My younger brother was in the inactive reserves when the war started and just barely finished his commitment when they started calling up people in a similar situation. My mother said she got drunk that day.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, were I your mother. A draft is political suicide, and no politician will support one, even if it would be the effective thing to do militarily. We just don't really need to "win" any wars that badly; we can still crush anyone and everyone at will these days.
In any case, even if there is a draft, they will bake in ways for people like your brother to avoid it. Congresspeople have kids, too.
Although, there's nothing wrong with starting to build up a public record of dating men.
I'm not too worried about it, it's just that it's weird for that even to be a possibility. It's kind of like the comment I made yesterday about how I couldn't understand it when Gulf War I happened because I thought we didn't do "that" (war) anymore. The draft is something that seems similarly anachronistic -- I never envisioned a need for conscription again. The fact it's even something that could maybe envision happening someday seems like a huge regression.
And I'm so torn on the "people like your brother could avoid it" thing. Obviously, I wouldn't want him drafted. But OTOH, I think exemptions targeted towards the middle-class are unfair and morally wrong.
I find it disturbing that it's still only men who have to register at 18.
Is it also still the law that you're supposed to carry or be able to produce your registration card?
I find it disturbing that it's still only men who have to register at 18.
I assume that would change if there were an actual draft; I can't see it being defensible. And obviously, I think it should change.
All my childhood I assumed that if the draft came back, women would also get called. I know exactly where in Canada I'd go.
I agree with SCMTim; the draft is unlikely to come back for any of these wars that pace wingnuts aren't really about the survival of the republic. It's political suicide (and I don't think the military wants newbs in there breaking all the equipment.)
I don't mean to disparage what I take to be the point here, the conflicting emotions the very idea brings up, but I have to say the possibility of this happening, whatever else does, seems unimaginable to me.
Having lived through it the last time around, the conditions and assumptions of society in those days, which have since changed utterly, seem as if they belong to some ancient world — something like what Becks thought. And the whole notion was patently obsolete and counterproductive even then. Military needs have evolved in its absence in such a way as to make conscription even more of an obstacle to skill and flexible power today than it was.
And I say this as someone who has watched the "social obligations" debate at the Washington Monthly for nearly forty years.
For the kinds of conflicts we have much chance of facing in the forseeable future, a draft wouldn't be particularly helpful. The military doesn't just want a bunch of grunts, they want committed and motivated soldiers who stay in long enough to make training them worthwhile. Unless we're at risk of actually getting invaded, a draft army isn't much use.
While recognizing problems with it and that I wasn't alive last time to experience many of those, I'm probably only 60/40 opposed to a draft, even in an idiotic war like this one if it's believed by the military to be militarily beneficial. I mean, the draft would have had to start years ago to be effective, but if it had I wouldn't be that bothered. That said, I came very close to a screaming fight with the mother of one of my friends in May of 2004 when she kept talking about how sure she was there'd be a draft and I made the political suicide point over and over, and she just wouldn't acknowledge it.
To play devil's advocate, one possible positive effect of bringing back the draft might be greater reluctance to do things like invade Iraq. If there were a very real possibility that you or your 18-26 year old friends and relatives would be the ones sent to the front lines, might there not be greater scrutiny of proposals to invade this or that country?
For reasons much like those given in 12, along with basic concerns about equality and about decreasing the military/civilion cultural divide, I'm a huge supporter of a mandatory draft (during times of war... probably not during times of peace). It is political suicide, true, so it's not like I'm expecting it, but in theory I would be all for it.
I'm fine with a draft, or at least signing up for a draft, for precisely the reasons in #12. But we, as a country, won't (a) admit that we're less likely to go to war as more people are exposed to the risks of it, and (b) give up the joy of the pointless war every now and again. So, no draft. All it would do is constrain the Executive, which the Republicans don't want.
I do agree with 12-13. Something like a two-year service commitment before going off to college. Sure, the prep school set will pull strings and not have to do anything, but chances are at least much better that they'll know someone who was serving and will perhaps a) be more inclined to scrutinize proposed wars more carefully or b) stop with the 'omg t3h soldiers are all t3h rapists' rhetoric which sounds uninformed and makes it much more difficult to argue for peaceful solutions.
That might just be wishful thinking; England managed to have a brilliant imperialist turn while having smart, educated people feeling as though they had a duty to serve.
'omg t3h soldiers are all t3h rapists' rhetoric
I don't personally know anyone who says that. They might have said it back in the 60s-70s (dunno), but, just looking at the major anti-war people in the blogosphere, I never, ever hear that. I think that it's actually a carefully maintained Republican lie that people (Dems and Republicans) constantly spread. We should stop doing that.
Looks like her intuition was better than mine.
Yeah, moms are like that sometimes...
I maybe sorta agree with 12-15, except that I agree with 16 where it disagrees with 15. Another beneficial effect would be the demystification of the military; too many people treat the military as this alien/semi-sacred thing, and it would, I think, be healthier in terms of relating to the exercise of military force if it were just something everyone did.
On the down side, of course, expensive, placing a burden on everyone rather than just those who choose it, and everyone says it'd be kinda useless from a military point of view.
15, 16. No one says that. However, some of us do say that rape and sexual harassment are intrinsic to the military, which sloppy people like to interpret as an accusation that soldiers are all rapists.
a carefully maintained Republican lie
Not unlike the "spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam" myth.
Also on the down side, the negative aspects of military culture would be generalized more broadly to the rest of society.
That said, I actually think that the *positive* aspects of military culture are many, and would be hugely beneficial if more of us internalized them. But some of the downsides are a real doozy.
My oldest nephew just decided against joining the Army in favor of going to a tech school to learn programming. Everyone in my family heaved a huge sigh of relief.
I could maybe support mandatory service if there were a civilian option - some sort of irreligious Habitat for Humanity-style charity work, free of dogma - but I don't really buy that dragging the unwilling through military life is going to help either them or the military. According to my dad, military life requires a discipline and commitment that are basically impossible to train into someone who had no interest to begin with. For all I know, though, that's simply an example of the false mystification that others have mentioned.
When I was 18 I told a friend that if there were a draft I would show up in a dress made of Canadian flags. I should probably be ashamed of that, but it's absolutely true.
I'm not sure what to make of 'intrinsic' in 19 except to say that maybe military culture changes if it's not over-represented by an already pro-military subpopulation?
According to my dad, military life requires a discipline and commitment that are basically impossible to train into someone who had no interest to begin with.
Eh, what does 'requires' mean? Discipline and commitment are not strong features of the Breath family, but my father quite enjoyed his (peacetime) service. I don't know that he was much use, but he made it through okay.
Many aspects of broad social exposure to military life and reality, both on the part of the men who serve and the women who live with it, are losses to society now that we no longer have them. Some of the crap we've heard about war, from people surprisingly near to us, would be unimaginable under that system. That always seemed to be a driving force behind Charlie Peters' crusade to bring back the draft. I know. I try to be a spokesman for that understanding. I just don't see it happening.
What I would like to see is a professional military better reflecting the opinions and variety of society. More liberals, more urban whites, more people from good schools. A little less balkanization of experience in our society, so that no group could be as totally cut off from access to it as we seem to be now.
If a draft were to be implemented, though, not everyone eligible for service would get drafted. But the knowledge that you might get drafted (accompanied by the further knowledge that your chances of getting drafted would increase dramatically the more we send our troops overseas) might cause everyone to think more deeply about how our nation uses military force.
Still there; a girl in the hippieish co-op I lived in at MIT was Navy ROTC (and very cross about being ineligible for sub duty.)
I'm pretty sure there are far fewer ROTC programs than there used to be, and many of them had been mandatory before protests changed all that. But yeah, I know there are some programs still around.
23: I don't think that the sexism/rape culture of the military has anything to do with it being populated by pro-military folks. I think it has to do with the inherent nature of war and military action. (In some older thread I posted a reading list on the subject, but can't be bothered to go try to find it.)
the part of the men who serve and the women who live with it Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah! Women serve too.
ROTC's still really big in the South. There was a very large program at my university. One of the requirements of ROTC is that you have to take a computer programming class before graduation, which means that all of the CS 101 classes are about half full of people who obviously have no desire to be there. We all tried our hardest not to have to TA that one.
24: A very good point. I have no idea, though, as the closest I've ever come to military service was dating a guy with a crew cut.
ROTC is totally still around. A lot of kids put themselves through college on ROTC scholarships.
32: Yeah, Dad's army stories are closer to Private Benjamin, except all male and '59-'61, than to anything particularly conventionally militaristic.
I wonder if the distribution of ROTC programs reflects the make-up of the armed forces. A student of mine in ROTC had to go to a neighboring university campus to participate in activities, and even there the program wasn't very large.
ROTC's still around. Not at most of the Ivy League, I think, and I think that's a shame.
Harvard students came to MIT for theirs.
I think that's one of the reasons the military needs to drop "don't ask, don't tell". The ivies and some other universities refuse to sponsor ROTC programs because DADT violates their anti-discrimination policies. So, you're cutting off a whole group of potential leaders from the military.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah! Women serve too.
Hello? Of course they do. My gendered distribution was based on two things: they way military life was experienced when we last had a draft, and the depth of experience that was shared in that situation, by the loved ones and partners, predominantly women, who were just as displaced, whose lives and happiness were at risk, and who were often profoundly isolated.
Did I need to say that? To whom?
Women serve too.
I think it's spelled "tea," B.
Dad's army stories are closer to Private Benjamin
He got involved with Armand Assante?
ROTC's still around. Not at most of the Ivy League, I think, and I think that's a shame.
I have not done a check of all of the Ivy League, but I am pretty sure that you can go to ROTC at most or all of them. In many cases, as LB notes, you go by cross-enrolling in another college's program--Harvard to MIT, Columbia to Fordham, etc.
I think it is true that ROTC is not particularly popular or well thought of at many leading universities (or even non-leading universities, like the small state college in Pennsylvania where I was an ROTC instructor), but it still is out there.
Can you still get college tuition for it, though, if you're at another college's ROTC program but enrolled at Harvard?
Even so, I'd argue that there's a visibility problem. You won't see the ROTC guys out for a run on the Ivy League campuses; they're the weird kids, from Texas, over at Fordham/whereever.
28- That sounds like you're describing ET (hippieish co-op). The rumor was about how everyone sleeps in the same room.
I was at pika. Everyone at ET did sleep in big dorms (one for the boys and one for the girls, IIRC). They were odd, but not all that hippieish.
Fenway was the drugs and free love hippies, pika was the granola and recycling hippies.
45: Free love is recycling. Now if we just put drugs in the granola, comity will be achieved.
I hadn't quite grasped the distinction when I was deciding where to live. Much as I liked some of the Fenwayites, I do have to say I was relieved in retrospect to have ended up where I did. Our food was much better, and the house was reasonably clean.
Our food was much better
Yeah, those stoned hippies over at Fenway would eat anything . . .
No, they just had a more libertarian attitude toward meals than we did. We had a hot meal on the table at 6:30 every night -- they bought groceries and you fended for yourself.
I knew some pretty hippieish people at ET. I forgot about pika (it's been a few years)- were they the least known ILG? I almost never heard anything about them and didn't know anyone there.
Myself, I thought about TEP, thank god that didn't happen. I would have been very poorly served by making that decision my first week on campus.
I forgot about pika (it's been a few years)- were they the least known ILG? I almost never heard anything about them and didn't know anyone there.
I'm at my desk weeping softly. We were cool, really we were! And I liked TEP -- a girl at pika's brother was at TEP, and so we saw a lot of them. Wouldn't have wanted to live there myself, but I like the quiet life.
And yes, pika was pretty quiet. There was a strong tendency for people to date inhouse, and our parties were generally recognized as pathetic on any scale of wildness. We had a kickass compost heap, though (says the 1988-89 academic year Compost Chair.).
I liked TEP, I just wouldn't have wanted to live there- that's the distinction I had trouble making when given three days to decide where to live for the next four years. (I suppose a foam room and a musical staircase are neat the first couple times you see them but lose their novelty after a few months. Same might be said of the people who would implement such things.) Some of the guys who would have been in my pledge class had a I joined were in some of my intro courses (18.02, 8.02) and I thought they were annoying.
How old are you? If pika's unfamiliar, we don't know each other but were we there at around the same time?
29- I was there later, we wouldn't have overlapped. We were one of the last few classes under the old rush system, since the Krueger thing happened while I was there.
I would think pika would have bad food.
No, but we did have a rodent problem.
While I'm in a nostalgic mood: Find the blogger!.
Must be the one all the way on the right, looking down at a computer instead of at the camera.
Nope. It's a shame the picture's not in color -- his robin's egg blue Mohawk was a thing of beauty.
I know this is a no-win game. Are you maybe only a few people to the left of that guy?
Center, with the teddy bear and the slippers?
No fair, you've met me. I was hoping for readers making psychic guesses.
Center of entrance, three rows from bottom.
That was a yes to slol, implying a no to Cala.
65: No, but she was v. cool. Went to the high school apo was kicked out of.
Did I claim to be consistent? If I did, I've changed my mind.
68: Okay, at least I can spot "coolness."
I did work as temp staff at MIT for most of the year 1999; naturally, working at the Media Lab was the kewlest.
I was surprised they didn't use something more techy than whiteboards, though.
I climbed out a window of the Media Lab once to hang a non-particularly-funny banner on the big stone archway outside it. I wasn't ever in there for any academic purpose, though.
In fact, there's a picture. I'll stop wallowing in nostalgia now.
You should have made it "Dump core for new roll", that would have been much more MIT.
It was the the text on all the actual toilet paper roll holders. I am a simple people.
I feel compelled to mention, you definitely had a look, there.
I did work as temp staff at MIT for most of the year 1999; naturally, working at the Media Lab was the kewlest.
God, I spent a few weeks as temp at the Media Lab, I think in the summer of 2000. The first guy I was filling in for hadn't had a vacation the entire time he had been working there (at least a year, maybe more.) He had that really wide-eye, jittery scared bunny look on his face the day he showed me around. While I filled in for him, an email was forwarded to his account asking me to do something, but the sender hadn't changed the subject line. It read "Re: Performance issues with [guy on vacation's name]". A few hours later another email came in from the boss, saying I should probably delete that message. The whole time I was there I found the atmosphere utterly oppressive.
Like all temp jobs, it pretty much depends on who you worked for. Mostly I enjoyed being free to wander the building and look at stuff.
I've forgotten for the moment which department was the two weeks I spent filling in for some department chair's secretary while he was on vacation, but I had almost nothing to do, save for make about four copies a day, and answer a handful of phone calls and take down the message, so I could websurf all day long. Fine job.
My Ivy League university has a very strong ROTC program.
Like all temp jobs, it pretty much depends on who you worked for.
Very true. The person I was working for was very difficult to deal with and, considering I was a temp, asking rather a lot, if I remember correctly. I've had a reflexive little flinch reaction to the phrase "Media Lab" ever since.
Mostly I enjoyed being free to wander the building and look at stuff.
I did enjoy standing on the balcony of the (I believe) second floor (or was it the fourth?), looking out at the interior walls with the Kenneth Noland designs. I had always admired those in a catalog I have, so it was fun to spend time with them in person. When I wasn't in the office, getting my soul crushed.
i'm late to the party, but another mom who worries about a draft. my son turned 18 last year and registered. the selective service sent him a nice note for his 19th birthday, threatening criminal penalties if he didn't register [apparently, they are not organized enough to keep track of these kinds of details].
the government has enough information about my son to send glossy military recruitment brochures every week or few. somehow, my email must have come to their attention, too, because i got 2 recruitment emails from the u.s. navy in the past week. [they cannot possibly be recruiting cranky 49 year old professional women in unstellar physical shape.]
the idea of reinstating the draft terrifies me. sure, i understand the political suicide argument, but this amorphous war has gone on years, and i still can't figure out how the hell the administration defines the "mission." even the "enemy" is poorly defined, so there is no chance of a peace settlement. where does it end? the military and national guard are over-extended, so where will the bodies be found to continue with whatever the hell the mission is?
i don't know what kind of exemptions might be granted if a draft is reinstated. the ones i can imagine -- higher education, parenthood, critical job in the private sector -- would not apply to my son at present. he would not flunk the "mental exam" or physical. he lacks a criminal record, history of dating men, or deeply held pacifist religious beliefs. i have raised perfect cannon fodder, and so have hundreds of thousands of other mothers.
i do not trust this government to understand that my son is more than cannon fodder. i do not trust it to respect his personal life and dignity, or the 20 years of our investments and sacrifices to keep him reasonably safe and healthy to this point.
this particular war is an elective war of political convenience. it has not made the world safer. it has been used to justify intrusions of privacy on the domestic front, and violations of international law on the international front. the mere chance of a draft to support this foolish venture is disgusting and horrifying to me.
