Unicorns almost never enlist voluntarily, and McCain promised no draft, so it will have to be ponies.
Don't just sit there complaining about it-- we need to up-armor these ponies!
Iraq has been great for prompting utterances and public stances that sound halfway plausible for a couple of seconds just in case there are no follow-up questions and as long as varios halfway obscure facts are kept at bay. At least Matthews asked where the 100,000 new troops would come from.
This looks like an OK place to park an idea I've had for awhile.
The Vietnam War lasted about 7 years. The Iraq War is 3 1/2 years now, approaching the length of the Civil War and WWII. The Korean War was 3 years. The US was in WWI for about a year. Roughly, the smaller and more recent wars have been longer. This is being described as a new era of war, with more protracted wars in a less well-defined legal context.
Now my point is that we are being blamed for losing patience in our longest war ever, and this war now is almost sure to be our second-longest war -- and people are already getting ready to blame us traitors for cutting this one short.
The American people are pretty hawkish, but most of them are not used to the idea of continual war everywhere. But that's what the new military-geopolitical doctrines propose. So they're not getting the volunteers, and they're afraid to talk about a draft. What do they do?
They can do one of two things: change their geopolitical plans, or transform the American people. "Transforming the American people" means intimidation, scapegoating and the suppression of dissent. I don't see any other way.
Democracy-promoters even talk about how "No democracy ever started a war against another democracy". Probably not true, but what I'm saying is that these same people are not happy with the American democracy's reluctance to fight endless wars, and I think that they plan to do something about it.
They can do one of two things: change their geopolitical plans, or transform the American people. "Transforming the American people" means intimidation, scapegoating and the suppression of dissent. I don't see any other way.
You talk as if the second option wasn't already well underway.
Everything is relative, Rob. There aren't a lot of people being murdered or disappeared yet.
But hey, what can you do. The Democrats just aren't serious about the war.
we need to up-armor these ponies!
That won't do much good if their legs have gone bad from running around to no purpose for years.
Actually, liberals pushing for a return to the draft makes sense. It's too easy for the TPTB to use the military as a toy now.
1, 2: Watch me pull out an old chestnut and dust it off: why do unicorns hate America so?
Not enough virgins? We suffer from a virginity gap!
Teo for vestal president!
8. That was the purpose of having so much combat power in the reserves. The idea was, no more Viet Nams. If there were a true emergency, a reserve call up would be supported by the people.
We suffer from a virginity gap!
And I'd like to apologize for my role in that. At the time, we really seemed to have an inexhaustible supply.
12: I understand that was the idea. The problem is that it's still quite easy to wield the sharp end of the stick and then chant the "We must support our troops" (by persisting in folly) mantra after they're under fire.
12, 14.--The real problem is that Congress has abdicated its responsibility to withhold consent from the Executive's wars.
Actually, liberals pushing for a return to the draft makes sense. It's too easy for the TPTB to use the military as a toy now.
I've never bought into that argument. Once a peacetime draft/mandatory military service is accepted as the norm, the illusion of American invincibility - which will return in time, I guarantee it - will overcome the natural resistance to sending your kids off to die in a pointless foreign war. The average American doesn't approach every new military deployment as a potential quagmire, because the powers that be are always going to present them as cakewalks. We should see the draft for what it is: an offensive and immoral seizure of basic autonomy by the state.
I should do some reading, and see if I can develop this inchoate feeling into an argument, but isn't there a long line of political philosophy, from the Greeks on forward, on the virtues of a citizen militia as opposed to a standing army of professional mercenaries? "Mercenary" is a loaded, nasty word these days, but that's essentially what our army is: an organization of people for whom being in the military is what they do for a living, professional soldiers. I don't mean to say anything more pejorative than that, but I have the impression that there is an awful lot of writing out there on reasons that such a military is undesirable.
I used to think like SJ, but I've come around to thinking that mandatory service is a great idea. (Partly this is because I'm well over 18 now.)
I guess I'm trusting that as more and more people know or are related to someone who is actively serving, the less sanguine about war the American public will be.
17. From a philosophy point of view, yes it is more desirable to have citizen- soldiers defending their homeland with a well drilled phalanx. And prior to WWII, the US had a small standing army, but always a relatively large, blue water navy. But the reason a draft is silly today is we are not likely to face a need for 10 million men under arms. What we have and need is a highly trained, high tech force that would be difficult to bring into exsistance in a six month period. If you want to argue that we cut the number of troops, so as to cause less mischief, that's different.
17: If I recall correctly, the classical argument for a conscript army over a professional army is that citizen-soldiers would have a natural loyalty to the state, whereas professionals were typically foreigners whose allegiance belonged to the highest bidder ("foreigners" in this context meaning "citizens of another city"). This argument is kind of obsolete now since our professional soldiers are citizen-soldiers, too (there are obvious issues involving our use of actual, bona fide mercenaries in Iraq and elsewhere, but that's kind of tangential to the question of a draft).
I should also say that I generally agree with TLL's 19: we don't need a giant military anymore. Rumsfeld's mistake wasn't in thinking the army should be lighter and quicker; it was thinking the new, lighter, quicker army should still be fighting the same fights that bogged down the old, cumbersome, clunky army.
I think that if we had a lot more people, including half-trained civilians among them, we'd be doing better in Iraq. The troops there now aren't trained for what they're actually doing there anyway. They're even using Air Force guys as ground troops.
Until Americans become overwhelmingly enthusiastic about foreign wars, a draft will be hard to sell. All wars have to be presented as defensive any more, but people don't really believe it.
20. Paragraph 2 nails it, as far as I'm concerned. Runsfeld was brought on to do the necessary work of "transformation" Ten years from now, had an actual shooting war not intervened, people would be praising his foresight. But we did get in a shooting war, and Rumsfeld was the wrong guy to be in the Pentagon for that effort. Hell, I think he still thinks that the "transformation" is more important.
21. I'm sorry John, but I stongly disagree that half trained civilians would help. We really would be looking at 10,000 Us casualties in that scenario. It is a hell of a lot more effective to retrain an artilleryman to patrol as a grunt than to stick Joe Schmoe from Kokomo in a flak vest on the corner of Chow & Mein.
The reports I read say that only a few troops are actually using the military training they have. Having someone else do the truck driving and other support would free up trained troops.
I boggle at the idea that Rumsfield's reforms would ahve brilliant except that the war messed everything up. What would have been different ten years from now? Reumsfeld was not planning for this actual war but for some other imaginary war.
I guess I'm trusting that as more and more people know or are related to someone who is actively serving, the less sanguine about war the American public will be.
This has borne out in Israel? In other countries with mandatory military service? (Respectively: rhetorical; legitimate question.)
In other countries with mandatory military service?
Switzerland hasn't attacked anybody in quite some time.
This has borne out in Israel? In other countries with mandatory military service? (Respectively: rhetorical; legitimate question.)
I think it sort of has borne out in Israel, hasn't it? Wasn't the occupation of Lebannon problematic because it seemed so problematic to the Israeli troops involved? And isn't the same thing true of the occupation of the West Bank? (This is all ill-remembered, so I may be entirely wrong.)
Rhetorical or not, I think Israel isn't an apt comparison to the United States, as we're not surrounded by enemies against whom we've had to fight for our survival.
24. I agree that Rumseld's Transformation in Military Affairs is to fight an imaginary war, as in one that may sometime happen in the future so we have to imagine what it will look like and who it would be against. As for support troops, isn't that what Haliburton has the no bid contract for? Coincidentally, part of Rumsfelds transformation is to farm out all support activities, so that the only one's left on the DOD payroll are trigger pullers. And this is exactly the wrong mix for an occupation.
Switzerland hasn't attacked anybody in quite some time.
Israel OTOH...
Oops never mind, I missed some context.
Only skimmed the thread, but count me among the enthusiastic supporters of a broad-based military draft. Definitely on my list of top 5, maybe top 3 policies that would benefit the country. Military service is everyones responsibility in a democratic society! It ought to be viewed as a basic civic duty much like voting.
I'd even entertain the much more controversial idea of a period of compulsory military service for all citizens, during times of peace as well as war.
My point in 25 wasn't all that well thought out. The point I'd rather make is that I'm uncomfortable with the notion of ceding to the state our autonomy in order to ensure that the state doesn't abuse our collective power. I don't think that the rise of nationalism can be attributed solely to incomplete information, which is what mrh hopes to address (I gather).
Of course, the Congress's check on war powers proves not to be worth the paper it's written on, so maybe a check on nationalism does require some sacrifice of autonomy.
There is, of course, no way to jigger such a service to cut across class and race barriers. If congressional war oversight can be brushed off, so can the rules about mandatory service.
Compulsory service is never compulsory during war: It is always engineered by the powerful to spare the children of the powerful. To give over to any government the whole national treasure seems also to risk the check implicit in a volunteer military. And there's even less check in place when the governors are able to wage rich men's wars/poor men's fights.
If congressional war oversight can be brushed off, so can the rules about mandatory service.
This, I think, is the actual sticking point. The goal (coarsely stated) is to make it harder for the rich to send the children of the poor off to war.
35: Yeah, okay. If we're stipulating that democracies authorized by texts work, then my magical armored pony and I are ready to contribute to the national defense.
Sweet! The unicorn army will fall before your twinkly might.
Compulsory service is never compulsory during war: It is always engineered by the powerful to spare the children of the powerful.
The First World War being the exception. "What a waste of all the beautiful young men" etc...as opposed to the ugly young men who usually die pointlessly in wars.
The only way a draft makes sense to me is if we collectively decide that we really are the world police, and grow to 25 divisions or so stationed around the world. Otherwise, we will have an arbitrary deferral/ exemption policy, and we know how that ends.
How dare you criticize Glenn Greenwald! For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from his blog during the Censure hearings.
16:
We should see the draft for what it is: an offensive and immoral seizure of basic autonomy by the state.
But the "state" is a collection of individuals with their hands on the levers of power. It's a good idea that they know those levers can shock them when overly misused. Those people will *always* exist, the only question is what limits their powers.
A military with a significant number of draftees would provide that. That draft doesn't have to be perfectly fair. It just has to be fair enough to widen the political and economic spectrum of those with a stake in their kid's lives not being ill-spent.
I tried to the calculations on what a division cost anymore in today's volunteer Army. I think I came up with $20 billion a year. Or was it $40 billion. Anyway, we probably can't afford McCain's 100k troops without a huge tax increase; or not only a draft, but a major pay cut for enlisted men. We have priced ourselves out of a scalable military, out of the possibility of a WWII level mobilization, no matter the circumstances. No matter the threat.
Which means we go quickly nuclear, because we decided grunts needed to be paid a living wage, and not do KP anymore.
"It is always engineered by the powerful to spare the children of the powerful. "
"Always" seems a little strong, seems that I remember a Bush and a Kennedy and a Kerry and Teddy Roosevelt's son getting killed. Now they weren't drafted, and certain ideals of honor may have seriously decayed among the elite. I don't remember a time in history when it wasn't morally and socially compulsory for a noble family to contribute a least one child to service.
If we have reached such a time, then there is no longer any point to an elite or quasi-nobility, and large inherited wealth must be utterly eliminated.
I don't think we have yet reached that point, and an accumulation of privilege over generations can still be transformed into extraordinary obligation and service. I can name names.
17: My impression, LB, had been that that thinking underlay the Second Amendment. Not precisely a fetish for armed revolt, but a determination that the army should stay citizen-militia-based.
I am a little dubious about the efficacy of the draft for grounding a nation to reality. I don't know about the details behind 27, but that seems more tactical than strategic. Does Israel's full history suggest universal conscription helped them avoid unnecessary conflict? Couldn't the socialization of the draft have the opposite effect?
41ff: I guess my little joke fell flat.
I guess so. Subtlety often goes over my head.
So you're culturecat from the Flickr group? I was wondering who that was.
Lovely icon for that group, by the way.