The ethics of reinstating the draft

[Norsemaiden]

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rangel told Bob Schieffer, “You bet your life,” that he is serious about calling for the draft. “I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session,” he said. Rangel has submitted two versions of a draft bill over the past three and a half years. One would apply to men and women aged 18 to 26, and the other to men and women aged 18 to 42.

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

Should any States have the right to force the population to fight in wars? Is this ethical?
How would you feel if you or anyone else you know was called up to fight in a war - especially if you felt the war itself was unjustified or being approached in such a way as to cause unnecessary casualties, though bad battle tactics?

Does it take more courage to go and fight such a war, or to refuse to do so?

Can one trust the supposedly anti-war motives of the politician proposing the measure?

All these questions stand, regardless of whether you believe the bill would pass or not. But what would the reason be for it not passing - would it be because most congressmen feel that the draft is unethical or that it would be a public vote loser for them to back the idea? Or a combination of the two?

 

[Seditious]

Does it take more courage to go and fight such a war, or to refuse to do so?

Does it take courage to fight a battle you're sure to win?

that aside, personally I don't see any courage in selling yourself out as a tool for a cause you don't believe in. If you'll only be a part of something which could get you killed, which you didn't want to be a part of, because you haven't the courage to risk your life in defense of the morals you believe in, then that you eventually risk your life by force for no good cause in your own view when you wouldn't do it for what actually matters to you by choice, you can't possibly be called courageous. You'd be nothing but a coward fighting the least battle he has to, and only fighting any at all because he has to.

 

[fah-q]

This bill would never make it into law. For the sake of arguement, let's assume it did. There is the possibility that it would not be enforced or, states would pass their own laws, protecting its citizens from the draft. I mean, there are already judges who are amending law from the bench by marrying same-sex couples. The same logic, or lack there of, could be applied if the draft is reinstated.
If drafted, who is the coward? The dodger or the enlistee? Only the individual can answer that. For some, enlisting would be easier for them than going against the grain, so to speak.
I don't believe we can trust the anti-war motives of Rangel. While his intentions are good, intentions often do not provide results. It is a short-sighted solution to keep congress from voting for war. It does not take into account the possibility that we could be attacked and drawn into war.
Nobody is taking Rangel seriously. I would not be suprised if this wasn't an idle threat by the Dem majority to get Bush to put an exit date in stone.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

I'm of two minds on this:

1. Given the insanity of the current method of choosing leaders (and the ineptitude and stupidity of those who thus come to power), a volunteer military serves the useful purpose of creating finite and rational limits to the exercise of coercive power abroad, and serves as a check on their greed (witness the impotence of the Great Satan in the face of Iranian and North Korean provocation).

2. The flipside is that a draft says something that needs to be heard: individuals owe service of some sort to society, and have a duty to make themselves useful. I'm not sure a draft as such is the best way to handle things though. I've always liked the old European notion of universal service - EVERYONE must serve their two years, but not necessarily in a military capacity. It's a system that reinforces the dignity of work while undermining the commodification of labor (not to mention benefitting all of society at minimal cost).

 

[Norsemaiden]

It may be helpful to this discussion to consider the treatment of British conscientious objectors in WWI.

Harold Stanton of Luton was sent to France with about 50 other COs. In Harfleur he experienced 28 days of field punishment, first tied by the arms to a kind of crucifix, then roped face-forward to a barbed wire fence. Yet he didn’t feel they had special grounds for complaint. ‘We were exceptional cases, and militarism was making an effort to break down our resistance. What did seem to me shameful was that any voluntary soldier, who was offering his life in what he believed to be his country’s service, was liable to such a punishment for quite a trivial offence.’

The soldier who reluctantly told Stanton that he was to be sent, via Boulogne, to the front line – ‘you can be shot if you still disobey orders’ – added indignantly, ‘I would sooner shoot the officer who gave me the order than shoot one of you fellows. I’m not here to murder Englishmen.’

Apprentice piano tuner Alfred Evans went to Boulogne too. ‘We were handcuffed with our hands behind our backs and 17 of us were put into a dark underground cage about 12 feet square. With us was one latrine bucket – no lid.’

In the event, the French party were not taken to the front line. They were sentenced to death by shooting. This was commuted to penal servitude for ten years. In all, more than 6000 conscientious objectors were court martialled and sent to prison, where they endured privations both mental and physical. Harold Bing recalled:

‘Some died in prison; some went mad; some broke down in health completely and never really recovered; some were discharged because they were on the point of death; some suffered terribly from insomnia....For many people it was extremely hard.’

1200 COs obtained exemption by serving with the Friends Ambulance Unit. One of these was Corder Catchpool. ‘The poor men are so grateful for the little service one can render – sometimes it is merely to make them more comfortable to die, or the even humbler service of making them a little cleaner.’ The FAU cared for all wounded, including Germans – ‘One has to help the latter mostly by stealth, but it is lovely to be able to do so now and then’.

For many COs the complexity of the situation became increasingly problematic. Just as some had realised, early in the war, that they held jobs which could keep other men from being called up, so FAU workers later began to realise that their presence forced conscripts, who might have served as medical orderlies, into the front line. They also felt that their exemption was unfair to other COs. Many resigned, and joined their colleagues in prison.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Every State still has the option of treating objectors in such ways. It would take a lot of courage to refuse to serve. The British women were particularly angry about any man who did not want to serve and felt that his attitude would prolong the war and was also unpatriotic and shameful.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Every State still has the option of treating objectors in such ways. It would take a lot of courage to refuse to serve. The British women were particularly angry about any man who did not want to serve and felt that his attitude would prolong the war and was also unpatriotic and shameful.

The war itself was shameful, and points to one of the major problems with massive, cheap conscript armies in a capitalist world: their very existence creates a certain momentum and, ultimately, an pressure to put them to use. Truly professional militaries are very expensive, and their existence (and cost, and finity) puts pressure on the state to use them wisely and preserve them, rather than say, throw them away over the assassination of a poofter in the backwaters of a dying empire.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The war itself was shameful, and points to one of the major problems with massive, cheap conscript armies in a capitalist world: their very existence creates a certain momentum and, ultimately, an pressure to put them to use. Truly professional militaries are very expensive, and their existence (and cost, and finity) puts pressure on the state to use them wisely and preserve them, rather than say, throw them away over the assassination of a poofter in the backwaters of a dying empire.

Yes, it really is unethical for a State to be able to force people to kill or be killed in some foreign land for a cause they do not understand or agree with. If someone was sure that was going to happen the best thing would be to emigrate.

The people who voluntarily join the army usually really enjoy war and think of it as a big adrenalin rush such as a dangerous sport. They don't do it out of patriotism, it doesn't strike them as unethical, and many soldiers, in the British army in particular, are happy to be mercenaries. This mentality contrasts starkly with the men called up by conscription who really don't want to get involved.

Even if there is some convoluted anti-war purpose in mind for proposing the reintroduction of the draft in the US, it should be opposed on principle. The State should not have that degreee of authority over peoples' lives.

 

[derek]

Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft



Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft

Should any States have the right to force the population to fight in wars? Is this ethical?
How would you feel if you or anyone else you know was called up to fight in a war - especially if you felt the war itself was unjustified or being approached in such a way as to cause unnecessary casualties, though bad battle tactics?

Does it take more courage to go and fight such a war, or to refuse to do so?

Can one trust the supposedly anti-war motives of the politician proposing the measure?

All these questions stand, regardless of whether you believe the bill would pass or not. But what would the reason be for it not passing - would it be because most congressmen feel that the draft is unethical or that it would be a public vote loser for them to back the idea? Or a combination of the two?

For me it comes down to a question of whether you owe anything to the state for being like your parent. It provides a place for you to live, raise a family, work, eat, sleep and (perhaps) enjoy the life you have been given.

Refusing to support ones country in War time is often seen as cowardly, as biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, if the state begins to feed you poison (in this case, propaganda about some war/forced conscription for an unjust war) then you have every right to bite the hand that feeds.

That is all pretty simplistic stuff, though.

Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.