The Draft as a Fear Tactic
Posted by Adam Graham in : Iraq WarChris at Unequivocal Notion’s latest fantasizing about the draft gives us a peak at one liberal’s motives:
I can see college Republicans (and Idaho’s own Adam Graham) breaking out mom and dad’s credit cards so they they can pay for some treadmills as Bush’s “War Czar” puts the draft back on the table…
It is too bad Cramer is out of reach of the draft, then he could experience what it is like to have those pumpkins and half filled bottles of Pepsi shoot back.
‘Cause we all know how cool guns and camo are as long as they don’t mean much.
Well, first of all, I’m a tad older than Chris thinks as I too, am “out of reach” of at least of an initial draft, though not by much. But, it’s actually Chris’ comment on Clayton Cramer that I found interesting. What would Cramer experience if he found something “shoot back.” The exhiliration and adrenaline rush of the moment? Hitting the dirt, but then surviving. A little bit of primal fear? Somehow, I don’t think that’s what Chris meant. Maybe I’m misreading, but I think he’d like to see Clayton Cramer get hit.
It’s a favorite liberal fantasy: conservatives going off to get shot in war. “That’ll show them for supporting the War in Iraq.”
Is that supposed to make me afraid? Ooh, there might be a draft. Well, if you read the linked article, you find Bush has consistently indicated the change isn’t needed and he’s unlikely to change course. The big backer has been fringe liberal-turned House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who sees it as a way to end the Iraq War, weaken the resolve of our people, and lead America to surrender the Iraqi nation to terrorists (isn’t great to have such fine patriots in the leadership of the Democratic Congress?)
Who’s afraid of the draft? There are several things that could happen there: death, dismemberment, or disability among the worst. All could happen in America. I believe my times are in God’s hands.
If God wills that I’m drafted, then I’ll go over to Iraq and do the best job I can to serve my country. I’ll do my best to acquit myself well regardless of the outcome. If I die, I’m sure Fred Phelps will picket the funeral.
However, today we have an all-volunteer force. Today, Americans have the ability to examine their lives and see where they best fit and to find their place in the world. I would say that getting myself to a point where my presence in a war unit would be a help and not a hindrance to our war effort would require a minor miracle.
I have other areas in which I’m better able and more skilled to make contributions to society and the life of my family. Spending your life trying to “overcome weaknesses” is a miserable way to live, and in the military it’s a way to put the lives of others at risk. I refuse to do that.
When I was younger, I dreamed of joining the Coast Guard Academy, but that just didn’t work out. I have great respect for the people who serve in our military, including those who patrol the streets of Iraq. They’re professionals with vital skills that help them survive and continue to kill terrorists. They have skills I don’t, God bless them. Their calling isn’t mine.
Some of you may think that’s lame, and you’re entitlted to your opinion (no matter how idiotic.) And here’s mine: What’s lame is backing a draft (something that should only be used to help us win major wars like World War II that require millions of soldiers on the ground) only to insure our nation returns in defeat and disgrace and in the hopes that among all the inexperienced civilians shoved into military service and killed, there might be some College Republicans or Conservative bloggers among them. Sick.
And by the way, if you think getting America out of Iraq will avoid there being a draft, you’re a fool. You see, if the US leaves prematurely, the thing is going to blow up like a powder keg and the whole Middle East will be like Iraq in a few years (if you believe the analysts) and at that point , do you think the US can stay away? No, it’ll be World War III and you can bet on a huge draft and a huge body count. Thus, the efforts of “peace activists” will bring a war far greater in magnitude, loss of life, and monetary cost. But on the bright side for many liberals out there, I’m sure quite a few Republicans would die.
![SaveForMike.com [Grassroots]](http://www.christianevents.co.uk/saveformiketicker.png "SaveForMike.com")
Comment by Bubblehead
Liberals keep bringing up this bugaboo, but the fact is that there won’t be a draft as long as there’s a Republican in the White House or 41 Republican Senators, for the reasons Adam brings up.
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer
One of these days, Unequivocal Notion of 43rd State Blues will start posting about substantive issues instead of personal insults. They might even get some readers that way.
Comment by Adam Graham
You’re a tad too optomistic about Unequivocal Notions my friend, but there are some relevant posts from W. Lane Startin on 43rd State Blues.
Comment by Jay S.
To disregard the need to increase our military ranks just because a few Lefties would gloat is irresponsible and immature and, sadly, a hallmark of the Bush Admin. It is incredibly selfish and dishonorable to continue to send the same troops back into battle for 3 or 4 tours and this policy will have a negative impact on these soldiers and their families for generations. This, headlined at Drudge, is worth reading:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QUECGG1&show_article=1
The mistakes of the Vietnam era, as in drafting delinquents first, should not be repeated but to dismiss it out of hand because it is politically unpopular is as morally wrong and dangerous as Democrats’ glee over bad news from Iraq.
Like it or not, ‘Support the Troops’ may include supporting the draft.
Comment by Adam Graham
We don’t need soldiers who don’t want to be there and aren’t talented for the task. Now, you can argue for funding additional troops, but draftees make things more dangerous.
Comment by Jay S.
Again, the mistakes of Viet Nam should not be repeated. I’m not advocating the policy of that era that amounted to 12 weeks at Ft. Polk and straight to the jungle; a drafted soldier does not necessarily have to go to combat. There are support roles that could be filled by draftees, allowing volunteers that have not seen combat to ease the strain. As a veteran, I know for a fact that there are capable troops in every unit – from Headquarters Company to the chow hall.
It is not a matter of increasing funding for more slots; there are not a enough soldiers to fill them as it is and we know this by the increase in bonuses, the lowering of educational and criminal background standards and the present and future recruiting shortfalls.
If one’s goal is to have a strong defense only within the terms of political victory, then, again I have to point out that that is as dishonorable and weak as the defeatists.
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer
I really don’t want draftees even in support roles. I would rather spend more money on decent pay for soldiers to encourage those who would like to join up, but can’t afford the enormous cut in pay. There comes a certain point where people with private sector jobs–and not even particularly high paying private sector jobs–just can’t afford the financial sacrifice along with all the other sacrifices of military service.
During World War I, Germany exempted Socialists from the draft, because they weren’t regarded as sufficiently reliable. At the end of the war, as the crisis of manpower became more severe, the German government decided to start drafting Socialists. While this wasn’t the cause of Germany losing the war, sending a lot of committed Socialists to the front where they discouraged German soldiers (who were already pretty discouraged by almost four years of pointless slaughter) doubtless played some small part in the German military collapse.
Suddenly, the Democratic interest in the draft all makes sense….
Comment by Jay S.
Clayton,
Thanks for commenting. A lot of what I hear from anti-draft people makes it sound as if no one who was ever drafted served honorably, and all people currently of draft age are petulant and over-fed. If our national security is compromised due to a lack of volunteers I couldn’t care less if they have to take a pay cut. They are able to have a higher standard of living due to the sacrifice of our troops and if it’s time to go to the country’s aid then suck it up and go. I did once and, at 41, I tried to re-enlist as a combat medic. My aneurysm clip kept me out. My point is that even though I have been against the Iraq war since day one, that does not mean that I have less of a responsibility to my country and fellow man – bleeding, wounded troops don’t have politics! And as I said, being against the draft for political reasons is despicable.
Comment by Adam Graham
A lot of what I hear from anti-draft people makes it sound as if no one who was ever drafted served honorably, and all people currently of draft age are petulant and over-fed. If our national security is compromised due to a lack of volunteers I couldn’t care less if they have to take a pay cut. They are able to have a higher standard of living due to the sacrifice of our troops and if it’s time to go to the country’s aid then suck it up and go.
First of all, you don’t talk about the fact that somebody somewhere did serve honorably. You have to deal with reality on the majority of cases, and what’s been said is true of most draftees.
The fact is that if we start a draft,it’ll end the war with current poll numbers, that’s the only reason to start it. To start a draft in order to insure that we lose a war is wrong.
Clayton’s point is to create incentives for folks to join up. (i.e. more carrot, less stick.) and that works better than drafting folks just to make a grandiose political point.
Comment by Jay S.
Adam,
Tens of thousands of draftees served honorably in Korea and Viet Nam, even though that had been our most unpopular war to date, and we could not have won WWII without them. The constant stream of bad news out of Iraq, drowning out good news is nothing new; think about it – did the local news do stories about Adam Graham graduating college and getting a job or did they do stories about your drop-out classmate who robbed a bank to support his crack addiction? (a hypothetical obviously). My point is that more people step up to do the honorable thing, as you have said you would, but we don’t hear about them because “if it bleeds, it leads”. And, again, the policy of the Viet Nam era was that delinquents were drafted first and that should not be repeated.
As far as the financial incentive, how many “carrots” would it take to get you to give up your comfortable life to patrol the streets of Mosul or Tikrit, Adam? $10,000/yr, $20,000, $50,000? What’s risking your life worth in dollars? Few people are going to give up their health and safety for money but they will if their country says that they are needed in no uncertain terms.
The hyper-partisan, scorched-earth policies of the neo-cons shows that that style of politics only works if one is always right (impossible) and has devastating consequences for our country if one is wrong. It makes me ill to think of the soldiers who will be killed or injured and the troops and families who are on their 4th tour as Bush rides out his last 18 months as president. I don’t want to hear about polls – just get it done!
Reread your blog mission statement and think it over, Adam. Thanks for letting me comment.
Comment by Adam Graham
I don’t think a draft is necessary and as we said before the sponsor wants us to lose the war and return home in disgrace and defeat, I refuse to give Charlie Rangel that satisfaction.
Comment by Jay S.
Sorry, Adam, but Three-Star Generals, appointed as Bush’s war adviser, outranks you just a little bit and playing these political games with our defense is weak and petty.
Believing that a draft guarantees defeat in Iraq is faulty logic. You’re spouting the party line again.
Comment by Adam Graham
Look, Jay, that’s Charlie Rangel’s stated AIM in this whole thing. He wants us to lose that’s why he wants the draft. There are many military experts who disagree with the need for the draft.
Comment by Jay S.
I don’t care about Rangel and neither should you. Being against something, particularly things concerning our national defense, because our political enemies are for it or it “would give them satisfaction” is exactly why we are struggling. It is similar to the appointment of federal judges – I don’t care which party started the filibuster tactic and I don’t care which party stops it, just get it done!
The U.S. Army will not meet it’s recruiting goals this year which means that soldiers will be returning to Iraq for their 5th tour. Five combat tours, Adam. It is indisputably immoral to take advantage of these soldiers and their families this way because Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, is for it. We’ve never lost a war because of the draft and I think you’re giving way too much credence to the concept.
Read Cobra II, which has not been discredited in any way, and you will find that the Bush administration let it be known what they wanted to hear and that is what came back them. It’s still happening.
This level of partisanship has got to stop.
Comment by Adam Graham
Okay, the issue is not that he’s a Democrat. The issue is that the only reason he wants this is to cost us this war. He wants us to lose. That’s the issue. This debate is going in circles and we’re not getting anywhere. It’s my house, so I get the last word. Comments closed.
Pingback by My Big Blogging Mistake | Adam's Blog
[...] I try to be honest and open, but sometimes you can take it a step too far. This is the case with my post on the draft for the Iraq war in which I explained why I hadn’t [...]