I oppose the draft for Iraq, but I support the draft in principle.

[BurtWorm]

Who agrees with me?

I think democracies require that their citizenry be invested in the common defense, and not just abstractly, i.e., with their checkbooks.

But I think it's too late for the government to mandate a draft for the mess they've made in Iraq. I resisted the war from the first winds of it in September 2002, and I will resist it until it's over. This is Bush's war. The bastard. And Americans and Iraqis should stop dying for him.

[Killarney]

1. Yes

I would support a draft if our country really needed to defend itself. Let's say... Canada went nuts and invaded. ;) But a draft for Iraq? No freakin' way.

So, I agree with you.

[Christ was Socialist]

39. Out of all the countries you chose canada LOL <nt>

[bryant69]

2. It depends on what the purpose of the Army is

Is it a training ground to breed citizenship? Well, than you might have a point.

Is it to be a well disciplined effective army with high morale? Most would argue that forcing people to be soldiers doesn't necessarily lead to an effective army with high morale.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

3. It's not a training ground for citizenship.

It's a requirement of citizenship in a democracy, the price one pays for partaking of the commonwealth.

[bryant69]

6. OK

but the trade off is a weaker military.

Or else we set up something else; a wide variety of service, some like Americorps, the peace corps and only those that want to be in the military have to go.

[BurtWorm]

9. Americorps is a citizens school.

The draft, I think, is more of a personal investment in the government's foreign policy. If you thought your son or daughter might be called up if a candidate or a party were in power, you might work extra hard to keep that party out of power. But if you took for granted that only the volunteers would be called up no matter who's in power, you are that much less invested in who's in power.

[GirlinContempt]

11. A requirement?

Well, I suppose the whole point of a democracy is that its a government by the people, for the people... so if they implemented a draft (under a truly elected government), it would be democracy at work... As long as it was part of a platform and fairly voted (ri...ight)


Circumstantial, purely.

[bluestateguy]

4. No, the draft is Hitlerian and Stallinist

I have both Leftist and Rightist arguments for opposing the draft.

On the one hand, you simply feed the war planners in Washington more warm bodies to engage in an imperialistic, militaristic foreign policy. There are definitely many politicians, think tank types and corporate interests who would like to have that happen. A draft militarizes the society, which makes conditions ripe for fascism.

Also, a draft says that citizens somehow owe the state their body. A draft is anti-capitalist, as it contradicts the Lockean notion that men have the right and the choice to sell the product of their labor to whoever will buy it. It is a form of involuntary servitude and slavery to the state. If a war does not command popular support, such that people will enlist to fight it, perhaps it ought not to be fought, and the nation's leaders need to better make the case as to why it should be fought.

Also, volunteer armies are far more effective fighting forces.

[northernsoul]

12. a volunteer military is the ultimate democratic check on the Govt

All of the government's power are derived from the people. The best way for the people to prevent the State from going to war against their wishes is by depriving the State of the bodies it needs to wage a war that contravenes the will of the people. Legitimate and just wars (of genuine national defense) will not lack for volunteers willing to serve the country, but wars where the people do not perceive that their legitimate interests are being served (imperialist conquests for private profit) will become untenable.

[BurtWorm]

22. This is assuming that the people are pacifist at heart.

They're not. They're only too happy to send other people to die in wars that they can watch on TV. But if they or their loved ones were at stake...

[northernsoul]

26. but what if there's no "other people" to send?

If a volunteer army is going to be used by the Freepers and Armchair Commandos as life-size GI Joe dolls, the volunteer army will deflate (because people will quit / not enlist) and the laptop bombardiers won't have their "toys" to play with. Like I said, what if they start a war and nobody shows up for it?

[BurtWorm]

28. People in need will show up to enlist.

And they'll sign their contracts to obey all orders in exchange for their wages, their housing, their health care. And all us neat pacifists will cluck our tongues and shake our heads over how unenlightened they all are and wash our hands of the whole business.

[Zero Gravitas]

5. Draft them all

Actions have consequences as the right (used to) remind us, so if you support Bush you should get drafted. Draft the sons and daughters of Bush supporters. Draft everyone who was clamoring for a war, and while we're at it draft everyone who votes for Nader in November.

[robertpaulsen]

7. Not sure if I agree with the principle.

You said, "democracies require that their citizenry be invested in the common defense". By common defense, are you advocating a draft at times when there is not a clear and present danger to our country? Because in the event that we face a clear and present danger, I think if a draft is necessary it should be implemented. Barring those circumstances, I believe a draft is a form of involuntary servitude. It may not fit the legal definition of it under the 13th amendment, but it fits in principle IMHO.

A side note, I might agree with your principle if we were living in a democracy. We're not. But I think we both realize who's responsible for that.

[BurtWorm]

13. Drafts should only be necessary when the protocols of war are followed

according to the Constitution. When there is a clear and present danger, yes, and when the Congress duly declares war--not when the Executive decides to throw a little conflict.

[northernsoul]

8. The Draft is Unconstitutional

"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."
United States Constitution: Amendment XIII, Sect. 1

What part having the Federal Government seize young men from their homes, deprive them of the protections of U.S. law, control every moment of their existence, and send them to another continent to be maimed or killed or to maim or kill somebody else DOESN'T constitute involuntary servitude?

[Nashyra]

14. I agree in principle

do not agree with anyone getting drafted for this war, but we need to devise a system of which we alot some time in our lives to the service of this country. Maybe those who serve in the armed forces should never have to pay taxes, and those who don't serve can pay more! We can call it the "service exmption" and you could be elegible with any type of service, even the handicap of all kinds could apply for the service of his or her country.

[northernsoul]

19. I don't care if they pay me $1Million, it's still involuntary servitude

Would slavery be okay so long as the slaves are provided plenty of tasty food and comfortable living quarters?

[BurtWorm]

20. Is the portion of work you do to pay your taxes involuntary servitude?

Or do you volunteer to pay your taxes?

[northernsoul]

24. Payment of taxes is not servitude

Congress has explicit constitutional power to lay and collect taxes "from whatever source derived" (see Amendment XVI). As long as I gained my income legally, the government doesn't particularly care how I got the money. In fact, I'm not forced to have income at all - but if I do have income, they get a piece of the action. The government is not telling where I have to work or how much money I have to make.

Servitude is defined as: 1) a state of subjection to an owner or master, 2) Lack of personal freedom to act as one chooses.

There's a case from the 30's (sorry, don't have the cite in front of me right now) where the Supreme Court held that, under the 13th Amendment, a man couldn't be forced by the government to do farm work in order to pay off a debt - as that would consitute involuntary servitude. This seems to suggest that involuntary servitude exists anytime the coercive power of the government is introduced to compel someone to do a particular form of work, be it farm work or going overseas to kill people.

[BurtWorm]

27. Congress also has the power to raise an army.

If a draft is enacted by the people's representatives, then it's Constitutional.

[northernsoul]

32. Any law passed by congress is constitutional? Really?

A) Is it intrinsically impossible to have an army without conscription? We seem to have a rather sizable standing army right now without the government rounding up young men and impressing them into the military
B) If a law forbidding criticism of President Bush is passed by the people's representatives, is that constitutional?
My reading of Article VI, clause 2 ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...") indicates that all legislation must be in accord with the corpus of constitutional law, and legislation that is constitutionally invalid can and should be struck down in court.

Now there's good new for you, as it stands right now the last Supreme Court ruling on the draft (from 1918), held that military conscription was constitutional - albeit in a widely criticized decision that failed to address many of the constitutional challenges to conscription. So as of right now, you'll get your wish and with the stroke of a pen the government can start dragging young men (and proably women this time) off to their induction and then onwards to Iraq within a matter of months.

[BurtWorm]

35. A draft enacted by Congress is Constitutional.

Has it ever been ruled unConstitutional?

PS: I don't want young men "dragged off to Iraq." I want the issue of the draft on the table so young men aren't dragged off anywhere.

[northernsoul]

38. Segegration wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 1954

Like I said, the latest Supreme Court ruling from nearly a hundred years ago said the draft was constitutional (but failed to actually provide any genuine constitutional justification for the holding). I, and a whole lot of legal scholars (who are a lot smarter than me!), think that this decision was flat-out wrong and cannot withstand any kind of good-faith constitutional review now.

Here's the connundrum: Once upon a time, the USSC ruled that "seperate-but-equal" racial segregation was constitutional. Was it? Or was it always unconstitutional and the court didn't able to properly make that unconstitutionality explicit until they could make their holding in Brown v. Board of Education?

My personal legal theory is that affirmation of a law by the USSC does make it the enforceable law (until it is invalidated by legislative repeal or USSC reversal), however that does not necessarily make the law Constitutional. All persons who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have a duty to offer maximum legal resistance to unconstitutional law. Therefore, if Congress does reinstate a draft it will be the law of the land just as segregation once was - but the draft should be legally challenged by all persons with legal standing to do so AND such a challenge must be sustained by any court that subjects the draft to proper 13th Amendment analysis.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense! :think:
BTW, I appreciate your willingness to engage on this issue. It's something I'm very passionate about and I (obviously) have strong feelings on the subject - so I hope I don't come across as being personally angry at the you or the other people I disagree with. The people I'm actually mad at are B*sh and the other @#!@!!ers who put in a situation where we have to be discussing this.

[BurtWorm]

40. Yes, what you're saying does make sense.

And believe me, it's not easy for me to support the draft. My reason for doing so is not because I believe in war, law and order, and all that Bircher bullshit. It's because I believe in justice and I can't stand the idea that one class of people is reserved to die in the government's idiotic wars because the government and the people don't have the courage to take full accountability for their life and death decisions. When you have a class of people who "volunteer," the government will take advantage of them. It's that problem that disturbs me.

[northernsoul]

42. Can we agree on this?

I think that the crux of the problem that you're concerned about is that our present economic system constitutes a de facto military draft on the underclass, and that the remedy for this is a de jure conscription regime across all classes.

My position has failed to acknowledge the reality of this problem and has rested upon a more abstract and legalistic approach to the conscription issue. For what it's worth, we do have a family friend who only joined the military to get health care for his daughter who was born with several congenital defects, and he did end up doing a tour in Iraq. But I still feel that instituting a universal draft won't ultimately remedy this problem and will perpetrate additional injustices.

[BurtWorm]

43. I agree with the way you're characterizing it.

I am not sure that injustice will necessarily result from instituting what could be called a draft culture, in which the people take ownership of the military. I think it's disgusting that people choose to endanger their own lives because the government is too friggin' cheap to make health care available to all who need it. Admittedly I'm being an idealist here, but I am longing for an America in which people serve and benefit equally. We are a looooooooong, looooooooong way off from that ideal.

[mindfulNJ]

25. amen

the draft is a form of slavery, IMO

[stevedeshazer]

10. How can you have it both ways?

What principle?

Will you support a draft when we invade Syria or Iran or North Korea? Even if your President is a Democrat?

[Nashyra]

16. What do you suggest we do if we are attacked in this country?

A draft to service for country makes the politicains accountable, who fights if Calif. is attacked? Do the people in New York say it is not my state so let the people of Calif. fight? We need a system that holds the office holders accountable, makes it honorable to serve your country and also gives opportunities that rival the private sector for serving your country. So few do so much for the rest of us, the all voluntary army helped put the * in office.

[northernsoul]

18. there'll be no shortage of volunteers if we're actually attacked

If there were a handful of NYers that won't fight to defend CA, they probably would be worse than useless if they were forced into the military.

How does a draft "make it honorable to serve your country" or provide "opportunities that rival the private sector"?

More importantly, how does it not violate the 13th Amendment prohibition on Involuntary Servitude?

[Nashyra]

21. Involuntary Servitude

conotates "doing something for nothing or not benefiting the person serving" I would think that serving your country and defending your constitution at a "equal private sector pay" would not be equivalent to "doing something for nothing" Do you not think that defending our country and the constitution is not the responsiblity of all people who are protected by the constitution? The draft is only the organizational tool, call it what you want. I don't think the draft makes it honorable to serve your country, I do think serving your country is honorable. It does not all have to be "military service", and there are non combat jobs that could rival private sector jobs if mandatory service to your country was required. The populace of this country would pay closer attention to world affairs and keep our ELECTED leaders accountable when they know that they have a personal stake in what their leaders do or don't do.

[northernsoul]

33. We can't preserve freedom by instituting slavery

If the coercive power of the government is used to force people to perform a labor against their will, it doesn't matter if they are compensated.
The constitution allows for the compensated taking of private property, but not of people's bodies.

[gpandas]

29. wish i had your confidence about no shortage of volunteers n/t

[stevedeshazer]

23. Get that weak stuff out of here, it is absurd

First, why don't you let all the rest of us know how a draft "makes the politicains accountable"? Hello? Surely you don't suggest that they are being held accountable for it now?

Second, you call this invasion of a foreign nation against the will of the rest of the world honorable? What honorable thing are we doing now that should cause me to support the forced conscription of my only son?

Third, please explain how the all-voluntary military, begun in 1974, helped put Bush in office.

Fourth, last time I checked, the US military fights wars elsewhere, not in the United States. I guess you think it is okay to annex Iraq, and to send my kids there. I'd guess you are wrong.

Think it through.

[BurtWorm]

31. There is no draft now. How can they be held accountable?

Second, having a volunteer force in place made Iraq much easier for the Bushists. The volunteer force has become the pet of the Executive, to do with it what it will. There were no obvious consequences to the Bushists in using the volunteer force. Would they have rushed the nation into war if they knew that voters would lose their children, husbands and wives for a full year before the election?

I think the Bushists lost all touch with reality partly because they thought there was no downside to using volunteers for their ideological agenda. They didn't realize that the world pushes back.

[Nashyra]

37. No I don't think it is Ok to send anyones kids to Iraq

because I have a draft age son myself. He is 18 years old and a freshman at University of Reno and I damn well hope he gets to graduate. I do not think it is ok to annex Iraq nor would i want to. IMO a draft makes politicians accountable because BEFORE you vote you realize that there is an inherent chance that you or your child might be called to "military service" so it might be worth your while to loook at who you are voting for instead of just the "party" platform or how much you might save in "taxes" Economics look alot different if you save money at the expense of sending your kids into harms way. I said I do think it is honorable to serve your nation , not necessarily in a "combat" situation, you can call it forced consription if you like or the draft whatever, but just who do you send? My only son because he is willing to join the military when he graduates from college so that he can fly? Do you not think it is honorable to serve your country? Do you not think it honorable to defend and protect the United States? I do, but like you I do not think that the Iraq war rises to the level of National Security, if there was mandatory service for the protection of the United States whether it came in form of peace time or war time don't you think that our elected leaders would have to be a little less cavilier to say the least? The all volunteer army allowed the voting public to become passive and uncaring because they knew their loved ones did not have to worry or make the sacrifice, thus why care if the "President" wanted and go take over the world for "cheap oil", why care if the armed forces and veteran benefits were cut so that multi corp could be more profitable why care if it was not going to effect you personally, so as you said "Think it Through" I do not support the war in Iraq, I do not support the draft in it's present form, I do support some type of mandatory "time frame" to report to service of our country, though that every high school senior deserves the opportunity to go to college first, but this be only a postponement of service not a deferment. I don't think the majority of people in this country will wake up and change the face or direction of this country unless they feel a personal threat to their own well being. And once again service to your country is Honorable and does NOT neccessarily have to be combat service.

[BurtWorm]

17. I explained the principle in the first post.

It's the democratic principle of personal investment in the common defense. My position is that an institutionalized draft is more likely to act as a deterrent than as a catalyst for wars. I also oppose on principle the idea of a military that the government can send anywhere and anytime it pleases because the military is "volunteer." The history of American engagements since the military went all-volunteer is one of feel-good, no-muss, no-fuss, permanent-campaign tail-wagging and peon-bullying.

Is Syria or Iran more or less likely to happen with a draft? Well, now that the Bushists got stung in Iraq, maybe neither will happen so quickly. But do you think the neo-cons planned PNAC with a draft in mind? I don't think so, for the simple reason that most of the PNACers remember how popular the draft was among themselves.

[stevedeshazer]

30. You must come from a very detached point of view

If you oppose on principle the idea of a military that the government can send anywhere and anytime it pleases because the military is "volunteer", what makes you think that they won't send draftees into the same situation? Can you honestly say this won't happen?

The invasion of other countries such as Syria and Iran is no more or less likely with or without a draft. Can you show otherwise? Or will America magically transform into a good-guy nation because they need to supplement voluntary enlistment by FORCING citizens to fight wars? Yeah, that'll happen. :eyes:

It must be nice to sit back and put other people's kids at risk in order to support your political ideas.

The PNACers can go to hell. They don't care what you think or what I think. So what if they planned a draft or not. How is that relevant?

I can see it now! NEWSFLASH: PNACers Care About Draft

So what? </rant>

[BurtWorm]

34. Do you believe that some wars are worth fighting?

I'm totally agnostic on the question. I've yet to encounter a war in my lifetime that I thought was worth fighting--with the possible exception of the war against the Taliban. I'm more sympathetic to peace-keeping missions, but only multilateral ones. But what do you think?

It seems to me that the US has been much more willing to elect war with a volunteer army than with a conscripted one. It's difficult to compare because we've had a volunteer army for 30 years. But the last time we had a conscripted army, the government had a much more difficult time waging war. Vietnam was clearly an elective war, clearly more of a politician's and think tanker's war than a popular war. Iraq (and the PNAC agenda in the Middle East) are similar. It would be a major mistake to rely on a draft to support the PNAC agenda, especially when Iraq has turned into such a notorious failure.

I think raising the issue of the draft would harm the cause of war, which I think is a good thing. It could wake the politicians up to the fact that there are people out here who will also wake up if their lives or their children's lives depend upon it.

[stevedeshazer]

44. Yes, some wars are worth fighting

This ain't one of them. A draft is a draft. Let 'em draft you or your kid. I'm not willing to chance it myself, nor is my family.

Maybe you weren't around the last time there was a draft. I was. I still carry my Selective Service card as a reminder.

Draftees were the sons of the unprivileged. The only difference now would be that daughters of the unprivileged will be eligible, too.

You're talking in circles; you keep saying that it would "wake up the politicians". It didn't then and it won't now.

Americans don't "elect" war. Presidents do.

You speak of Vietnam as an "elective" war. I'm pretty sure the 58,000 Americans who died there along with untold thousands of ruined lives didn't have any choice in the matter.

[BurtWorm]

45. It woke up the politicians during Vietnam!

I recall a hell of a lot more anti-war politicians then than there are now. Did we pull out of Vietnam or not? Would we have if there had been no pressure, not just from draft age kids but from their parents and their reps in Congress? Would 18 years olds have had the right to vote if there had been no draft to fire them up politically?

[stevedeshazer]

47. Sure, all true

Yes, we pulled out of Vietnam, and yes there was pressure, and yes it helped get us out. My parents and I were a small part of it. That's a good thing.

And yes, this pressure helped get the Constitution amended to enfranchise voters aged 18-20. That's an excellent thing.

But it took from 1966 until 1973 for the pressure to come to fruition, despite everything that happened during those years. And during that time, forced conscription went on and on. We can't afford to wait that long now, and I don't see how exposing our sons and daughters to a new draft will help, politically or otherwise.

Problem is, the same pressures may or may not work today. You're basing your argument, as I understand it, on the assumption that politicians will yield to an anticipated public pressure once a certain number of unwilling draftees are conscripted. I don't see that happening.

You've given a good accounting of your position, I just don't agree. :toast: to you and a good discussion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. I also support the military and the right to wage war "in principle"

of course that's all predicated on principled wars/defense.

[AP]

36. I agree. More people should feel like they have a stake in what

America does abroad, but I wouldn't want anyone to be fodder in American fascist imperialism.

Ideally, we'd have a sane foreign policy and some kind of compulsory military service.

[Christ was Socialist]

41. I can't believe we have draft supporters here this is what scares

me about the Kerry campaign. Its a stupid fucking idea, if it's a just war as if there is such a thing then many idiots will sign up. Me Personally I have too much to live for. Einstien avoided the draft in germany with the same reasoning I USE. You get one time to go around, so how am i most useful to humanity.

[BurtWorm]

46. I find it very frustrating to discuss this issue on DU

where so many people can't get beyond their own fear of being drafted. Having a draft does not mean that you will go to war. In fact, it will come down to a lottery, as it did in Vietnam, because there are only so many places in the military.

But here is the point: shouldn't those places be filled with a cross-section of the country? It would be great if the volunteer army actually attracted a cross-section, but it doesn't. It attracts disproportionately more lower class, more Southern, more minorities than in the population at large.

Here's a more eloquent argument from the Web:

http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=03/03/31/20015008;cid=70

A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities overrepresented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent, with political conservatism ascendant in the officer corps and Northeasterners fading from the ranks, America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.

"Has the U.S. military become a 'warrior' caste, increasingly separate and different from civilian society? Compared to their contemporaries in civilian life, the armed forces have a greater percentage of minorities, a higher proportion of high school graduates, and better reading levels. While whites account for three of five soldiers, the military has become extremely popular with blacks. The lure is particularly strong for black women: in the Army, half of all enlisted women are black. The number of Hispanics in the military is growing rapidly, with those in combat positions more often serving as infantry grunts than as fighter or bomber pilots," ms_sue_collins writes. "The less privileged, those who may not be able to afford a college education, see the military as an opportunity to better themselves: Twenty-four-year-old Lori Luckey signed up with the Marines to 'get a chance at a career and the opportunity for advancement, to see the world, and to obtain a dental plan and other benefits.' But some question the composition of the fighting force and what they believe has become a working-class military fighting for an affluent America:

It's just not fair that the people that we ask to fight our wars are people who join the military because of economic conditions, because they have fewer options, said Representative Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat from Manhattan and a Korean War veteran who is calling for restoring the draft.