Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Don't Take It For Granted

I’m glad to see that the Philadelphia Inquirer, in addition to crafting this Mencken-worthy piece of journalistic editorial erudition comparing The Beatles to The Wiggles, a group of Australian performers for little kids, was able to devote space for the letter appearing below.

(Concerning the Wiggles, one of the four is apparently leaving – the young one in his wisdom blew these guys off early on).

Re: "Let them serve first," Nov. 28:

A letter to the editor seems to have missed the key element of Charlie Rangel's continued call to reinstate the draft. Rangel knows full well that there will be no draft. His openly stated goal in repeatedly introducing this bill is that lawmakers might not be so quick to authorize force if their own children could end up on the front lines. He wants no exemptions for sons and daughters of lawmakers; rather, he specifically wants them included as a bulwark against foolish, politically motivated force resolutions.

It is debatable whether a draft would achieve Rangel's goals. It is probable that giving President Bush more soldiers would just mean he would launch another fiasco. But it is imperative to understand that Rangel suggests universal conscription, including closing loopholes that children of privilege used to avoid Vietnam, as a deterrent to ill-conceived wars, not as a way to get other people's children to fight.

Brandon Bittner
Royersford
I respect Bittner very much; he’s written some fine letters to the paper. And I’m highlighting this because I’ve seen the sentiment echoed all over the place that there should be discussion of bringing back the draft to put the chicken hawks in a position where their blood could be spilled instead of so joyously advocating that fate for others. And yes, I would like to see them get their comeuppance also.

But let’s not assume that this discussion will always be nothing but talk. Let’s remember that there are generations coming after thus who could pay the price in our battle to settle old scores.

The military can be a fine, honorable way of life for a young man or woman with the right temperament. But it should never, ever be made compulsory again.

2 comments:

profmarcus said...

i completely agree with your stance against compulsory military service... however, i would be able to get 100% behind compulsory national service that was dedicated to the common good of not only the u.s. but also the global commonwealth... perhaps the military could be an option within that... or not...

doomsy said...

Yep - I can see myself getting behind compulsory national service, such as an AmeriCorps program properly defined and (more importantly) properly funded, with the military as an option, but the fine print had better damn well be thoroughly defined on that, if you know what I mean.