Would Draft Really Prevent or Reduce Wars

[erpowers]

For years a number of promenient individuals have proposed bringing back the draft. There reasoning has been that if we bring back the draft in numerous forms (drafting from the top 5%, drafting the children of politicians, drafting everyone under a certain age no exceptions) wars would immediatly end and we would not fight new wars. I question the truth of those statements. If you look at the past we had a draft and we continued to fight wars. Most of the wars fought in or by America have used the draft, but somehow we still fought wars. In addition, we still fought wars that maybe we should not have fought. Futhermore, if you look at drafting only children from the top 5% that might not work in that in previous years some of the children of the top 5% were actually drafted into wars and some actually volunteered(John Kennedy fought in WWII and Ted Kennedy fought in Vietnam). In addition, if we look to draft the children of politicans we find the same things as we do with the children of the top 5%. Some of their children were actually drafted and some of their children actually volunteered for military duty (excluding GHWB 10 president have had 15 kids joined the military. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt each had three). Numerous members of Congress and other politicans have had kids who joined the military. So, is the idea of a draft ending wars just wishful thinking?

[MNDemNY]

1. I think so, but ...

maybe you should ask the Russian Mothers who went to Chechnya to retrieve their drafted sons!:shrug:

[NightWatcher]

2. if more people had skin in the game it would change things

more people would get upset and demand real change. students would rally and protest like they did back in the day. moms and dads would scream out against another war if their kids were going to be sent to die without choice.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Yes there would be more dead people.

Great change that would be.

The Draft. Conscription. For all of human history this has enabled more war and more dead people from war. Never has it enabled peace. Of course this time we will do it right.
:sarcasm:

[left coaster]

3. I don't think it would prevent or reduce..

It would just give the war machine more canon fodder. Actually it might even prolong a conflict. Just keep those warm bodies coming, we gots plenty. Yep.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Only if the wealthy couldn't avoid it.

[left coaster]

7. Thank you.

Sons and daughters of rich chickenhawks would still find a way to dodge the bullet, quite literally.

[atreides1]

19. Not under the new system

It isn't anything like it was during Vietnam. One example: If you're in college and you receive your draft notice you still have to report to an induction center, where you will go through all the exams.

The only exemption you will receive will be to finish the year that you are currently in. No more exemptions based on your grades.

Even hardship exemptions are not permanent and subject to review by the Draft Board.

That's the other thing that's different, the boards are more diverse and represent the area, as opposed to being made up of "professionals".

So, there is no guarantee that Daddy Warbucks will be able to keep junior from putting on a uniform and deploying.

[LeFleur1]

20. If You Believe the Rich Won't Go

You are living in La La Land and I don't mean L.A.

[Selatius]

22. Do you honestly believe the richest/most powerful in America would let that draft pass into law?

If you wrote a bill mandating a draft that not even the rich could get out of, they would sooner kill the bill than let it pass. An all-volunteer army is the best army to fight wars because it decouples the population at large from the activity of war, especially wars that disproportionately benefit the richest, but if war were made into a population-wide phenomenon, such as with a citizen's army, suddenly it becomes far more difficult to get rich if everybody else still stays poor and is forced to kill for your wealth.

[phasma ex machina]

60. The French Revolution illustrates the finite influence of wealth. (Just saying, not advocating.) nt

[FormerDittoHead]

57. But first: Single Payer and end all war and hunger!

:sarcasm:

No way in the name of hell would such a thing happen.

[bobbolink]

45. That's what I like about Michael Moore's suggestion.... draft the top 5%.

I would really like to see that happen.

Actually, I'd like the hear the resulting wailing.

[phasma ex machina]

59. +1

[zipplewrath]

5. Yes

The predominate reason we got out of Vietnam, and the primary pressure upon Korea was the middle class complaint that their sons were going off to war. There were riots during the Civil war by those that were most exposed to having to serve in it. Drafting tends to "democratize" war and the people tend not to be "for" it. Furthermore, it tends to de-politicize it in many ways. There is no "war" party or "warrior class".

[yodoobo]

6. Well we had the draft in the 50's and 60's

And that prevented us from getting involved in Korea and Vietnam....

[old guy]

9. We also had deferments as part of the system.

[yodoobo]

50. And we will again

As soon as the draft starts, the rich - the very people who write our laws will be busy creating deferments.

[old guy]

51. Where did you find a copy of the new law?

[yodoobo]

52. That's the point!

It hasn't been written yet.

The people that write the laws to force people into service and die will ALWAYS make exceptions for themselves.

They are doing it RIGHT NOW with the health care bill and those stakes aren't nearly as high. Congress certainly isn't part of the plan. They excluded themselves.


The reason there are no deferments now, is because there is no draft now. That's a super easy moral ground right now.

But the moment a new law is written to reauthorize the draft, that's the moment that deferments will return.

[Selatius]

21. Only because the rich were able to escape the draft. Talk to Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. nt

[yodoobo]

49. If we change the law to allow for a draft, the law will be changed to allow for deferements

Why? because its the rich that will be changing the law.


Starting the Draft will insure we lose the Whitehouse, House and Senate in 2012, and then a Republican will take over with a massive new army to start our next war.

[LakeSamish706]

8. Like Michael Moore said, he wants to see the draft for only the 5% richest families...

in America. That would be certain to end wars very quickly, and prevent others from starting.

[left coaster]

10. I see the logic here..

To those who stand to gain the most from war profiteering - let their sons and daughters fill the boots!

[endless october]

14. also maybe those in power who vote for war

should lead the troops into battle.

hasn't that always been the traditional role of a king / nobles?

[cark]

34. One reason I respect G. Washington so much...

He put his own ass on the line (then stepped down after an appropriate term as president). The founding fathers signed their own death certificates when they signed the declaration of independence.

[phasma ex machina]

61. Yes they did. Most met with an inglorious end. Tortured, imprisoned, financially ruined. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. After all that's fair.

:eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

36. How sycophantic.

Make sure you lick the bottom of the shoe too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Have your mom lick it for me.

[Swamp Rat]

40. HAHA! ... keyboard warrior going after mom.

Waaah!! :D

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Nothing inappropriate about the comment. Sorry you took it that way.

[Swamp Rat]

42. Oh no, I find you very funny.

That's why I always keep an eye on you. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. That Coulter thing is just scary.

[Swamp Rat]

44. I changed it to something else, but since you liked it, here it is again.

[Cid_B]

58. First...

The draft is a terrible idea. I don't want anyone next to me who doesn't want to be there.

Secondly, this 5% is fucking stupid. So what are we saying now? If you make money then you are obligated to send your children to war against their will? Is it just assumed that every rich person is fucking Satan incarnate?

Damn this is stupid. Moore is just pandering to gullible masses who want someone to hate.

[endless october]

11. i'm completely against the draft.

people fought too hard to end it.

end undeclared war instead. that will make it more difficult.

if it's worth sending troops, it's worth declaring the war.

[cark]

35. +1 nt

[Obamanaut]

12. I think it would help a bit, especially if there were some changes

that would reduce the number of deferments granted:

no deferments for silly stuff like anal cysts, or as the former VP said, other priorities

no school deferments

no deferments for political families, wealthy, or well connected

everyone is eligible, men and women, all sexual orientations

everyone must serve - either military or real community service (public office is not public service, it is a well paid career)

[Winterblues]

13. The last "WAR" we fought in the draft was essential

Korea was a "Police Action" and Vietnam was a "Conflict". Neither were declared "wars". It was specifically because of the draft that middle America turned out in massive anti-war protests in the sixities and seventies. It was because of such massive upheaval that the "all-volunteer" military was formed...I would say if there were to be a draft it would be very much harder for politicians to get us involved in some killing lark on the other side of the world..

[yodoobo]

53. yet those wars were still started

and over 94,000 Americans were killed in both combined.

That all happened while the draft was in full force.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Ted Kennedy did not fight in Vietman

He served in the army in the early 1950's, long before the Vietnam war. He didn't go to Korea due to his father's political connections:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/15/chapter_1_teddy/

[Echo In Light]

16. I'm against it, although it obviously would vitalize the young. Here's Chomsky on the draft:

"I think it’s extremely unlikely. I should tell you this as a word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance movement in the 1960’s. In fact, I was just barely—the only reason I missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance, but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody seems to agree. In my view, if there’s going to be an army, I think it ought to be a citizen’s army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the top brass, they don’t want a citizen’s army. They want a mercenary army, what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen’s army to fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often drawn from the country that they’re attacking like England ran India with Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That’s the standard way to run imperial wars. They’re just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And that’s why I think that they’re not going to have a draft. That’s why I’m in favor of it. If there’s going to be an army that will fight brutal, colonial wars, and that’s the only likely kind of war, I’m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen’s army so that the attitudes of the society are reflected in the military."

[sarge43]

17. "Ted Kennedy fought in Vietnam"??

He was in the army early 50's. He took his senate seat 1962. All four of the Kennedy brothers were in the service.

No, if anything the draft guarantees unlimited canon fodder.

[erpowers]

24. Bad News Story?

Maybe I heard a bad news story. In the coverage of Ted Kennedy's death it was reported that Kennedy spent time in Vietnam and then turned against the war because he thought the people did support the war. I guess that story was wrong.

[sarge43]

27. It was

He was 30 years old when Nam began to heat up. He wasn't in the reserves; he went in as an enlisted, 3 year hitch. Crossed that off the to do list.

Bobby Kennedy certainly turned against the war. Maybe that's the source of the confusion.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. As long as there is one person in all of humanity willing to make war ...

war will not end.

What a Draft would do is require everyone to have a stake in the war. A broad draft would make war so costly from a political sense that politicians would be more reluctant to use it as a convenient diplomatic tool of choice.

A narrow draft with lots of exceptions won't do the job. If the rich, like Bush, or the inteligent, like Clinton can get a deferment, it just becomes a way to get the poor to serve as cannon fodder.

When less than 1% of the population pays the price of war, most people don't care.

The Draft became so unpopular because of Vietnam it was abolished. The youth did not understand why they should be sent of to die in a war of choice. The professional military provides a tool that, at most, affects 5% of the population. It makes war easier to sell, because the majority sacrifice nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. I oppose most war, and the draft, but this time, we need to

at least discuss it and keep the option open. I see many posters here hot for war who always post about their precious children, how others should vote this way or that way because to do otherwise might harm their kids, so others should not think of our own families, but of theirs. Their kids are all too good to fight, but that does not stop these parents from not just supporting the war, but becoming aggressive toward those who oppose it. So if there was a draft, they would all instantly be on the side of peace.

[proteus_lives]

25. You want a real anti-war movement? Bring back the draft.

Yes, it will reduce conflict.

FYI: Ted Kennedy did not fight in Vietnam. He served during the 50s.

[OHdem10]

26. No Class warfare intended. But if the Elites and Upper Class Kids

were being drafted, I believe there would be more thought
and consideration to war and its consequences.

[FarCenter]

28. There is currently not that much demand for cannon fodder

Conscription became general after about 1850, since the improvements in cannon and small arms resulted in troops being killed faster. Futhermore, the development of train troop transports allowed the deployment and supply of much larger numbers of men.

From the 1850s through Korea, the tactics of battle were essentially to have two large bodies of men go at each other. The one that could kill faster without running out of ammunition could defeat the other.

This approach is obsolete.

[Pisces]

29. Yes, people only care about what affects them directly. It is our me, me, me society

[TheKentuckian]

32. Only if tied with hefty taxes on the rich and the MIC

You just have a draft and the rich will always find a use for cannon fodder. If you don't make them pay the civic unrest isn't enough to stop stuff before it starts only enough to end after madcap cost.

[Hekate]

33. Not necessarily, but it would certainly guarantee more Americans paid attention to the news if they

... knew that they or their kids had a chance of being drafted into whatever conflict we'd gotten ourselves into lately.

But reduce wars? Sadly, probably not.

Hekate

[mitchum]

37. Rich men sends the sons and daughters of poor men to die for their interests...

and nothing will change that

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Maybe. But, it would sure bring the cost of war home to an apathetic public.

And, I burned my draft card in '67 and opposed the draft. No great act of heroism on my part, I had already put in my 4 years active duty. But, now, I think ending the draft was a bad idea. It makes it too easy for the chickenhawks to push more wars on us with no risk to themselves or a backlash from the public.

[treestar]

46. The idea seems to be

The draft led to the protests which led to the ending of the war.

But that brings up the question did the protests have an effect and did the war end any sooner?

And it depends on the war. There were no really big protests against WWII and would we have quit had there been?

So that is difficult to tell. Having the draft might cause more draft age people to protest. But in the heat of emotion right after 911, people might have gone right along with that draft as in WWII. With more people committed to it being useful to be in the war (if you go and fight it, you'll have an investment in its being necessary) it may well have had no effect and we might even possibly have more support for the war.

[timtom]

47. No.

And the privileged class would, as they did with Vietnam, find ways around the draft, so just more middle/lower income class would become fodder.

[eleny]

48. The way the chickenhawks squirm when it's mentioned on DU these days, let's give it a try

[ThomWV]

54. I don't think it will prevent one but I do think it will cause one to come to the earliest end.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. 'cause Vietnam was such a short war.

[newportdadde]

55. Honestly I think a war tax would have more of an impact.

I know it says something about our society but anymore I think the color green would have more of an impact.

[ConnorMarc]

62. Most Definitely!

And I've always been a strong proponent of implementing a draft.

Then we will see what is what, because then it won't b e just the poor and disenfranchised (largely) that are going into service.