Start the draft, end the war
A desperate voice at the Boston Globe invokes her Vietnam template.
In March 2005 Phil Carter had a long article in Washington Monthly on reviving. conscription. Phil and I discussed my critique and comments.
An excerpt from my post of March 2, 2005:
I think a case can be made for the draft (see my comments at the end of this post), and at some point this discussion needs to happen. Give Carter and Glastris credit: much of the article addresses important nuts and bolts issues regarding military manpower requirements. However– for the time being REP Charles Rangel’s political gamesmanship with the draft issue has poisoned rational and civil debate on the issue. The attempt to use “draft fear” to motivate college students to vote for John Kerry flopped — but that gambit’s toxins remain. Last fall I found flyers outside of my seminar class alledging a secret Bush plan to reinstitute the draft. That’s right, a conspiracy. Pish. One evening one of my students asked me about the issue after class. My response: “I’d love to discuss issues like universal military service or government service. But not in a climate of scare tactics. This is a sick lie.”
The scare tactics comment applies in spades to the Joan Vennochi column in the Boston Globe. This Vennochi sentence is both indicative of hysteria and remarkably lousy writing : “If we feared our children were next up to be gutted like fish, we might be less likely to shake our heads at crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.”
“If we feared…” Selling fear, relying on fear–the paranoid style in American politics. But “were next up to be gutted like fish” – the purple style in American prose.
I find it quite fascinating. Thirty years ago, Vennochi and many of her colleagues in the MSM and on the left wanted nothing to do with the military. So, the military obliged them - they became an all-volunteer force as of 1975, and as a result, they have prospered. Vennochi got what she said she wanted thirty years ago. So why is she complaining so much today?
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/22/2006 @ 8:25 am
Part of the incantation from these folks is: “but the American People aren’t making a sacrifice!” Well, those that volunteer actually *do*, but if they are talking about a WWII level of paper drives and grease collection and such, well… this war doesn’t require that. Neither did the Cold War, come to think of it. Or Viet Nam. Or Korea. Or the Spanish-American War, although we got stuck with a luxury tax on phonecalls for decades because of it… These folks clearly want the American People ‘involved’. So do I! But, probably not the way they want… Yes, I am quite serious that to combat Global Transnational Terrorism that is living off the abundance of goods at low prices that Congress should use its War Powers and start setting out those groups that are targeting the US and put out a bounty on a specific series of goods that allows such groups to operate and give out Warrants for seizure of same and the vessels they are being carried by. Also to hand out letters of reprisal, so that overseas seizure operations may be carried out for bounty, reward or auction value. The military is at the end of what it can do under the framework of the Constitution without invoking larger war against more nations. To attack groups that seek to use commerce against the US… that is the role of Congress. Empower the American People by setting about those things to give reward for stopping our enemies from being supplied. We did NOT signt the Paris Treaty forbidding this and so it is within the National Toolchest and is part of our Arsenal of Democracy. Congress squirms and says: “We have no role in war!” They have not read their Article I powers. Give Americans fair reward for high risk and we shall see this trafficking with our enemies slowed and no longer be profitable. And ONLY Congress can do so. A draft is nonsense outside of a vast Nation State conflict and should be used sparingly by the Republic. But giving Free People the Warrant to exercise themselves and take risk on behalf of the Nation is fully and completely within how the Republic was made and how a Republic of Free People should respond.
Comment by ajacksonian — 6/22/2006 @ 9:57 am
>>we might be less likely to shake our heads at crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. At least she acknowledges that Cindy Sheehan is crazy. >>We can turn from the front page headlines of war, death, and destruction to sports and celebrity gossip; a click of the remote, and the face of a young soldier, now dead, fades to “Friends” reruns or “America’s Next Top Model.” And people didn’t have the ability to flip through their newspaper or change TV channels 30-40 years ago? Idiot. >>involvement in a war we can’t end or win We can end it pretty quickly — if we lose our spine and pull out. As for “we can’t win”. Zarqawi takes a different view. Again, idiot. >>Rangel’s website noted, “Right now, the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who, with limited options, chose military service Hey, Joan, try reading the DOD’s report on the demographic breakdown of those who serve. That way, you won’t look like such a fool when you tout Rangel’s patently false statement.
Comment by Matt — 6/22/2006 @ 10:08 am
About the draft, I do wonder — as a country, we’ve had the good fortune of comparatively low casualty wars (compared with past ones). Is that a function of modern war in general, or just the lopsided opponents we’ve chosen? And if the latter, should a war against a more serious opponent break out, would the demand for replacements exceed the supply of volunteers? And would that be a situation where we would need a draft?
Comment by Mycroft — 6/22/2006 @ 10:47 am
Hadji girl, I love you! Regarding ‘Americans making a sacrifice’ in the GWOT: about 3,000 people were sacrificed on 9/11 and we have nmot hgad more due to our brave airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers; the efforts of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and plain old luck.
Comment by T. Shaw — 6/22/2006 @ 11:02 am
Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve his country, re-upped when it was clear that we’d be going to war in Iraq, and volunteered for the mission on which he was killed. A patriot and hero, he deserved much, much better than to be used as a prop for antiwar hysterics. His mother, blinded by a combination of grief and pre-existing ideology, can be forgiven. The cynical leftists who hyped her cause cannotXXXX ED NOTE: This got tossed in the a spam moderation file–which is unusual because the f-bomb usually gets eaten by the filter automatically. See the rules on comments for this site. I plucked it out of the spam file and cut the f-bomb. If you don’t like the rules for the site, there are plenty of other places to go. (type in comments on the search– the rules have been posted four or five times).
Comment by Warmongering Lunatic — 6/22/2006 @ 5:22 pm
It seems that the anti-war movement is losing steam, especially after yesterday’s revelation about the inconvenient WMD that have been found in Iraq. I guess Joan Vennochi is trying to drum up a little business and jump-start her sagging movement.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 6/22/2006 @ 5:24 pm
[…] UPDATE: Others: Brainster, Austin Bay, Wizbang, […]
Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Why Is It? — 6/22/2006 @ 5:26 pm
Joan, arguments like this tend to cut both ways. If we feared our daughters were next up to be beaten and raped, as has become more common in Europe, we might be less likely to tolerate crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — 6/22/2006 @ 9:36 pm
The purpose the Left wants a draft is to increase opposition to Bush and the War, and increase the Victimization feelings of college students. If they really wanted more bodies, one would support offering a new American Foreign Legion, for automatic front of the line immigration consideration for foreigners wanting to immigrate to America, and willing to serve for two (or three?) years in the US military — after joining a preparatory English Language brigade which teaches English and Basic boot camp.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 6/23/2006 @ 1:56 am
Matt asked: “. . . we’ve had the good fortune of comparatively low casualty wars (compared with past ones). Is that a function of modern war in general, or just the lopsided opponents we’ve chosen?” I suspect that the answer is yes. It is a combination of the traits of modern warfare and the poor quality of our opponents. The technology of modern warfare makes destruction more selective. A soldier on the ground with the right communications equipment can call down a 500-pound or 1000-pound bomb down with accuracies of plus or minus 50 meters. That means a few dozen bombs do the damage of the whole St. Lo carpet bombing of WWII. That means fewer opportunities for anyone other than the targetted soldiers (innocent civilians, for example) to get hit and hurt. Additionally, targeting for personal weapons is getting better, resulting in fewer rounds being fired by the 21st century army. (One bullet is enough to take a man out. In the past, the other 49 bullets were fired to keep the other guy’s head down, and to keep the other guy busy. Today, one shot, one kill, and keep silent until then is getting to be more and more common. The battlefield is actually getting quieter.) The net result is that 21st century armies are becoming deadlier dsepite getting smaller, while at the same time providing a lot fewer targets for their enemies to hit. In WWII a blind barrage was bound to cause some casualties just because of the density of soldiers on the battlefield. At the same time, our opponents seem to get their gunnery training from gangsta flicks. They shoot wildly, and generally high, filling the area with so much smoke and confusion that they cannot see to hit anything. And their bullets generally fly over our troops anyway. Most get very little practice, and generally do not survive on the battlefield long enough to learn the error of their ways. Those few that through random chance do, still lack the targetting technology of the 21st century army and are simply not very effective. If they hit one of our soldiers (because they wait to aim, and fire short bursts to prevent the shots from going high), they announce themselves as a threat to be neutralized, and become the prime target of the 21st century army soldiers. (Kill the few guys that can kill you.) All this stuff goes through cycles, but the cycle right now is more power to the individual soldier, requiring smaller armies. No doubt in another 50 or so years, the new technologies will have become fully integrated and the only solution will be to increase the size of armies, and we will once again be fielding dozens of corps instead of dozens of battalions.
Comment by Mark L — 6/24/2006 @ 6:38 am
While I absolutely believe that a draft would cause the entire Country to sacrafice and therefore would heighten the anti war debate, I am fine if you nutcases want no draft. Certify that there will NEVER be a draft and then I say, go for it… go fight all these nutty wars and leave me out of it. Hell, these are great for the economy and great for those who work in industries which are engaged with defense contracts. Go fight and keep the contracts coming!!!
Comment by Kevin — 6/24/2006 @ 9:00 pm