My son turned 18 last Friday. But I really can’t argue against or oppose this legislation.
I grew up in a mixed race working class town where almost every adult male over the age of about 35 served and a stint in the military was considered by almost every kid. For some it was the only way out.
I remember this guy Mike who was a few years older than us joining the Marines. He grew up in a very dysfunctional family and all he ever wanted to do was be a Marine. He joined right out of HS. A couple of years later, he was married to his HS girlfriend, had a nice car and totally had his shit together. I wanted to be like Mike but went to college instead.
My son has grown up in an affluent suburban town. He’s attended one of the best high schools in the country. The military is the last thing on his mind. He’s very bright, articulate and interested in history and cultures. He leans a little left but isn’t left-liberal like me or crazy radical like some of the kids at our church. He’s very nuanced in his thoughts and beliefs. He’s probably going to study Arabic or Farsi in college next year. Thinking about a quick stint in the Army Reserves as a way to prep him for a career in the state or commerce departments or even in business or academia is the last thing on his mind.
Nor I would I want to see him in today’s military. And I would sell everything I own in order to keep him out of ground combat in the Middle East. But I can’t argue against the draft. I can’t ask my reps to vote against it. In fact I wouldn’t mind seeing the draft reinstated. I think we’ve gone too far in asking others to do what we wouldn’t do ourselves.
I’ve suggested to him that he might want to consider serving as an Air Force officer or joining the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve, but I don’t think he’s listening or is even aware of what advantages he has. We live on “the other side” of the main N/S highway in town. When I worked in corporate America I was in the top 20% of income earners nationwide, but in this town we were roughly in the bottom half. And we’ve struggled financially since the divorce and I’m more strict about the budget now. I don’t think he considers us affluent.
I don’t know. I just don’t know.
I think Charley Rangel’s on the money with this one.
The affluent and politically connected will always find a way out of serving, and any attempts to pass any fair draft procedures would be opposed by those who historically shirk their responsibilities anyway. I understand and appreciate Rangel’s motivation. Though I seriously doubt that it would hinder a maniac like George Bush. And in the process many more than 3000 would be killed when an almost endless supply of fresh meat is available for ‘surges’. Bush would have his troops if the mission was honest and legal. That he’s scraping up a few here and a few there to come up with another 20,000 and imposing multiple deployments on those already stressed is because the people aren’t behind the war and aren’t behind him. No one is joining. And for good reason. This country is full of people, including me who wouldn’t hesitate to defend this country in a time of need. But they won’t go and die for a lie.
I think this is very true and very apt. No one wants to die for a lie and no one trusts the leadership. Now it’s only the desperate who have no other options that are willing to join the army.
If we did move to a draft it would absolutely have to be no exceptions. And I have no idea how you would ensure an equitable distribution into the combat arms to ensure fairness. For instance, the odds are my son would test into or be assigned an intelligence or civil affairs billet given his language skills and high school background. What about the kid from a rural or urban family making $30K a year who went to a school with a barebones curriculum?
While I cannot agree completely w/ Rangel’s argument. The price of the war is being carried by those, who by chance or circumstance, have few options beyond service in the military to further themselves. That being said, I strongly oppose a draft, because it is, IMO, inherently unfair.
I do agree w/ Super’s reply, however. Having been subject to the draft during the Vietnam War while also being actively involved in the anti-war efforts…an involvement that led to a great deal of turmoil personally and legally…I would caution your son to be very careful and thoughtful in his decisions regarding service, even as a guardsman. Other members of my family, who at the time were in the AF Reserve, were called up over the Pueblo Incident, and thoroughly fucked over by the military as well. This caution is especially important considering today’s announcements from the new SecDef and the chair of the JCS:
I encouraged my own children to find alternatives to military service, even in a time of relative peace and stability., and would do so again.
Peace, and good luck.
Wow. Thanks for the info and the heads up.
I know the military can $%^& with your life in ways unexpected even in times of stability. Thanks for the reply.
But I really can’t argue against or oppose this legislation
It’s blood for oil from here on out.
Your son is to be part of the blood.
You would do this WILLINGLY? I would think it is time to think about how he is going to survive what is coming.
Well, it is a question of fairness, love or not, blood or no blood.
I don’t have a lot of assets but I have enough between the house, cars, a little bit of savings, etc. I could sell and liquidate everything and move the family to someplace like China or India and start completely over, or go off the grid in Canada someplace.
Others don’t have that option.
By participating in murders committed by illegitimate authority.
The Bush Administration has already admitted to high crimes that are sufficient cause for impeachment. It has also waged illegal aggression based on lies. There is no honor in serving in any of this.
Only disgrace.
But again, it’s a question of equity. Who shares the brunt and burden of civil duty in a democratic society.
It may be illegal and we may be able to resist, but what does that mean for the future when all the rich kids were resisting and the poor kids were getting shot at?
And again my family has options to do things to completely opt out that I wouldn’t have had as a kid or many of the kids serving would have today.
We’re leverageable! 🙂
I think Charlie Rangel is correct. But national service must be much broader than military service. And there must be absolutely no exceptions. None.
All but the most disabled must serve.
It WILL temper our militarism.
I think you are absolutely right on this, but how do we ensure that kids from Moorestown aren’t out planting trees or playing teachers aides, while kids from Willingboro are parachuting into Iran and kids from Camden are on the ground in Baghdad?
…Going into Booman’s neighborhood for some examples! 🙂 …
We don’t.
We must accept the concept of duty and not diminish teacher’s aides.
And any ghetto kid should be free to plant trees or be a teacher’s aide.
Right. But my concern is that we’ll have more kids from the ghettos and working class towns in combat boots and more suburban kids planting trees and playing teachers aide.
In no way is my comment meant to disparage teachers aides, I’m thinking of the 19 year old white boy or white girl from an upper middle class burb who never who would have stepped foot in a K-12 school after HS graduation “finding” a love of teaching when suddenly faced with boot camp.
we can’t create a classless society. But we can make it so all classes share in our national life.
We shouldn’t foreswear national service because rich kids will choose cushier tasks. We should use national service to empower the lower classes.
I think there is an equity and fairness issue that does need to be considered and I think that’s what Rangel is really trying to get at with his limited – zero exemptions policy.
Broad national service is a good idea. Maybe we still weight veterans for certain jobs and benefits while other forms of national service don’t get the same benefits or weighting.
In a democratic country it would be fair to assume that all should serve their county, and fair to seek a way that all would. And fair to expect that this would happen.
It would also be fair to expect that such service would not be abused by the government.
The United States is not such a country. None of these things are, or can be made, true. The problems go deep, deep, to heart and root. Fairness is barely conceiveable in thought, let alone possible in action.
A military draft will not fix these problems.
It would however, have strategic implications:
It’s kinda hard to empower a lower class kid to share in the cushier jobs filled by the rich cowards when the’re majoring in bullet dodging BooMan. You say that there should be no exceptions, then turn around and admit that rich kids will seek cushier jobs. How is this any different than what is happening now? Rich kids go off to Wall Street and Johns Hopkins while poor kids go off to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle.
Um, the lower class kids in Philly are majoring in dodging bullets already, without going to Iraq. They have no hope for the future…
I’m not saying I support a draft, but the reality can be pretty grim here in the US too.
LINK
And the military is an unequal and biased extension of our entire system and culture. That problem needs to be fixed at the source. Attempting to create equality through national service will do nothing to cure the original disease. As if it could cure it anyway. Unless a truly fair way is implemented to insure that every kid, no matter his intellectual capacity and value to the revenue producing machine is sent to combat, those kids from Philly will still be the ones getting killed by IED’s and Iraqi snipers. It won’t work.
You will get no argument from me on the need for equal and affordable access to GOOD education.
When I think of how a NON-military national service program could be good, I think of this one.
Unfortunately, having a crazy man in the White House has eroded any faith I might have had in the government not stomping all over the less fortunate to serve the wealthiest.
(ps, do you ever check your email?)
email? You see, I’ve been getting so many penis enlargement offers that I’m starting to get an irrational fear that someone knows something I don’t know! :oP I want to look but I start sweating everytime it asks for my password. I’m worried that there’s a national database being kept of email addresses that recieve an inordinately high number of enlargement offers and I’m not sure my self esteem can handle another belittling excursion to dreamland. That, or I’m a lazy SOB ;o)
…and on that note, I’m off to work. I hope this diary stays up on the rec list for a while.
Have a good day at work, big boy. 😉
CabinGirl kind of made my point for me. But seeking is different from getting.
Dan Quayle and George W. Bush used family connections to jump over people for a position in guard or reserve slots.
A fair system would have allowed them to avoid Vietnam by choosing another national service option, but not at the expense of someone poorer or less connected.
As for lower classes choosing the military, I assume that just like the profession of boxing, the military will continue to be more attractive to the lower classes than to the higher. But as long as it is a cultural thing, there is nothing wrong with that.
Choosing boxing, like choosing the military isn’t a cultural thing. It’s a survival thing. Boxing is a way out for the poor. Just like the military. Just like dealing drugs. That’s why so many of the prisons are full of Blacks and Latinos. And will the poor and lower classes have the same option to choose a different form of service? Don’t you see the conflict between the classes that will emerge? Maybe a straight up lottery system where the form of service is chosen for all would work. But I can see the rich gaming that scenario too.
it’s a cultural of survival, plus it is a culture that puts a premium on toughness. I have no problem with them choosing to serve in the military. No one should be forced to serve in the military without a national emergency, but I see no serious problems and many benefits of mandatory national service, which includes a military option.
See, this is where I give the American people credit for being able to recognize a national emergency. This war, as it started and as it’s gotten worse, were not justifiable as a national emergency. It’s fast becoming one though. And when the time comes to defend the country against the backlash, the original sin won’t matter any more and the people will fight to preserve it…by choice.
Why do y’all think this is an uncorruptible idea? Maybe during some other time, some other war. Bushie’s still the commander-in-chief not the Demo congress. I guess it’s nice to see that optimism springs eternal but as for me, I’m already planning ways to keep my young friends out of harm’s way, not send them into some combat situation without adequate armor and some pollyannaesque idea of “fairness” and character-building.
I agree totally. There’s also this little matter:
I think we’ve gone too far in asking others to do what we wouldn’t do ourselves.
Seems to me the great majority of folks around here never asked anyone to go into Iraq; that was George & the NeoCon’s idea. Thus we are not in any kind of hypocritical situation in opposing a draft for a war that we thought was madness from the start. I don’t think anybody’s kid should be dying for oil. Let the price rise to the point where our economy adopts other technologies…
Plus, as others have pointed out, there’s the matter that you can make a moral case that military and agricultural slavery are cut from the same cloth. If it’s involuntary I don’t see how you can make the case it’s moral. Seems the Chinese tried this compulsory domestic service thing in the Cultural Revolution, and the Soviets did as well.
You can make an ethical argument that we all owe something to society, but when you start tallying up the crimes of the government, the rich, polluters, etc. they get more than they’re owed in that we’re not taking to the streets with pitchforks, never mind going to war for them.
And I’ll trust them to design a fair and equitable system for national service right after they come up with fair and equitable health care, education, etc.
Start a draft and not only are my kids leaving, but likely me & Mrs. K.P. as well.
But a draft won’t be needed – they’ll just gin up another terror attack by looking the other way and there will be gullible, idealistic, undereducated young people lining up to enlist. Again:
But I really can’t argue against or oppose this legislation.
I can. Military conscription is the basest form of slavery. Bringing back agricultural slaves would be less noxious that bringing back military slaves. And that is the correct word; conscripts are slaves.
I understand Rangel’s point and think it’s a good one, but his approach is anti-democratic and, for that matter, misguided — people have always been willing to send their children to die in their place.
If you want to make the republic reluctant to enter wars of choice, there is a better solution: require all congressional votes in favor of military action to take the form of the representative’s enlistment in a front-line infantry unit.