Why Rangel has Proposed A Draft

Honestly, I never loved that Chickenhawk line.

But I tell you what did tick me off, who in the heck is Joe Scarborough to speak for our soldiers and their families? How the heck does he know how they feel? That really ticked me off.

That said, at this point in the Iraq Debacle, I think the Chickenhawk argument is politically effective because the country has rejected it, and I bet our soldiers have too. But I do not presume to speak for them.

< Judge Criticizes Pou Investigation | Last Big Push >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Chickenhawk (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by vcmvo2 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:57:42 PM EST
    All very defensive and blustery but they fail to address Larry's main point that all these chicken hawks refuse to fight the war they so deeply believe

    Inquiring minds (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:14:16 AM EST
    VC - If a Chickenhawk is a supporter that doesn't fight, is a critic that won't fight a Chicken??

    Inquiring minds want to know


    Your being absurd (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    If someone is against this war and a crictic. Why would you be a Coward for not wanting to fight in it?   Your bending and twisting logic into the absurd kind of wingnut arguments we have become accustomed to.

    You know (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    I have never called anyone a coward for not. My comments are directed to showing how stupid using the term "chickenhawk" is.

    I guess you think one sided tauts are acceptable.


    At least he's consistent ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:34:45 AM EST
    ppj believes in torture, indefinite detention w/o charges and insulting people's service and calling them cowards and traitors.

    It's a good thing he's in an ever shrinking minority.

    If McCain is going to field another 20,000 troops he'd better start the draft, otherwise they are just as illusory as bush's plan for 'stay the course' victory.


    Inquiring minds (none / 0) (#47)
    by esmense on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    A critic who doesn't fight is morally consistent.

    Chickenhawks (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkAtl on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:03:48 AM EST
    I am firmly convinced that had there been a draft we would not have had the political will to invade Iraq.

    Hey, Larry O'Donnell needs to follow Keith! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by rhbrandon on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:13:29 AM EST
    We now know MSNBC's solution for viewer drop-off after Olbermann. Put someone on who follows his lead.

    Scarborough is a GOP hack, given a cable news show when conventional wisdom said only Republicans had anything to say to anyone. Before that, MSNBC gave media hack Rita Cosby a show because conventional wisdom said that Faux News was the wave of the future and everyone had better ride it.

    We now know what reality really is: give the forum to those who speak truth to power. Wow, what a concept.

    Why Rangel instead of Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JSN on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:52:44 AM EST
    Rangel has proposed a draft before and he said he would do so again. It will get media attention until some new event occurs and then the subject be dropped.

    My understanding is that we need more troops in Iraq to regain control and provide security and we don't have them. Recent estimates is that we could scrape up 20,000 to send to Iraq and that is not enough. I have read estimates as high as 400,000 for the number of troops needed to provide security.

    If that is the case Bush should be asking for a draft not Rangel.

    Why "chickenhawk" has no power (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by esmense on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:44:03 PM EST
    "Chickenhawk" was coined by veterans when military service was, for males, considered a universal moral obligation. It is not a condemnation of anyone's "speech." All citizens have both a right and an obligation to speak to matters of war.

    It is, instead, a MORAL judgement on the ACTIONS of those who could serve but, for reasons of self-interest, actively avoid service. Most especially those who, while doing so, seek special moral approval and recognition as "supporters" of a war. To call someone a "chickenhawk" isn't to condemn their speech, but their character. It is to call them moral cowards -- without the courage of their supposed convictions.

    But that condemnation only has power in an environment in which military service IS recognized as a universal moral obligation. Which it no longer is in this country.

    Those most offended by chickenhawks are veterans of the Vietnam era who, apolitically, took the moral concept of shared obligation and sacrifice, used to justify the draft, seriously. Men who, separate from whether they "supported" the war or not, thought it dishonorable to indulge in the strategies of avoidance practiced by contemporaries like Cheney and George W. Bush. They submitted to conscription and served against their personal interests out of a sense of duty.  

    But, those veterans are relatively small in number, just a tiny portion of the electorate. Their contemporaries who avoided service obviously never shared their idea of duty, and so don't share their outrage at men who avoided that duty. That outrage isn't shared by the mostly non-serving members of the generations that grew up after the draft, either. Nor by veterans of the all-volunteer military - who are no more likely to see military service as a universal moral obligation than their non-serving contemporaries. Unlike the draft era veteran who experienced military service as a shared sacrifice, contemporary soldiers see the military as a career and a meritocracy -- for which only an elect number of people are genuinely suited. Concepts like duty, honor and service are as important to the military as they have ever been -- but they are no longer wedded to the idea of universal obligation. In fact, today's mlitary often sees universal service negatively -- as an invitation to the recruitment of the less qualified and less committed.

    What I want to know is (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by esmense on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    ...what does it mean to be "resolute" -- as the president and Iraq war supporters insist we must be -- in a war in which no one is expected to serve?

    What does sitting on our asses -- whether you are a 60 year old woman like me or a 20-something pro-war Young Republican -- and just accepting the fact that some small number of Americans will be sent, over and over and over again, into harms way, to sacrifice their health, limbs and lives -- as if that sacrifice is just somehow our due -- have to do with being resolute? As opposed to being merely selfish, callous and irresponsible?

    ChickenHawks? (4.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jarober on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:40:22 AM EST
    Well.  If non-veterans can't speak on military affairs, a lot of peace activists are going to have to quiet down.  By the same reasoning, all men will have to cease to have any opinion whatsoever on abortion, and anyone who's never been a crime victim will have to stay mum about crime.

    I suppose that would make all politics a lot quieter.

    I'm a "peace activist" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:13:21 AM EST
    And a veteran.  I guess that gives me every right to the floor.

    Anyone who calls upon others to sacrifice, while offering none of their own, is a hypocrite.  Veterans and active military have every right to ignore their cowardly mewling and bleating.

    If you think the war in Iraq is a good idea, what are you doing in support of it?  Have you enlisted, or have you encouraged others to enlist?  Are you raising money for body armor?  Are you visting veteran's hospitals?

    Of course those with no experience in the miltary who support the invasion of Iraq have every right to express their worthless, insulting opinions.  It's a free country, but no thanks to you for that.

    Just so we're clear, what IS the greatest sacrifice you have made in the name of patriotism?  If patriotism were as easy as eating ice cream, everyone would be one.  If you have never sacrificed anything for your country, never performed public service or contributed unselfishly to your community, what right do you have to call yourself a patriot?  

    If you know.


    Cuts both ways. (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:01:20 AM EST
    RePack - Well, I think I will join with you and call for everyone to just shut up unless they have served, or are now serving.

    It will be restful to not have to hear Nancy and Hillary and the other minions of the great never served moonbats, wingnuts and koolaid drinkers of all stripes.

    And while we are at it I guess we're gonna have to dig up and gag Lincoln and FDR, seeing as how they didn't get out there and hump a pack or swab a deck or fly off into the wild blue yonder.

    Which, of course, is just my way of saying your comments are the same as Ernesto's, claiming that if you haven't served you can't claim to support, without telling those who you agree with to shut up and go away because they aren't qualified to complain.

    Cuts both ways, eh??


    Unclear, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    It will be restful to not have to hear Nancy and Hillary and the other minions of the great never served moonbats, wingnuts and koolaid drinkers of all stripes.

    Pelosi voted against the AUMF, so she's off the hook.  "Chickenhawk" only applies to those who advocate war without wanting to sacrifice as much as a second cup of coffee, and Pelosi clearly didn't.

    Hillary?  Who cares what she thinks?  She voted FOR the AUMF, so I have nothing to say in her behalf.

    And while we are at it I guess we're gonna have to dig up and gag Lincoln and FDR, seeing as how they didn't get out there and hump a pack or swab a deck or fly off into the wild blue yonder.

    Lincoln was veteran who served during the Blackhawk War, so read that book again.  FDR was crippled from polio, but he was no coward, a la Bush-Lite.  His public service speaks for itself, as does GWB's.


    What is "service" (none / 0) (#7)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:05:35 AM EST
    Of course, even veterans disagree on the war.

    Does peacetime service count?

    BTW- I was once turned down by a grad school because I had no "community service", my 4 years didnt count.


    Strategy (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:11:46 AM EST
    Roger - In my experience among veterans the disagreement is mostly over strategy, not intent.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    Jim, the local American Legion post is a block from my house.  I vote there, I had my wedding reception and my high school reunion in that building, and it's the closest place to my house where you can buy a drink.

    Come on down, belly up to the bar, and treat yourself to a lot of veterans who will be happy to tell you that invading Iraq was the most moronic decision in American history, and that George W. Bush is a deserter and a coward.  No one argues that Iraq was mismanaged, only that it was a bad idea to begin with.

    I haven't taken a vote, but that seems to be the unanimous opinion.  I guess you hang out with the wrong vets.


    xx (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    RePack - I have no doubt your circle of friends reflect your beliefs.

    strategy (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:47:26 AM EST

    I am aware of your service.

    That being said, you're telling me that there was/is a strategy?


    Hello Roger.. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    My comment was that I see strategy discussions, not criticism of the intent in the vast majority of veterans. Big difference.

    I don't believe I have ever criticized the strategy, Monday morning quarterbacking is fun but useless.

    Maybe we can have that drink we talked about sometimes and bore each other with our military strategy expertise.

    Mine,of course,does favor waves of bombers, tactical nukes and cluster bombs... Just ask SD and he will tell you.

    And without fail, lots of panties to put on the prisioner's heads and bathrooms to desecrate the Koran.  


    In the meantime I'm trying to figure out how to hit a button on the keyboard and have "I'm a 10 year veteran. If you're not, be quiet," printed on the screen. I am sure glad RePack and Ernesto thought of that.


    drink (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    Someday, we'll have that drink.

    For now, I think that here amongst the veterans, it is 3-1 against being in Iraq at all. That's with you being the one.


    Did I mention (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:06:30 AM EST
    BTW - Did I mention I served 10 years?

    Yes (none / 0) (#19)
    by aw on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    Ad nauseum.  But you never say what you actually did.

    You, yourself said (none / 0) (#22)
    by aw on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    If you bring a point up, don't be shocked if someone asks for details,

    just the other day in Three Guantanamo Detainees Freed.


    service (none / 0) (#30)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    Naval Aviation, if I remeber correctly

    True (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    True and Airforce for you.

    Not a zoomie! (none / 0) (#52)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:34:46 PM EST
    101st AB

    Welcome (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    Your welcome to ask, and you have my answer.

    And  Bill answered, and  I accepted.


    Ad nauseum...... (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    I agree. Rather vague as well.

    Secret Agent? Must be that.


    One more thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:49:36 AM EST
    Lincoln and FDR went to war as a response to attacks on American soil and declarations of war by the opponents.

    Iraq did not attack us, did not declare war, and posed no threat.  Big difference.


    Cuts both ways (none / 0) (#48)
    by esmense on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    Of course  you can claim to "support." You just can't expect, and certainly can''t demand, that anyone take that "support" too seriously.

    There's something intellectually and morally ridiculous about someone (who has the capability to fight) proclaiming in one breath, loudly and stridently, that a cause of such vital importance that lives must be sacrificed to it -- then, in the next breath, arguing just as vociferously against any personal need or obligation to sacrifice anything -- even the smallest amount of discomfort -- to that cause.

    Not only is it ridiculous, its counter-productive in terms of recruiting others to the cause you claim is so vitally important.

    You also forfeit any moral authority to question or condemn the "support," or lack of support, anyone else may exhibit toward that cause.


    Stone Deaf PPJ Strikes Again (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:17:10 AM EST
    Which, of course, is just my way of saying your comments are the same as Ernesto's, claiming that if you haven't served you can't claim to support, without telling those who you agree with to shut up and go away because they aren't qualified to complain.

    Don't know why I bother, since it never sinks in to your skull but my comments are to point out the disgusting hypocrisy of the chickenhawks that dodged military service and then cheerlead for a war they won't ever have to bleed in.

    Like Dick Cheney.

    Like George W. Bush.

    You support those clowns why? What have they done to garner your support? They have squandered thousands of lives and limbs and hundreds of billions of dollars for exactly what?

    You feeling safer, are you? Why? And don't give me that "better fight them there then here, because they weren't there before we got sent over there on this brilliant mission.

    The peaceniks I don't have a problem with since they aren't asking other people to kill and die for them. What's so hard to understand about that?


    Cowards and Chicken Hawks (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    I am a Disabled Combat Veteran. I served 2 tours in VN. I have been in a wheelchair ever since. I can recognize a ChickenHawk and Pro Iraq war coward a mile away! And this was a typical reaction of the Cowardly lions who discuss war in the abstract and squeal loudly and display indignance and a pretense of being insulted when called on their Cowardice. I revelled in their squawking and quivering raised indignant voices. They scream to cover the truth exposing something in their personal character. They wish to deny to themselves. Thank you Charlie Rangel! Isn't interesting how Scared Borough kept saying "Youve gone over the line" Well did anyone ask "Who put down the line?". I doesn't take a Combat Vet long to figure out who. I again,thank Charlie Rangle for re-removing that line we were told not to pass.

    J'accuse, Part II (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    First, thank you for your service, Mreddieb.

    I've written here before about how frustrating it is to see grown men and women resort to namecalling in order to shut down debate. It's doubly disappointing to see that some people think that's a legitimate form of debate.

    As I wrote before, the Chickenhawk meme is offensive because it's contrary to common sense, our democratic traditions, logic, and the normal usage of the English language. I won't retread that ground again. (After all, the only response to my argument was "Enlist or STFU.") I encourage you to click and read it, though.

    Here, I just want to say that it is deeply disingenuous to claim that not serving in the military says something about the character of war supporters that it doesn't say about war opponents. (Once again, when I say "war supporter" I mean supporters of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, not people who support war for war's sake.)

    Calling someone a Chickenhawk is just a means of shutting down debate. It's juvenile. It's hardly effective. And it's a shame that it's tolerated and even encouraged around here.


    Phony arguments don't cut it with me. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    When Chickenhawks are called on their indefensible position of supporting a conflict as long as others do the fighting and dieing for them, one of their favorite red Herrings is to protest those of us who call them Chickenhawks and cowards as somehow an attempt by us to deny them their right to participate in the debate. Nice try but that dog won't hunt here. You war supporters can speak all you want but your still chickenhawks and Cowards if you won't back you mouths with your own puny butts. If you want to support war than go and fight it period.  If you wont put your Butt on the line you are all Cowards and deserve every bit of scorn you receive. War is NOT a College debating club folks it's all about real people getting killed and maimed.

    I was wrong... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Apparently I will retread this ground again. But first I want to note this inconsistency.

    MrEddieB writes:

    War is NOT a College debating club folks it's all about real people getting killed and maimed.

    And yet, he wrote upthread:

    I again,thank Charlie Rangle for re-removing that line we were told not to pass.

    Thus, he demonstrates that it is good to encourage debate about war when war supporters do it, but not when a "chickenhawk" does it. When a "chickenhawk" wants to talk about war, its:

    If you want to support war than go and fight it period.

    As far as my "phony arguments" go, there is nothing "phony" about them. In fact, MrEddieB has exhibited the logic problem I noted in my previous comment. Instead of addressing any of the arguments, he just called me a chickenhawk and a coward and impugned my "puny butt."

    That is the classic ad hominem, the most common logical fallacy. In short, he's saying "This man is a coward, don't listen to him. Scorn him instead." It's a nice rhetorical technique, but it's a total failure when it comes to addressing the arguments. Arguments are good or bad based on their premises, not on their proponents.

    I would welcome a debate about my "phony arguments." So far, all I've gotten is "STFU" and "puny butt." If I wanted "debate" like that I could've gone to DU or LGF.


    Other Priorities? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:20:22 AM EST
    Gabe, just for the record...do you support the war in Iraq and if so, why aren't you enlisting to go fight there?

    Ending Debate? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    Gabe, just for the record...do you support the war in Iraq and if so, why aren't you enlisting to go fight there?
    Evidentially the use of the term 'chickenhawk' is not what shuts down the debate with the 101st keyboard kommandos as is clear from the above tinny complaint. What does stop the debate is Ernesto Del Mundo's excellent question.

    BTW- Debate? Deaths for lies. Cannon fodder to rally the savage vote is hardly a topic for debate. Using the term is dishonest as the war is. There is nothing to debate, bring our troops home now. Then we can have all sorts of debates and war crime trials.


    Okay (none / 0) (#60)
    by aw on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    Let's you and him fight.  

    That's what you want to be able to say.  Right?


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    aw- Not sure if you are responding to my response. Nesting can be a bit confusing. If you are responding to my response I do not get what you are saying. Fight with whom?

    Ack!!!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by aw on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    No, not you Squeaky!  I agree you need a t-square or something to line up the remarks.  It was Gabriel.

    Relieved (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    Thanks for clearing that up aw, t-squared and slide ruled, I am relieved.

    AW and Squeaky, regarding the... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    ...confusion with the nesting there is always the "parent option" which should take you to the original post in question, but I also found (through trial and error) that if you use the setting "Ignore Ratings" the comments will remain much more orderly.

    Give it a try!


    Thanks Bill (none / 0) (#65)
    by aw on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    and Happy Turkey (or Ham) Day!

    Thanks Bill (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Still new to the system and have not tried all the options. Thanks for the tips I will try them out.

    Enjoy t'day and try not to eat too much. hahaha!


    Why, thank you kindly, ladies, and... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    ...I certainly wish you both the very best of the holiday as well.

    (And I'll bet Edger and Peaches are out there lurking, Happy Thanksgiving, all!)


    This is why I can't watch Scarborough... (3.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cdcinalb on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    They're always shouting over each other. It's like listening to a drunken barfight.

    People are free to say anything about the war. You don't have to have served in the military to support or oppose the war.

    That said, people are also free to make observatoins about one's character that are not slander, and they are also free to to point out practical or logical inconsistencies in one's arguments.

    Therefore, if a raging hawk says that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are desparate struggles for the survival of our very civilization, and she also says that it's idiotic to even bring up the subject of a draft or some kind of selective service, it is perfectly germane to point out that she is essentially contradicting herself. If she is under 42 (which is now the recriutment ceiling), it is not unreasonable to ask why she is not doing the one obvious thing that could she could personally do to directly assist this great task (that is - join the army).

    I think that people who haven't served in the army every right to to say anything they want; we are not run by some military junta. But I don't see why you can't ask some 19-42 year old hawk who is claims that it's vital we win in Iraq why he or she isn't in the army. If it's not important enough for that hawk to risk his life, what about the lives of the people who are already over there?

    Confused (none / 0) (#2)
    by jamesepowell on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    I am confused.  Do you mean to say that the chickenhawk is NOT politically effective because the country has rejected it?

    If so, I agree.  A very large and somewhat embarassing percentage of Americans are chickenhawks in that they love to watch the American military blow stuff up on TV, they love to wave flags and puff their chests at the magnificent accomplishments of Our Brave Troops, but they have no interest in or tolerance for any honest understanding of the realities or costs of war.

    wrong as usual jim................ (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    but i do love the hobgoblin of your boring consistency. abraham lincoln was a combat tested veteran, of the "black hawk war", serving as a captain in the illinois militia. i'm not sure he ever shot anyone, or at anyone, for that matter, but he was a military veteran, with combat experience. he downplayed it during the civil war, preferring to defer to the "professionals", but he was the final arbiter, of that there is little question.

    it must be nice to have a mind uncluttered by facts.

    i'm not a veteran, i couldn't pass the physical, for reasons i had no control over. that said, i am a citizen and taxpay, which give me standing to opine on whether or not this country should send our military into harm's way. it shouldn't be done lightly, to avenge an insult, for example.

    in fact, it should be done only when all other avenues to avert military action have been exhausted; war, as "diplomacy by other means" is usually more wasteful of scarce, allocable resources, than difficult diplomacy.

    it should be undertaken only using the "powell doctrine": clear goals, combined with overwhelming force. neither of these was in attendance upon our entry into iraq, aside from toppling saddam. starting the war on a lie didn't help matters either.

    i disagree with the pentagon: long-term, low numbers is not a viable option, unless we intend to paint targets on our troop's backs. the only two legitimate options, that give our people the highest survivability possibilities, are to either leave entirely, or gross up the troop levels, now.

    this is where the draft comes in: if the country as a whole truly believes in the conflict in iraq, put the burden and risk on the entire country, not just those who volunteer.

    the "all volunteer" military was never intended as the sole bulwark for this country's defense, in times of grave national peril. given its numbers, it couldn't realistically be. what it does is provide a huge buffer, to enable us sufficient time to recruit/draft, train and arm the larger numbers that would be needed, in the event of another great war.

    we've seen the truth of that already, in iraq. to argue otherwise is to either lie outright, or be conveniently oblivious to the truth.

    Nice day (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    cpinva - Thanks for the info on Lincoln, I am always glad to learn something, even if at the hands of someone who tries to insult rather than convert.

    During the Black Hawk War, Abraham Lincoln of New Salem, Illinois served three enlistments. Each enrollment lasted for approximately 30 days.

    Your position of "last resort," etc., is typical of many anti-war folks and especially those of libertarian leanings. I held that position on Kosvo, and called my Congress people to express my strong belief that it was Europe's problem and not in our national interest. I still hold that war must be in our national interest. I see no reason for us to be world wide policemen.

    Of course when the troops went to war, I shut up and supported the war, and the troops. Something I urge all do.

    After listening to Bush's 2003 SOTU speech I completed a trip I had begun in 1993 when I started to understand that in today's world there is no room for error, nor is there a nation state   that we can execute a strategy of Mutal Assured Destruction with. Said strategy was used during the Cold War.

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

    Bad intelligence brought us Iraq, a regretable result in one respect, but good if we remember that David Kay said clearly that while he had found no WMD's, Saddam was in the process of getting back into the WMD business.

    So the sad fact is that, like it or not, we must have a preemptive strike strategy or be prepared to suffer millions of dead and injured civilians, destruction of infrastructure and damaged economy.

    A strict defensive posture with a criminal justice appproach of capturing them after they kill is too costly in lives and treasure.

    In fact, for about the first 12 months of this war I thought that was the debate. I slowly came to realize that it was just a strawman of the old lefties who believed that America was basically bad, and took every opportunity to attack it. The resulting discussions of prisoner treatment, etc., are just sideshows to prevent the real question from being debated.

    "Are you, or are you not, willing to defend a country that is the best in the world, but also has some problems?"

    Anything besides a straight forward yes provides an answer that is not acceptable to most of what has came to be called, "the red states." The Left/Demos, with help from the MSM and some blogs, managed to hide that question, and their answer.

    As for the draft, I favor Universal Military Service for everyone unless they are severely handicapped. I have no idea as to your medical problem, but would think that you could have contributed in some capacity in a Universal model.

    Given that, would you have been proud to serve?


    receipts (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    As Ted Koppel said on Bill Maher:

    "We know that Saddam had WMD's, we have the receipt!"


    draftees (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    i've never fought with anyone who was drafted...perhaps some of you vietnam vets would have a better grasp on it than me. but it seems to me that i would rather not fight with someone that doesnt agree with our purpose. all of the conflicts i was involved in were fought with volunteers. but of course at level that i was right before my discharge, everyone agreed with the cause at least to some extent and the trust was most definately there. (you dont get into special forces by not wanting to be a part of the military) but on the grunt level, i'm not sure i would want to serve with someone who doesnt think that we should even be there. basic does a lot for individuals to get them ready for combat, but when you see bombs blowing up cars right next to you on the road and when people start shooting at you, is it harder to get a draftee to shoot back than it would be to get a volunteer to shoot back?

    also, if we need 400,000 troups to be there, that is not going to go over well in iraq. they're starting to see us as military occupants instead of the liberators that we were supposed to be. add about 250,000 more marines/soldiers/air men/sailors to the mix and there will be an American serviceman everywhere they look. they wont take that very well. what does the president of iraq think? isnt it time for him to make some decisions about requesting certain actions from us? i mean we should listen to him, since we're part of the reason that iraq is insane right now.

    I served in the '60s (none / 0) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    In a largely draftee army.  Since military service was EXPECTED of healthy young men at that time, people just did their service and STFU, and then got on with their lives.  Of course there were draft resisters at the time, but they were not in the military, they were outside it, and we never came into contact with them.

    My medical unit had a number of college graduates, and was of a much higher caliber than the volunteer army, which is composed of people for whom the military option is the BEST future they can imagine, or who have chosen the military to get them out of a less desirable place.  No one serves any more because it is EXPECTED, as it was when I was a young man.

    As a veteran from the days of the draft, I think the draft is a capital idea.  I think national service should be expected of everyone.


    RePack writes (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    My medical unit had a number of college graduates, and was of a much higher caliber than the volunteer army, which is composed of people for whom the military option is the BEST future they can imagine,

    So the volunteer army is composed of people who can do nothing else and have volunteered for the money only, not because of patroitism and a desire to serve..

    What a damn insult. Shame on you, sir. Shame on you.


    Please! (none / 0) (#36)
    by roger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    I served with many guys who joined out of desperation. The desperation that comes from growing up in the ghetto, or appalachia, mostly.

    They had limited job or educational prosepects before they joined. These guys LOVED the army. They were some of the best soldiers.

    Pointing out that they joined because of limited choices does not demean them, nor does it demean the military.


    Ther are no Draftees in a foxhole! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    Listen I served in VN for two years. We all become one band of brothers. Don't let the Chickenhawk Cowards pass that line of Bullsh*t about a volunteer Soldier is of better quality than a draftee. We all fought side by side. Our first President destroyed the idea of an invincible mercinary army when he crossed the Delaware rivet and captured the Hessians in Trenton during our Revolution.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    Maybe I missed it, but I don't rememeber anyone saying that a voluteer is a better soldier than a draftee...

    Me? I'm for Universal Military Service... like in everyone doing it..


    More Dead Soldiers (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:38:50 AM EST

    The volunteer military we have now allows for highly trained and motivated troops that results in fewer dead ones.  A conscript army will suffer many more dead.  IMHO, there is no reason at this point in time to accept the higher casualties a conscript army promises to deliver.

    Pure nonsense (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    A draftee is a person who has been called to duty to serve his Country. This does NOT make him/her a moron. The quality of our soldiers is directly related to the training they receive. Some times being Gung Ho can you killed and you'll take some of your buddies along with you. I owe my life to brave well trained American soldiers, both Draftees and Volunteers alike.

    Eh.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cdcinalb on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    First of all - I don't think there's any conceivable way you could back that statement up. I would point out that the Isreali army is comprised mostly of draftees, and they're no slouches.

    Second of all - you're missing the point. The volunteer military we have now is very professional and motivated, but it's also small. That's OK in peacetime, but if we're at war, as many people on the right say (over and over) we need a bigger army. Thus; if we need more soldiers to fight the war on terror, and there are not enough people volunteering to fight the war on terror, then you have to conscript people to fight the war on terror, whatever your opinion of conscripts may be.


    Scarborough and Cronkite (none / 0) (#32)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    Joe shows his ignorance there:  Cronkite was a combat correspondent (and one of the better ones) in the European Theater in WWII.  He covered, among other things, Patton's relief of Bastogne, riding along ("embedded", we'd call it today) with the 4th Armored Division through the Ardennes snow.

    And, O'Donnell is exactly right about the military being almost-totally divorced from the society of the country it serves.

    Joe should STFU.

    xx (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    scribe - Yes. He only fell apart in '68.

    Vietnam fell apart not Cronkite. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mreddieb on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    It took a REAL News Correspondent to make Johnson accept reality and face the fact the VN was lost cause and that was Cronkite. He is no Coward he went through the Valley of death with us and came out a wiser man. What will it take for Bushbag to take his head out of his ass and recognize Iraq is a lost cause too. Every day his head remains up his own Cowardly chickenhawk rectum real American heroes will continue to die for another lost cause.  

    This is just another red herring debate... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    ...between people seeking political advantage and ignoring the FACT that America is not now, has not been, and apparently, under bush, never will be on "war-footing" where every action taken by government should be an act of genuine support for our troops.

    bush said, "Go shopping..." instead of, "In order to fight what I SAY is the greatest threat ever faced by America I am requesting both a tax increase and cancellation of my tax cuts for the wealthy. All Pentagon spending for the Future Combat Systems, the Star Wars missile defense system, and any other weapons systems not necessary to fight this war will be suspended. I will be asking congress further for the additional funds necessary so that we can restore our manufacturing capabilities to WWII levels, I will call for gas rationing, critical materials rationing, and we will be providing additional resources to recruit and train the soldiers we need. The automobile manufacturers will be ordered to increase the gas mileage of their cars by a minimum of ten miles to a gallon to conserve resources. I will be calling upon all able-bodied men and women to enlist or, if unable to enlist, to join in a Manhattan Project-style massive effort to restore our steel mills, train mill workers, reform our textile industries and train needed workers, and to restore our capabilities to construct all necessary vehicles, airplanes, weapons and ammunitions without having to outsource any of this to a foreign country, so every American can and will be able to serve our country in one capacity or another."

    Absent a true call to battle similar to that above, it just shows that no one in this administration EVER really considered this WOT to be a great threat to our country. The entire endeavor is a sham to enrich corporations and seize Iraq's oil.

    It is small wonder that our military feels cut off from our society and that we have about 1% of the nation involved in defending us against "the gravest threat ever to our nation".

    It's not just a debate about who did or did not serve, it is about the inequities of sending troops into battle undermanned, ill-equipped, and with insufficient resources committed to winning this "greatest ever threat", while asking NOTHING of every other American other than, "Go shopping...".

    Anybody believing that neocon BS while not recognizing that no one has been asked to sacrifice BUT the troops is wearing blinders. That the troops are sacrificing so greatly while the rest of the country sacrifices nothing (with the exceptions of the families of our troops who often face the greatest sacrifice, the loss of a loved one) is an abomination and, IMO, makes Dubya the most ignorant, cold-hearted, lying-through-his-teeth, and lousiest C-in-C to ever betray this country and abandon our troops to useless sacrifice for oil.

    Anybody who believes that a call to massive efforts to recruit, train, equip, and provide for the military's every need to fight "the gravest threat American has ever faced" isn't necessary, is delusional as is bush.

    Go ahead every/anyone, tell me I'm wrong and why you are right to engage in such an inconsequential, phony debate among people not committed to fighting and winning this WOT.

    Enough with the notion (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    The recent "fact" being thrown around on this subject is that the poor and uneducated blah blah blah make up the military.

    That isn't true and Fox News reported on it last night from a Heritage Foundation report...


    "Now what about the charge that an all volunteer force is poorer, less educated, and more minority? Well a Heritage Foundation study last year, analyzing census data on income, race, region and education, found there that military recruits before and after 9/11 were more middle class than poor, more rural than urban, better educated than the general public, and that whites joined in higher proportions to the general population than all minority groups."

    This is based on census data.  Not one man's opinion or a sense of what's happening.  Hard data.

    It's fine to opose the war, to criticize the policy but stop with the fabrication of facts and a smoke screen draft proposal to make your point.

    The army doesn't need draftees it needs more volunteers and better management.