blevkog

I predict that some idiot is going to decry your description of the American armed forces as poor by crying "you forgot Pat Tillman". Of course, said idiot will be ignoring all recruitment statistics which point out that Tillman types are an anomaly.

PS. Don't give the Republicans any ideas.

Whooee! Forced conscription ain't much fairer than what they got now. Back in the 60's an' early 70's when they was fightin' a losin' battle in Vietnam, they had a draft. They realised it weren't 100% fair an' they made sum reforms but they still had it an' they still forced young fellers but - an' this is important - but no gals t' join up an' become trainer killers.

I ain't opposed t' sum sorta forced national service but there's gotta be a choice between bein' trained t' kill an' doin' sum other service. The Mewrkins'll say they already got provisions fer conscientious objectors but they made it damn hard t' get that classification.

Merkins gotta attitude that they gotta support the troops an' they think that admittin' that the current system draws a disproportionate number o' uneducated an' poverty-induced enlistees is seen as disrespectin' the troops. Jest ask John Kerry.

The answer ain't in hirin' the biggest army. The answer is fer Merka t' use its bigass wealth t' buy off bad guys. A coupla million inta Moqtada al Sadr's back pocket'll buy more security than sendin' in Merkin kids in tanks. The dough the Merkins spend on their military in a post-Cold War reality is jest plain wrong. It's a waste o' money bein' used in a strategy that wastes lives on all sides.

Here's a point t' ponder... a quarter of the Merkin defense budget would be enuff t' completely eradicate food shortages in the entire world.

They don't need a draft. They need t' get their heads screwed on right.

JimBobby

There's no arguing your (yer) logic on world hunger, JimBobby, but buying off al Sadr is the kind of thing that created the likes of the Taliban and Mujihadeen. It might buy some peace now, but it is very likely to bight them in the ass in the future.

Your right, a bigger army is no solution - preventing it's misuse is.

cancuck,

You're right in that catching the middle class in a draft might hedge their desire to vote for idiots bent on world domination - I hadn't thought this through entirely. I wonder how many would "support the troops" as blindly as they have if they were asked to fork over a kid or two.

Question for the masses: did the draft in the 70's democratize the military?

To kevvyd's question about whether the draft democratized the military, during the Vietnam War, there was a disproportional number of poor southern boys and African-Americans in the ranks of the US Army and Marine Corps. Somehow, the children of privilege managed to avoid service with deferments, medical exemptions, or by joining the National Guard (hello Dan Quayle and George W. Bush.) In today's political climate I would expect they could institute a draft system that would not change the demographics of the military one bit, much like the reforms to campain financing and lobbying rules that have no real effect.

Here's an article on the role of American economists in abolishing the draft. Milton Friedman argues that mercenary is a good word, not a negative one. I think that the military you get during peacetime isn't much different from the one you want during wartime, except perhaps in size.

That doesn't surprise me. The Chicago Boys, under Friedman, have a long-standing tradition of "proving" that exceptionalism and authoritarianism for the rich is good for the economy. Reagonomics was based on that notion. As was the Chilean "success", known outside economic circles (and outside Ralph Klein's head) as the reign of terror.