Do you support the US military's Poverty Draft?

[Karmadillo]

I can understand why a number of posters here are less than enthused about any possible reinstatement of the draft. Still, what seems to sometimes get missed is the unfairness of the current system. The huge wealth inequality that exists in the US is now the engine that guarantees the military is able to recruit sufficient numbers of men and women to "defend" our country. This leaves the rest of us more or less free to take advantage of our significantly better opportunities while the poor do us the favor of fighting and dying.

Which is more fair? The poverty draft or a universal draft where we all face an equal risk of being forced to serve? Which is more likely to put a break on PNAC inspired adventures in empire building? A military consisting in large part of high school grads with limited job prospects or one with a good portion of middle and upper class kids with a well paid future ahead of them?

http://www.ainfos.ca/03/mar/ainfos00650.html

The US Military has long targeted the working class to
become cannon fodder -, from roping in starving Irish
immigrants to fight in the US Civil War, to today's
JROTC programs invading our impoverished public
schools. The draft of the Vietnam era forced poor
people and people of color into the military's lowest,
deadliest ranks. Today's "poverty draft" is more
devious, but just as effective.

Recruiters are relentlessly using marketing strategies
to woo low income youths with little prospects for
education and good jobs into the armed forces.
Painting the Army as a kind of job training and
vocational school, and simultaneously as a financial
aid institution, recruiters get youths in high school
to sign up to the DEP (Deferred Enlistment Program).
When young people try and back out of enlisting,
recruiters often lie and tell them it is impossible or
illegal to drop out.

In fact, the military isn't a generous financial aid
institution, and it isn't concerned with helping pay
for school. Two-thirds of all recruits never get any
college funding from the military. Only 15% graduated
with a four year degree. 65% of recruits who pay the
required $1200 into the Montgomery GI Bill never get a
dime in return.

In terms of job opportunities, to join the army is
actually more detrimental to job prospects. Veterans
actually earn less than non-veterans: the average
post-Vietnam War-era veteran will earn between 11% and
19% less than non-veterans from comparable class
backgrounds. Over 50,000 unemployed veterans are on
the waiting list for the military's "retraining"
program. The Veterans Administration estimates that
1/3 of homeless people are vets.

more...

[AndyTiedye]

1. What is Fair is a Volunteer Military and Real Civilian Job Opportunities

You want to reinstitute the draft, which is the wrong answer in so many ways:

It gives PNAC an unlimited source of cannon fodder. Currently their ambitions are curbed only by a lack of troops. Once they have
the draft, they will have enough troops to invade Iran, Syria, Libya,
Venezuala and any other countries they feel like, and enforce martial
law at home.

It doesn't solve the problem of joblessness. All those poor people who
have been volunteering for the military still won't have anywhere else to go.

Thousands of people with non-obvious disablilities will be sent into
combat and die there (sometimes taking others of our soldiers with them)
while those who can pay the doctors for the diagnoses avoid such a fate.
What do you do about that? Those who can't afford the doctors are doomed under such a system, but it is indefensible (both morally and militarily) to knowingly send disabled people into combat and certain death.

Of course they won't be drafting women and sending them into combat, will they?

There isn't any such thing as a fair draft.

What is fair is to have enough jobs of all kinds so that nobody feels that they have to go into the military.

[Karmadillo]

4. You may be wrong about what I want

I'm simply pointing out those who oppose the draft need to recognize the injustice of the current system that designates the poor to fight and die for our freedom. I'd be more than happy to see the US provide enough nonmilitary jobs so that no one has to go into the military. That, unfortunately, is not going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, the question is which of the two, a poverty draft or a universal draft, is fairer?

I also think you may be wrong about assuming the docility of an army with a significant component of soldiers who have a well-paid future ahead of them. Not only would they tend to be resistant to being used as cannon fodder for empire building, they would be supported by their vulnerable to the draft friends, as well as their well-connected, well-funded parents. That might very well make a difference not only in the size and ferocity of the protests against war, but also in the electoral success of those who currently don't mind sending the poor off to kill the poor. In short, shared sacrifice would quite possibly make for a different, more pacific United States.

On Edit: fixed late night typos

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Good point. Draft will give them unlimited cannon fodder.

What's more, they can clean house. They can continue to send the children of the poor to the front lines where they'll get slaughtered and the children of the rich can get safer, cushy assignments, if they get drafted at all.

It's almost like giving them a nod of approval to conduct organized extermination. This isn't a novel idea, unfortunately. There are actually think tanks out there who argue that wars are necessary to reduce the population numbers and to stir the economy. This exactly fits in with the plans of conservatives. Thin out minorities before they reach reproductive age; and meanwhile, find a market for the military-industrial complex which is their bread and butter.

[forgethell]

2. There is not draft

given the state of the world, not just the USA, everybody has to make economic, political, and moral choices. Some good, some not. But at least, on this one, everybody gets to make it with no coercion (i.e., slavery) on the part of the government.

And, yes, I served my time when there was an actual draft.

[mrgorth]

3. I'm all for improving the lot

of those less fortunate but NO DRAFT!! 2 years of service (peace corps counts) maybe. Draft. Never.

[mikehiggins]

5. Nixon and the draft

Many years ago I was on an advisory committee regarding the draft. The committee I was part of (there were fifty or so across the US) came to the conclusion that there was no way to reform the draft short of shutting it down altogether.

Imagine my surprise when a couple of us were called out to Ft Knox to take part in a national conference on the subject, and trotted around like pet ponies by the Nixon folks. That was when it hit us that Tricky wanted to eliminate the draft as much as we did, if not for the same reasons.

Subsequently, we wound up with a volunteer army, etc., etc. but the arguments against the draft were valid then, and they're valid now.

There is no way to conduct a fair draft that doesn't discriminate against the poor and minorities. It can't be done.

The volunteer military may attract kids who come from poverty backgrounds, etc., but at least they are free to say yes or no. In an imperfect world, that's about as good as I think we can get.

[FDRrocks]

6. A draft wouldn't stop what you talk about...

Cause many people (I would wager most) enlist in peace time. This majorly includes the impoverished.

The draft would only serve to gain more troops during a struggle in war time, when they are needed.

The root is poverty, and conservatives oppose Gov't providing jobs, unless it is the military, apparently. I'd rather have our (institutionally descrimated against) minorities raking leaves on my payroll than taking bullets b/c of a certain groups imperialist tendancies!

[bowens43]

7. No one is forced to enlist in the military.

No one should be forced to enlist in the military. Rather then propose a away to eliminate the perceived inequality by increasing the options of the poor , the proponents of the draft, would rather see fewer options of everyone.

There is no 'poverty draft'. No one is forced to serve. The effort to revive the draft is nothing more then a political ploy by some seriously misguided Democrats.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. No draft would pass unless it included robust protections for the rich

In fact, the draft bill that would have the strongest bipartisan support would be one that openly and straightforwardly applied only to low income people.

[PsychoDad]

11. Correct

The last draft preyed on the low income folks of america. Look at all the sons of the wealthy who got out of going to 'nam.

[union_maid]

9. No draft, no way, no how

I understand the very good points that some who want to reinstitute the draft are making. It would actually be good in a couple of ways. But sometimes the good just doesn't outweigh the bad and forcing people to do something they don't want to do is just not what this country should be doing.

It's also not just low income kids who join up. Lots of directionless kids do it. I know a lot of families in our blue and white collar community who've joined, not because they lack the financial resources to do something else, but because they don't exactly know what to do. Lots of them have siblings that have gone to four year colleges, but that wasn't for them. I've been pretty skeptical when some of my kids friends have joined up, but most of them seem satisfied with their decisions. I also know a lot of motivated poor and minority kids who've been very happy with their service. I don't know about right now, of course. This was more up to but not inclusive of the Iraq invasion which is being mishandled in every way possible, apparently.

What we need to do is to give back a lot more than we currently are to those who choose to serve.

[Karmadillo]

12. Salon: The Army be thuggin' it.

It's a premium article, but you can get a day pass if you're interested in reading more. I wonder what the ad campaign is when the Army goes to Harvard to recruit soldiers?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/17/army/index.html

<edit>

It's all to convince urban teens that the Army understands hip-hop culture: The Army knows you play basketball and wear jerseys, because the Army is down with the streets.

"You have to go where the target audience is," says Col. Thomas Nickerson, director of strategic outreach for the U.S. Army Accessions Command, who says that the Army just reached its recruitment goal of 100,200 enlistees this year. "Our research tells us that hip-hop and urban culture is a powerful influence in the lives of young Americans. We try to develop a bond with that audience. I want them to say, 'Hey, the Army was here -- the Army is cool!'"

But critics say that the Army's co-optation of hip-hop in its streetwise campaign is misleading, because it markets a life-changing and possibly life-threatening commitment as a fun, cool consumer choice. And some, like Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who argued for a reinstatement of the draft in January, voice concerns about the overrepresentation of people of color in the Army.

"One of the reasons why I advocated the draft is because, in terms of a national crisis, we should have shared sacrifices," Rangel says. "When the government says we have to stay in Iraq, we have to show that we're prepared to lose lives, the 'we' should be a broad cross-section of America. They're not asking all of America: They've targeted those Americans who are not getting a fair shake in our society."

more...