The range of illumination:

We reduced the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and all mankind by a decent amount two hundred and thirty years ago, although it cost the lives of many good children who died like men - men who had decided like men that it was worth their lives to do so.

Similar things have happened on many occasions since then.

Kurt Vonnegut (brilliant writer that he is) seems to be under the impression that humanity will at all times be made the better just by wishing really hard. This is a perspective that the victims of the Nazi death camps might have argued with, had the Russian army gotten there soon enough for them to have such arguments. Alas, the Russians were delayed somewhat by their discussions with the German army over just such matters.

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The signers of the declaration didn't add "... unless we actually have to fight a war, in which case we'll just keep living in tyranny, because war is stupid and vicious."

From:

In all fairness, Vonnegut writes from the perspective of his times - times which included the draft, an institution comparable in its immorality to slavery, perhaps even worse. The death of anyone conscripted is truly an act of murder and Vonnegut is right to condemn it in the harshest terms.

Times have changed for the better.

Also in fairness to the occasion, the American Revolution was fought primarily between professional soldiers on the British side and popular militias on the American side. Some colonies employed conscription, but most of the soldiers on either side were volunteers. National conscription in America didn't become widely used until the Civil War.

From:

And to go with the concept of 'context', we are in the midst of such unnecessary viciousness. I know I'm supposed to somehow praise people for protecting markets before liberties and lives, but I just can't bring myself to do so.

Hey ho.

From:

that sounds almost christian of you....

:)

From:

So, is the death of persons from low economic means, who saw the military as their only option to better themselves, orchestrated by those in power with little risk to themselves any less of a travesty?

I think not.

The "volunteer army" is hardly the answer.

And comparing the army of the Colonies to volunteers invites us to a have a discussion upon the nature of that army to our current one. The use of professional soldiers. Look at what nations with professional soldiers do- they send them abroad for empire.

From:

Interesting points (even if not my initial one, which was the whole fraud for war thing).

From:

Which, I think is easier to perpetuate when the military is mainly made up of "volunteers" from the lower social economic strata.

So our "points" are actually aspects of the same.

To sum up, it's easier to have fradulent wars of choice when the soldiers are seen as career warriors, rather than citizens performing a necessary patriotic duty.

From:

The pay grades in the military are a separate issue from the pros/cons of a volunteer army, just as that is separate from the pros/cons of citizen armies (which we are slowly moving away from). In order: I think the pay of the the armed forces should be increased such that the noncom ranks are solidly within the middle class, and the officer ranks upper middle to low upper class. Keep it volunteer and selective. Move away from the use of auxuliries (non-citizens seeking citizenship). A army of citizens, volunteering from a wide range of economic classes, is imperative I think for the survival of any republic.

As for is war good/bad argument I'll safely sit in my ammoral armchair and say both or neither, depending on whose side your on, the war in question, and where you're standing when the bombs start dropping. I can see Scott's points, especially in the many engagements of the 20th century (the ones never mentioned outside the "patriotic" big five)that had everything to do with business and little to do with freedom or democracy. I can see Eddie's points in the remainder.

Regardless of personal opinion though Kurt's piece captures an essential, and ugly, essence of what patriotism *can* be warped too. In that regards, to me, it's as valuable as Pericles funeral speech. We pat ourselves on the back and say "not us" at our peril.

Tim C.

From:

And as an additional point totally off topic I'm beginning to wonder whether, in matters of foreign policy, the first domestic faction to send US soldiers abroad and get them killed wins, owning the trump hand of "their sacrafice will not be in vain", "cut and run" and "stay the course" cards in a full house arrangement.

I never understood how it was automatically assumed to be patriotic they who cause the deaths and wounding of thousands of US soldiers "just because", not necessarily on the current effort alone, but moreso in consideration of the legacy of JFK, Johnson and Nixon.

Tim C.

From:

I think you captured more of the essence than I even intended. I cannot argue for war never being required -- just that many implementations, if not most, have been petty - and I don't strictly speak of the US/"Allies" take on things.

From:

I heard many Vets for Peace protesting that same argument before the war.

I don't think we'll ever get over that trump card. Perhaps Kerry's argument, "how do you ask someone to die for a mistake?" might be used next time. But I'm afraid that we'll just have a bunch of blowahards rant about appeasement and bluster about "standing firm"

From:

Here's a link to my LJ the night before we attacked Iraq:

http://chapel-of-words.livejournal.com/26097.html

In it I posed the question: "Were the 50,000 lives lost in Vietnam worth it to prove that the "potential dangers" of the domino theory were incorrect?" Sadly the person I was asking wasn't aware of the domino theory of Vietnam...so yes...I do wager that 30 years from now we'll be having the same conversations.

The massacare of the english language is not happening at the hands of immigrants, but by the neo-cons. Appeasement, diplomacy, amnesty - somedays I want to hand these folks a dictionary so at least we can agree on terms.

Tim C.

From:

"The pay grades in the military are a separate issue ..."

Which I was not referring to when I mentioned persons of the lower economic strata. I was referring to the fact that the military is primarily composed of lower class persons who see the military as either "a good job" or as a step in getting "a good job". For the most part, persons of privlege do not go into the military. The volunteer army is not truly reflective of the diversity of the US.

From:

I don't wholeheartedly agree (as I understand there is a good chunk of middle class already in the armed forces). But a draft wouldn't change that as many of the means of avoiding the draft (college etc.) are a direct reflection of economic standards.

The reason I brought up pay grades is that it would allow the military to be a transformative vehicle not just for American institutions but economic classes. Plus a higher pay grade might increase interest from others. I know I bowed out of joining the Georgia National Guard in 2000 when I realized that simply going to boot camp alone would cost me $5k out of pocket, and I didn't have the savings to pay those bills.

What would you think about an automatic 'war tax', levied any time Congress passed an act of war? It's not so much about revenue generation than it is ensuring the *other* 99% of the country joins in some form of sacrafice when we ask our armed services to do the same? We're past the point, barring long term wars of attrition or invasion, where we need to save scraps of metal or go on food rationing. But the necessity of a society to join in the sacrafice, perhaps through a tax, still seems a good option for me.

Tim C.

From:

-I don't wholeheartedly agree (as I understand there is a good chunk of middle class already in the armed forces).

I'm not sure where that figure is being drawn from. Do you mean that military pay elevates soldiers into the middle class? I'll give you that.

Or do you mean that middle class folks join to serve in enlisted ranks? I doubt that. Every study I've seen has reported that the ranks of enlisted are overwhelmingly made up of the poor, lower class and minorities.

-But a draft wouldn't change that as many of the means of avoiding the draft (college etc.) are a direct reflection of economic standards...

Actually, Bush the elder issued an Executive Order that stated that college enlistment would no longer defer one from military service if one was called upon to serve. Before that being in college allowed you to not be shipped to overseas deployments if you were in the reserves. He did that mainly to pull the reserves (which was mostly composed of college students) into Desert Shield. I know. I was one.

-What would you think about an automatic 'war tax', levied any time Congress passed an act of war?

That's a decent start. But I'd rather see us get rid of the standing army and have quasi-local, but nationalized, militias composed of conscripted recruits.

I believe that *every* single U.S. citizen has an obligation to provide this country with two years of service, (either military or social) upon graduating High School.

I think that there should be an element to allow for different types of service, i.e. Peace Corps & AmeriCorps in addition to the Marine Corps. As well as differing terms of service 2 years for active duty, vs. 6 years of reserve, etc.

And as to the language- I hate how many people have come to see citizenship as nothing but rights and little to no obligations.

From:

>Or do you mean that middle class folks join to serve in enlisted ranks? I >doubt that. Every study I've seen has reported that the ranks of enlisted >are overwhelmingly made up of the poor, lower class and minorities.

"Overwhelmingly made up" to me indicates a 75% or at least 60%...which would be an impressive recruitment rate given the lower graduation and GED rates of poor and lower class which are disqualifiers for most service (ask me again when Rumsfield eliminates that standard). There are stats for both sides, NPP and Heritage seem to have recent competing studies (not vouching for the validity of either as I haven't read them).

But my guess is if you look at ALL five armed services you'll get a bell curve roughly equivilant with proporitionate population groups. There may be regional variations and/or branch specific variations in recruiting patterns but I'm pretty confident the bulk of the bell would fall in the upper-lower class, middle class, and a small segment of the upper class. Abject conditions of poverty do not breed the preconditions (felony free record and/or GED/highschool graduation) needed for typical recruitment. Not saying that may not be getting smudged these days as they're tight for troops.

>Actually, Bush the elder issued an Executive Order that stated that >college enlistment would no longer defer one from military service if one >was called upon to serve.

In these days any draft bill would be so laden with amendments and provisions before it got passed by Congress that I wouldn't be suprised if college was still excepted you AND there was $5m for a freeway in Alaska tucked into it by the time it was done. =)

>That's a decent start. But I'd rather see us get rid of the standing army >and have quasi-local, but nationalized, militias composed of conscripted >recruits.

I think we'll have to fundamentally disagree there. I believe the states should maintain their militias (which pre Iraq were often better equipped) while the US maintains a standing armed force (which is always better trained but not always as well equipped). It's a check/balance. The US military model is to pay exhorbiantly for technology and training in tradeoff for a reduction of casualty and duration of war (a model that Iraq may turn on its head). I do think we have put too heavy a burden on the armed forces (standing & reserve) by fighting a three front war facing the opening of an additional front potentially in Korea.

>I believe that *every* single U.S. citizen has an obligation to provide >this country with two years of service, (either military or social) upon >graduating High School.

I go as far as the voluntary enlistment act - we pay for college, you serve your two years (domestic/foreign civic/military) active six years reserve after graduation compensation model. If you can't get into college to begin with (bad grades, no money etc.) you serve first and we automatically enroll you during/afterwards. I can deal with that. I also think we should drop the don't ask and allow what gays are willing to openly serve, and bring women into most combat roles (Israel has had success here and the distinction between combat/non combat roles is meaningless in places like Iraq anyways).

But the utility of conscription is too low. You get marginal perceived equalization of sharing the burden for, in my opinion, too high a cost in reduced morale, limited training and desire of the soldiers we employ. I'm not going to make a blanket statement - but my belief is that citizen armies trump auxuliry armies, and professional standing citizen armies trump levied citizen armies. There's probably examples back and forth, just my gut instinct.

And thanks for your service btw.

Tim C.

From:

Granted this is just anecedotal, but I can tell you from my service that almost everyone I served with was from a lower-middle class background. I know there are academic studies that show pretty much the same thing, and I'll try to dig them up in the next day or three. But the military is absolutely *not* representative of the population as a whole.

For example, during the Gulf War over 50 percent of front-line troops were black. Overall, over 30 percent of enlisted personnel are African-American, while they are only 10% of the US population. That's what a 2-2 1/2 x over-representation by Blacks in the military?

You are correct in mentioning the military being a way to advance one's status, because overall 12 percent of officers are people of color. But that's no where near the 30% rate of the enlisted ranks. Officers- closer to the general population; enlisted - not so much.

And according to a news report I read on one of the peace and freedom sites I was visiting a few months ago, when recent studies showed a slight dip in young African-Americans' (disproportionately high) interest in the military, the Pentagon reacted with a new ad campaign targeting blacks.

They're also targeting Latino youth with special Spanish-language ads.

This is a good resource -http://www.veteransforpeace.org/speakers.htm#

I wish I could post a few more academic sources, but I don't have time to search for detailed

I most likely overspoke when I said eliminate the standing army. I do believe that we should have a corps of professional soldiers that can serve as the backbone of the military. But I think our current military is way too large.

If it were smaller, then I doubt you see fools thinking that they can engage it on wars of choice for dubious means. We have the most advanced military of any nation. I do not think that any country could stand up to us in a war. And unfortunately, that can lead us into acting in an arrogant and ill-thought out manner.

A smaller military means that we would be limited in only acting in defense or in unision with our allies in matters that concern the UN.

But like you said, thank god for Portugal...

From:

If you wish to jump so broadly, you are freely given the space.

From:

My sincere thanks for the space. But as it's yours to give, if I've jumped too broadly I'm happy to be shown the context I jumped over.

From:

Because you're always gracious, even in the face of snide come-backs (*innocent blink*)...
even with the examples above, which cases would not working to "reduce the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and all mankind"? Sure, a flowery abstract in some ways, but is this a case of projecting motive onto, say, just the US of A in his statement?

And do you consider Vonnegut ignorant of the events of WWII, having actually been in it?

I find this phrasing perfectly apt in a war I consider to be irresponsible at best, and selfishly fraudulent as the most likely scenario (as the prime push, as this onion has many layers, and most of them stink).

From: