| it feels a bit drafty in here, don't you think? |
[09 Jan 2004|02:38pm] |
"Those in power are totally divorced from those at peril."
And as that is currently the case in this country, those of us who have sons need to think LONG and HARD about what is TRULY important to us before we step into that voting booth next November.
The greatest sacrifice is ALWAYS asked of the working class. Minorities and those with blue-collar backgrounds make up a hugely disproportionate number of those who risk their lives defending a system that also largely excludes them from its spoils. Mark Shields, the television commentator, recently surveyed all 535 members of Congress and found that of all their fortunate sons, only 1 -- ONE -- is an enlisted man serving his country (Senator Tim Johnson (D), South Dakota). The others are off earning their 'Gentleman's C's' at Yale, or practicing their chip shot, or fucking Paris Hilton, or strutting about a planet over which they will someday rule simply by virtue of their last names.
All I can say is, George W. Bush is just lucky that his only two children are of the female persuasion -- because if they weren't, and if this draft travesty came to pass, those of good conscience in this country would (and should) be rioting in the streets demanding that draftcards #1 and #2 have both their sanctified, blue-blooded, upper-crust monikers inscribed upon them.
My message to our president and his chain-rattling posse is this: do not be so eager and willing to send the sons of the poor to die for the private interests of a few, Herr Bush, unless you and your pals are willing to send your own children to their doom FIRST. Because I promise you that if somehow their blood were to be spilled upon the altar of so-called freedom, that it would not, in fact, be a single shade bluer -- nor an ounce truer -- than that of the son of the guy who sweeps the floor of the New York Stock Exchange late at night, or the one who shines your custom-made, $800 shoes on the back service porch at the Whitehouse every morning.
And that the loss would be not one iota more incalculable...nor tragic.
And further -- how dare you, by your actions, suggest otherwise.
Trust me, kids -- put NOTHING past this treacherous, malfeasant, cowardly administration.
NOTHING.
Long Island Newsday
December 22, 2003
Beware Of Attempts To Revive Military Draft
By Bob Keeler
It has been 30 years since the last time an American entered the armed forces through the not-so-tender mercies of the draft, on June 30, 1973. The next time could be just around the corner, if President George W. Bush is re-elected.
No, no, no, a thousand times no, say the White House, the Pentagon and Congress. They insist they have no plans for a draft. In any case, take this to the bank: It will not happen before Nov. 2, 2004. Still, the rumors refuse to die, and it was the Pentagon itself that started the buzz.
Last month, on its anti-terrorism Web site, the Pentagon posted a plea for volunteers to serve on the draft boards and appeals boards that will decide whether men (current draft law does not affect women) can get deferments or exemptions. The law created the boards as an insurance policy, in case of an emergency need for more troops.
The Selective Service System - the civilian agency that registers men when they turn 18 for a possible future draft - had nothing to do with this announcement. But it did get a lot of applications for draft board membership as a result. (Hint: Opponents of war are also eligible to sit on these boards.) When the appeal created a flurry of stories, the Pentagon quickly took it off the Web.
At the time, an organization vitally interested in the draft, the Center on Conscience and War, got a flood of anxious e-mails and calls. The center's executive director, J. E. McNeil, did not see the incident as evidence of movement toward the draft. But in recent weeks, she has heard of rumblings, from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress, about a draft after the election.
In a perfect world, the Pentagon would reject a draft. It likes its soldiers willing and malleable, not angry and cynical. But the current situation is far from perfect. Despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, young Americans are likely to keep dying in Iraq. Reserve and National Guard troops have been deployed far longer than they expected. This may soon start to erode enlistment and re-enlistment rates. At the same time, Bush's reckless preventive-war strategy could commit further troops to battles in other countries.
If Bush's policy keeps demanding more and more troops, and the supply of volunteers dwindles, it only takes a simple act of Congress to start the draft. That would be a profoundly bad idea.
As one of 230,991 draftees in 1965, I have some interest in this. When Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) proposed this year to create a fairer, more comprehensive draft, including women, it got me thinking about the issue again. If there were a draft, I felt, a lot of young people and their parents might have had second thoughts about cheering Bush's invasion of Iraq. Then I had a second thought of my own: Naaaah!
"There are usually two reasons for a draft," McNeil said. "One is people who believe that having a draft will keep us out of war. The reality is that the draft has never kept us out of war." The second argument, which seems central to Rangel's thinking, is that a draft would make the military more equitable. It would pull in people from all strata of society, rather than just those who volunteer because they need a job or could not otherwise afford college.
Some even argue, against the evidence of history, that a draft would conscript the children of members of Congress. "During Vietnam, not one single member of Congress had a child who was drafted," McNeil said. "The reality is that the middle class and the upper middle class always have more options than the lower class in the face of the draft."
As the law now stands, once Congress activates the draft, it would be somewhat tighter and fairer than in the early Vietnam era, with fewer exemptions. Selective Service would leap into action, using a lottery to start by drafting 20-year-olds. But unless they make the draft age 55, to conscript war-loving lawmakers, "fair draft" is an oxymoron, like "smart bomb" or "friendly fire."
As divided as this country is now, a new draft would only exacerbate the division. And it would give this war-without-end presidency an endless source of warm bodies to pursue its cowboy foreign policy. Who knows what "October surprise" invasion Bush may have in store to boost his re-election chances in 2004? Then the next step might be a "February surprise" draft in 2005.
|
|
![[info]](http://library.vu.edu.pk/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/000100A/http/web.archive.org/web/20040202140911im_/http:/=2fstat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
