home

Who's Doing the Stirring?

The NY Times blames “some Democrats and Internet bloggers” for “stirring up talk of a ‘secret plan’ by the Bush administration to resume the draft.” The stirring was prompted by a press report of a Selective Service plan to stage a mock draft “to determine how, if necessary, the government would get some 100,000 young adults to report to their local draft boards.” The exercise, the Service assures us, is unrelated to recent proposals to send a “surge” of new troops to Iraq. Heck, they schedule and cancel mock drafts all the time. Nothing to see here.

Speculation about a draft is actually stirred by surge proponents, who have yet to explain where they will find the surging troops without drafting them, by the secretary of veterans affairs, who recently opined that a draft might benefit the country, and by the president, who wants a bigger Army despite the military’s struggle to meet existing enlistment quotas. When the Selective Service director complains that “you have people trying to create fear when there’s nothing there” – referring, like the Times, to Democrats – he’s talking past the disconnect between Republican support for plans that require more troops and the absence of any meaningful plan to find them. If Republicans don’t want the country to worry about a draft, they should give us a realistic plan for increasing the size of the military without one.

< Weekend Open Thread -- Links and News | Brian Williams Slighted Again: ABC Named Misinformer of the Year >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The origins of the "rumor"... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    ...rest in the fact that we have a military composed NOT of a representative slice of America.  WERE it a representative slice then our nation's foreign/military policy would be drastically altered in the direction of much greater discretion and plain old brains.  For heaven's sake, the use of the draft here and lately IS A RHETORICAL DEVICE that illuminates a deeper and more difficult truth.

    Beware of what you use as a rhetorical device, you may get what you use to debate?  Absolutely.  But the debate this nation never had before this war now needs to be had, and with even more self-criticism and scrutiny and AWARENESS.  We now have our generation's Vietnam to debate, and history teaches us much about the aftermath of that type of national military debacle.  Will it be a liberal, then another Reagan to rise, to spout the "morning in America" lines again?  Or a worse version?

    It's on us.  Do we learn from our pitiful mistakes or do we continue to live in denial?  For a nation of our creative and imaginative and material resources, forged in the furnace of as much freedom as any nation in history has enjoyed, it would be disgraceful and distubingly telling to continue the denial.  

    But I fear we will.

    dadler - Then the answer must be (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    Universal Military Service since we live an uncertain world and you don't want a draft and you don't want an all volunteer army.

    Parent
    I think the point is ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    ... that the NYT falls on the old rhetorical  technique of saying
    some Democrats and Internet bloggers
    and only noted one dem, who never said anything about a  'secret plan' .

    Worth noting is the pgraph above that unsubstantiated claim:

    President Bush saying that he wants to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, the military strained near the breaking point and the secretary of veterans affairs suggesting publicly this week that a reconstituted draft could "benefit" the country
    So what we actually have is the VA secretary saying on record it is a good idea ... but no evidence of dems or bloggers claiming a secret plan.

    Some people would say this is shoddy reporting.
    Some people would call it yet another hit peice by the MSM.


    Some people (like me) would say you are right. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    And if I were an actual reporter ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    ... I would write Bill and Sailor said on record that the NYT did a shoddy hit piece. ;-)

    Parent
    Especially since Jim Nicholson is not... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    ...now nor has ever been a democrat. I think his last job was with some outdated outfit called the GOP/RNC.

    But I would enjoy telling the NYT (All the News Republicans Tell Us to Print) where to get off the boat!

    Parent

    The normal anti-war stuff not working out? (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 08:43:38 PM EST
    Ahh, I see TL is back to "oh no, the draft!"  This seems to happen regularly, whenever TL gets frustrated that the normal level of anti-war activity isn't working out.

    Through the looking glass (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    whenever TL gets frustrated that the normal level of anti-war activity isn't working out.

    The normal level of anti-war activity? Opposition to the war is about to become more common than breathing, ferchissakes, and you guys still act like it's some far-out wild-eyed Michaelmooreisfat extremist position. Do you ever leave your homes? Or even crack a window?

    Parent

    There you go conflating again. (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:11:02 PM EST
    Sure there isn't some risible in there??

    And if you don't understand my point about a "second attack" why comment?

    I mean besides Yada Yada Yada.

    silly comment ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    ... coming from a commenter who advocates murder of gov't officials.

    bush will lie about anything he wants if he chooses to start another war. after all, he lied about iraq's connection to 9/11 and AQ.

    Parent

    Common sense pretty much predicts a draft....... (none / 0) (#2)
    by avahome on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    How many times must men be sent back to serve in Iraq......3, 4, 5 + times?  This cannot be do-able unless you want zombies returning home.....not fair!

    I saw first and in forefront, the young men serving in jails for drug offenses, gang activity, etc.....offer them two years of service for release........either way, we will pay for them out of our pocket....sit and rot in jail or go fight for the right to earn ones way out of jail.  We need all the tough guys we can get....now is their chance.  Please someone wake up..........!!!!!!!

    My husband is a VietNam vet....damn I lived thru those scarey days.....and I am disappointed at the silence to what is happening to our soldiers!

    Omg. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    I am disappointed at the silence to what is happening to our soldiers!

    Nobody is silent. We support the troops 100%! Haven't you seen the stickers on our cars?

    Parent

    Limited time (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    I think it was Vietnam that set the tone of a limited timeframe for those enagaged in the battle, which matches well the limited efforts for success.

    Parent
    vietnam (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 01:51:29 PM EST
    was started on a lie just like this war and was fought for specious reasons, just like this was, and was a killing ground for Americans and native peoples, just like this war.

    The lesson to be learned is don't go to war on a lie against a country that had no ability to harm the US.

    Parent

    Please keep on subject. (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    My comment had to do with the historical background for limited and defined deployment to a combat zone.

    Parent
    GFY (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    you brought up VN and said I think it was Vietnam that set the tone of a limited timeframe for those enagaged in the battle, which matches well the limited efforts for success.

    I pointed out that both wars were started on a lie and when that lie is fully realized, (especially when there is no actual definition of winning), then the majority of the people will want the troops to come home outside of bodybags and in short order rather that die for lie and the hubris of bushco.

    Parent

    Scare talk (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 01:23:43 PM EST

    This is nothing but scare talk.  The last time a draft bill came up it lost by 400+ to single digits.  Nancy P. will schedule the next vote on a draft right after Hell freezes over.  Twice.

    bush/cheney will do whatever they think... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    ...they need to do, including war with Iran to justify a draft, the endless sacrifice of our troops, more lies, cover-ups, and any other dirty deed needed to insure that Iraqi oil will belong to Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, etc., and that the deal will make sure that they get sweetheart pricing to the detriment of the country we "liberated" from Saddam.

    Meanwhile the people of Iraq suffer more and greater harm from bush than they did under Saddam. With typical American efficiency we have built bigger and more prisons in iraq and around the world, we have taken away any semblance of humanitarianism, torture more people, and kill greater numbers of iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed. Women's right, extended under Saddam, have disappeared under the weight of religious fanaticism that bush guaranteed when he proclaimed that "god" had told him to liberate the middle East in another Crusade.

    America, the only nation to ever use nukular weapons, has become the number 1 proliferator of those weapons, endangering the entire planet.

    We have a megalomaniac, messianic president that will continue to lie to, deceive, and mislead America into ever greater military actions until the military is so broken that the "only" way America will have to enforce bush's imperial desires will be with nukular weapons, a particularly and spectacularly devastating way to "win" fields of melted glass under which the oil we desire will remain, waiting for the radiation to subside sufficiently so that it can extracted to the benefit of Big Oil.

    So not only will a draft be necessary, but if America continues down this reckless, feckless path, martial law and the suspension of elections to provide for the "safety" of the U.S. will also be required. Only "that way" will ensure continuity of bush's imperial plans and his government of choice, and everyone knows Democrats would never order the attack and invasion of Iran (you know he doesn't believe any "surge" in troops will help in Iraq, don't you?) or the use of nukular bunker-buster weapons which will be "required" to make sure we get the WMD programs of Iran (which we are equally as certain exist as Saddam's WMDs).

    A dangerous lame duck with his finger on the nukular trigger and the will to destroy the protections of the Constitution will not hesitate to conscript unwilling soldiers to battle in his Crusade under penalty of death.

    You say this could never happen? Why? Because mr boosh would never lie to us?

    Merry Christmas, mr. boosh. We need better leadership, not a draft.

    Universal Service (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    How about a Universal reexamination of the meaning of "service"? Clue: the Chickenhawk Syndrome dosnt   pass muster.

    jondee - The word is Universal Military Service (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    Not community service, not police service... Military Service.

    And I still believe in it. No one is too good to serve two years, with regularly scheduled training for 6 more years for the inactive groups. As I keep on pointing out, it would focus everyone's attention on our military and do wonders for making our military more civilian like, and our civilians more familar with the military.

    Besides, just think of the real world experience the administration and staff of our establishments  of higher education will get looking for a job since there will be no incoming class for two years.

    Perhaps they can volunteer for serving in the first UMS group?? The sports groups could do physical training... Englisg Lit company clerks... Poly Sci...... well, there must be something

    Parent

    Liberal hysterics are so unbecoming (none / 0) (#14)
    by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 12:14:15 AM EST
    I know it might be easy to think that because Bush is so detached from reality, he can basically do any dastardly thing he wants, no matter what the public thinks about it.  This is not true.  For this reason, there has not been and will not be a war with Iran.  I realize he started an ill-advised war with Iraq, but that was a different time, namely after 9.11 and before the war with Iraq went so poorly.  Now, there would be no support for a war with Iran, just as there is no support for a war with Iraq.  Somewhere between a war with Iran and a $2.00 per gallon national gas tax on the national popularity scale, we find the draft.  There are very few hard and fast laws in this country.  Gravity is one.  Another is that for over the last 30 years, the American people have hated the draft.  If you want to start one, there'd better be a good reason, such as an imminent ground invasion of the contiguous 48.  Short of that it would cause a straight up revolution, the kind that would be given an inspiring name if it took place in another country.

    "Speculation about a draft is actually stirred by surge proponents, who have yet to explain where they will find the surging troops without drafting them..."

    Really?  Why does this stir up any speculation about a draft?  The only thing that this should stir up speculation about is how long the surge talk is going to last with no troops to back it up.  The draft is simply not a possible option.  You may as well say the above quote stirs up speculation that they are going to supplement the army with clones of John McCain.  By the same token, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs opining to nobody in particular about the merits of the draft should create speculation that the Secretary has too much time on his hands.

    Sorry, kids. I hate to side with the NYT against the left hemisphere of the bloggy sphere, but come on, you're stirring up silly speculation about the draft at the same time you take offense at the NYT suggesting the lefty blogs are stirring up silly speculation about the draft.

    Learn to march (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    If you want to start one, there'd better be a good reason, such as an imminent ground invasion of the contiguous 48.  

    Or 9/11, the sequel.

    It's gonna happen if we don't get our act together and put Iran down.

    Parent

    Learn to march? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Doctor G on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

    Whose child are you, Jim, as you call for yet another war on this none-too-peaceful Christmas day?

    Parent

    I believe God takes care of those who (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    take care of themselves.

    And no, I don't call for another war.

    I predict an attack by Moslem terrorists that will trigger one.

    Parent

    Say what? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Doctor G on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 11:15:51 PM EST
    So you aren't calling for us to "get our act together and put Iran down?"  Or you think we can "put Iran down" without going to war?