...Congress should DECLARE war.  If not, then we shouldn't be going to war.

I seem to remember some document or something putting forth a similar idea, Lowell.  It's kinda old, it's on parchment, a whole bunch of people signed it, articles, sections... dammit, what was that thing called?!

Great piece, Dianne.  We NEED the draft back, I think.  There is no way the American people would be so fast and loose with their leadership if they realized it could be themselves or their loved ones on the line.  As it is we've farmed it out to professionals (I won't use the M-word but I should) and contractors to defend our freedom of... something.  Economic hegemony? 

is exactly what this country needs, in my opinion. It would probably be the only cross-cultural experience many young people would have today, where they would meet people of different color, economic and social situations, religions, and so on--- i.e., meet their fellow Americans instead of being isolated in their tacitly segregated, gated communities, home schooled or attending parochial or private schools, and so on. They've been coddled and don't know it. We could use their labor on our infrastructure, for example, modern day CCC.

We hear today that many high school graduates are taking a year off before going to college, "building their resume," so the urge to have real life experiences is already apparent. As for their choosing military training and service, I always rather liked that idea, despite the fact my father and husband (both regular Army officers) did not like having to command a batch of basically reluctant recruits who resented being drafted; they preferred a volunteer Army.

If the opportunity for choosing other sorts of public service went along with special extra inducements to choose military service instead of, say, park service or some such, a national service draft might work out very well.

Moreover, the possibility of facing combat service might make a believer out of all these soft-bellied, plump little mother's darlings in the Young Republican Club, and they would be a little less inclined to support military "solutions" to international problems. Which would be a good thing.

I do not like Pat Buccannan, last night he hosted the "Tucker" show on MSNBC. He made an excellant point.

"We are not the same country we were in the 1950's. Then people just plain enlisted because we were at War. Today people do not feel that need to defend our country".

I must agree with him totally, but Vietnam changed all of that and now the Iraq war will change it some more. Who will really join the National Guard after this mess and the way they are treated.

Our nations leaders and military leaders have no regard for life. President Johnson believed the Military leaders and carried Vietnam longer then it should have been. Bush has no respect for military leaders, except to use them to continue his wild cowboy ways.

I listened to a retired General before the Senate defending the war. When he was asked about the Army being broke in spring of next year and wasn't that a reason to end the war.

His reply was "if they all must die, then so be it. We must win this war in Iraq."

Thank God he is retired, but that is an example of what our leadership is. The sad part not a single Senator questioned his comment. SICK.

I think while a draft might be a good thing, too many people,i e Baby Boomers, remember the last draft.  You had to go to Nam if you were drafted with no conditions, unless your number was high, you took a vow to God, or you were bettering yourself through college. In time it also included if you were married. If you had the right connections you could serve in the National Guard.  Bush and Cheney are two people who used the conditions ad nauseum; Cheney got married to qualify.  So I think when you say draft, a lot of people are skeptical that it'll be evenly applied.

Rangel did resubmit a new bill in February 2006, Universal National Service Act of 2006, which eliminates all the excuses from service that we previously had had in the previous draft. 

But yes I share your concerns about how evenly it might be applied if it were implemented.  And too, being of the Vietnam era, I remember all those who went to Canada to escape going to Vietnam.  I didn't support the war in Vietnam, BTW. 

Mandatory national service is a fine ideal until there are 20 times more volunteers to coach basketball in the inner cities than to serve under arms.  Then, who makes the assignments?  I favor return of the military draft with damn few exclusions.  The sad fact is that when there is a threat of death or injury, fear tends to trump patriotism.  Today, you can join the Army up to age 42. Minimum entry standards have been lowered often and financial bonuses have been raised yet volunteers are scarce.

More and more military leaders are admitting that we have no hope of conducting additional armed conflicts in the near future. This is another way of saying that we can no longer depend on the all-volunteer concept to supply a fighting force.  The crisis we are in now has to get a lot bigger before people seek solutions.

that we couldn't find work - tutoring kids, restoring the wetlands outside New Orleans, whatever - for all the young people turning 18 ever year.

I have never served in the military, and a part of me wishes that I had, but none-the-less I haven't. I don't see how America can continue without it. Especially with the criminally insane war that fortuante son of Bush started.

The way I see it, Americans have it so much better than most of the world. We're comfortable, we've got our homes and families, or if one is younger than we're dreaming of that. Why in the hell go off and join the military now and fight some ill planned war that isn't even helping America. In lot of ways America is like Rome before it fell. We're prosperous, cockey, and getting very soft. If my memory  serves me right the huns came down and crushed the Roman empire--I might have that wrong, but someone crushed em because they were prosperous, cockey and soft.

All I can say is hats off to those still joining the National Guards of the world, and the military. Cause if they stop doing that who's going to defend our great nation. Especially now that Bush has got us up to our neck in poop, and he doesn't really care. He'll just smile and walk off into the sunset and leave the clean up to the next leader. And of course he'll start his re write of recent American history. I guess people that have taken a lot of cocaine and alcohol can kid themselves.

Haven't we discouraged our young men and women from enlisting because "WE" don't support the politicians who support the war?  Also, what sacrafice have the Bushies called for?  Ah yes, GO SHOPPING.

So yes, we sit by and watch this debacle, yet where is the leadership, government leadership, saying where the help is needed?  Americans can mobilize, we can move heaven and earth if necessary.  But it takes LEADERSHIP.

These have been my questions all along.  There is no foe so great that we cannot defeat it.  Except when that foe is us.

There is more to Rove, Iraq, Bush 2000, Cheney etc. than meets the eye. Why are we at war with Iraq when it was Saudi nationals that attacked us?  I watching these things happen, and can't make heads or tails.  I just know that its wrong.

the only real war we are fighting is here at home.  And I don't mean terrorisim.

I still don't understand how we can be having a national emergency and war going on and NO requirement for sacrifice coming from the government. Reminds me of Lyndon Johnson's "Guns and Butter" argument. A government that lacks the guts to tell the truth and ask for necessary resources should not be allowed to continue governing. If we have National Service, the government would have to pause and think about it before going off to war. The draft got me into the Army and Vietnam. My son's unit is going to Iraq next month. He needs all the help he can get and this administration just makes a big noise and "supports" the troops with substandard medical services, equipment, food, etc. They think the "free market" will take care of everything and pay the bills as well. What do you think about now when you drive over a Republican maintained bridge? Charlie Rangel is my hero.

there was a true renewed sense of patriotism and a surge in enlistment. 

The problems we face today aren't necessarily because our country has gone soft or doesn't care, it's because the general population is smart enough to know BS when they see it.  It's not that there is a real danger of being killed or wounded in Iraq, it's that the entire "war" effort was bogus to begin with.  We were never defending our freedom and liberty, we were scratching the itch of a handful of Saddam obsessed ideologues.  Why should anyone want to risk their life for the whim of these Neocons? 

I'd say that if a real threat to our country emerged we would see incredible numbers of volunteers willing to risk their lives to defend the country.  In fact, I'd even bet that if the Bush administration had kept it's eye on the ball and conducted a war against terrorism that we'd still be seeing decent enlistment today. 

The real question is if the next leader can win back the trust of the American people - to prove that he (or she) won't foolishly throw our military into unnecessary wars. 

I'd like to think that the problem is with Bush and his senseless and insane war in Iraq.

Giving a President like this the ability to conscript us, doesn't work for me.  But I tend to think (and agree with some of the posters) that a Universal National Service might be good for this country.  I've tried to read about the benefits of national service and found these rational on the web from a variety of sources:

***The message that everyone is contributing to the struggle against terrorism and the war effort will strengthen our sense of community and resolve.

*** Implementing a universal service requirement does more than raise our consciousness; it keeps us from fragmenting into a stratified, class-bound society.

***Implementing a universal service draft might provide the kind of structured platform that re-links our disparate views.

***Decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too.

***It would renew the ethic of civic responsibility.

***It would help create a citizen ethic built around a common commitment to the strength of the nation and society.

***It would give each generation the chance to learn in their own way the value of shared contribution and sacrifice.

***It would bring credibility to dedication to a republic of the people, for the people, and by the people.

I like the points that you make, and I see that having such experiences would be very helpful in this country.

But let's make sure that we will give our leaders tools to build communities and not for waging wars.

We can defend our country by organizing neighbors on what to do in case of an emergency.

We can do it by helping recent immigrants learn about their rights under the U.S. constitution.

We can do it by rehabilitating parks, improving neighborhoods, tutoring children, organizing sports leagues, or teaching people how play instruments and sing.

Or they can do it by fighting for just causes.

But the only requirement is to serve, not to fight in the military. However, we can wave the requirement to anyone choosing to join our volunteer armed forces.

I do think that one important thing that needs to be addressed is what used to be called "civil defense".  When I was young(er) there were classes in school that taught (kind of silly now) information about what you should do in case of "attack". 

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have mandatory training for all Americans (not just 1st responders) on what to do in case of an emergency, similar to Red Cross information but expanded?  That way we know what to do to help one another when hurricanes happen, god-forbid bombs are exploded, etc. 

Maybe we can get it rolling at the county and city level? Maybe get it started in high schools?

It seems that it is a lot easier to get a federal law passed if many states have already passed a similar one. And the states are more willing to pass legislations if many of their counties or cities have passed the laws themselves.

I will write my county supervisors about this idea. :)

Dianne, you've convinced me!  I'm ready to join.  Can I take my Hummer, my 52" Sanyo plasma screen, my I-Pod, my latest vodka, my best Hugo Boss (in case I get lucky)? 

 

And let me explain myself as I answer your questions.

1. We are not in a bind. We don not need to send the military across the world and occupy oil rich nations. This is not securing America. The last time I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan are nowhere near the U.S.

"Fighting them there" makes as much sense as my leaving my home in Falls Church, Virginia, and go and beat up thugs in LA because I am afraid that they may break into my house. It especially makes little sense if I leave my house's doors open.

Katrina has shown us that Bush hasn't protected American soil. The dikes could have been blown up by terrorists. And guess what? No proper planning had been done. Even better, our national guard couldn't do as good as a job as it normally does because its people and its equipment is fighting a war across the world. Fighting them there expose us right here.

If we stopped the war in Iraq, our military will not be stretched thin anymore. What an elegant and thrifty way of solving the problem.

2. No, I do not believe that we should have a mandatory national service to protect our homeland because it is not in danger of being attacked by a state at all.

Let's make this clear: the military is a great weapon to defend and attack other states. Having a big army is a great temptation, rulers often find it hard to resist the urge to use it. Since no state is attacking us, we will attack other states. Imagine the death count if Bush had access to the man power than a draft would give him.

Let's separate the issue of the draft from a national service requirement. Putting these two together is the way of getting the draft re-instated, since many liberals like the idea of a service requirement.

If we want to have a service requirement, fine, we can wave the requirement to people serving in the military. But if we keep service and draft together, you will see the rich running community centers in Connecticut and the poor fighting in Iran.

3. I don't believe that what politicians say is true, and not especially when it comes to threats of terrorism. Our recent past shows that they will not be ashamed to outright lie to get their wars started.

And let's examine the behavior of our leaders in Congress. Our current Republican leadership has shown little regret or sadness for sending our soldiers to death and for bringing death and chaos to the Iraqi people. Lives are cheap for them, and they are always willing to extend another loan to pay for their wars.

Our Democratic leadership showed that they lacked the courage to stand up against the Republican leadership. Ironically, they went along with Republican plans to prove that they have enough courage to attack terrorists.

Now, we are still going to have these people around running the country for a decade or two. Are they really worthy of having a much bigger military?

Let me ask this in a different way: how can we entrust the lives of our whole youth to incompetent sadists and cowards?

If my father were a pyromaniac, wouldn't give him more gasoline to prove that I love him. Doing so would be reckless and irresponsible, and it has nothing to do with filial love.

So why should we give more lives to our leaders to prove our patriotism?

My biggest problem with a call for a new draft is that the threat for what it would be useful is simply not there. It will extend the war in Iraq, and promote more occupation wars.

We can all prove our patriotism by working to restore the constitutional rights that have been eroded by our government in the last 6 years (Also done in the name of misunderstood patriotism). The mess is deep enough to keep us busy for the next decade or two.

If we want a national service, let's make it exclusively about helping communities in our country and keep the draft out of it.

this is one of the answers I was hoping to get when I put up the initial questions.  Again, thank you.