July 15, 2007

Making a Case for the Draft

This from the Washington Post:
And Now, an Important Announcement About [Thump] -- By Dana Milbank
Friday, July 6, 2007

Yesterday, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M), previously a full-throated supporter of the war, gave a news conference in Albuquerque to urge an expedited withdrawal of U.S. troops.
^^^
Domenici, who has served in the Senate for 35 of his 75 years, said he was moved by a conversation with the father of a New Mexico soldier who was killed in Iraq. "I'm asking you if you couldn't do a little extra, a little more, to see if you can't get the troops back," Domenici said the man told him. "Mine is dead, but I would surely hope that you would listen to me and try to get the rest of them back sooner."
Click here for the complete text.
***
Some months-- maybe a year --ago, I wrote about a couple of other Congress people who changed their stances on the war after going to Iraq and meeting with soldiers there.
Three young men showed them the sorry state of their body armor, shared pictures from home and explained about the hardships of being away from their loved ones and how difficult it was for their families when they were away from home for so long. And they talked about the general drop in morale when their rotations were lengthened with no warning.
In fact, it took the death of one of those soldiers before the politicians felt compelled to change their views.

And, once again, a young man had to die before a politician took a stand.

This seems to me to be the greatest argument for reinstating the draft-- but only for the children of our president, vice president and our representatives in Congress
Maybe then they'll actually think about their decisions when it comes to making war.

9 comments:

ThanKwee-Anajo said...

If we had a draft, there would certainly be more people demanding that we withdraw the troops. In fact, if we had a draft, we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Mary Ellen said...

I don't want a draft for the very simple reason, I don't want to see one more parent lose a child in order to wake up the rest of the country. If they haven't figured it out by now, they never will. Besides, I don't think it would have kept Bush from going to war in Iraq. The man is an ego-maniac and he doesn't care how many of our kids die there. Also, I don't want my son fighting in one of Bush's wars...he's the only son I have and I don't want to lose him in order to stroke the ego of Bush.

Like two crows, if a President wants to send our troops to battle, they should either send their own kids or go themselves. Bush didn't even finish his National Guard duty...I guess it was hard work, he wanted to be the commander guy instead.

two crows said...

hey t-a--
you may be right-- but I fear the cost would be too high even if the result was the eventual end the current occupation.

m e--
agreed. the reinstitution of a draft would certainly be a case of the camel getting its nose into the tent. we can't allow that to happen.

what I'd REALLY like to see would be a return to the ancient practice of the rulers taking the field and leading their troops from the front.
of course, neither that nor the step that I suggested in the post will occur. but it's nice to dream once in a while.

two crows said...

btw, m e--
speaking of wanting to be the commander guy:

I've been thinking that the only hope for our country now is the fact of our president's ADHD. he has discovered that the commander guy's job is harder than he thought it would be and now he wants out.

that's why I'm beginning to breathe a little easier about his declaring marshal law and taking over as dictator. I truly believe that the only reason it won't happen is his short attention span. **whew** saved by the skin of our teeth!

TomCat said...

That is reason for hope, TC. I oppose the draft unless people are drafted on the basis of family wealth, high to low. If the people who can afford to buy this government were losing their children, there would be no war.

two crows said...

absolutely, TC--
and, since that will never happen, the only alternative is to hold every politician, regardless of party, accountable when they vote for any war and vote them out at the next election.

eventually, they'll get the point: wars have consequences-- even for them.

two crows said...

wellll--
I can see I need to qualify the above comment.

I can think of 3 wars during the last century that I wouldn't invoke the repealing of my vote for a politician for: WWII, the Serbian/Croation Genocide and Iraq I.

In cases where we are attacked or a smaller country is being attacked or a genocide is being carried out, I think a case for war can be made--so long as it is then carried out with due speed and is not followed by an occupation. oh-- and so long as we are not lied to to get us to go along meekly and acquiesce.

TomCat said...

I'm not even sure about Iraq I. April Gillespie, US Ambassador to Iraq, gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. Then the so called nurse who testified before Congress about Iraqi soldiers pulling infants from nurseries and killing them turned out to be a diplomat's daughter that had been in the US the whole time. That war was a set-up too.

two crows said...

TC--
I hadn't heard about that.

I do believe Sadam would've kept on-- a la Hitler --if we hadn't intervened. that was why I was in favor of it at the time. and, of course, we went in with a coalition.
the mistake Bush I made was encouraging the Kurds to rise up against Sadam and then abandoning them to their fates.
gee, I wonder why they hate us so much.