Slavery? Draft?

[Oleg Volk]

"Today's culture expects those goods as something of a birthright to be given to them. It doesnt work that way."

Today's culture, at least as examplified by the people around me, is to expect a high standard of living by trading or otherwise cooperating with others...not by warring on them. I have no conflicts with people elsewhere, so anyone who wants me to go kill an Iraqi or a Korean or a Venusian would not get my cooperation. If they would insist, with threats for non-compliance, I would consider them to be psychopaths.

[MicroBalrog]

The culture of this country used to be self-respect and self-discipline.

Self-discipline is different from TEN-HUT! military-style discipline.

The military  in my experience, and YMMV  teaches the immediate opposite of real self-discipline. It is a system where everybody is totally dependent on others, and where the best thing to do is to prove inability in your current job, so you will be given a better one.

The following story is true:

As part of my military service, I did a (long) stint in my units computer maintenance and tech support team. We have had a rather nice fellow transferred there, who knew a lot about computers, but he didnt like the job or the hours it entailed (we were not even supposed to sleep at the base. It was a nine-to-five proposition).

This fellow also stole a laptop from the unit, repainted and resold it. He was never to my knowledge caught.

But at any rate, the fellow wanted to become a general personnel on base (i.e., a cleaning guy).  These people work for only one week, then go home for a week, then return to work. Obviously much better.

So he started a plan.

First, he started reading horrible sci-fi books on duty. This would annoy the CO terribly, and continued until she threatened to put him on trial for disobeying a direct order to stop spending his duty time on this.

All well and good  the fellow had his plan well in action, since she now was convinced he was a lazy bastard.

So at one time me and this fellow are ordered to go to fix computers. We need to  on two of these computers  to open them up and look inside. By now I dont remember why this was required, but Micro didnt know anything about the inside of a PC, so I just looked on while this guy did the work. (Under official regulations, it was forbidden for us to do this& but I digress).

At any rate, this fellow was called away to do guard duty in the middle of the work. Why? Confusion in the guard duty lists and protocols.

So now Micro needs to put the half-disassembled PC back together.

Lo and behold, theres a (very tiny) part missing.

By this time, my CO and me, as well as the officer whos supposed to be working at the PC, are in the room, and hes looking at me with the damn-you-I-want-my-computer-back look in the eye. I call the Lazy Bastard and ask him where the part is.

He tells me he put this part on the table.

Its not there.

We look under the table. All three of us are crawling on the floor and looking.

Then, the guy who the computer belongs to looks at his trash can.

Its full of this horrible, nauseating, disgusting trash, half-rotten banana-peels, this stuff.

So I look him in the eye, and I say Well, Sir, youd have to take out every trash it and check it out one-by-one.

So we got out of the room and I watched a Combat Engineer of a Captains rank dig through this horrible trash like a hobo. Of course, I didnt touch it.

After losing this part, the Lazy Bastard was deemed unsuitable for work next to computers and tossed to the exact position he wanted.

He, of course, did it intentionally.

This was the daily experience of life in the military, and I dont think it was very educational for young men and women there.

[The Rabbi]

"Today's culture expects those goods as something of a birthright to be given to them. It doesnt work that way."

Today's culture, at least as examplified by the people around me, is to expect a high standard of living by trading or otherwise cooperating with others...not by warring on them. I have no conflicts with people elsewhere, so anyone who wants me to go kill an Iraqi or a Korean or a Venusian would not get my cooperation. If they would insist, with threats for non-compliance, I would consider them to be psychopaths.

Yes, this is the narcissism of the age.  You expect that there will be a legal system to protect your property and your interests.  At the same time you expect that you will have to contribute nothing towards the maintenance of that system.  I see often on this forum the assertion of rights without the aknowledgement of responsibilities.  But the two go hand in hand.  Without responsibilities on the citizens, there are no rights for them.

[Glock Glockler]

They did sink a civilian ship with Americans on it

All Americans were warned that the Lusitania was a British ship and that they were in a state of war with Germany.  The fact that it blew up suggests that the British were illegally transporting munitions in a civilian vessel.

 we aided our allies which to me is what allies do

We were neutral at that point.

Our involvement in WWI was completely unnecessary.  Germany had offered generous peace terms to England shortly before our involvement but the Brits didnt want to loose face, so we went and died instead.

[The Rabbi]

Except that little thing about the Zimmerman telegram.

[MicroBalrog]

t the same time you expect that you will have to contribute nothing towards the maintenance of that system.

To somehow believe Oleg Volk contributed nothing to the maintenance of the 'system' under which all people are guaranteed rights and liberties is to not be aware of who Oleg Volk is.

But I digress.

Our society (and by our I mean 'western society') works best when we relegate issues to personal choice. This is especially true with regards to the military.

The military system of absolute obedience, discipline, and so forth, is different from the system of values of Western civilian society. To impose this system on millions of unwilling youth and to then have them return into Western society is countereducational.

[Glock Glockler]

Zimmerman telegram?

Ok suppose Mexico takes the bait and attacks us, we stomp the hell out of them and then annex 1/3 of the country, works for me.  

If only Zimmerman would have then sent a telegram to Canada...

[Glock Glockler]

Yes, this is the narcissism of the age.  You expect that there will be a legal system to protect your property and your interests.  At the same time you expect that you will have to contribute nothing towards the maintenance of that system.  I see often on this forum the assertion of rights without the aknowledgement of responsibilities.  But the two go hand in hand.  Without responsibilities on the citizens, there are no rights for them

So the maintenance of a limited govt that protects property rights is dependant on blindly going into whatever war the govt decrees?  There are some wars where it is very necessary to join up and strt killing the enemy and there are others where taking part in such a war is destructive to the mother country and requires the true patriots to stand up and say no.  Personally, I have no problem going off to kill people so long as it's for a good reason, attacking Iraq because of 911 seems pretty damn stupid to me.

[Art Eatman]

Oleg, when you're dealing with spoiled brats, forced obedience is not necessarily a bad thing.  The brat learns that there are forces larger than he.  That often helps him avoid jail in later years.  For many, it's their first experience with personal responsibility.

During my four years, I and many others learned a lot about teamwork.  Sure, the groups of ants--sorta.  But I really don't recall any lack of individualism when we were on our own time.

Funny-odd:  You keep reading about the effectiveness of teamwork in business ventures, but somehow it's seen as something not-good in the military.  Duh?

Micro, any group has idiots per your example.  So what?  I can come up with the same sorts of anecdotes from almost any group with which I've ever been associated.  Military, university classes, car clubs, pistol club.  You can always find a spoiled brat who wants the benefits without the work.

One contributory factor to our problems in Iraq is that the drawdown in our military stemming from the "peace dividend" meant that we went into the deal with an insufficent number of men.  We've still not been able to have a meaningful inhibitory effect on the border jumpers who've done the majority of the inciting to do the car bomb and IED thing.

Basically, from 1990 until now, we've squiandered all manner of capabilities, whether political or military.  We're probably gonna suffer more variations on 9/11 because of it, and will quite probably find ourselves even more involved in foreign fighting.  Probably necessitate a Draft, eventually.

My view is that we're at war with militant Islam, not any "war on terror".  Dunno how it'll play out; I most likely won't be around to see it.

We can pull the troops home in the name of peace, of course.  That will pretty much end our primacy in world affairs and turn it over to China and the UN.  Muchly simiilar to the way Great Britain went home and turned the world over to us, in 1956.

Art

[MicroBalrog]

Micro, any group has idiots per your example.  So what?

The point is - and I've seen it repeatedly - that the IDF system AWARDS ineptness.

Prove you're a motivated soldier and you want to struggle for glorious Zionism - get yourself a job cleaning old APC's in the Negev.

Lurk next to an officers' meeting and start weeping loudly when they exit - get yourself an easier job and an increased salary.

Refuse to do anything outright - get a 30 day prison sentence remanded to 14 days, then an easy job.

Throw a chair at your commander - get your record expunged and 7 months of service remanded (no, not a dishonorable discharge).

Point a loaded gun at an officer - do a short stint in prison and be freed from guard duty.

Put young people in an environment where the route to success is ineptness, lazyness, and lack of responsibility, and then wonder why so many people are inept, lazy, and irresponsible.

[Perd Hapley]

MBalrog,

What you speak of is a fault of poor military organization and bears little relevance to the issue of compulsory service.  You'll have a greater share of "dirt-bags" with a draft, I guess, but promising college benefits and cash bonuses also nets a lot of people with insufficient motivation.  Even so, plenty of sunshine patriots have volunteered with dreams of glory, only to be quite worthless.  I've seen a few of that type actually in the process of going into Special Forces, as if they were too good for anything less.  

To claim that military service is a bad influence is, at best, an unfortunate overgeneralization.  It may be bad for some, depending on the person and the units in which they serve.  It has proven very good for others.  Having said that, I think a lot of the positive benefit is really the effect of recruits going in at 18 or 20 and emerging at 22 or 24 or even 30.  A lot of maturing takes place in those years, regardless what you do with them.

[doczinn]

Micro:

My experience, eight years in the Marine Corps, is almost the exact polar opposite of yours.

Oleg:

While I am 100% opposed to any mandatory service, many many men (and women, I suppose) owe the military a huge debt for polishing them into responsible, self-disciplined individuals with the drive and determination to make something of themselves. Experiences vary, of course, depending on many variables, such as the quality of the person prior to service, the quality of the leadership they get at their particular command, and their duties and experiences, but on the whole more come out better than come out brainwashed into obedient robots.

[MicroBalrog]

Take a look at societies that have practised a universal compulsory draft for a serious period of time - Germany, Russia, Israel, and so forth.

You will find in all of these nations a pattern of choking statism.

Why do you think that is?

Why do you think the growth of the draft system in the United States and it's demise is linked with the rise and fall of powerful central government?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm going by Wikipedia here, so feel free to correct me with better sources, if you have them.

The draft was used during the War of 1812, by both sides in the Civil War, and in the two world wars.  Doesn't look good for your theory so far, although I suppose there was an increase in centralization about the time the Selective Service Act was passed in 1940, the first peacetime draft.  But the draft was killed in 1973.  Was this the era of central government's "demise"?  I don't think so.  

Regarding conscription in statist nations, what is your point?  That fascist, communist and socialist governments use conscription is moot.  They also tax and enforce laws among their citizenry; should we stop doing that, too?  To say that something is statist and evil, it is not enough to simply point to Russia and say, "See, they do it."

[Perd Hapley]

Our society (and by our I mean 'western society') works best when we relegate issues to personal choice. This is especially true with regards to the military.

The military system of absolute obedience, discipline, and so forth, is different from the system of values of Western civilian society.

Wrong.  The "military system of absolute obedience, discipline, and so forth," is a part of the values of Western civilian society.  It is a critical part of how wars are won.  The Plains Indian had no such "absolute obedience."  He followed whatever war-chief he wished, and obeyed only those treaties he was present to witness.  This was one reason for their demise.  

Edit:  I thought Balrog was saying that military culture is alien to Western culture.  I missed that little word, "civilian."  He is correct in saying that the compulsion of military life, the fact that disobeying your boss can result in jail-time rather than simply being fired, is different from the civilian way of life.

I am not arguing for a draft here, I am simply saying that the modern military relies on units doing the will of a commander who has a larger strategy in mind.  So if the straps from my ruck are cutting into my shoulders something fierce, I must stay in the march until the goal is accomplished.  Otherwise, I slow down the unit, distract, or deprive it of my services.  

I suppose there are areas where more personal choice would strengthen the military, but it is definitely not "what works best" for many, many military matters.  Assuming an all-volunteer military, I think this is the same as in any business.  If you want the job, you will live with the expectations the organization has for you.  You don't want 'em?  Don't join.

[Perd Hapley]

So the maintenance of a limited govt that protects property rights is dependant on blindly going into whatever war the govt decrees?

Pretty much.  If we're going to have a nation with government and laws, you cannot also maintain your own foreign policy.  There is definitely a place for opposing a war you don't agree with, but military policy is not that place.  If you're in the military, you do what it says.  This is a seperate issue from whether one does or does not have a draft.  

Personally, I have no problem going off to kill people so long as it's for a good reason, attacking Iraq because of 911 seems pretty damn stupid to me.

Then you'll be glad to know that was not the reason.

[Perd Hapley]

Haven't made up my mind on the draft.  

It seems counter to everything I believe about freedom, liberty, limited government, libertarianism, etc.  We're looking out for our own best interest, right?  If our military needed men that badly, in a conflict that truly put us at risk, we would all sign up, wouldn't we?  But what if we didn't?  What if we became so complacent, so apathetic, that we didn't care enough to respond to the need, and our country was devestated because we lost a war due to lack of manpower?  Then how secure would our freedom be?

What if some politicians saw a dire need in the military and the consequences of defeat were also very dire?  What if they tried as hard as possible to explain the need for soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines, but without effect?  
a) in that case, it's hopeless, why bother?
b) in that case, the people have no appreciation for freedom.  They have become no better than sheep.  Save them from themselves.  Draft them, and make them fight.

What is the right choice?  Is there a third way?

[MicroBalrog]

Wrong.  The "military system of absolute obedience, discipline, and so forth," is a part of the values of Western civilian society.

No. First, because the most sucessful militaries in history are the ones were people go into this voluntarily, and are not drafted.
In a draft system, where everybody goes through this system, the military functions not just as a form of defense, but also as a continuation of the public education system in shaping the minds of youth.

Second, the more a military system centers it's training on discipline, the less it is actually efficient.

Rural young men with no uniforms and bolt-action rifles beat the Soviet Army. Not just 'beat', but inflicted ten times their own casualties.

It is a critical part of how wars are won.

That's very interesting. Ho Chi Min, the Taliban, the Minutemen, Cortez (remember, he disobeyed a direct order when he decided to go up and ravage these native cities), the Finnish Civil Guard, the French revolutionary army, the Hizbullah and Davy Crockett all would like a word with you.

(it should be evident I am not equating these groups from a moral standpoint).

[Glock Glockler]

Pretty much.  If we're going to have a nation with government and laws, you cannot also maintain your own foreign policy.  There is definitely a place for opposing a war you don't agree with, but military policy is not that place.  If you're in the military, you do what it says.  This is a seperate issue from whether one does or does not have a draft

I am speaking within the context of the draft.  If no draft, than fine, I will just choose to sit out any nonsense, but you cant just have a draft and then expect the people to automatically believe in whatever the govt says.  Not only is it completely contrary to human nature and common sense but you also have the good possibility of the war being conducted for the benefit of the govt and special interests at the expense of the country and people.

Then you'll be glad to know that was not the reason

I have no idea what the reason was, and publically the Bush administration doesnt seem to either.  First it was because of 911, then it was because of Saddam was a brutal dictator, then it becomes to prevent Iraqs oil from falling into the hands of terrorists.  I just see more bs being thrown at the American public that is going to drain my wallet and didnt need to be done in the first place.

Now, regarding the draft, if our govt is supposed to be protecting our rights how does it benefit us for them to have a system of forced servitude in place?  That doesnt jive very well with the idea of being a free people, and if the govt can force us to join for x amount of time I suppose we dont really own ourselves, and if we dont own ourselves...

If you have a legitimate war and a non-BS/PC army then people will join.  The ultimate test of a regime is the willingness of a people to shed their blood for it.  What am I supposed to think of a govt that asks me to go and be a peacekeeper in Bosnia or Somalia while we essentially have our hands tied?  The more nonsense they pull the less faith I am going to have in them when they come to me with the next "crisis" they ask me to join up for.  I wont go anywhere as a peacekeeper to prevent to groups who want to kill each other from killing each other, if I go somewhere it is to kill people because it is necessary for US national security to kill them.

[Perd Hapley]

Balrog,

When responding to a post, it is helpful to read it thoroughly, rather than taking a quick scan and forming the wrong opinion of the author's meaning.  You have misread my comments and I misread your comment, too.  You said that military discipline is different from "Western civilian society" and I missed the civilian part.  Sorry.  I'll edit that soon.

It still should have been clear that I was not arguing for a draft.

Who told you that the Minutemen won the American Revolution?  Much as I believe in the concept of militia, the militia of that war were not very useful.  It was the Continental Army of General Washington that won the war, with help from another organized military, that of the French.  Oh, and the ineptness of the British leadership.

I thought the French revolutionary army was the first to be manned by a modern draft system.  For all their talk of freedom and fraternity, they were no heros of libertariainism.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, this is the narcissism of the age.  You expect that there will be a legal system to protect your property and your interests.  At the same time you expect that you will have to contribute nothing towards the maintenance of that system.  I see often on this forum the assertion of rights without the aknowledgement of responsibilities.  But the two go hand in hand.  Without responsibilities on the citizens, there are no rights for themSo the maintenance of a limited govt that protects property rights is dependant on blindly going into whatever war the govt decrees?  There are some wars where it is very necessary to join up and strt killing the enemy and there are others where taking part in such a war is destructive to the mother country and requires the true patriots to stand up and say no.  Personally, I have no problem going off to kill people so long as it's for a good reason, attacking Iraq because of 911 seems pretty damn stupid to me.

That was certainly an accurate representation of what I wrote.  About as accurate as saying that your vision of America is about 20% of the population on the Mexican border shooting wetbacks trying to enter the country.  The other 80% are too stoned or strung out on crack to care.  Until the Chinese invade and send everyone to the gulags.
If you think we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 then you didnt pay attention to the 18 months' worth of debate any more than you paid attention to what I wrote.  There were numerous and compelling reasons at the time to go.  Many of those reasons remain valid today.

[Glock Glockler]

I paid plenty of attention to what you wrote, and seeing how you support a draft because you think Americans are too narcissistic to do the join the military.    

If you think we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 then you didnt pay attention to the 18 months' worth of debate any more than you paid attention to what I wrote.  There were numerous and compelling reasons at the time to go.  Many of those reasons remain valid today

Please, enlighten us as to the reasons for going in, because apparently the administration doesnt know those reasons either.  I'm waiting.

[Perd Hapley]

  If no draft, than fine, I will just choose to sit out any nonsense, but you cant just have a draft and then expect the people to automatically believe in whatever the govt says.

Maybe I didn't explain this clearly enough.  The draft and foreign policy are seperate issues.  If you don't agree with the draft, that's fine, and I'm halfway to agreeing with you.  But if you think the draft is wrong just because some draftees don't believe in the particular war they're called to serve in, then you don't understand the concept of citizenship.  You don't get to decide foreign policy all by yourself.  If you want to live in a nation that includes people other than yourself, you'll just have to abide by the decisions of your fellow-citizens and their reps.  

 I have no conflicts with people elsewhere, so anyone who wants me to go kill an Iraqi or a Korean or a Venusian would not get my cooperation. If they would insist, with threats for non-compliance, I would consider them to be psychopaths.

Or, you could consider them officials of the nation or state in which you choose to reside, and the protection of which you choose to enjoy.  I'm sure I don't have to tell you that if you live somewhere, or chat online somewhere, you follow the rules of said place.

[Perd Hapley]

I have no idea what the reason was, and publically the Bush administration doesnt seem to either.  

1. First it was because of 911,

2. then it was because of Saddam was a brutal dictator,

3. then it becomes to prevent Iraqs oil from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Hey, let's have another fight about Iraq!  

So we shouldn't make war if we have more than one reason?  

1.  No one ever said it was about 9-11, and if you interpret it that way, you're wrong.  We didn't invade Afghanistan because of 11 Sept., either.  Both conflicts were pursued to prevent future violence.  Iraq had little to do with the attacks themselves, but if you think that matters, then your vision is much too narrow.  The GWoT is not about retaliating for one terrorist attack or even all of them we have already suffered.  It is about destroying the forces that will produce future attacks.  

2.  That was certainly one reason.  Some believe that the Middle East is a mess largely because the US and other nations have tolerated despotism there, or even shook hands with it.  The theory is that liberating the Middle East will pacify it.  Whether that's true or even possible to attempt, I don't know.  

It is put forth by some that Saddam's dictatorship included many connections and encouragements to Al-Qeada, and to terrorism in general.  Unless you have sufficient first-hand knowledge of the subject, whether one believes this depends on whom one trusts.  

3.  Never heard that one before, but isn't oil a pretty important commodity to keep control over?  

You forgot WMD, violation of several UN resolutions, the attempted assisination of George Bush and the violations of the treaty that ended the Gulf War.    Then there are the much more important and more valid reasons left unspoken by the administration, such as a greater US military presence in the Middle East.

[Iapetus]

A British perspective:

From 1949-1960, the UK had compulsory military service, called "National Service".

You quite often hear people here suggesting that the ending of National Service was the cause of the (alleged) breakdown of society since then, specifically the cause of the (alleged) rise in the the number of lazy / irresponsible / criminal youths.  They suggest that subjecting these people to military discipline and getting them to serve their country would make better, more civilized people of them.

The military itself is totally opposed to this idea, as they don't want to have to babysit a bunch of unwilling, illdisciplined and potentially criminal conscripts.


Incidently, I read recently that the Scandinavian countries have a totally reversed view of National Service.  They see it as a way to ensure that the military contains plenty of well-educated middle-class people, who would otherwise be unlikely to enlist.