Proposed Solution to US Unnecessary Wars

[rrrevolution]

So who has the power to declare war? Congress and only Congress may declare war, . . .
<snip>

The solution could be something like this.

(1) All Members of Congress should be required to pledge that they will serve militarily by sending 1/4 of Congress' standing members to fight in any war it declares. . . .
<snip>

(2) All members of Congress shall receive the same level of compensation and benefits(including healthcare benefits through VA) as other full-time active military during their tour of duty,. . .
<snip>

(3) Any war which is necessary requires sacrifice by the entire country. . .(so) any draft age children or grandchildren of members of Congress shall be required to enlist or be drafted and deployed to fight with active military troops in the war theatre for such periods as are required of active military troops not related to members of Congress.
<snip>


A step (4) could be added by Congress which would also have a beneficial effect. Include all members of the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Federal Government in the same way members of Congress will be required to serve. (So instead of vacationing in Crawford Texas riding his bike, George Bush would spend 3 months in Iraq every year until the war is concluded. Likewise for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi and Karl Rove).
<snip>

If we are going to ask others to sacrifice their lives for this country, members of Congress and the other two(2)branches of government should be willing to lead the way since there is no alternative to war.

[AlGore-08.com]

1. How do you pick the 25% who have to serve?

If Congress authorizes the war, that means a majority of them have voted for that authorization. Who decides which members stay in office and which risk their lives on the battlefield?

Who represents their constituents when they're gone?

What if this plan shifts the balance of power from one party to another - - what if the 25% who leave take away the slim majority for a President whose policies you agree with?

[rrrevolution]

2. Response to your Q

Your questions are on the mark, and are answered at rrrevolution.blogspot.com where the full article is presented.

In short, each party supplies the percentage of the 1/4 equal to their seats in Congress by lottery or could be by other method they choose(So if Congress is Repub 50% Dem 45% and Indep 5% - then they would provide that percentage of 1/4 required to serve). So no change in party power.

Service tours would rotate every 3 mos, and at the end of a year all members of Congress would have served.

Have substitute congressional members provided by each State affected in the same way that the State would handle an incapacity or death of that member of congress. 90 days is not a long time, but long enough for the congressional member to put his/her life on the line and get a good feel for the war they find necessary and inevitable.

If congress finds a war so necessary and inevitable that it is willing to send its members into combat situations, then I don't think there will be a problem with unity and close votes.

Details can always be worked out -- but the purpose of this solution is to make the decision real for the decisionmakers, make the sacrifice one for the entire country, and remove wealth and political considerations from the decision to be made.

[rrrevolution]

3. Do You Have Another Idea?

I am open to any idea which would accomplish the same goal.

[AlGore-08.com]

9. Even if you could actually get this passed into law

Or make it a Constitutional Amendment (neither of which I think are remotely politically possible), I'm not sure it would achieve the result you're looking for.

Your underlying theory - - that people who experience war are automatically wise enough to avoid unnecessary ones - - is not supported by recent history. You only have to look at John Kerry, who served with distinction in Vietnam, then became a war protester, but still voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

It also won't do anything to keep other kinds of Congressional bad judgment in check. Congress can and does vote for all kinds of things that endanger life - - even if this plan could stop them from voting for unnecessary wars, it wouldn't stop them from giving Halliburton billions of dollars to dump toxic waste in your back yard.

IMNSHO there is nothing inherently wrong with the system we have - - we're supposed to hold officials accountable for gross incompetence like authorizing unnecessary wars by voting them out of office. What we need is to make elections - - primary as well as general - - more competitive. That requires serious changes to campaign financing, including public financing of campaigns, campaign spending limits, free air time (and not five minutes a week, but blocks long enough for debates and speeches) and media reform.

For those changes to take place, we at the grassroots have to have the political will to make that a major issue - - and we have to keep at it consistently, with such ferocity that office holders are as terrified to oppose campaign finance reform as they were to vote against a wildly popular invasion.

[DaveJ]

4. I agree...

...with the part about implementing the draft for every war.

The way it is now, fighting is considered a choice among U.S. citizens, and war is too serious to be considered a choice among anyone.

As far as drafting politicians goes, well, age restrictions cause a major problem. There would have to be some way of exposing them to the bloodshed without allowing the geezers to hinder the real troops, even something as simple as forcing them to visit a mutilated child or soldier every day.

[manic expression]

5. Relatives

at least one relative to a Congressperson who is of military age would be forced into service AND forced into the scene of said conflict. That's my suggestion.

I also like the idea of government representatives getting ONLY the same health care as veterans.

How could we request such a bill to be put on the floor? Would any good representative do this? How could we reach them?

[rrrevolution]

7. It would take a massive public outcry and media coverage to shame

congress to implement such a plan.

But it sure would level the field for sacrificing for a war they deem necessary and inevitable to safeguard our country.

Just getting a bill introduced based on this idea would be an accomplishment, and it would take off with the public!

[manic expression]

8. Yeah, just get it out there

Congress would probably never pass it in the near future, but it's the responsibility of the people to force the issue upon them, at least.

It would DRAMATICALLY change the way Congress deems military action. Also, I don't think anyone, left or right wing, could really object to it, since it's basically a very fair premise.

[rrrevolution]

10. It would come down to their definition of the word "fair"

Rich Repubs have always believed it was "fair" to pay someone else to go and fight their wars -- even as far back as the civil war.

[manic expression]

20. Most Republicans are not rich...n/t

[AlGore-08.com]

12. I think we'd all be appalled if the right wanted to hold kids accountable

for their parents' bad judgment.

But apparently that's what being a progressive is about nowadays. So while we're at it, let's force kids to pay for their parents' debts. If your parents are late on any of their bills - - we'll automatically deduct it out of your pay check. If your pay check won't cover their bills, we'll confiscate anything of value you own. If you don't own anything worth stealing, we'll let you work off their debts doing some of the work chain gangs used to do. If your parents actually commit a crime - - we'll send you to the slammer instead. If their crime warrants the death penalty - - we'll strap you into the electric chair instead of them.

Nobody's got a problem with that plan either, right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Thank god for one voice of sanity on this thread.

I'm shocked and horrified that so many people appear to be taking this proposal seriously.

Some thoughts:

:-There are dozens of jobs, many of them dangerous and unpleasant,
which I believe need to be done, but have no intention of
volunteering to do myself. Would you support conscription for
minors or prison guards, too?

:-Not fighting a war can have severe consequences, as well as
fighting one - vide Rwanda and Darfur. Either decision can lead to
human suffering, and this proposal would mean that those making
decisions would have a vested interest in the suffering of some
groups rather than others, when I think they should be weighing
all consequences equally.

:-Conscripted troops would have a major negative effect on the
army's morale.

:-As AlGore-08.com has said, visiting the sins of the fathers upon
the children in this way is obscene.


The solution is not to punish congressmen and women for choosing a war, and it certainly isn't to punish their families. The solution is to elect representatives who will only opt for war when it is the right thing to do.

[manic expression]

21. What? And you want innocent kids held accountable

for their representative's bad and CALLOUS judgment?

Such a bill would effectively force Congress to think twice about starting a war. If the war is worth fighting for, I want the people who voted for it to give what so many other ordinary citizens have. I am sick and disgusted at those in power expecting others to suffer for what they have done.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Nonsense.

No-one is suggesting holding innocent children responsible for their representative. It is of course the case that innocent children suffer the consequences of their representative's decisions, which I presume is what you're thinking of, but that's completely different, and inevitable - bare in mind that most of those consequences are good.

If you think that the current representatives are bad and CALLOUS, the solution is to elect ones who aren't. Ensuring that the only people who dare stand for Congress are those willing to sacrifice their relatives is a good way to ensure that all representatives really are bad and CALLOUS.

Remember that people suffer when a war isn't declared, as well as when one is (Rwanda, Darfur). Congress should be able to weigh one lot of suffering against another impartially and take the least worst action. Biasing their judgement in this way would make that impossible.

This idea is a) very immoral and b) completely impractical.

[manic expression]

26. Nonsense?

Innocent kids are being killed and mutilated on a daily basis because of their representatives. If they were forced to take their own family into the equation, no one would have voted to give the President authority to invade Iraq.

That is good? Kids dying for nothing is good? People unnecessarily killed in Vietnam, or Lebanon, or Iraq is nothing good.

Almost every representative right now is callous, and electing an empathetic and responsible representative is almost impossible, especially considering our country's dramatic swing to the right. I do believe that your plan is the most impractical. Forcing them to put their money where their mouth is will actually cause change.

Congress didn't help in Rwanda and isn't helping in Darfur, so what's your point?

You are looking at America through very thick rose-colored glasses.

This idea is idealist, yes, but it would stop immoral wars if it was passed.

[theboss]

24. They volunteered

If a 20-something year old wants to join the military knowing what he or she is getting into to, they are no longer a "kid" to me.

[manic expression]

27. They volunteered, but NOT for

an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. It is only reasonable that we put our military into action when it is necessary, and our government has direly failed us in this manner. I don't care if someone signs up to be a suicide bomber, there is still an undeniable responsibility NOT to put their lives in danger for no reason.

By the way, that was a callous and ignorant statement in every way.

[theboss]

29. They volunteered to take orders from civilian authority

I don't disagree that this invasion is stupid and pointless. We should never have gotten into this mess in the first place.

But the civilian authority made the call. It was a horrible call, but they made it. We should punish them for making the wrong call.

But changing the way in which that call is made is a huge over-reaction. One of my chief problem with progressives these days is that too many of them believe the universe began on Dec 12, 2000 and they way things are now are the way they are going to be forever.

I am personally in favor of having control of the House, Senate, and Presidency by 2010 at the latest. I would like to have the country being run the way its always been run by then.

[manic expression]

31. OK...

but I do not think putting a measure to counter delusional Congressman is a bad idea. Iraq is not the first time this has happened, and it is actually a continuation of American policy carried out by even the most liberal of administrations (JFK: Bay of Pigs, LBJ: Vietnam, Teddy: Philippines). It would be a groundbreaking idea and would change the way governments go about their business.

Control of the Legislative and Executive branches would be ideal. However, I do not think this is a bad idea.

[rrrevolution]

6. There are many ways for them to serve militarily on front lines

If they do not want to carry a rifle, make them carry a camera and create a report for their fellow congressional representatives, and detail their pictures and opinion daily online for their constitutents.

I agree they should not hinder soldiers doing their duty.

However, maybe they would like to drive humvees around looking for IEDs, and report back on the sufficiency of armored vehicles we have provided for our troops. I would bet there would be a lot of armor vehicles arriving pronto if they knew that was going to be their job!

[DaveJ]

11. In theory that sounds great.

However, after middle age people tend to develop medical problems that would hinder the troops with regard to examples you cited. Anyone with the slightest spinal weakness would be unable to tolerate driving a Humvee through the desert all day... even young soldiers have developed serious medical problems from it. Eyesight tends to go with age too so I simply would not trust them as guards or to look for IED (what are IEDs anyway?). They have slower reflexes, senility sets in, and overall I'd never trust them (politicians) with guns.

It's productive to discuss what they can do, though, because I think they should do something that involves the same level of physical risk and sacrifice that they demand from others.

[AlGore-08.com]

13. IED = Improvised Explosive Devise

In other words, a booby trap. Often radio controlled.

[rrrevolution]

14. Sorry, but that comes with the territory in fighting a war ....

90 days of service that could cause medical problems for politicians is part of the job of fighting a war. What if they come back without an arm or leg like some of our young soldiers do?

Anyone can drive a humvee on the streets of Bagdad -- the question is do they have the nerve to do so or will they ask some young soldier with a wife and family to do so.

I am not unsympathetic to the deleterious effects their service could have on soldiers trying to carry out their missions. I just think politicians who have experienced war first hand are better equipped to vote on matters of war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. This would lead to more wars, not fewer.

Quite apart from the many ovewhelming moral and practical objections, if you make military service compulsory for Representatives then the only people willing to stand for Congress will be those who are willing to fight in a war, who will on average be far more pro-war than the current lot.

[rrrevolution]

17. Quite to the Contrary . . .

No one said we have to start ANY WAR!
If you know the sacrifice required going in, and you still vote to declare war, then there is no question it is necessary and it will be a shared sacrifice across the board and unity will not be a problem.

Why is asking someone to serve 90 days duty out of line in comparison with the active duty soldier who may be required to serve over 3 years of active duty?

I was always attracted to leaders who said I will never ask you to do something I will not do myself. Otherwise, you end up with a privileged elite who are insulated from the consequences of their actions -- like a certain someone who is biking, fishing, reading and clearing brush at his ranch in Texas who has to move on with his life rather than serve his constituents.

No, I think the people willing to stand for Congress might be more representative of the people they serve, and less likely to start wars for political or economic gain. I find it hard to believe that millionaires who have no family members serving have the same stake in the game. Let those who will serve have a say in the decision to go to war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I disagree.

There is nothing wrong at all with *asking* someone to serve 90 days in the armed service. *Forcing* them to do so, however, is wrong.

Are you advocating conscripting the Congressmen and women themselves, or their relatives, or both?

And no-one has suggested anything about it being only those Congressmen who vote for a war who (or whose relatives) would be forcibly conscripted - under the proposed arrangement, standing for Congress on an anti-war platform would still quite possibly lead to it.

The only people who would stand would be those willing to fight or have their relatives forced to fight in a war not of their own making - the last people one wants running the country.

Every politician has to ask people to do things they could not and would not do themselves, unless they intend to perform heart surgery, mine coal, teach quantum mechanics and clean sewers. The people who do those things, however, so so because they've chosen to do so, and so do soldiers.

Rather than "I would not ask you to fight in a war unless I would be willing to do so myself", the standard one should demand from a politician is "I would not ask you to fight in a war unless I thought it was the right thing to do". That can be a higher standard, or it can be lower.

[htuttle]

18. How about we just trim back the Commander in Chief clause?

On edit:
I misused the phrase 'War Powers Act' originally.

The President should not be considered the Commander in Chief unless Congress has declared War. The only reason for calling the President 'Commander in Chief' in peacetime anyway is to allow the President to 'project US force' overseas in defense of US corporations. It is not needed when defending against an actual attack on the United States.

Get rid of the peacetime 'CiC' concept, something the Founding Fathers NEVER intended us to have, and REQUIRE Congress to actually declare war before sending ANY US troops outside the United States, except in response to UN Security Council troop requests (since by US law, we are obligated to obey the UN Charter as well).

A President should never again be allowed to unilaterally start a war.

[theboss]

25. Oh sweet mercy

1. Civilian control of the military is essential to this country. If the President is no C in C in peace time then the military is running itself. And that, I presume, would include control of the nuclear arsenal.

This should scare the hell out of anyone.

2. You are also essentially handing control of our military over to the UN. That's maybe more scary than the first idea.

[htuttle]

28. Legally speaking, we handed over control to the UN in the 1940's

If we didn't plan to obey the UN Charter that we signed (AND THAT WE PRACTICALLY WROTE OURSELVES!), and that our own consitution compells us to obey as a treaty ratified by Congress, we should never have signed it.

The fact is, the conditions I laid out regarding the Commander in Chief role are *exactly* the same as the legal boundaries regarding the use of force in the UN Charter.

We simply aren't allowed to attack anyone unilaterally -- EVER -- unless we can prove they are truly just about to attack us. And even in that case, we can only use force as needed to preempt an invasion of our own country. Period. That's the law. That's the UN Charter that we are compelled to follow. We either live under the rule of law, or we don't.

[theboss]

30. Figure out a way to enforce the charter and then we can talk

I'm not even sure the UN charter qualifies as a treaty as its more of an agreement of principles than anything else. It's certainly not a bilateral or even multi-laterical agreement between sovereign nations. Christ, we've personally violated the thing so many times since the 40s, it's kind of silly to suddenly give it so much authority at this point. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lybia, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq, Sudan, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Iraq yet again. None of these countries posed any kind of clear and present danger. Didn't stop us from bombing any of them.

[htuttle]

32. Just because we've been a rogue nation for 50 years

...doesn't mean we have to continue on that course.

The UN Charter cannot be enforced if we do not follow it ourselves.

Everytime we 'project force' to 'protect US (corporate) interests', we provide excuses to every other rogue nation out there to do the same thing.

Regarding whether it qualifies as a treaty: the UN Charter was ratified by Congress on July 28, 1945. That makes it law. Every war that we've fought since then, other than Korea, and MAYBE Gulf War I (due to Kuwait's invoking of Article 51, though it's NOT clear that the right of self-defense was transferable to us) has been both illegal under international law, and Article VI of our own Constitution.

[theboss]

23. This is really quite dumb.

1. I, for one, look forward to seeing 80-year-old senators in the fox hole.

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it completely undermines the idea of civilian control of the army. Either Representative Smith becomes a private and is under the control of a military officer. Or Representative Smith becomes an officer. This means that officers in the military are making the decision.

Secondly, I truly truly truly truly hate the idea that the only people with the authority to speak about war are those who have served. Do you realize that we are essentially making the argument that only veterans should run for elected office. And that Bill Clinton had no authority to command the military.

2. I guess this is ok. Frankly, I think this should be the case all the time. But no Representative or Congressman is getting rich of their salary. Most are either rich when they get their, are using their office to get rich in side projects, or are going to get insanely rich when they leave by lobbying. This won't change anything.

3. Either we have a volunteer army or we do not. To me, all this does is guarantee that we will have a lot of Reps with either very young kids or no kids.

And frankly, I've always found the "enlist Jenna and Barbara" line of argument a little too Roman Empire for my tastes. We don't punish children for the sins of the father in this country.

And I also think this crosses the line as to the civilian control of the military. And it relates to my earlier problem with only those in uniform having any authority.

You are essentially creating a situation where G. Gordon Liddy is the most natural Congressman. He's served. He wants everyone to serve. He makes his kids serve. He doesn't care if they die in service.

[rrrevolution]

33. OK, so you would be more satisfied with a proposal like this?

Change it from 90 days of military service to 90 days of a factfinding mission, embedded with real troops.

Hey, if it is important enough to vote to go to war, they need to go and report back to their colleagues the facts they found on the ground.

This is an established practice among senators and representatives, going on fact finding junkets around the world.

Why not require the draft age children to register and enter service during a war? IF other citizens' kids are to fight for their country, why not the kids of those who declared the war in the first place? Why should they receive a free pass?

And as far as anti-war candidates being deterred from running for Congress because they might have to serve 90 days in the war zone, I think you are wrong. Anti-war congressman are more courageous any day than chickenhawks who duck military service. In this plan they do not have to kill anyone, they just have to share the risk.

When did it become acceptable to protect wealthy politicians who make war decisions that costs young men their lives?

Running for Congress should not entitle the bearer to a free pass from sharing the burden of military service in a time of war.