War In Iraq And The Supporters

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
1

I was watching MSNBC last night and a commentator at the University of Missouri was interviewing a group of college students most had Kerry signs and some had Bush signs. He was being friendly about it and teased them about being rich kids and not having to go to war and then he asked for a Bush supporter to come forward.

A girl came forward and he asked he if she supported the war. She said she did, he asked he if women should be allowed to serve in the war, and she said they should.

Then he asked her if she was going to join the military. She said it was a “loaded” question. He asked her again and she said “no”.

What strikes me as ironic is that when I was in Iraq with my Guard unit and got home in May I saw so many people under the age of 32 saying they believe in the war and support it and think it was the right thing to do. But why is it that my Guard unit is now a third of the size it used to be an we are having such a hard time finding recruits?

If according to polls more than half of America thinks it was the right thing to do then where are all the supporters lining up at the recruiters office?

Also adults who talk the whole “big” war talk and have children under the age of 32, how many of them would be willing to convince their children to sign up? I personally feel we need to bring back the draft. Of course no politician who is President would dare consider this action because it would be politcial suicide. But if so many American support it then why aren’t they putting actions to their words?

I would like to see a survey where one question at the beginning is “do you support the war in Iraq” followed near the end with a question “would you join to go fight” I think we would see a sudden switch in opinion.

I am not for the war but I did it and am glad it is over, well until I probably get called up again but I do despise the hypocrisy that I see across America, if you are opposed to abortions you say so and do not get them, if you support a law you follow it, if you voice your support for a war then you should put your views, beliefs into action.

2

I personally feel we need to bring back the draft.

You personally feel?

The draft is slavery. Do you support slavery?

3

The draft is slavery? so if we get invaded and there are not enough people to defend ourselves with our small military we should just put our hands up and surrender?

4

From the 9/30/04 Washington Times:

The U.S. Army, which has done some of the toughest and longest fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, has met its recruiting and retention goals for active-duty soldiers in the fiscal year that ends today.

The Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also achieved those goals at a time when the 1.4-million-person armed forces is under intense deployment pressures because of the global war on terrorism.

The Army did suffer setbacks in the government’s fiscal 2004. The National Guard will miss its recruiting goal of 56,000. It had signed up only 43,827 by Aug. 31. Critics say frequent call-ups and 12-month deployments are driving prospects away, but the Army cites the fact that more soldiers are being kept on active duty, which means they are not available for Guard recruiters.

On the retention front, both the Guard and Army reserves will miss targets slightly — by 1 percent and 3 percent, respectively, the Army projects.

But overall, the Army brass say they are pleased at 100 percent-plus retention rates for enlisted active-duty soldiers, especially in its 10 active-combat divisions, which have seen some of the bloodiest combat in Iraq cities such as Najaf, Baghdad and Sammara. The goal of retaining 56,100 will be exceeded by about 800 soldiers.

On new recruits heading to basic training, the target of 77,000 was exceeded 10 days ago by a margin of 47 inductees.

…

The Marine Corps, whose amphibious units have fought in Afghanistan and patrol the notorious Anbar Province in Iraq, says it is on track to meet a goal of 36,773 recruits this fiscal year.

The Air Force three months ago exceeded a goal of retaining 55 percent of first-termers, garnering 68 percent. In fact, the branch is 20,000 over its budget-authorized personnel strength and is transferring some airmen to the Army.

Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens attributed the sign-up rate to patriotism, the civilian job market and job satisfaction.

    “These are all trends we are seeing,” she said.

Edgar Castillo, spokesman for Air Force Recruit Services at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, said the branch actually is slashing accessions from 34,080 this year to 24,000 next year.

    “There are people right now that want to join that we can’t accommodate,” Mr. Castillo said.

The Navy will meet its marker of 39,700 enlisted recruits, as it has for every year in recent memory, except 1998. The branch might miss the goal for 11,000 new naval reservists, partly because active duty retention rates are so high the pool of available recruits is shrinking for certain skills.

Only in the National Guard and Reserves is recruitment down. Apparently people are wiling to put their money where their mouth is…

5

From the 9/30/04 Washington Times:

Only in the National Guard and Reserves is recruitment down.  Apparently people are wiling to put their money where their mouth is…

Um that article was based upon pure numbers this year alone. Recruting goals for each year is also based upon Delayed Entry program who sign up for up a year early who make up a bulk of each year’s recruitment goals. Problem is that that the active duty units made THIS year’s goals but are going to be especially hard next year because the majority of delayed entry recruit is significantly smaller than the past two years.:\

Also the Government has approved a temporary increase of 40,000 more active duty soldiers. If next year there will be a huge exodus of active duty soldiers and they barely made this year’s recruitment goals how does the math work out?

If you lose 50,000 this year and next and need to replace them how will you add 40,000 more on top of that loss? The graph below explains what I mean, the total recruiting goals are mostly met by delay entry recruits.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/1…cruit_graph.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/01recruit.html

6

As for the draft, I certainly can’t say it any better than Ayn Rand did:

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst.  It is an abrogation of rights.  It negates man’s fundamental right- the right to life- and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle.  Once that principle is accepted the rest is only a matter of time

…

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.”  Obligations, to whom? -  and imposed, by whom?  Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

…

Politically the draft is clearly unconstitutional.  No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”

A volunteer army is the only proper, moral- and practical- way to defend a free country.  Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked?  Yes- if he values his own rights and freedom.  A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression.  Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army- an army of men who know what they are fighting for- is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population the right to the lives of the country’s young men.  But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it.  But neither will they fight for long if drafted…(2)If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizen neither share not understand, it will not find many volunteers.  Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of the peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or project on the part of the country’s own government.

To read more check out the full essay “The Wreckage of the Consensus” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

7

I do despise the hypocrisy that I see across America, if you are opposed to abortions you say so and do not get them, if you support a law you follow it, if you voice your support for a war then you should put your views, beliefs into action.

If I understand your “logic” correctly, if I support an individual’s right to have an abortion, then I am obligated to have one myself or be labeled a hypocrite.

There are lots of ways to support a war. Signing up to fight is only one of them. Some of us choose to support it in other ways, like writing essays and letters to the editor, or by educating people through forums like this one.

8

The draft is slavery? so if we get invaded and there are not enough people to defend ourselves with our small military we should just put our hands up and surrender?

Yep. Or die fighting. Or flee, if you can.

9

The draft is slavery? so if we get invaded and there are not enough people to defend ourselves with our small military we should just put our hands up and surrender?

Yes. It is the same as if you are personally attacked and just stand there, well what do you expect?

10

If I understand your “logic” correctly, if I support an individual’s right to have an abortion, then I am obligated to have one myself or be labeled a hypocrite.

There are lots of ways to support a war.  Signing up to fight is only one of them.  Some of us choose to support it in other ways, like writing essays and letters to the editor, or by educating people through forums like this one.

Or: if you oppose crime, you are therefore obliged to become a policeman?

If we adequately compensated our men in arms and fully supported our military, we would not have any trouble attracting enough volunteers.

Fred Weiss

11

The draft is slavery? so if we get invaded and there are not enough people to defend ourselves with our small military we should just put our hands up and surrender?

The only reason we wouldn’t have enough people is if the country wasn’t worth defending. Remember most of us here value our lives. If we were actually under threat of invasion I personally would see the value of fighting with the army as opposed to fighting on my doorstep or surrendering my rights.

12

As the reality of a threat increases so does the urgency to defend yourself and thus so does your willingess to defend yourself.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is far less of a real threat to American’s than “Operaition American Freedom”. If Iraq war was sold and labeld as the latter, there would be more support, including more volunteers to actually fight.

If America is attacked directly so that each American life is facing the prospect of death or slavery, then all that is needed is for the citizens to accept the undeniable reality of the situation and value their life enough to fight for it.

To me, the only concievable explanation of a country lacking volunteers when it is directly attacked is that either they don’t value their lives, or they are too stupid to see that they are facing death. In either case, they deserve what they get.

13

I don’t know how relevant this is considering it is from WW2 and WW1 (more WW1) but when France and Britain were attacked in each of these wars there was a draft but there was no question about whether or not you would comply with the draft because your home was in danger and so was your family. There might have been a few cases of people who refused to join but the major consensus was that people joined the army in massive numbers.

The difference here is that we are invading another country. Although we were attacked there is no real threat to our lives and Americans understand this. If Americans felt that their lives/families were in danger then they would do what was necessary to defend them either by leaving or fighting. Clearly the majority doesn’t feel threatened or there would be a large amount going into the army.

Drafting people to fight a war in another country that doesn’t directly concern us ridiculous. The only reason the draft should be used is if our country is in direct danger.

14

Drafting people to fight a war in another country that doesn’t directly concern us ridiculous. The only reason the draft should be used is if our country is in direct danger.

The Draft is immoral under any circumstance. Draft is slavery. It should not be used even if the country faces direct danger. We have no right to make unwilling people scapegoats to defend the country.

15

The Draft is immoral under any circumstance. Draft is slavery. It should not be used even if the country faces direct danger. We have no right to make unwilling people scapegoats to defend the country.

I understand what you mean here and i almost agree but if our country was in direct danger and the army was not getting the forces necessary to defend our borders or even the cities themselves then shouldn’t the country be able to call upon it’s citizens? I read somewhere in here that citizens support in other ways but only so many letters can be written and only so many weapons can be made, eventually people must fire those guns too.

Still I doubt that situation will ever occur in my lifetime so I really don’t see the point in arguing this any longer.

16

I understand what you mean here and i almost agree but if our country was in direct danger and the army was not getting the forces necessary to defend our borders or even the cities themselves then shouldn’t the country be able to call upon it’s citizens? I read somewhere in here that citizens support in other ways but only so many letters can be written and only so many weapons can be made, eventually people must fire those guns too.

Still I doubt that situation will ever occur in my lifetime so I really don’t see the point in arguing this any longer.

The country can request its citizens, not force them. If people are directly threatened such that their own existence is in danger, then they will definitely fight for their lives. An alternative option is to surrender.

How can it be moral for a country to force its citizens with all their dreams and aspirations to die or be crippled for life even in direct danger?

17

The country can request its citizens, not force them. If people are directly threatened such that their own existence is in danger, then they will definitely fight for their lives. An alternative option is to surrender.

How can it be moral for a country to force its citizens with all their dreams and aspirations to die or be crippled for life even in direct danger?

I love this concept of an ideal country. What happens when it is invaded and everyone decides that they don’t feel like fighting so that the country has to surrender? The invading country really wont care about the dreams and aspirations of the conquered people. Japan didn’t care about the aspirations of the Chinese citizens during WW2 and you know what happened there.

It would be great if we could lay down, declare peace and expect others to respect that but that isn’t being reasonable.

It isn’t the best movie but I always like to think that Red Dawn is a semi-accurate portrayal of what Americans would do if an invading force came on American soil.

18

This is totaly unrealistic. No enemy Army can touch American soil without it’s own population being whiped out by a nuclear counter-attack.

Let’s just pretend this was out of the equation. If we do not have enough soldiers to win then the few people who did volunteer should fight the enemy to the death in an effort to make it so bloody for the enemy that he is unwilling to persue the campaign any further.

Once they gain a few victories the volunteers will swell.

19

I empathize with the central thrust of CarlVJack’s post: people who say they support a particular war ought to be ready – and happy – to enlist.

I also agree that a draft is wrong because it forces those who disagree with the war to go and fight.

Somtimes I fantasize that for a “non-emergency” war like Iraq the US should go only if a referendum of able-bodied adults says “yes”. And having said so, all those who say “yes” should be obligated to obey a call to arms.

That ought to send people running from their ivory towers.

20

Somtimes I fantasize that for a “non-emergency” war like Iraq the US should go only if a referendum of able-bodied adults says “yes”. And having said so, all those who say “yes” should be obligated to obey a call to arms.

That ought to send people running from their ivory towers.

This is along the same lines as has been discussed in this thread. As someone in this thread already said, in occordance to following this principle, if one opposed crime would be be obligated to become a policeman? Since when has lending moral support equated to lending actual physical support in Iraq? Everyone here supports the war intellectually, but what are the grounds that equate this to an obligation to fight?