It didn't stop the rich and the politically connected from getting deferments then, and it won't now.

The idea that a bunch of politicians are going to come up with a "new" draft that is somehow more fair and equitable is a joke. What are the odds of the actually happening? Consider the odds and then ask yourself, "Am I willing to gamble with other people's lives?"

Leonidas · 4 months ago

Quick question, how many of the posters here who are either advocating a draft have themselves served in the US military? Just curious as to see who hasn't yet is calling for a draft of others due to making things "equal" for all or whatever reason without having ever served themself. Id also count anyone who has a child, male or female who is 18-25 who is willing to have their child drafted into the military at present. since a draft would have to include all young men and women of that age.

Polimom · 4 months ago

"Quick question, how many of the posters here who are either advocating a draft have themselves served in the US military? "
I have. So, too, have my ancestors, all the way back to the Revolutionary War (though I was the first woman).

Father_Time · 4 months ago

LOL, you must be the oldest veteran on the planet.

Being drafted is NOT unpatriotic. One's dedication in service is what's important. The typical draftee during all our wars served well. I'm sure there are records that will bear out facts that show draftees performing as well as or better than volunteers in depending on the individual. One thing is for certain, the enemy doesn’t discriminate whom they kill. That includes American civilians that served in Vietnam also.

Tens of thousands of American civilians served in Vietnam. I met a man after the war that worked for government contractor, called Lear Sigler, as a mechanic. That man was shot up pretty bad and suffers very serious permanent injury and disablement. As I have said before, you never hear of the civilians that suffer and die in war, whether they participate in some capacity, or, just happen to get in the way. They don’t get medals and they don’t get recognition. In WWII, the highest rate of death was among civilian merchant seamen carrying men and material to Britain and Russia. During WWII, 54 million people lost there lives with only a fraction of that being combatants. Among these “draft or volunteer” was irrelevant. However they were in fact in war suffering massively with their individual stories rarely if ever recounted. There loss, never honored, their memory lost.

Leonidas · 4 months ago

I have. So, too, have my ancestors, all the way back to the Revolutionary War (though I was the first woman).

Thats one.

I repect your family history and have a like one myself, although I myself never served. But that is not the issue here, the issue if whether you served or have a child of drat age you'd be willing to have drafted. You did, I did not. I respect your views on this more than those who are calling for a draft with no implications for themselves or their children and who didn't themselves step up to fill this inequality gap they preach of.

P.S. Thank you for your service and sacrifice.

Anyone else among the commenters who has served and is a true patriot?

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

-- Henry V, Shakespeare

Leonidas · 4 months ago

I agree with Kathy and nicrivera. Serving our country voluntary is patriotic, being forced to do against your will so is not. Equating this twith patriotism is folly, it would be like calling slaves chained to the oars on a Roman galley patriotic. Patriots brave the dangers of war of their own free will, not bound by master's chain.

That being said, some of those who were so bound have still done some amazingly brave and patriotic acts after the fact, and m remarks are no slight to those who have done just that.

dduck12 · 4 months ago

I notice a lot of social engineering talk here. Let's not lose track of the fact that the current forces are being over used. A full draft is a pipe dream, nobody has the b____. Thinking out of the box, all the propeller heads here and in Washington should be able to come up with something practical to give some relief to the troops. (And, please no: Well if we didn't start wars we wouldn't be in this fix, crap.)

ProfElwood · 4 months ago

The problem being addressed here is the overuse of the military. How about we try this one:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War"
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

It's not the president's power. It's not a power that congress grants to the president, or allows the president to do. If the entirety of congress truly thinks that it's time for war, that is their power, but they shouldn't be able to pass the buck.

Father_Time · 3 months ago

Incorrect.

The President can order up to a Corps size force, (three divisions), into combat any time he wishes without consulting congress. However congress has been consulted and has given their approval to fund every conflict since WWII anyway.

ProfElwood · 3 months ago

I think the difference here, is that I believe that the constitution was supposed to be absolute, so any law that violates it should be void. That would take away the presidents ability to use the military without consulting congress: it's not a transferable power. In that same vein, congress wouldn't approve the use of the military without an outright declaration of war. Therefore, an absolute constitution would have solved this problem before it arose.

superdestroyer · 4 months ago

The only liberals who have any credibility when taking about the draft are the ones who send their children to inner city public schools, live in the inner city, who attend public universities, who public transportation, and who do not use private security.

With those stipulations, there is probably no one in the leadership of the Democratic Party who has any credbility when taking about the draft because their own children never feel the impact of the Democratic Party's social engineering agenda. Image how different public education would be if Chelsea Clinton would have been getting her ass kicked everyday by a bunch of black gang bangers in public school.

DLS · 4 months ago

"Why does DLS want to send only the least qualified?"

I'm not; you and others are just imgaining what's convenient, for whatever "reasons." [sigh]

I'm surprised you didn't accuse me also of "wanting" to deny education to minorities and people from low-income areas just to boost the recruitment totals. [rolling eyes]

DLS · 4 months ago

"This is a obvious loophole"

Only if you presuppose it's permitted to function this way, which isn't intended, as even more illogical people might claim, and in fact this possibility can be prevented. Aside from that, what else do we then do with dropouts (which by definition won't accept being "asked" to repeat their education they reject)?

DLS · 4 months ago

"Not a true freeze then, just a little frost. ;-)"

Well, for those with heated emotions and propensity for "creativity" in all its forms...

* * *

"I notice a lot of social engineering talk here."

I'm not intending it (hence no redefinition of the role of the military, as I addressed earlier). The task of the military is a dirty one, and what should be a last resort, reasonably. All should share the risk, and I'm not envisioning any kind of grand role for the conscriptees (much less a civilian "national service" or "national apprenticeship" job-and-career-training-while-not-on-active-duty project), but just realizing that discipline and direction would probably be considered a good thing for the still-immature youth (prior to maturation of those frontal lobes), and yes, including those in trouble (and dropping out of school).