(Speaking of media management: you've probably heard the rumours that Osama bin Laden has been captured, and is being held somewhere to be publicly "captured" some time closer to Election Day.)
First of all -- "the mechanisms for reinstituting the draft are slowly, quietly being put into place," is a load of shit. As most people know, in the United States, you have to register for the draft when you turn 18 anyways. The draft infrastructure was never dismantled, the practice was simply stopped after the Vietnam War.
Also -- Bush will not win the next election.
And as far as the draft being reconstituted, it could potentially be good for the country. One major problem with an all volunteer military is that it allows the government to abuse it. What stops governments from sending draftees intro conflicts is widespread public dissatisfaction with the fact that not only are they fighting unpopular interventionist wars, but their lives are being interrupted to do so. This is not the case with an all-volunteer military -- people are willing to use them more often precisely because they volunteered. In fact, this condition probably increases the likelihood of more American interventions around
First of all -- "the mechanisms for reinstituting the draft are slowly, quietly being put into place," is a load of shit. As most people know, in the United States, you have to register for the draft when you turn 18 anyways. The draft infrastructure was never dismantled, the practice was simply stopped after the Vietnam War.
Also -- Bush will not win the next election.
And as far as the draft being reconstituted, it could potentially be good for the country. One major problem with an all volunteer military is that it allows the government to abuse it. What stops governments from sending draftees intro conflicts is widespread public dissatisfaction with the fact that not only are they fighting unpopular interventionist wars, but their lives are being interrupted to do so. This is not the case with an all-volunteer military -- people are willing to use them more often precisely because they volunteered. In fact, this condition probably increases the likelihood of more American interventions around
continued
the world. I would assume that this is exactly what you coffee-house chic, so-called globally concerned citizens of the world are so outraged about -- "american imperialism," or interventionalism.
It doesn't give me much faith to see such an obviously urbane blog blindly towing the conspiracy-ridden ultra-liberal party line with these ignorant and unabashedly biased posts. Please don't even start with the hiding Osama Bin Laden until election time. Those reports are obviously ridiculous. I think they appeared in one bizarre Pakistani newspaper -- not quite a bastion of impartial journalism.
but back to the draft. As far as the "geek draft" goes. It never hurt educated people to take a little time and serve their country where they are needed.
sorry for the repeated post, and yes, i meant "Interventionism" rather than interventionalism. lol.
"It doesn't give me much faith to see such an obviously urbane blog blindly towing the conspiracy-ridden ultra-liberal party line with these ignorant and unabashedly biased posts."
LOL.
Re: the mechanism of the draft: it isn't just the registration for the draft; it's the recent recruitment of staff for draft offices and overhauling of procedures. Up until recently, draft registration was just a vestige of Cold War paranoia; now, steps are being made to put it to use.
And "ultra-liberal"? You mean, as liberal as Joseph Stalin?
Btw, if you read carefully, you'll notice that I'm not claiming that the thing about Team Bush sitting on Osama's capture until the election has any truth to it. Maybe I should spell everything out literally from now on.
He's probably one of those people who thought irony died on 11/9
I haven't seen a debunking of this bit about linguists and computer specialists, but the general idea that the US is gearing up to reimplement the draft is bollocks. See, for instance, http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#107877519430976284.
Liberal as Stalin. Quite right. ;)
Anyways. MY BAD. My diction took a turn for the worse as I wandered into rhetoric. Also, now that i reread my comments, I feel as if the point I meant to make was obfuscated.
My Point was that about the all-volunteer military and its capacity to abused simply because it is in fact a military made up of volunteers. This allows them to be deployed with much greater ease than a military comprised of reluctant draftees. It seems that if one is anti-war, anti-interventionist, one should be more inclined to favor a draft system where there is more domestic resistance to any deployment than an all-volunteer system.
OTOH, a military with conscripts can also be far larger than an all-volunteer military, allowing it to be deployed more widely and less discriminately.
In theory, the fact that non-volunteers' lives are on the line would mitigate against this; however, in practice, the backlash would take a lot longer to appear. When the fog of jingoism descends and the media muzzle criticism that could give comfort to the enemy (as happened post-9/11), many people will be willing to put up with the risk of their loved ones being killed in action without looking too hard at why; after all, there are people smarter and better versed in the subtleties in the Pentagon who know all this, and in times of war you have to fall in line and trust your leaders, and so on.
I love it when you're glib. "many people will be willing to put up with the risk of their loved ones being killed in action without looking too hard at why."
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1068914.htm
Group psychology works in interesting ways. If dissent is disloyalty and your country needs you, then you will want to believe that it's all for the greater good. After all, who wants to be a coward or a traitor?
I've heard these arguements that a conscript army will be less likely to be used and I'm afraid that history shows that to be a contemptable and utter fallacy. Vietnam anyone? Longest war in US and Australian history, involving the use, more by the US than Aus, of mainly conscripts.
We tend to look back on that era and think that the moratorium marches were all about conscription - they weren't - they were about bringing all of the soldiers home from an insane war.
Which, on reflection, is an oxymoron - all wars are insane. I was a volunteer soldier - no one should ever be forced to take up arms for any reason. This is a fundamental human right. No one should be forced to serve abstract nouns (nations or countries, whatever you want to call them). I have no loyalty to 'Australia' and neither should anyone else IMO.
It's time to draw lines in the sand. These are mine.
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with all you on this. You all are looking too far back in history for your examples. Obviously Vietnam is an example of a vast prolonged conflict involving thousands of conscripts. What is relavant is the POST-Vietnam era in the United States.
It was precisely the war in Vietnam that was the impetus for the creation of the all-volunteer American military as I'm sure you all know. If you examine every conflict that American soliders have been deployed in since Vietnam you will see that the vast majority of them are short-term, small scale, interventionist operations specifically designed to minimize casualties and the longevity of the conflict. This is because after Vietnam, Americans became exceedingly squeamish about troop casualties in drawn out foreign wars, but they don't care that much about sending volunteers to invade Grenada and Panama, or to launch anti-terrorist operations in Somalia...that is, until their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands are torn from
Continued
their lives to do so. The Vietnam generation's KIDS are the ones who are fighting these wars...if you think that generation will just buckle over and accept their kids being drafted and killed then think again.
Have you considered the fact that the American people are so willing to go along with the Bush Administration's war plans precisely because it won't be THEIR kids fighting the war, it'll be the plumber's son, and the maid's husband. It's very easy to fall in line behind the wisdom of your military leaders if you don't have anything to lose from the potential fight. I guarantee that opposition to the Iraq war would be hundredfold if the draft was implemented. As an American I can assure you that no one wants to fight that shit themselves.
It's easy to dodge this particular draft. Be gay:
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/880_1/880_1_kaiser.asp