To understand why, it is important to know the history of the draft. The draft was first enacted on a large scale during the Civil War, because the volunteer Army was running short of the manpower it needed to overcome the rebellion. This draft, along with the draft in World War I, was instituted for a reason that surprises many: to protect the nation’s wealthy. In the carnage of the Civil War fields and Western Front trenches, casualty rates of over 80% for individual units were not uncommon. The elite of American society, who volunteered first to serve the country that had served them so well, were decimated. These men had volunteered out of a sense of duty to their country that most lack today. As the grandson of Paul Revere said in 1861, “I should be ashamed of myself if I were to sit down in happy indulgence, and leave such a great matter as this to take its course.” He and his brother would both be dead within a few months.
In spite of this tradition of the wealthy serving, the last fifty years have seen a drastic shift in the burden of protecting America. Far from what it was originally intended to do, the draft today would force those Americans who owe this country the most to serve their country. Of course, not every American wants to serve in the Armed Forces. Many have religious and moral objections to warfare in general. All of this is just beating around the bush. The real issue is not how to serve one’s country, but instead whether or not one is serving his country at all. Unfortunately for America, each year fewer and fewer of us can say that we have served.
Of course, many will say that there is a justifiable reason for the unwillingness to sacrifice: Vietnam. The Vietnam War, the most divisive in the history of our nation, shattered the faith many had in government. For soldiers and families who, as Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has stated (about both his time in Vietnam and his son’s in Iraq), “trusted the judgment of our national leaders,” and hoped that, “they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way,” faith in the government was ruptured. Then, as with Iraq today, many wondered why so many had to die for no reason.
Since the armed forces became voluntary in 1973, there has been a drastic shift in its demographics. More and more of the military is made up of lower income, mostly rural kids. This demographic change, according to authors Frank Schaeffer and Kathy Roth-Douque in their book AWOL, has led to several problems. In a country where the number of veterans in Congress has dropped by a third in less than 30 years, it hurts our policy-making ability and civilian leadership. When the country is run by those who have no knowledge of the consequences of war, war becomes much more agreeable a tactic. Also, the drop in college-educated soldiers (the number of Harvard and Princeton graduates who join the military has dropped 98% since the days of the draft) hurts the Army itself. However, the gravest problem that they have pointed to is an intangible one, the “sense of lost community and the threat to democracy that is the result of what happens when a society simply begins to accept a situation that is inherently unfair.” As less and less of the job is done by those with more, the social equation in America begins to become unbalanced.
America is a country based on the fundamental truth of equality. However, when the burden of protecting that equality falls unfairly on the shoulders of those who have benefited least, America has a problem. With a draft, America could once again have a military that reflected its diversity and unity. More than just equalize who is in harm’s way, a draft could realign America’s moral consciousness. More and more, less and less attention is paid to the news, current events, and what decisions our leaders make. With a country in which everyone had something at stake, maybe we wouldn’t stumble so rashly into a pointless war. And, God forbid that it should happen, but if America came under attack again, why shouldn’t those of us who have so much to thank our country for help protect it?
Ponder that,
The Grip Doctrine.
35 comments:
You make a good point about the mentality of Americans.
However,
that doesn't mean this unfortunate situation warrants forcing individuals to sacrifice their lives for their country.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Could you clarify what sounds ridiculous.
The article, or the previous comment.
Great. Thanks.
The last meaningful war this country had was WWII. Enacting a draft for a cause without purpose is not making Americans give back to their country. It is simply making them die for the alterior motives of politicans. In terms of making the "elite" join the army to strengthen the moral consciousness of America, in a country where many CEO's make 100 times what their janitor makes, the divide beteen the elite and the poor will not be bridged by a simple stint in Kuwait. Rather than help the country, a draft would simply suppress the ideals of freedom America was founded on.
Meaningful war was WWII? Explain...
Germany never attacked us...so, how can you be in favor of going to war in Germany, but not Iraq?
If you do not believe that the attack of 9/11 was an act of war then think again. We do have a purpose in our current war, stop terrorists attacks at home...let me see, no 9/11 since 9/11. Sounds like a job well done :)
Author of the comment above:
Your thought process is logical,
but it is a terrible analogy.
Please go on the Internet, and read about our (the United States) reasons for entering the war.
Then come back, and re-state that comment.
You can be in favor of the war in Iraq, but please don't make ignorant comments about other subjects.
There are several points I want to address here...
First, Germany might not have attacked the United States, but it did attack other nations. We were also attacked by Japan. Also, Germany declared a state of war on us before we declared war on them.
Second, whether or not America is in a just war should not determine whether we sere our country. While I personally don't support the Iraq War, I still support America. I can't help but think that maybe, just maybe, if those in power had had "skin in the game" we wouldn't be there now.
Finally, to say that the US Army has done nothing since WW2 is wrong. The US Army fought in justified wars in Korea and Kuwait. It has also stopped Genocide in Bosnia, and if it had more troops could possibly fight Genocide in Darfur today. The US Army is more than a weapon of war; it is the representation of America abroad.
Sincerely,
Grip Editor #2
Even southern elites in the Civil War hired substitutes for themselves to avoid the draft. Social stratification is a foundation of this country.
Assuming the comment was directed at me:
Went and searched the internet about U.S. intervention in Iraq, completely justified. What was it I was supposed to learn? And yes I'll repost what I said before, no 9/11 since 9/11...kinda sucks to admit for some bleeding heart liberals, but we have done something right ;)
"We were also attacked by Japan. "
Some would have you believe FDR knew and did nothing...and ignorantly assume the same about Bush and 9/11 just to go to war....
"Also, Germany declared a state of war on us before we declared war on them."
Much like terrorists declared war on us ie: 9/11
Careful what you say Ed.#2
Again, the North Koreans were invading S. Korea and attempting to take over the whole area....not a direct attack on the U.S. in the least. You seem to agree that it is ok to go to war even though the U.S. is not attacked directly, no? What did Korea do to the U.S.?
Bosnia? What did Bosnia do to the U.S.? Did they declare war on us too? Search the internet ;) I agree that what we did was right in both cases...I just find it odd you seem to call Germany, Korea, and Bosnia justified and we weren't attacked. Yet 9/11 and invading Iraq you don't agree with? Time will only tell whether going into Iraq was right...
I have checked my facts. The only thing that happened in Bosnia was the slaughter of thousands of people merely based on their religion. Sorta like the Holocaust, except the good guys stopped it before the bad guys killed as many people. Saying that the US was wrong to intervene there is like saying fighting the Nazis was wrong becuase they weren't killing "our Jews."
Second, the invasion of Iraq was based on falsified intelligence. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that linked Iraq to WMD or 9/11. They even let UN weapon inspectors in. Considering that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, our biggest Arab ally, and NONE were from Iraq, it raises questions about our motives.
Also, in Korea and Kuwait, the two powers we fought against violated international law to attack a country that was friendly with the United States. To not have helped would have defied every moral and legal principle between people and nations.
Sincerely,
Grip Editor #2
I love this enthusiasm.
DON'T BE HESITANT TO SUBMIT YOUR OWN ARTICLES.
Also,
check out/respond to the two new articles.
"Curious Findings" & "The Kronik & Us."
- Grip Editor # 1
As I think you were saying it rhetorically, nobodoy said the U.s. was wrong to intervene in Germany...we agree, the point I was making was that we had no "authority" to do so. Just like Iraq, many say we had no authority to do so...but like in both cases, it was the right thing to do ;)
Falsified intelligence? Nah, I'll agree outdated intelligence by a couple of months, but not falsified. That would be criminal. No evidence Bush lied. In fact, read what Sami al-Araji has said about WMDs...not some bush hater...
Weapons inspectors!!? Kicked out by Saddam in violation of the terms he signed after the Gulf War. Clinton was 2 seconds away from invading...ever heard of the iraq liberation act? didn't think so...
This article wasnt supposed to become about Iraq, so i'm gonna leave off discussing it for now. However, since I know you feel strongly, I would like to invite you to wrtie something about it. That way we can discuss the war in a more...suitable..location.
Before I finish, however, I would like to say that I really did enjoy this conversation, aand the fact that I'm gonna pause it in no way means i think you're right. :)
We'll continue it later.
Grip Editor #2
The number of conservative stances towards the war in Iraq is mind boggling. Unfortunately, I'm going to sleep now. If you all are lucky I'll write you an article on it in the morning.
Nice...based on that "anonymous" person's arguments, I have hope for our future. Nice to see some clear thinking Americans:)
Until then, I'll leave you all with this:
I just got a letter in the mail that said "If you are ready to impeach Bush, open this letter"
I haven't opened it yet, because I don't want to see Bush impeached.
I want to see him jailed.
He is hands down the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Now that hes got us into this oil war in Iraq, do you know what comes next? He can't pull out because he will further desecrate his party's reputation. So we will stay in Iraq. And then, when all seems to be clearing up, we will invent some excuse why we have to invade Iran. Then we'll be stuck for good. Well, until we piss them off enough to trigger World War III. I mean, how can 1 person be that stupid? I'll tell you one thing. I am scared. It took the U.S. 30 years to rebuild its reputation and repay its deficit after the cold war and vietnam. And in less than 5 years, Bush has destroyed all of that. Everything. 30 years of progress. 30 years of anti nuclear diplomacy. 30 years since 130 nations in the world signed a treaty dismissing war as a way of solving international problems.
Quite simply put, we are Royally Screwed like we have never been before.
I find it interesting how you can you conveniently avoid the past 30 years? Just glean over them as if nothing of substance happened, that is surely irresponsible. Perhaps, it has to do with liberal, democratic administrations that appeased terrorists that we find ourselves attacked during 9/11? Does Republican Reagan and Bush Sr. play into those 30 years of progress? Please explain how Clinton's actions towards terrorism was "progress"...
Deomcrats are more dangerous...According to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and head of the agency's bin Laden unit, the 9/11 Commission report confirms that the Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get the al-Qaida leader, but Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke or Clinton simply could not make the decision to act. The CIA knew where bin Laden was and the military had plans, but they were almost always called off at the last minute.
Clinton's Democrat administration never took any action that was effective or produced any positive result. From Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s to the policies and actions they push today, Democrats haven't been just weak and ineffective in defending against America's enemies.
The present terrorist threat to our security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s, after Democrat Clinton was elected in November 1992.
-->In February 1993, terrorists bombed New York's World Trade Center. (We do next to nothing)
-->In October 1993 two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. In response, Clinton withdrew our forces. (to which Bin Laden said:" "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame.")
-->In June 1996, Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi and wounding 372 others. (We do next to nothing)
-->In February 1998, bin Laden declared "war on America," saying the murder of any American anywhere on the earth was the "individual duty" of every Muslim.
-->In August 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. (we do next to nothing)
But, alas, 9/11 was Bush's fault.....I don't recall any liberal blaming Clinton for any of these :) Kinda hypocritical if you ask me, but I don't think you were....
C'mon now.
If you are going to leave a comment that long, and detailed.
You might as well send us an article to post.
Take a stand.
@Anon:I find it difficult to take you seriously when you refuse to put any kind of indentifying information behind your words.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a stand agaisnt terrorism, I'm just asking, "Why Iraq?" Why, when we know that countries like Afaganistan and Iran have voiced hatred and a desire to harm americans on a large scale, do we attack Iraq. For God's sake, we know that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and yet all we do is send in negotiators. However, in Iraq, a country with no weapons of mass destruction, a country that allowed UN personnel to inspect it's facilities, we rushed in, coffers open and guns blazing. We will do all in our power to "Stop the terrorist threat to american lives." If we keep fighting these frivolous wars, there won't be much American life left to protect.
∆Twisted Satire∆
First of all, to whoever said Bush is the worse american president ever and should be jailed, stop listening to what your parents say, there have been far worse presidents in american history then Bush. To Twisted Satire. Iran hasn't exactly spoken about harming Americans on a large scale. The President has offered to speak diplomatically about the nuclear program with the top leaders of the world. He was at the UN several months ago in New York giving a speech to the entire assembly, and of course, the leaders of England, USA, and Israel refused to show up. Israel is just trying to get everyone against Iran by throwing that their nuclear program is being made to attack Israel. The IAEA has gone into Iran's nuclear facilities, and has claimed that their program isn't for weapons either. Let us not forget that Israel leeches on to the USA like it is it's big brother, while ILLEGALLY possessing nuclear weapons, they won't even admit that they have them, yet they go assaulting Iran because they want to have a cleaner form of energy, seems kinda odd to me.
And to whoever said that WWII wasn't necessary for us to go into because Germany never threatened us, Hitler had plans to Nuke San Fransisco after he would've obtained the technology to make the nukes, thank god for Albert Einstein writing FDR about the nuclear plans Germany had. Small German teams of soldiers also landed on the mainland in 1942, ever heard of Operation Pastorius? Didn't think so. If they try to attack the USA, of course we have the right to fight back, who the hell wouldn't? Stop being close minded and learn your facts.
Twisted...identifying info.? Although I respect the eds for doing so, I disagree in doing so. My points and opinions are what matter here. My ID is neither here nor there.
As for your post.
You make a good point. First, afghan., second iraq, third may be iran...wait a little.
"...all we do is send in negotiators."
Would you rather rush to war? Makes sense to, as in the War in Iraq, to find a peaceful, diplomatic way of handling a situation first...we'll see what happens.
No WMDs anymore you mean....evidence is clear that he had them.
UN inspectors? what a joke, they were always being blocked from inspecting sites for days until they were given the "ok". Never had comlete access to any site and any time, as per the agreement signed by Hussein.
Rushed in? 9/11/2001...we go to war in 2003. Two years does not seem like a rush to me. (but plenty of time to get rid of WMDs for Hussein!)
No comments on Clinton, or shall we continue to ignorantly and unjustly place all the blame on Bush? :)
Why Iraq? Why Iraq? Well, maybe Clinton has some questions to answer about the war in Iraq and its links with Al-Quaeda. During President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Well, if Bush seems to have lied, you must say the same about Clinton, no?
There is a difference, though.
Bush and his ilk not only misrepresented the facts, they actively shut down and attacked anyone who opposed them (re: Joe Wilson). They also attacked their families, for good measure (re:re: Joe Wilson).
What the Bush team did, from September 12 on out, was to focus on Iraq and abuse the tragedy of 9/11 as a means to do so. In the meantime, they let the War in Afganistan, the place we should have been, falter. The Taliban has made a comeback and stability in Afganistan is a crumbling illusion.
Ths is all becuase of the SINGLE WORST foreign policy decision the US has ever made. The invasion of Iraq was, and is, idiocy based on lies. To defend it by digging up obscure Clinton quotes is not only a smoke screen but an insult to the intelligence of Americans.
I'm unsure as to how facts were misrepresented...all nations saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusions; that Sadam had WMDs. That is a matter of record and cannot be disputed. If Bush lied to the American people, did all the other nations lie to their people as well?
I cannot accept your assertion that Bush "spun" or misrepresented facts. If he spun, then everybody did. Bush retained the same CIA director who served under Clinton. That Saddam had stockpiles of WMD was a worldwide unanimous opinion of the intelligence community. Going to war is not fun, and Bush did so for the national security of this country. That no stockpiles were found does not sweep away the other reasons for the war, nor indicate it was a lie--that Saddam had violated numerous resolutions, that he was shooting at the British and American planes in the "no-fly zones,” that he had invaded his neighbors and therefore posed a threat to do so again and use resources to blackmail neighbors or fund continued terrorism, that he could hand-off a WMD to another party. Regime change was already, pre-9-11, the official policy of the U.S., with the Iraq Freedom Act having been voted on by Congress and signed by Clinton. 9-11 changed everything, and we went from passivity to offense. Saddam could have avoided war by fully declaring what happened to his WMD as was required by UN Resolution 1441. He didn't.....and here we are.
So, to brush off anything related to Clinton is, in fact, showing ignorance on your part. Clinton made links to Al-Qaeda and Iraq long before Bush was elected.... To not read and research about what the U.S. should have done is also showing blindness to reality. Thus, that is the smoke screen you may be hiding behind. Look at this, if you can, from a non-partisan viewpoint and therein you'll find truth...
Nobody has let the war in Afghan. falter. We still have many troops there, and
Unfortunately, thogh, the war in Afganistan IS faltering. Maybe you missed it, but there was a huge special in Newsweek about it. It just wasntpicked up in the American edition, because, i dunno, maybe they're too liberal? whatever.
And not all countries unanimously agreed. If all countries unamously agrees there would not have been the virulent debate there was, and maybe our "Coalition of the Willing" would include some more countries that actually did something.
About the intelligence as well, read the book "Fiasco." That book, along with many others, shows how the Bush team silenced any opposition to the war among the intlligence community. Just think of Joe Wilson: he publishes findings that go against the Admministration's picture and "someone" endangers his wife's life.
Uh, yeah, I actually read the Newsweek article. The media is way too liberal, which is not why the story didn't run. The story didn't run, in part, because newsweek has lost a tremendous amount of credibility with its publishing of the so-called "Koran Desecration" story. Yes the story was later retracted but severely hurt the U.S....
Yes, all countries agreed Sadam had WMD and WMD capabilities. the disagreement was not over this, but whether the U.s. and world should go to war. That was the disagreement you speak of.
Anti-war books are nothing new....but again, the major point you fail to realize is that this was not solely Bush's intelligence. He relied on intelligence from the administration before him, including some of the same people. This is either Bush's and Clinton's lie, or nobody's...
However, it was Bush that acted on the intelligence even after it was proved wrong. While Clinton may have had it, the Bushies KNEW that it was ungrounded and faulty; therefore, in acting on it they lied. Whether or not Clinton "told" that same lie is irrevelent
And that is the where you and I part ways....I do not believe the Bushes knew it was wrong, in fact, it has not been proven to be wrong...Sadam had WMDs, that is fact. Bush could not have acted "after it was proven wrong", as it has not been.
Clinton telling it is relevant. For the people who say, "But, Iraq was not related to Al-Quaida". Clinton and Bush both said they were, which mean they are both telling the truth or lying. Moreover, Clinton's inaction brought forth 9/11. Clinton was right in fact, just didn't have the balls to act...who cares right? Lets just blame Bush...seems like the cool thing to do these days.
I believe that before his State of the Union Address in which Bush linked Iraq to Nigerian uranium, he had been told that was wrong. I believe Colin Powell knew that the information he testified at the UN was wrong. I guess we have to differ.
Clinton's "inaction" causing 9/11, that is one for the ages. I personally think that any claim that it was Clinton's fault while ignoring the August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US," which Bush ignored, is a bad argument. Blaming everything on Clinton, considering he didn't actually do anything bad, is even worse than blindly blaming things on Bush.
Yes, we must agree to differ. I'm glad we don't have to kill each other over it either...
I guess the "inaction" is just as old as "Bush lied people died."
Nice memo, but gave little revealing info. to act on.
How about the 10 times clinton could have apprehended Bin Laden? That isn't inaction???
Would there have been an August 6, 2001 memo in the first place if the U.S. did something?
Wouldn't Bin Laden have been in custody long before then?
Ah, who cares....nobody remembers Clinton, especially at school...
Your right, Clinton did nothing bad.....if sitting and doing nothing to capture a know american killing terrorist is not doing "anything bad".
The anonymous conservative is an idiot
Bush is a great president. He's doing the right thing. This war is a sucess. On to Iran
????? (in response to above comment)
You want more people to die in war? I am not judging your political preference but am rather stunned by your ideas (even if you were a democrat). They are so outrageously right-wing that I can't tell if your sarcastic!
Post a Comment