Why I’m Against Current Wars—and Most Foreseeable Wars, Too

I strongly disagree with you about universal conscription. I am a conscientious objector (Vietnam vintage) and my theory is that conscription results in an exploitable standing army.

That said, I agree with your second idea that a voluntary national service corps could be developed to reduce extremely high rates of unemployment among the young, and to develop a new green energy sector.

I paint antiwar paintings. If you are interested in them, you can find them in this post:
http://tomthumbsgallery.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/peace-vigil-paintings/

While many lefties wouldn’t agree with me, I would also move to mandatory service, everyone serving 2 to 4 years. Most wouldn’t serve in the military, but every male and any woman who wants it would get military training

I absolutely agree, one important function the military can serve is provide a way to signal ability without them first attending an elite (or any) college. Look up Henry Kissinger’s army career sometime, he had some smart officers who recognized this shy 20 year draftee was, well, freakin’ Henry Kissinger. I’d actually put everyone who passes the physical (and like Singapore or Israel offer alternative training for those who don’t) through basic training, yes even conscientious objectors, quietly tell them if they stick it out for 10 weeks, they’ll never have to put on a uniform again.
For three reasons: 1. Some people make damn good soldiers and would never know it if they weren’t pushed into it. 2. You never know when someone is going to be caught in a survival situation where some military training years before (no, not marksmanship, but first aid or, something new, “emotional resilience training”) could save their life somday. 3. Drafting people and sending them to serve a combat tour, yeah that sucks. But recruiting volunteer soldiers with promises of job training (or Guardsmen for that weekend a month, two weeks a year) and then sending them back for multiple combat tours, that’s unconscionable. Frankly its a testament modern psychiatry that there aren’t more PTSD cases among our (temporarily) returning vets. If we had brought back the draft after 9/11, we’d have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago.

Agreed;

“But recruiting volunteer soldiers with promises of job training (or Guardsmen for that weekend a month, two weeks a year) and then sending them back for multiple combat tours, that’s unconscionable…If we had brought back the draft after 9/11, we’d have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago.”

I can’t believe what I’m reading. I don’t have the words right now…..and I’m not a “leftie,” or a “rightie.” I will say this post is enough to make S Brennan types starch their shorts with babies that could have been.

As a draftee from the Vietnam era, I was vehemently against the draft until I saw the result of the all volunteer army. We now have a professional, volunteer military divorced from much connection with the population, therefore there is no resistance to the wars and the use of this army. No one cares. If you are going to be drafted into a military/national service, you will have great interest in what that service does. The industrial overlords of the military industrial complex do not want citizen scrutiny of their money making, war mongering operations.
I would also note that filling the military with resister draftees after 1968 profoundly altered that military and made it dysfunctional. That is why the military pros do not want the draft reinstated.
As far as national service is concerned, I live within 20 miles of fallen down, deteriorated CCC and WPA projects in the Blue Ridge mountains, even as the tourist burden on these facilities increases every year. There are hundreds of jobs that need doing, that would provide good and long term value to the US landscape. Private enterprise will never do these projects.
And as someone with an interest in MMT, I repeat, a sovereign government is not constrained in spending…until it becomes inflationary. The Bernank’s failing is that he still thinks trickle down works, so he is doing this for the banksters, and not spending at the bottom of the economy where it needs to happen.
And as a

Furthermore, we cannot separate a military training requirement at this present time from problematic cultural reflections of toxic masculinity, which makes it even more suspicious to me. I mean, “every male, and every woman who wants to?” Um.

In my opinion anyone who’s for the current war is delusional or attached to the military industrial complex and willing to betray their country’s real interests for money. The US cannot afford war. Period. To be for war right now is to be for the ruin of America.

Far more, the U.S. cannot afford its medical services industry (approximately, $2.5 trillion per year, or about $1.25 trillion above what it would cost if it followed any other OECD country’s solution), its “financial” “services” industry (virtually pure parasite, with no benefit provided to the country), or its fossil-fuels industry, (which stands in the way of the building of other solutions in energy, transportation, and shelter while exporting hundreds of billions of dollars per year for fossil fuels that 1) destroy the biosphere and 2) will lead to a collapse of the economy when the supply starts shrinking).

(and like Singapore or Israel offer alternative training for those who don’t)

If we’re going to emulate Israel on this issue let’s take it to its logical conclusion. Who will be the Palestinian equivalent in the U.S.? There’s the million dollar question. Afterall, we will have to justify the mandatory military service, and that means a permanent enemy must be inculcated, nurtured and perpetuated, or maybe Israel can lend-lease us a portion of their Palestinians and train us on how to debase, demoralize, ghettoize and, ultimately genocide them when the time is right.

“..we cannot separate a military training requirement at this present time from problematic cultural reflections of toxic masculinity” – Mandas

Except of course, the facts precisely contradict this point.

Macho movies went away as the Draft – Viet Nam war increased in intensity and only reappeared after the draft had ended and the “draft resisters” were well beyond daft age. Switzerland has a mandatory draft and yet no culture of violence…so these types of emotional arguments are contradicted by history and current events.

Again,

When National Service is “the other guys job”, it’s having the other man be your N-Word.

But:

Fine, you don’t want to serve, you & Dick Cheney got better things to do? Fine, but no federal jobs of any sort for you, not even subcontracting work. You will never be in a position to order, or profit from those who serve in any capacity. This would include all state executive office & contracts since they fall within the chain of command.

“Switzerland has a mandatory draft and yet no culture of violence…so these types of emotional arguments are contradicted by history and current events.”

Exactly right, they have universal service in the militia army (organized similarly to our National Guard) and its a very peaceful country. I wonder how many tourists know that every bridge and mountain pass in Switzerland is pre-wired with explosives and that every young male (30 year obligation was cut to less than 10 years after the Cold War) keeps an assault rifle and 300 rounds of ammunition in his house in case there’s ever a snap callup?

What do those young Swiss males have that will guard against a couple of these dropped on their heads?

http://rolandvb.topcities.com/Bombs/Nuclear_Mururoa.jpg

S Brennan, at the heart of Ian’s argument for a greatly reduced military footprint is that it can’t be sustained economically. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, meaning if that applies to the U.S., it applies equally to any other nation on earth, including any that would have delusional aspirations to invade and occupy the U.S. They couldn’t afford such a foolhardy adventure, and besides, why would another nation want to invade and occupy a nation such as the U.S. replete with zombie-like fools? Not to mention, there are other ways to invade and occupy a nation…..just ask the IMF and the World Bank.

but it is also important that the future elite, while young, have some experience and bond with people, who are not expecting an elite life.

Isn’t that special. What a wonderful benefit. The unwashed Masses, whilst they’re still young and not so unwashed yet, get a chance to shower with their future Masters. I’m a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXEgBh0TF0&feature=related

Switzerland has a mandatory draft and yet no culture of violence…so these types of emotional arguments are contradicted by history and current events.

Huh? The history of the U.S., with a draft and without, since 1945 has been one military action after another. Contrasting Switzerland’s history with the U.S.’s is grasping at straws. We have our actual recent history to learn from and don’t need to reach for some other country’s experience.

I’m convinced that had there not been a large standing army, and beyond that, a military-industrial-congressional complex, there would have been no invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Not having a large weapon at hand forces decision makers to “concentrate their minds” on better diplomacy and international cooperation.

I’ve written this before in comments on other posts: the greatest act of diplomacy in the history of the U.S., and, arguably, the world, was the settling of the Cuban Missile Crisis without the use of military force. If those in the military at the time (I’m looking at you, LeMay, who should have known better because of his experience in WWII), had gotten their way, then I think it is unlikely that anyone reading or writing here today who was born after Oct. 1962 and who lived east of the Rocky mountains would be alive.

I’m convinced that had there not been a large standing army, and beyond that, a military-industrial-congressional complex, there would have been no invasion and occupation of Iraq.

To add: The alternative to a large, all-“volunteer”* military is not a large, all-conscript military. An actual alternative would be a small military.

* “Don’t have a job? Why not ‘volunteer’ to obey the orders of some military officers and their political leader? Join the military so that you can kill mostly civilian children, women, and men, often anonymously, while advancing someone’s career, and making some people a tidy profit.”

anon2525, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis [CMC], which just as easily might have been called the Turkey Missile Crisis, the US had overwhelming superiority, but it also had a Prez who seen combat and lost a brother to war. While JFK went along with his generals insistence that the Bay of Pigs was a nifty idea and wound up taking the blame, he most assuredly felt comfortable bucking there advice during the CMC. In fact, had JFK lived, there is considerable evidence that he wanted out of Viet Nam. Had JFK’s crew not been such an elitist bunch of snobs who kept the VP out of the know, I feel pretty certain LBJ would have skipped the escalation advised by none other than the Lemay man…McNamara.

Truman served and did not start a war [I don’t consider the N Korean invasion an US imperial plot].

Ike served and did not start a war.

LBJ served rserve and was repeatedly lied to and questioned openly whether escalation was a good idea, when it turned bad, he knew the shame, resigned and went home to die.

Carter served and did not start a war.

Reagan did not serve and started several.

Bush was a coward under fire and started several wars.

Clinton didn’t serve and started one war, which I felt was justified. Noting that serveral commenters here feel that Milosevic had the right to invade and murder, while Clinto was a war criminal for stopping the mayhem. Outside of Serbians, nobody over there shares these commenters opinions.

Bush didn’t serve honorably and start wars left and right.

Obama never served and reignited the bloodshed in Afghanistan.

My vote, those who serve, with those who see combat tend to be more peace loving…which is what a rational mind would expect.

My vote, those who serve, with those who see combat tend to be more peace loving…which is what a rational mind would expect.

Your historical observations are accurate, but draw the wrong lesson. The idea that only presidents who have seen military combat are fit to serve is a logical contradiction. It asks that we have combat so that we can provide experience for people who will later be president who will then use that experience to prevent combat. So, we need combat to prevent combat?

This is a judgment call about human nature and requires that we draw on history. Washington and Jefferson and Eisenhower all saw the danger of a large standing military, (for different reasons?). Jefferson even called for “No standing army” to be written into the U.S. Constitution. Heed their judgment and advice.

Remove the large standing military and the benefits outweighs the risks.

And the benefits of military service to individuals does not require the “military” part of the service.

People are describing the economic “inefficiencies” of having a large military-industrial-congressional complex, but, surprisingly to me, are not bothering to mention the immorality and illegality of the acts it commits at the orders of a political and military leadership. If you think that there are benefits to having a large MIC complex, then justify those benefits to the over two million civilians killed in Vietnam (conscript proponents) and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq (volunteer proponents). If you can’t, then the burden is on you to come up with a way to get the benefits of military service without the military.

anon2525,

I never said this:

“The idea that only presidents who have seen military COMBAT are fit to serve”

I only ask that those who seek to lead, or profit need to join the “risk pool” and find common cause with those you seek to command. Once you are compelled to follow legal, but incredibly stupid orders you tend to impose some pretty hard restrictions on what you would visit upon others. People aren’t born leaders, real leaders are chiseled by life’s unwanted vicissitudes. Before you visit discipline on 300,000,000 souls, I want to see some self imposed discipline.

Now if the dreamy eyed radicals on this board succeed in eliminating all military forces I’d would say this is a pointless rule, but since those keyboard commandos represent far less than 1% of the nation it is not a item for immediate consideration. Something tells me that these folks would never succeed with some authoritarian take over that crushes democracy. But even if I underestimate these “liberal” dictators, it’s hard to see a fascists form of government sans a military style police force, but then that’s why the dreams of young sniping radicals have a history of being ignored…or worse, disastrously implemented.

LBJ was conned, but he had personal courage, breaking the law as congressman to save Jews from the ovens. I think when you risk everything for what you believe in you are either a fool or courageous.

LBJ was conned, but he had foresight warn all who would listen [very few] of the Nazi’s intention.

In the end it’s LBJ’s fault [which he acknowledged] but hell had to stoke the fires when McNamara showed up.

http://lyndonjohnsonandisrael.blogspot.com/

Nixon political entourage had a treasonous streak, as a candidate in ’68 he sent a mission to South Viet Nam to convince leaders not to accept the terms that were being offered in Paris promising South Viet Nam a better deal if they waited. South Viet Nam waited. The 1968 terms were signed by South Viet Nam in 1972, in the meantime 22,000 troops and almost a million Asians perished. I’d of hanged all who participated in that treasonous subterfuge.

Every dollar spent on the military is not spent on actual economically productive activity. Yes, there are some exceptions, but there are other ways to do R&D spending, and more and more military R&D is not applicable to civilian matters.

There are other examples, like military helicopters that are used for search and rescue, that sort of thing, but on the whole, military spending is as close to pure overhead as a society gets. That’s a big part of our problem – we’re spending gobs of money on stuff that doesn’t get us anywhere, and nowhere near what we ought to on things that would.

Clinton didn’t serve and started one war, which I felt was justified.

Justified, eh? Very telling about your character considering the following.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article159888.html

The Serbs are still guinea pigs in a disgraceful exercise of blackmail and enticement – the carrot and the stick – pursued by the European Union, which for the past decade has held out the mirage of membership in the European Union to bully Serbian leaders into more and more concessions, for which they get a few crumbs now and then, but never anything resembling recognition of Serbia’s right to justice, or even to existence.

3) To build Camp Bondsteel, as a part of extension of US bases eastward toward both Russia and the Middle East.

The “official” narrative about the “NATO Humanitarian War” in Yugoslavia was nothing but a bunch of duplicitous propaganda as the following so earnestly points out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FN33NTMpLU&feature=related

Oh, and that’s Bullshit about nobody over there besides Serbians feeling that way. We have friends here in the U.S. from Bosnia who feel very much the same way as the “commenters” you mention. They believe that NATO forced the war, and encouraged and supported factionalism prior to it, in order to break up Yugoslavia. One of the guys recounts how he was forced at gun point to join the military and ordered to shoot at and kill his former Serb neighbors and friends. He said many of his fellow soldiers, including himself, refused orders and aimed to miss. They couldn’t understand why they were being required to do this….out of nowhere. He, and his wife, believe that War is Crime. They have lived through it, they should know. It’s an insult to them for you to talk the way you are about it being justified, you sadist, especially when one considers the real reasons for the war. I suppose you naively believe that the U.S. entry into WWII in Europe was all about saving the countless Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals, Mentally Infirm and Political Dissenters from the ruthless clutches of the Nazis, don’t you? Nah, it had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet Union beat back the German Offensive and turned the tide of the war. Good wars, my ass. There are no good wars…..that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Not bad, Ian, but for your info, the tradcons e.g. at amconmag.com and the Ron Paul and similiar libertarians have been against the Iraq war and the Afghan war from the outset of each.

S. Brennan writes:

Let’s review just a few:

Yes, let’s review those few. All that represents a tiny fraction of what we spent on the military, at least to get them to the point where they were viable and understood technologies. The rest, all the Army divisions, the aircraft carrier battle groups, all pretty much represent pure overhead, at least when they’re not being used somewhere.

Most of those things probably would have been developed for an aggressive space program, and some, like the Internet, would probably have developed one way or another.

You left off the most important one, S Brennan. Tang! How could you forget Tang?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf1kw5Yp9Ck

and now it’s out of moderation…

Unfortunately, the threat Eisenhower warned us about is looming ever greater. The security state that is emerging is going to be the source for most of the jobs in this country. DHS is already building massive new surveillance structures:

Our own home-grown Stasi. I wonder whether employees will have to speak with an East German accent.

I should have known this would turn into an argument about the draft.

I thought you intended that, considering we’ve been here before a couple of times at least! I was about to congratulate you with a “well played, sir” for self-trolling, of which I entirely approve, naturally.

I appreciate your desire to create common ground between the econo-political elite and The Masses, but one or two years of being commanded by someone isn’t really going to do that.

I was about to congratulate you with a “well played, sir” for self-trolling, of which I entirely approve, naturally.

I considered that as well. I couldn’t help but thinking that the purpose of this exercise was to elicit satirical improvisation….set the table, and they will come. And they did come.

Some of the responses reminded me of Archie Bunker’s solution to hijackings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

I find it difficult to believe that supposed liberals support conscription. Are you kidding? I oppose everything our military is currently doing with every moral fiber of my being, and detest the way it is used to suppress other countries in the name of our imperial greed. And you’re saying that to we’re now supposed to be forced to serve in it? Really? And then we have the brilliant idea that we should enforce this slavery–which is exactly what it is–by saying that those of us who choose to preserve our personal freedom should be denied rights like jobs? Where am I, Mussolini’s Italy??

I never thought the day would come when I would agree with Mandos but he’s dead right on this one.

No little qualms about thngs like bodily integrity, conscientious objection, personal freedom? No, no. You MUST SERVE.

I agree that some military training would be highly useful for most people. Training in survival skills, use of weapons, surveillance–all highly useful, and increasingly so if our country experiences wholesale breakdown–which looks like a distinct possibility. But these can be taught without making everyone serve in the military.

This country doesn’t need a bigger military or more glorification of the armed service. We’ve got enough of that for 10 Roman empires. We need a jobs program and we need socialized medicine, and we need to bring our troops home from everywhere, period end of story.

I couldn’t disagree more, but neither of us seem to have any supporting information beyond our instinct.

Well, I must admit you’re right that I have no evidence and am going on instinct. Perhaps I was being hopelessly naive. Vietnam is still so fresh in my mind, but maybe the powers-that-be would have been just as ready in 2002 to throw a conscripted army into war and would have ignored a national outcry.

I’m not in favor of forced military service; I am in favor of national service, which I see as a completely different thing. I look at it as a jobs program. And in any case, I fully support conscientious objectors.

Perhaps I was being hopelessly naive. Vietnam is still so fresh in my mind, but maybe the powers-that-be would have been just as ready in 2002 to throw a conscripted army into war and would have ignored a national outcry.

“Hopelessly naïve” or “hopelessly cynical?”

I think that your prediction (of the past?) is correct: there would have been an (even bigger) outcry (than there was) and there still would have been an invasion. It would have been more of the culture wars. The people who were wrong about civil rights, equal rights for women, Vietnam, Watergate, and the environment have been attempting to get second chances to “prove” that they were not morally and intellectually wrong, and they would have welcomed this as yet another chance to do that. This is why “Support the Troops ™” was a required preface and ending to any discussion of the invasion and occupation.

Let’s see what the War Department has to say about a peacetime draft…

That’s kind of like asking a Roman Catholic Priest what methods he uses to target young boys…. and sometimes girls.

Besides, there’s no need for a draft when you are using the National Guard for purposes never intended and half your forces are private contractors.

Beowulf,

Those are two great links, I didn’t read all the way through, but great history, thank you!

“That’s kind of like asking a Roman Catholic Priest what methods he uses to target young boys…”- Morocco Bama

Or like asking “Morama” to act like something other than the spoiled child he is.

Frankly, I think the Roman Catholic Church is far more likely to solve it’s problems than “Morama”, but then they both like to preach a lot of stuff they themselves are unwilling to abide…so, who knows if either will improve?

Thanks anon-whatever, for removing all doubt – the cohort of the usual suspects are also in attendance, helping remove doubt as well.
= = = = = = =

Disagree with Ian’s post on the principle that education is never an inexpensive proposition (you get what you pay for). For all the centuries of written warning about the follies and costs of war, not a letter of all that wisdom has made an effect upon the country’s consciousness.

The country’s founders themselves summed up and warned against exactly the path the government is navigating, speaking to empty ears. Education not learned by letter will of necessity be taught by deed for those incapable of the former method, hence, those who fail to know history are fated to repeat the lessons (and take the class again).

Since the country has no quality history for reference, or is incapable of concept, or cares not, war will be done and the price of education mounts. The ‘family silver’ of the country is pawned to pay the latest wars in service to political empire aspirations, the country’s home is mortgaged to the hilt to pay a standing military against all warning not to do so, the sherif is at the door to evict and recover the unpaid, unserviced debts for the creditors and moneylenders. The drums of the fear-mongers are beating loudly, drowning out thought – more war – more war – more war.

So, the only education that is on offer is that of more war, and certainly that is the only lesson plan that the unread have to avail themselves. More war is the only option for the unteachable. More war is the only answer that can suffice. More war is what it will be. The people can live in cardboard boxes under bridges, but war is required. When politicians emptied the asylums of the incapacitated to save a dime, they removed the only shelter that could cope with today’s citizen.

Yes. War, bring it on. (/scathing sarcasm)

hence, those who fail to know history are fated to repeat the lessons (and take the class again).

I agree that the path to social and psychical evolution is learning from one’s mistakes, both individually, and collectively as a scoiety, but “history” is a loaded term. Let’s face it, the adage “history is written by the victors” has considerable merit, and that “history” is, in most cases, the only “history” the unwashed are ever going to read, or see. It’s part of the conditioning that convinces them to fashion their own chains and decorate their own cells. S Brennan is a perfect example. He is the prototypical paradigm, the end result of a social-engineering experiment that’s been in operation now since the 1920’s.

The military happened to develop useful, civilian technologies because it was showered with money.

If Clinton had been a true leader and statesman, he could have changed the world. Pretty much gut the DoD budget and redirect it into the space program. It has a pretty damned good record of bringing technology into the civilian sector too. It’s end goals are admirable, and both its means and ends tend to be the sort that can unify nations rather then rend them apart. Moreover, many of the big money contractors pulling political strings work with both so it wouldn’t have been a huge change in that respect.

Instead our modern, liberal hero decided that the best thing to beat swords into was more swords. And by doing so, he lost Russia for the sake of old Cold Warriors. We might have found an equal partner in space exploration, developed a stable democratic system there, and secured all the oil and gas we need without Middle Eastern complications. But NATO bases had to be pushed East, and it made a lot more “sense” to build up China which would clearly be a natural resources competitor once its manufacturing really took off.

And, yes, the war in Yugoslavia was none of the sweetness and good that it gets painted to be. Plus, let’s not forget what a grand place Kosovo became…and almost certainly the European outlet for Afghan heroin which is almost certainly being run by the CIA, because that’s what the Agency does.

Lex I agree with your general thrust and say so above:

“Stop these senseless wars, then bend DoD towards useful technologies. But don’t be stupid and cut it back more than Clinton/Gore did and think the money will be spent elsewhere, it won’t, it will go to tax cuts for the rich and QE III”

But as long as a program can be called Defense, the “knee jerk” congressional reaction favors the spending for public works, research and DEVELOPMENT see:

“Eisenhower’s most enduring achievements was championing and signing the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956. He justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as essential to American security during the Cold War….Eisenhower’s support of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 can be directly attributed to his experiences in 1919 as a participant in the U.S. Army’s first Transcontinental Motor Convoy across the United States on the historic Lincoln Highway, which was the first road across America. The highly publicized 1919 convoy was intended, in part, to dramatize the need for better main highways and continued federal aid.

The convoy left the Ellipse south of the White House in Washington D.C. on July 7, 1919, and headed for Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. From there, it followed the Lincoln Highway to San Francisco. Bridges cracked and were rebuilt, vehicles became stuck in mud, and equipment broke, but the convoy was greeted warmly by communities across the country. The convoy reached San Francisco on September 6, 1919.

That experience on the Lincoln Highway, plus his observations of the German autobahn network during World War II, convinced him to support construction of the Interstate System when he became President. “The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.”

Eisenhower argued for the highways for the purpose of national defense. In the event of an ground invasion by a foreign power, the U.S. Army would need good highways to be able to transport troops across the country efficiently. Following completion of the highways the cross-country journey that took the convoy two months in 1919 was cut down to two weeks.”

FYI, the Space program was an outgrowth of DoD, JFK not only bent US DoD spending, he bent the USSR’s as well…which was, next to Gorbachev’s willingness to end the insanity, what ending the cold war, Reagan was an observer.

Mistakes in the HTML (again). My previous post should only have quoted the first line.

Yes F-TB,

Your history is spot on, I did try cover that point with:

“The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.” – Eisenhower

This doesn’t apply to F-TB, or the majority of commenters on Ian’s site, but it does need mentioning because if you don’t understand how progress occurred you are unlikely to come up with an idea that is worthwhile. That is why so many evil people engage in historical re-writes…it gets innocents to perform evil unwittingly.

I am all for young adults new POV’s, but I wish some of the juniors on this board would bone up on history, otherwise their “new” POV is just a rehash of yesterday’s failures, lies and deceptions.

“An equal case can be made that the [human species] was as much a failure as it was a success” – “Morama”

I don’t suppose a Juvenal mind ever notices any action taken, whatever it’s benefits, has negative consequences, take ending slavery, or civil rights…many argued just as our personal”Morama” does, finding the negative in isolation of the overall good. One thing “Morama” does provide ample evidence for is that the mind numbing propaganda of the last 32 years works.

Thank you for bringing up David Swanson and War is a Lie, Lisa. It segues nicely with this discussion especially since S Brennan has brought up one of his many vaunted military leader heroes. Here’s a nice article by Swanson about Eisenhower’s famous Military Industrial Complex speech. He argues that the quote, as most are, was taken out of context, and Eisenhower quickly argued for something just short of what he was criticizing. Most people, since they only know history (S Brennan included) and not the reality of the past, often quote Eisenhower for this without understanding what Swanson outlines.

http://inteldaily.com/2011/01/what-eisenhower-got-wrong/

But pulling these quotes out of context, as we like to do, misses the reprehensible context of the speeches in which they originated. It would be a similar act of distortion to quote President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and leave out everything but that peaceful opening line,

How does one dismantle the military industrial complex in the face of a ruthless, atheistic ideology? Of course, Eisenhower did not do so. He refrained from some of the excesses, in both war funding and war lying, of his successors. He dug our country into a pointless war on Vietnam, but not to the extent of his successors. And when his immediate successor resisted the military machine more than Eisenhower had, a single bullet struck him multiple times in Dallas.

Morocco Bama,

I see that I’ve been quoting Eisenhower out of context just like everyone else! Yikes. Thanks for the link. I’ll post it at the Cogblog this weekend, especially since I see that the 50th anniversary of that speech is upon us.

Would you mind explaining why you made a distinction between men and women concerning the service obligation? Thank you

Would you mind explaining why you made a distinction between men and women concerning the service obligation? Thank you

Both men and women should serve (and women should still have the opportunity, as they have now, to enlist), but as a practical matter you can’t concript women. The problem is… babies. Per Selective Service regulations (everything is in place if Congress votes to resume the draft), once conscription notice is sent, you have 10 days to report for your physical and then another 10 days to ship out for basic (though if you have a low draft lottery number or if there’s a universal obligation, you’d know in advance what was in store). OK, here’s the catch, today (and presumably in the future), before starting basic training every woman is given a pregnancy test. If its positive they’re sent home. An expectant mother enduring strenuous exercise, lack of sleep, exposure to tear gas, loud noises and constant jolts of adrenaline is perhaps not the best neonatal environment for a fetus.

Regardless of their views on abortion, no Member of Congress will ever vote to order an expectant mother to risk a miscarriage by going through basic training nor will they subject her to punishment for being pregnant. So it offers women who really really don’t want to serve the biggest loophole in the world, which can’t help but demoralize the other draftees (male and female) as they watch mothers-to-be get back on the bus to go home. As I said, females should be encouraged to serve and offered the opportunity to enlist (and for career soldiers, motherhood is certainly no impediment to service, my aunt served 20 years while raising two kids) but as a practical matter, only males can be conscripted into service.