NYT Perpetuates Draft Hysteria
---
The New York Times picks up where CBS left off:
Some hasty stitches:
1. Nowhere in the piece does the Times mention that Donald Rumsfeld has publicly and repeatedly insisted that there will not be a draft in a second Bush Administration. That is not, as the Times puts it, "the most glancing ways." But of course Edwards' position is described as "unequivocal."
2. Also no mention that the "some" who "have long argued" for the draft as a form of civic responsibility are almost exclusively Democrats. Note also the vague reference that "forced conscription violates democratic ideals," with no mention that the draft is specifically prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment (at least the way this lawyer reads it).
3. What exactly does the Times mean when it describes Iraq as a "prolonged war"? Does it know something we don't regarding just how long this war may last? Reconstruction of Iraq will certainly take a long time -- look at Germany and Japan. But who says combat will necessarily be "prolonged," a sneaky synonym for the q-word.
4. As for "another major conflict" changing the military landscape: well, certainly something unforeseen may arise in Korea, Iran or elsewhere. It's also possible that the aliens may attack tomorrow. We'll probably need a draft then too.
5. Notice how the Times piece highlights that "draft boards" exist, but quickly glosses over the question of determining who would be eligible. No discussion of the major equal protection issues that would arise if the draft or mandatory public service were initiated: would women be drafted (the exemption is for peacetime registration, not a draft itself)? What would become of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Would those with America's new favorite condition, ADD, be exempt because Ritalin would impede they're ability to serve in combat?
6. Of all the just plain dumb things I've ever heard regarding the draft, the claim by the (pro-draft) retired professor that the draft is necessary to appease families of Reservists and Guard troops takes the cake. You want to avoid war, stay out of the military and pay for college some other way.
7. How come nobody, absolutely nobody, ever mentions the single most obvious alternative to the draft, namely paying a market-clearing salary? I guarantee that if the Army were to raise the base salary of an E-1 buck private to, say, $150,000 per year (plus benefits, etc.), then recruits would be lined up around the block several times over. Wouldn't that help the poor kids that Charlie Rangel claims to be so concerned about? (More on "market-clearing" military policies at Cafe Hayek, by way of Marginal Revolution.)
So let's see...first CBS and now the Times...who's next? WaPo? LAT? CSM?
It's bound to be somebody.
Related Posts:
Draft-Dodging
Trust Your Instincts...Not His
How to Read the Constitution
Edwards: No Draft (Someone Please Tell the Democrats)
Draft Dodger Monument: Only Half Daft
CBS Draft Story: A Quick Sidebar
(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)
In the worried steel town of Weirton, W.Va., last week, the first question from the crowd that came out to hear Senator John Edwards was not about the economy, tariffs or health care. It was about the draft: Is a new one coming?
The Democratic candidate for vice president was unequivocal. Not in a Kerry-Edwards administration, he replied.
...
Though President Bush and Senator John Kerry talk about it in only the most glancing ways - the president pledged to defeat terrorism with "an all-volunteer army" during Thursday's presidential debate - many people across the country are wondering just who will fight the nation's wars.
...
Of course, enacting a draft has historically been a matter of political will, democratic ideals and high passion, as much as military need. Some have long argued that citizenship is enhanced by having all young people serve; others contend that forced conscription violates democratic ideals.
...
During a prolonged war like that in Iraq, units sent to the front have to be rotated out and replaced with an equal number while they rest and retrain.
...
But the most striking shortcoming in both plans, experts say, is their lack of allowance for another major conflict - if war erupts on the Korean Peninsula, or tensions with Iran boil over, or the United States suffers a major terrorist attack.
...
Experts say that getting Congress to approve a draft would probably be more difficult than implementing one. Draft boards exist, and 18-year-olds must register. All that would be required would be to determine who is eligible.
...
Yet at other times, politicians have also been willing to use the draft to appease another potent constituency, the families of National Guard and reserve troops, said George Q. Flynn, a retired history professor and the author of three books on the draft. ...Professor Flynn is among those who believe a draft would be a good thing.
Some hasty stitches:
1. Nowhere in the piece does the Times mention that Donald Rumsfeld has publicly and repeatedly insisted that there will not be a draft in a second Bush Administration. That is not, as the Times puts it, "the most glancing ways." But of course Edwards' position is described as "unequivocal."
2. Also no mention that the "some" who "have long argued" for the draft as a form of civic responsibility are almost exclusively Democrats. Note also the vague reference that "forced conscription violates democratic ideals," with no mention that the draft is specifically prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment (at least the way this lawyer reads it).
3. What exactly does the Times mean when it describes Iraq as a "prolonged war"? Does it know something we don't regarding just how long this war may last? Reconstruction of Iraq will certainly take a long time -- look at Germany and Japan. But who says combat will necessarily be "prolonged," a sneaky synonym for the q-word.
4. As for "another major conflict" changing the military landscape: well, certainly something unforeseen may arise in Korea, Iran or elsewhere. It's also possible that the aliens may attack tomorrow. We'll probably need a draft then too.
5. Notice how the Times piece highlights that "draft boards" exist, but quickly glosses over the question of determining who would be eligible. No discussion of the major equal protection issues that would arise if the draft or mandatory public service were initiated: would women be drafted (the exemption is for peacetime registration, not a draft itself)? What would become of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Would those with America's new favorite condition, ADD, be exempt because Ritalin would impede they're ability to serve in combat?
6. Of all the just plain dumb things I've ever heard regarding the draft, the claim by the (pro-draft) retired professor that the draft is necessary to appease families of Reservists and Guard troops takes the cake. You want to avoid war, stay out of the military and pay for college some other way.
7. How come nobody, absolutely nobody, ever mentions the single most obvious alternative to the draft, namely paying a market-clearing salary? I guarantee that if the Army were to raise the base salary of an E-1 buck private to, say, $150,000 per year (plus benefits, etc.), then recruits would be lined up around the block several times over. Wouldn't that help the poor kids that Charlie Rangel claims to be so concerned about? (More on "market-clearing" military policies at Cafe Hayek, by way of Marginal Revolution.)
So let's see...first CBS and now the Times...who's next? WaPo? LAT? CSM?
It's bound to be somebody.
Related Posts:
Draft-Dodging
Trust Your Instincts...Not His
How to Read the Constitution
Edwards: No Draft (Someone Please Tell the Democrats)
Draft Dodger Monument: Only Half Daft
CBS Draft Story: A Quick Sidebar
(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by KipEsquire on
4 October 2004
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
