Posted on 05/08/2002 10:33:16 AM PDT by Starmaker
Is conscription making a comeback? Will the word "lottery" be reassigned its 1969 definition? Can we look forward to seeing the lifeless bodies of 18-year-old draftees coming home draped in red, white and blue? It's not likely, but the subject of reinstating the draft is being raised once again.
In a May 7 article in the Jewish World Review, columnist Jack Kelly made a rather disturbing statement: "If we are serious about winning the war on terror, and serious about homeland security, we'd better think seriously about reinstating the military draft." Now, unless "Military Draft" is a new brew from the folks at Sam Adams, I'm not interested.
Our seriousness in combating terrorism is not limited to the number of people running around in fatigues playing "Cowboys and Muslims." To address Jack Kelly's statement, I would counter that if we were truly serious about winning the war on terror, and serious about homeland security, we'd better think seriously about reinstating the right to keep and bear arms.
In all fairness to Mr. Kelly, his call for a draft focuses mainly on forced recruitment into domestic military service for homeland defense:
We should draft for the Army National Guard. Airport screening and border patrols are tedious work which cannot be well paid, but for which we require intelligent, vigilant people who are loyal to the United States. A 15-month period of service would permit a year of active duty after basic training.
But even this is going too far. The National Guard is not the state militia of old. All servicemen and women in the Guard are subject to direct federal control and can be called up at any time.
There was a time when citizen militias were the norm. These were groups of average citizens who rose to the occasion when their homeland was threatened. The Second Amendment to the Constitution recognized their importance: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias were important because they were considered to be one of the last lines of defense the states had against attack, not just from a foreign power but from the federal government itself. You won't hear it discussed much today, but one of the reasons the Second Amendment was proposed in the first place was that the framers believed the people of this nation had the G-d-given right to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny.
There were also many concerned colonists who feared the prospect of a strong standing army, and looked to the militias as the best means of providing for a national defense. The Constitution did allow Congress to call upon those militias to help defend the United States if the need arose, but those days are gone. Today, we have a standing army, a permanent national military that is more powerful than any other fighting force the world has ever seen.
Unfortunately, even that did not help us last September. The strongest military in history failed to prevent a handful of Muslim radicals from killing over 3,000 people within our own borders. I fail to see how reinstating the draft would address that.
But perhaps that isn't what Kelly has in mind anyway. Reinstating the draft would be symbolic of our unity. He goes on to say in his column that "reinstitution of conscription.....would be an important signal of national resolve," and that it would stand apart from the empty gesture of patriotism that, up until now, "largely has been restricted to rhetoric and flag-waving."
Kelly is right about one thing—our security is indeed something that demands serious attention. However, if we do want to get serious, forget the draft. The single biggest threat to our security as a nation comes not from foreign terrorists, but from an over-zealous, ever-expanding federal government. If we truly wish to remain secure, that government must first be made to restore the rights it has deliberately and systematically stripped away from its citizens.
For example, we need to see the resurrection of the right to keep and bear arms and all the unconstitutional gun laws taken off the books. This includes repealing such restrictions as the ban on "assault" weapons and armor-piercing bullets, and affording citizens the right to defend themselves—yes, even on commercial airliners. After all, if our inalienable rights become alienable, what would we have left to defend?
If you are one of those people calling for a draft, may I suggest you stroll down to your neighborhood tavern and have the bartender pour you a tall, frosty one. Kick back, relax, stuff your face with pretzels, watch the ball game, maybe throw a few darts or shoot some pool. If, however, you are serious about homeland security, fight to recover the rights that have already been taken away from you and help restore the federal government to its constitutional limitations.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Lee at ever_vigilant@hotmail.com .
Unfortunately, I agree with this statement.
In local elections last week, approx. 2000 people voted in the mayor's race (out of a pop. of approx. 60,000), the winner ending up with 50% of the votes. IOW, the mayor of a good-sized town was selected by 1000 people, about .02% of the pop.
The griping will start immediately, but IMO anyone that didn't vote has no right to complain about the situation. They chose laziness, now they can live with it.
The former would see those as merely describing the general purpose of government, with all powers being specifically enumerated in later Articles. And those powers not enumerated were prohibited. Conscription is not enumerated.
The latter would see the "common defense" clause and its brother, the "general welfare" clause as carte blanche to do whatever government sees fit (FDR's New Deal, etc). And the reason for enumerated powers later stated? Well, maybe the Founders were feeling chatty they day they wrote the Constitution.
At 30, many adults' heads are too full of adolescent mush to be considered adults. Yet they are.
True. Some people never mature emotionally, no matter what their chronological age.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
Our society traditionally draws it at "21".
I strongly support "18", but that is strictly predicated on potential military obligation.
Eliminate that obligation and I revert back to our society's traditional guideline, arbitrary as it may be.
Where would you draw the line?
His stuff is definitely mixed in quality. Some is excellent, and others leave me saying "WTF?". I've actually read a great many of his books over the years, including most of his more famous works (and a number lesser ones).
My take: "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" was definitely a good read. That was one that I would recommend. "Stranger In A Strange Land" was okay, but not as good as you would think considering how famous it is. It had a decidedly 1960s feel to it, and comes across as dated in other ways as well. "Number Of The Beast" was quite mediocre. There are a bunch of other ones, some of which were decent stories, others which quite frankly sucked in my opinion.
However, the one book he wrote which I found to be thoroughly brilliant: "Time Enough For Love". It is a deep and complex book, but it is an intriguing read and a bit of a departure from some of his other stuff. It still has that quintessentially Heinleinian flavor to it, but the style is a bit different and the concept and content is much deeper than in most of his other books. It isn't for everyone, but I would recommend it as one of the very best books he ever wrote, and it would certainly be at the top of my personal list.
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature"
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is always unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it is always vanquished. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
"The third 'right'?- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives - but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty'. But duty is an adult virtue - indeed a juvenile bucomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. THere never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent'. But for every juvenile criminal there re always one or more adult delinquents - people of mature years whe either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail."
"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways and admirable cultrue. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; thier citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constitutued, can endure."
Too bad is was turned into such a crappy mindless shoot-em-up of a movie...
My, my, my.
The United States had 16 million men under arms in World War 2. The vast majority were drafted, or enlisted (as I did) to beat the draft.
Golly, we didn't know that there's no place in this country for a draft.
Live and learn.
You don't have to be 18. I'm 37 and I wear the uniform of the U.S. Air Force. We need more good people. We need more volunteers.
Hey man, this pisses me off. I do not wear the U.S. Air Force uniform to keep oil industry profits high. That's an outrage! I wear the uniform because I believe in my country. I love the U.S.A., and I would die to defend our freedom. You may want to think about what you are saying! That was extremely offensive to me.
Another btw, apropos of nothing, I guess: I had been procrastinating putting up a profile page. While posting the Heinlein quote above, I figured I'd start my profile page with that.
One more btw: I thought the movie had some really cool special effects, although the plot and meaning was completely lost.
Well, happy FReeping!
I meant no disrespect to you or any member of our armed forces, thank you for your service to our country.
Are you saying you didn't want to go and fight? That is what is implied when you say you enlisted to 'beat' the draft. Your words indicate a certain reluctance, IMO.
Tuor
No, I wanted the Navy, and had the chance to do so by enlisting.
While I don't know this for certain, I imagine that the vast majority of those who joined the military for WWII did so not because they thought they'd be drafted anyway, but out of a sense of patriotism and honor.
I, also, served in the Navy during wartime (albiet merely the Gulf War). I wouldn't want draftees in my division: listening to them bellyache and drag their feet while we were working our butts off doing our jobs. I heard *reservists* doing this: among draftees, it would only be worse.
I suppose draftees would make good cannon fodder, but I will always believe that a motivated volunteer force is far more dangerous and effective than any number of unhappy draftees. And yes, I think they'd mostly be unhappy because if they *wanted* to fight, they, like you, wouldn't have had to be drafted.
Tuor
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.