The Draft?: Imperialist Mercenaries and Conscripted Democrats

[BurtWorm]

There's a good reason or two for supporting the draft. Without it, we have an army of mercenaries fighting our wars for us. This divorces the military from the people, creating a military class that relies on war (or international policing) to justify its existence, and alienating the people from the consequences of their ruling class's decisions to employ military force. A democracy really ought not to be in such a situation, though such a situation is perfect for empire.

Note: This was originally posted in JVS's thread on heightening the contradictions.

[redeye]

1. What's wrong with mercenaries?

Tell me. What's wrong with people choosing to be cannon fodder instead of murdered for the nations' glory?

[BurtWorm]

3. No one chooses to be cannon fodder

The people who volunteer for the imperialists' military do so for the most part for personal economic reasons, to escape poverty and economic immobility. They are an exploited class. The volunteer military is fundamentally a privatization of what should be a public concern. It enables the Plutocrat Party (formerly known, inaccurately, as the Republican Party) to use taxpayers' money for their private wars. That's just fine with a lot of Democrats and other liberals, apparently, who believe such a situation leaves their hands nice and clean where wars "not in their name" are concerned. But the fact is, such a situation is fundamentally undemocratic, and none of our hands are clean. The ruling class ought not to be able to exploit this divorce of the military class from the people to throw its wars if our democracy is to continue to mean something. The people must give consent to the wars fought in its name, and in order to do be able to do that rationally, they must have a real stake in whatever wars their political leaders ask consent for.

[redeye]

5. Stop the classist bullshit, ok?

The world is not black = ruling class, white = exploited class. Those in the army have a choice not to be there, so if they're exploited it's by their own choice to be cannon fodder. Moreover, conscripted armies are larger than volunteer forces, so more people suffer if there is conscription.

On five other notes:

1. There's no such things as "the people." There are individual people, c'est tout.

2. I oppose conscription because frankly I don't want myself to be killed. D'you have a problem with that?

3. What's undemocratic about freedom of occupation?

4. If you're talknig about popular consent, then why not simply shoot 200 people every time a war is declared?

5. Those who're in the military by economic necessity will still have to be there even if there is conscription, so it won't help them at all - actually their situation will deterorate because their payment will be cut.

[BurtWorm]

8. Race has nothing to do with the argument.

Class has everything to do with it. And your argument in favor of the status quo sounds suspiciously Libertarian (i.e., right wing) to me.

On edit: I see you weren't making race the basis of your objection, and I apologize for my misreading. But I still think your argument, based on self-interest, is Libertarian and right-wing.

PS: Perhaps it would be better to say that your arguments based on self-interest, in my opinion, serve the right-wing by letting them off the hook. This willingness of many allegedly pacifist leftists to wash their hands of the military is perfect for the imperialist class. It's much less disruptive to their agenda if protests against their wars are restricted to a class of people they can't exploit for their purposes.

[AndyTiedye]

2. No No No No No

Giving them the draft gives them a limitless supply of cannon fodder
and you know they'll use if if they've got it.

The only reason we haven't invaded another country yet is that our Army
is bogged down in Iraqmire.

The ruling class will always have no-show ANG slots or something similar
waiting for them if they have to "serve".

People haven't exactly been rushing to enlist since the war started,
and they aren't letting people out when their enlistments are up
because nobody is reenlisting voluntarily.

What if they had a war and nobody came?

[BurtWorm]

4. We won't be seeing a draft, don't worry.

A draft is not in the imperialists' interest. Making military service mandatory would end the imperialists' ability to make war without the people's consent.

[Dover]

6. I can see merit to both arguments. I think Rumsfeld is in Colombia right

now soliciting (blackmailing or paying off) that government's militant groups (the same ones accused of crimes against humanity) to bolster the effort against the "rebels" and secure interests and new resources. Now I think these rebels or "terrorists" or "resisters" will be everywhere that this regime goes if they attempt to force themselves on weaker nations. It's inevitable as we've already discovered. If the U.S. military isn't big enough or willing to serve...and the UN is not cooperating along with other countries by offering support, then there is nowhere else for them to turn except elite private troops, and other people's armies (poor nations who will happily accept bribes).

So the best thing we can do is get these bozos out of office and in jail. I'm afraid a draft would not go over in this country without violent resistence anyway.

[BurtWorm]

7. "I'm afraid a draft would not go over in this country without violent

resistance."

Which says a lot about how real the people's consent for imperialist wars is.

[Dover]

9. "consent for imperialist wars" I don't think that's it at all.

There's no consent. People don't want to show up for a war they don't believe in and do the bidding of imperialists.

I doubt they've even considered what the consequences of a successful resistence to the draft might mean...

Bushco is already busy collecting and training their special forces and hired killers.
In fact they've been used before.

[BurtWorm]

10. Of course they're hiring their mercenaries.

The Plutocrat Party firmly believes in hiring "volunteers" to do their dirty work. They don't want to be in a position of creating resistance among the cattle they're sending off for slaughter. There won't be a draft.

[femmecahors]

11. My son turns 18 next June . . .

Our family was protesting in the streets before the invasion because we all felt the invasion was wrong . . . and because we're very worried that there will be a draft.

I will die fighting against the draft, before I let my son go off to die or be maimed for The United States of Haliburton and Carlyle.

[BurtWorm]

12. I don't believe there will be a draft.

Just the threat of there being one could have disastrous consequences for the Halliburton government.

[rusk2003]

15. If he is 18 he is last on the list

I researched all this if a draft happend today the people called would be called in this order 20,21,22,23,24,25,19,18 I read online that it would be unlikly that anyone 18-19 would get called. But still possible.

[rusk2003]

13. That is the last thing we need with a republican government

If a draft under a republican lead government would give them the world largest work focre to do nation buliding,wars for business intrest,wars for payback becase they did not like something the other country did, wars that are fought becasue the people in charge do not like the other countries policy, Republicans look at soliders in the armed forces like numbers that can be replaced. 10,000,000 draft elligble people when a draft in inacted meand MASSIVE WAR,Nation Bulding, Wars for business interest,etc, I don' think they will try a draft this close to an election. JUST another reason all the draft eligble people and PRo Peace people should VOTE Democratic or PRo Preace people in 2004

[BurtWorm]

14. There will be no draft until whoever starts it risks no consequences.

But there should be a draft. And there should be no standing army.

[BurtWorm]

16. kick