"There is no question in my mind that this President and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if members of Congress and the administration thought their kids would be placed in harm's way."
Seven members of Congress in 2003 had children in the military. One, Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, served in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As the US military began cycling its units through Iraq and Afghanistan, the number has now risen to ten.
As an American citizen who is fully aware of which members of congress have/had children fighting in this war, I beg to differ. There are 100 senators and this is hardly a huge percentage. It would be higher if we had a draft of able bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and say 25, plus their friends and other relatives, for those in congress who don't have children of conscription age.
Three senators out of 100 may not be large but it's significantly higher (about three times) that of the adult population at large. The ratio of children of senators to reps is roughly as expected. One Senator has also lost his nephew, Philip, in Iraq.
Firstly, Judith's remarks were about both the UK and the US, although the article indicated primarily addressed Rangel's bill and US implications.
All of those children of Congressmembers (of the 2003 Congress which is the largest concentration in many years of members with active duty children) voluntarily entered the military, of course. No one questions the occasional heroism and devotion of US statesmen. We've had very heroic figures in high office. The question is whether the more powerful Senators would uniformly permit their children to be conscripted. That's the difference.
Based upon the military service of the current administration (nil and none) and some party leaders, I would tend to doubt it.
While the article was about the US and UK, it could just as well apply to us in Australia, where we have three wars going at the moment. In a recent interview, you could see the Chief of Army's eyes widen at the prospect of conscription and then a reality check set in.
We don't have conscription anymore, but there is still debate. The founders believed that democracy required participation; voting, jury duty and military service should all be compulsory. For that reason, many people found the selective service of the Vietnam period objectionable, preferring universal service. The problem was that universal service was impractical.
It all depends on whether you believe the ends justifies the means. What a massive waste of time and productivity it would be to force lots of reluctant individuals from their jobs into the armed forces. The goal of having accountable politicians should be able to be achieved some other way. Putting everyone involved in sending people to Guantanamo Bay on trial for false imprisonment, torture, war crimes, etc, would be a better approach, IMHO.
I also don't believe that the Bush administration would necessarily have had the sense to avoid war even if a draft was in place. After all, we see that those who join the army may be poorly educated, low income folks who like playing with guns. Errr, that's exactly the demographic of the Bush supporters, and he's sent them off to get slaughtered.
I wish that were true and certainly US Congressman Rangel's bill (re-introduced recently) would do just that -- reinstate a more fair selective service. The only problem is that the truly wealthy have *always* gotten their children out of the draft. The Shrub (Junta George, the present "President") "served" in the Alabama National Guard, even though he didn't really do that -- his father wrote him an excuse for being AWOL. Ronald Reagan kept North Hollywood free of the "red menace". Dick Cheney apparently just found a "get out of draft free card".
They would find a loophole for their kids or they wouldn't let the bill become law.
Incidentally, here's a related page about which prominent US political figures have and haven't served in the military. A truly striking and fascinating pattern can be seen ...
It's a great logical argument but is one of those things that would not work in practice. What about the people who currently join the army and would therefore be thrown out of work? What would they do? (I can guess.) You would have to excempt the physically unfit - a blind sniper perhaps? - and that one gives the way out for the more intelligent. Then there's the old "It's against my religion," routine. The Quakers would suddenly see a huge growth in membership.
I rather collect this sort of thing. I think my favourite is still John W Campbell's for getting rid of excess population without actually murdering anyone and making sure that only stupid and pig headed people suicided. This involved making all drugs, particularly proper medical drugs, available over the counter, dirt cheap.
After the disastrous war in Vietnam, many people concluded that it was only the draft that made the war possible; that President Johnson did not have to cross the Rubicon by calling up the reserves. The solution was a return to a volunteer Army, in which the reserves were tightly integrated, so any major conflict would require a reserve callup.
President Bush has done just that. Most of the Army Reserve and National Guard have now been called up and cycled through Iraq.
The US Army's disintegration in Vietnam was the result of several factors, but its conscript nature was not one of them. The Australian Army also contained large numbers of National Servicemen and never had any such problems.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Isn't THAT the truth!
no subject
Seven members of Congress in 2003 had children in the military. One, Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, served in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As the US military began cycling its units through Iraq and Afghanistan, the number has now risen to ten.
no subject
no subject
(I love the cute kitty in your pic!)
no subject
All of those children of Congressmembers (of the 2003 Congress which is the largest concentration in many years of members with active duty children) voluntarily entered the military, of course. No one questions the occasional heroism and devotion of US statesmen. We've had very heroic figures in high office. The question is whether the more powerful Senators would uniformly permit their children to be conscripted. That's the difference.
Based upon the military service of the current administration (nil and none) and some party leaders, I would tend to doubt it.
no subject
We don't have conscription anymore, but there is still debate. The founders believed that democracy required participation; voting, jury duty and military service should all be compulsory. For that reason, many people found the selective service of the Vietnam period objectionable, preferring universal service. The problem was that universal service was impractical.
no subject
no subject
I also don't believe that the Bush administration would necessarily have had the sense to avoid war even if a draft was in place. After all, we see that those who join the army may be poorly educated, low income folks who like playing with guns. Errr, that's exactly the demographic of the Bush supporters, and he's sent them off to get slaughtered.
no subject
They would find a loophole for their kids or they wouldn't let the bill become law.
no subject
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
no subject
no subject
no subject
I rather collect this sort of thing. I think my favourite is still John W Campbell's for getting rid of excess population without actually murdering anyone and making sure that only stupid and pig headed people suicided. This involved making all drugs, particularly proper medical drugs, available over the counter, dirt cheap.
no subject
After the disastrous war in Vietnam, many people concluded that it was only the draft that made the war possible; that President Johnson did not have to cross the Rubicon by calling up the reserves. The solution was a return to a volunteer Army, in which the reserves were tightly integrated, so any major conflict would require a reserve callup.
President Bush has done just that. Most of the Army Reserve and National Guard have now been called up and cycled through Iraq.
The US Army's disintegration in Vietnam was the result of several factors, but its conscript nature was not one of them. The Australian Army also contained large numbers of National Servicemen and never had any such problems.