Rick Henkel - FrameMaker-Related Stuff

Hey, Hinkman. I'm not so puzzled about this. It's not as if Sen. Hagel hasn't been floating the trial balloon for awhile now. I'm sure you remember this news but you can find a link to the story here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38139

I find it more uncomfortable when they start talking about the Back-Door Draft -- if you know what I mean.

Actually, I find Hagel's argument compelling. I think the draft (or some form of mandatory service) would be good for our country. First, I think it would de-mystify the military. We could begin having useful debates over where we do our military-spending. Second, it would address some of the class disparity in our military. Third, I think it would help create a public more committed to engaging in the obligations of being a citizen of this country.

If everyone faced the same possibility of losing someone close to them in a war, no one could be attacked for not taking the decision to go to war seriously. I don't like the idea of sending one of my children off to fight in any ill-considered wars but I also don't think that risk would be quite as high. Just take a look at military involvement of the countries that have such a requirement (I would consider Israel an exception by the way).

A great fiction book that deals with the topic of compulsory service as a prerequisite for citizenship is Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" -- the movie just did not do it justice.

I think Hagel has a well-considered argument to make -- it's just such a political hot potato. No party wants to be known as the party that brought back the draft.
 

All good points. I agree with most of them, including the idea that the draft would be good for our country. But it's easier for me to say that now than it would have been 10-15 years ago.

I was scared to death when I went into the post office to enlist in the draft. I just knew that I'd be called up someday.

But the good thing about volunteer services is that you only get the people who want to be there. I know a lot of people--probably myself included--who wouldn't exactly have instilled great confidence in their fellow countrymen that they'd be able to protect them had they been drafted. (Just try to decipher the pronouns in that sentence.)

But you're missing the point of my post. It would indeed by political suicide for politicians to bring back the draft. And that's what Kerry is accusing Bush of, with no proof to back it up. His camp is using a scare tactic to encourage young voters--and their parents--to vote against Bush to avoid a new draft. And uninformed voters may well believe that, even though a President could never do that without the support of Congress, and Congress would never pass such a bill. To top it all off, the draft proposal that is actually before Congress right now was introduced by Dems, albeit for purposes other than strengthening our fighting force.

My point was that it is a very cheap shot by Kerry and his people, and now the Internet is abuzz with other people propagating the falsehood.

You'd never see people on the right side of the aisle use such abominable tactics . . . right? :-)
 

Personally, I'm not sure it's easier for me to say it now than it was 15 years ago. I really don't like the idea of one of my children serving in such a war. Sure, I was scared about signing up for the selective service. But I really don't want my children put in harms way. Sure, it's selfish of me but I think I could find many members of our government -- on both sides of the aisle who would agree with me.

Who are we kidding? We signed up for the selective service. The selective service has not gone away. It merely comes down to re-activating the draft. And I need to be more clear. I am tentatively advocating mandatory service -- not a draft. The draft doesn't provide the same benefits as mandatory service.

I think disagree with your premise, though, that a volunteer army equals an army of soldiers who want to be soldiers and therefore better soldiers. We don't sell service to our country as a volunteer commitment to serving our country. We don't sell it as a noble profession where you sacrifice your life for the greater good -- actually we do but usually after said soldier has died. Instead, we sell it as a great way to pay for college -- as a great way to get training for many jobs. The result of which is that the people who serve their country disproportionately come from poorer and more disenfranchised sectors of our population. Hagel, in fact, uses this as his primary reason for wanting to reinstate the draft. Add to this, the fact that our recruiting numbers are dropping and we are lowering our standards for recruiting.

http://www.iht.com/articles/541467.html

I don't think your concern about inspiring confidence is that compelling. I'm sure you don't think there aren't others who aren't equally scared who did enlist. They may just not have had as many options open to them as you and I did. And, I think you may be selling yourself short. When my sister was serving in the Air Force, she told me that the military would love to have people like you and me enlist.

So, I don't necessarily think a volunteer military necessarily makes a stronger military. That is not to denigrate the sacrifices of those who are serving and who have served -- it is just to say that I don't think such a case has been made for a stronger, more capable military.

If you get a chance, read Linus Torvalds's "Just for Fun." It's a book about how he started the Linux operating system. In it he talks about having served his mandatory two years in the Finnish military. He makes some interesting off-hand observations about mandatory service giving all Finnish men a common experience -- a way that they could all relate to one another. There might be the secret ingredient for citizenship -- a common experience. Imagine being able to walk into any community in the US and have something in common with the majority of people there. T.V. is about our only common experience now and even that is failing us. Heinlein touches on some of the same issues in "Starship Troopers" but he takes it farther.

Oh, and I didn't miss the point of your post -- I just didn't find it very interesting. :-)

Seriously, I don't think the "Politics of Fear" is anything new or anything that out-of-character for any candidate. There is a pretty good article over the WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58117-2004Sep28.html

on Kerry's late entry into the fear ring. He was trying to hold himself above the fray but the Bush camp has been doing it so effectively that Kerry really miscalculated. Now he is playing catch-up. :-)

What I do find interesting is that the politics of fear sometimes points out issues that we should be discussing and aren't. Kerry's camp may be using this as a negative but I applaud and appreciate those like Hagel who have the resolve to bring up such political hot potatos in serious discussion. Hagel is a credit to our state and our country. He is a Statesman in Senator's clothing. I don't always agree with him but he has done more for our national discussion than many of the people currently in office.

And, actually, Hagel has some things in common with Kerry. Given his tendency to talk thoughtfully and offer ideas about the issues that face us, he will likely have those words cut up and used against him should he ever run for higher office. That will be unfortunate but seems to be the price for actually wanting to discuss the issues.