Larry, who runs Simple Thoughts, and I had a interesting conversation yesterday. We were talking about Rep. Charles Rangel (d) and his idea to instate a mandatory draft (or required military service) in the US. The discussion was over my take on why he would even consider this to be a good idea.
After 11 years as a teacher, I've got a pretty good handle on how to debate a point and I LOVE to debate a point that I, first, don't necessarily agree with, and second, know will really irritate the person I'm discussing the topic with. You can read more about Larry's take here, but my point was that the reinstatement of the draft, where all US citizens between the age of 18 and 26 would be eligible to be called up for service, isn't just about increasing the size of the military. Its about making people think about the war.
You see, right now, there are a lot of people that say they "support the war" and it is easy for them to say this because they have nothing to lose in declaring their support for a war they will not fight in. The idea behind the draft is that it will force those citizens to consider their support in a new light. If you are a teenage student and you know that if the war continues as it is going now, you will most likely be called to serve and will probably be thrown into a conflict that might, at best, get you exposed to the atrocities of war, and at worse, get you maimed or killed, it might change your perspective on supporting the war. If you are a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, cousin, whatever and you suddenly realize that your teenage kin, probably male, but maybe female, is now probably going to be one of those soldiers you have watched on the television, safe and sound in your home on American soil, you just might rethink your support for the war also.
Now I'm not saying that I agree that a draft is a good idea... Far from it. I think it is a stupid, idiotic, reckless idea and Rep. Rangel should have his head examined for even thinking about it. But it got me thinking....
Maybe Donald Rumsfeld was right... Yes, I'm giving props to Donald Rumsfeld... But only one prop. He was right when he said,
Right now, the military is bleeding soldiers, and yes that might be a bad analogy, but as more and more people leave the military, that is what is happening. The US military needs to find out how to encourage more people to join it ranks but forcing citizens that may not agree with the country's leaders about their decisions regarding military objectives is not the answer. Nor is forcing existing military personnel to extend their required service time using the far to easy "Stop/Loss" measures placed on soldiers who have done their time and served their country and now wish to have some peace in their lives even though they new that it could happen.
At this point, more and more people want out of military service and fewer and fewer people want in. Something has got to change and from where I stand, we either need more troops or less war. Problem is, I don't have an answer for either issue. I fear we are in this situation for a while even if we don't agree with it because leaving Iraq without something stable will probably cause the country to implode. But then again, is that our problem?
Now the big question.....
For those of you who say that you support the war, how much support would you give if you were the ones that had to go over and hear the bullets fly by? Are you willing to make that sacrifice for a cause you believe is just? Or is it enough for you to live your easy life and voice your support and not lose anything in the balance?
Technorati Tags: Military Draft, Charles Rangel, Iraq
powered by performancing firefox
After 11 years as a teacher, I've got a pretty good handle on how to debate a point and I LOVE to debate a point that I, first, don't necessarily agree with, and second, know will really irritate the person I'm discussing the topic with. You can read more about Larry's take here, but my point was that the reinstatement of the draft, where all US citizens between the age of 18 and 26 would be eligible to be called up for service, isn't just about increasing the size of the military. Its about making people think about the war.
You see, right now, there are a lot of people that say they "support the war" and it is easy for them to say this because they have nothing to lose in declaring their support for a war they will not fight in. The idea behind the draft is that it will force those citizens to consider their support in a new light. If you are a teenage student and you know that if the war continues as it is going now, you will most likely be called to serve and will probably be thrown into a conflict that might, at best, get you exposed to the atrocities of war, and at worse, get you maimed or killed, it might change your perspective on supporting the war. If you are a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, cousin, whatever and you suddenly realize that your teenage kin, probably male, but maybe female, is now probably going to be one of those soldiers you have watched on the television, safe and sound in your home on American soil, you just might rethink your support for the war also.
Now I'm not saying that I agree that a draft is a good idea... Far from it. I think it is a stupid, idiotic, reckless idea and Rep. Rangel should have his head examined for even thinking about it. But it got me thinking....
Maybe Donald Rumsfeld was right... Yes, I'm giving props to Donald Rumsfeld... But only one prop. He was right when he said,
- As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
- You take the Army you have to a war you can fight, not a war you MIGHT WANT to fight or want to fight at a later time.
Right now, the military is bleeding soldiers, and yes that might be a bad analogy, but as more and more people leave the military, that is what is happening. The US military needs to find out how to encourage more people to join it ranks but forcing citizens that may not agree with the country's leaders about their decisions regarding military objectives is not the answer. Nor is forcing existing military personnel to extend their required service time using the far to easy "Stop/Loss" measures placed on soldiers who have done their time and served their country and now wish to have some peace in their lives even though they new that it could happen.
At this point, more and more people want out of military service and fewer and fewer people want in. Something has got to change and from where I stand, we either need more troops or less war. Problem is, I don't have an answer for either issue. I fear we are in this situation for a while even if we don't agree with it because leaving Iraq without something stable will probably cause the country to implode. But then again, is that our problem?
Now the big question.....
For those of you who say that you support the war, how much support would you give if you were the ones that had to go over and hear the bullets fly by? Are you willing to make that sacrifice for a cause you believe is just? Or is it enough for you to live your easy life and voice your support and not lose anything in the balance?
Technorati Tags: Military Draft, Charles Rangel, Iraq
powered by performancing firefox
Comments
I'm not in favor of a military draft either ... but I am in favor of a period of universal service, with no exceptions. Spend two years in service to the country in return for education, or at age 25 get to go to Marine Boot Camp.