December 31, 2002
What is this goofball thinking? Has he forgotten why we abolished the draft in the first place?Our conversation moved to AIM:And as far as “more reluctant to authorize military action,” ha ha, it is to laugh. We have the Prez saying words to the effect of “I don’t have to ask your permission anyway,” and Congress rolling over and saying “Yes sir! Anything else we can do for you, sir? Shall we lick your boots for a while?” If Rangel wants to actually do something useful and intelligent, he could say “No war without a declaration of war,” which is actually, you know, constitutional and everything, and sit back satisfied with a job well done.
(08:48:11) patricknh: I do think that it’s a perfect illustration of Liberalism Gone Rotten, when someone like Rangel convinces himself that the only solution is something this coercive.Young Matthew Yglesias, whose sharp weblog is a daily must-read here at Electrolite World HQ, opines that “this is a complicated question and there are lots of factors to consider, including the fact that a conscript military would probably be less effective than the volunteer one we have now. Nevertheless, I hope the country has a serious debate about the issue and that perhaps it will make everyone think a little more seriously about foreign policy.”
(08:48:17) warsnit: Based on the story I saw, Rangel thinks that (a) we have a draft, (b) rich kids go into the army, (c) congress will be reluctant to send their big campaign donors’ kids to get their heads blown off.
(08:51:13) warsnit: What we’ll have instead will be rich kids pay $300 to be excused (Civil War) or go to college, or get a nice cushy slot in the National Guard (where they don’t even have to show up, especially after drug testing starts), and poor kids who don’t have the bucks, or the connections to pull the strings, get their heads blown off. All this, plus riots in the streets.
(08:51:43) patricknh: I’m sure Karl Rove could work with that.
(08:51:47) warsnit: Plus, the professionalism in the services gets shot straight to hell.
(08:51:58) warsnit: And the pay will start to suck again.
(08:52:07) warsnit: Which will kick your career people.
The current-serving Sgt. Stryker, on the other hand, takes a dim view of screwing around with the military merely in order to “make everyone think a little more seriously about foreign policy”:
Rangel’s the flip-side of the draft coin used by some conservatives who feel that we need the draft to “toughen up” young people or make them appreciate America. That same conservative feeling is the basis for those inane “Boot Camps” where young criminals get yelled at, then released. It’s inept social engineering no matter how you slice it. […][11:11 AM]The U.S. military is not your daycare center. We’re not here to correct mommy and daddy’s errors or make your son a better man. We’re here to defend the Constitution and we employ whatever tools necessary to ensure the success of our mandate. The values the military attempts to instill in its members are those that have traditionally proven to be successful in providing a disciplined and orderly force capable of success in battle. Any secondary benefits these values provide to society at large are irrelevant. […]
Rangel and his spiritual brethren on the conservative side care more about their own little agendas than having an effective military. A draft will weaken and diminish the military, because anyone with the least amount of talent, skill or money will be able to legally dodge the draft, leaving only the worst this society has to offer to fill our ranks.
Right now, we have the most powerful military force this world has ever seen and it’s manned solely by volunteers. That’s a powerful idea and it’s something Americans can be proud of. […] An all-volunter force is more motivated, professional and dedicated to mission accomplishment than a bunch of conscripts forced to be there. If you want to weaken our military and demoralize our forces, then institute a draft.
The draft will always be popular because it unites those who love equality and those who love war. Military leaders like a dodgeable draft, so they have lots of warm bodies, but few intelligent malcontents. That lasts until you get into a big enough war.
Anyone who thinks mandatory military service would be good for "toughening up" callow youth, even if there is no war to fight, should study the history of Britain's peacetime National Service. This was dropped by popular acclaim in the early 1960s because it was messing up young men's lives to no discernable benefit for anyone.
Notice however that Hackworth (who has perhaps earned the right to respect if not deference) also favors a draft - expressing the somewhat different reason that the things they carry may be better quality if the burdened represent a broader range of society. Useful also to distinguish the traditional U.S. style Draft Board with lotteries and classifications and any form of universal military service as some are advocating. I suggest a Swiss style univeral military service in which the Boy Scouts use magnetic compasses graduated in artillery mils would be interesting.
The big issue for me: should the chance of death necessary to support the United States, in all its wonderfulness, be allocated based on income?
I don't know about you, but paying poor people to die strikes me as slightly unseemly.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Our pal: