Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (97344)	1/28/2005 1:01:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793739

It would be interesting to see whether people were more willing to serve if they were given better incentives, e.g., more pay. Basic pay for an E-1 starts at $1142.70/mo. That's pretty shabby. dfas.mil

To: Lane3 who wrote (97344)	1/28/2005 1:08:07 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793739

If we are facing a compelling threat, then plenty of people would sign up to fight and we wouldn't need a draft. If we need a draft, then it means that the interests we are serving are not recognized as ours by of a sufficient number of us, which makes a draft immoral. I thoroughly disagree. The British experience immediately before WWII is a classic example of the failure to recognize an existential threat, do something about it, and avoid untold millions of deaths. The British were facing an existential threat but influential policy makers ignored it, guiding public opinion against objecting to German rearmament and against an aggressive anti-Hitler policy. Very few recognized the existential threat the British faced in the 1930s; those who did, like Churchill, were jeered for being jingoistic saber rattlers. We are in my estimation facing an existential threat from militant Islam. The fact that many may not agree with me doesn't mean that what I and many others think will be proven incorrect. This is the logical flaw in your thinking--the fact that we may be facing a compelling threat is not necessarily recognized by the bulk of the populace and there is accordingly no reason to believe that it will rush to fight it. Unfortunately, the threat does not present itself in as clear a manner as I would like. Moreover, I think people's natural inclination is to disbelieve its existence since it requires sacrifice to meet it. I don't even mention the fact that those who do believe the Islamist threat is ultimately existential engage in a lot of windy debate on how to deal with it. But this is the way things work in a liberal democracy. Until the wolf is at the door, it is unlikely that the great bulk of the people will be very concerned about imminent threats. I suspect that we'll suffer through history repeating itself before recognition of the full magnitude of the threat sets in. It won't be until another attack of 9/11's size hits us that eyes [and minds] will once again become open to this threat we face. In the British example, Churchill simply dispassionately read and observed what Hitler wrote and did. We can do the same with respect to the Islamists and reach more or less the same conclusions about the Islamists that Churchill did about the Nazis.

To: Lane3 who wrote (97344)	1/28/2005 2:47:04 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793739

Karen, The notion of a draft has a fatal flaw, I think. If we are facing a compelling threat, then plenty of people would sign up to fight and we wouldn't need a draft. If we need a draft, then it means that the interests we are serving are not recognized as ours by of a sufficient number of us, which makes a draft immoral. Very interesting points. But a couple of other factors play - 1st (going back to Vietnam) the draft is considered flawed in that many privledged young men were able to avoid it, this will need to be dealt with. The second problem is that this is not WW1 or 2, even the wildest expectations for troop levels would only require a very small draft - again raising fairness concerns. Third - any attempt today would be met with lawsuits challenging the gender issue. I know several young men in uniform or at a service academy. the concept of duty still exists, but we are not operating like a country at war. Mike is right that the initial fervor after 9/11 peters out during these past few months of 'police action' and nation building. This also happened in WW2 - the draft wasn't necessary immediately - it only became that way as the war dragged on (Mike 3 year rule). Its tough in real life - if Bush plays up the War too hard - we stagnate economically and have other issues. A possible solution to a couple of problems is reviving our recruitment of foreign troops. Another MEU or a full Army division devoted to occupation duties could be created and recruited largely abroad - fast tracking the US immigration process for anyone serving is the reward - something like Visa on entry, Greencard after 1 tour - citizenship at 2. John disclaimer - my draft age son is in Engineering school. My HS son is still thinking about careers. Both wanted to join the Marines on Sept 12th, but the ardor has faded.