A Peaceful Call to Arms?
The New York Times today printed an opinion piece
by Paul Kane, who is described as: "a
Marine who served in Iraq and a fellow at the Kennedy
School of Government, [who] is writing a book about national
service and sacrifice." I found the article by following a
link from the new blog, Manging
the Atom: Iran News.
I also tried to reassure myself myself by remembering that Bush promised, I think during the third debate, that he would not institute a draft. I knew, though, that such a promise is worth nothing. In the current Administration, war seems to be an all-purpose excuse.
Resurrecting the draft is a terrible idea. The only way it could contribute to peace is if it so enraged the population that people would threaten an uprising or a general strike in response to the draft. Kane is right about one thing. The American public does need to be prepared for a clash of colossal proportions. But the clash would be a clash between sensible persons, who see that Iran still does not have the capacity to threaten us, and a subset of sensless persons who fail to see that we cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
To add a little of that most unwelcome spice -- nuance -- I would add that there is a difference between maintaining a credible deterrence, and actually preparing for war. The question is, where is the line between the two?
A Peaceful Call to ArmsLast year, when I first noticed the propaganda that seemed to be preparing the US public for war with Iran, one of my first thoughts was 'There would have to be a draft. The American Public would not stand for that.' I suppose I was trying to reassure myself.
By PAUL KANE
Published: April 20, 2006
THE American public needs to be prepared for what is shaping up to be a clash of colossal proportions between the West and Iran.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt masterfully prepared Americans before the United States entered World War II by initiating a peacetime draft under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
Now, President Bush and Congress should reinstitute selective service under a lottery without any deferments.
This single action will send a strong message to three constituencies in the crisis over Iran's nuclear intentions — Iran, outside powers like China and Russia and Americans at home — and perhaps lead to a peaceful resolution. [...]
I also tried to reassure myself myself by remembering that Bush promised, I think during the third debate, that he would not institute a draft. I knew, though, that such a promise is worth nothing. In the current Administration, war seems to be an all-purpose excuse.
Resurrecting the draft is a terrible idea. The only way it could contribute to peace is if it so enraged the population that people would threaten an uprising or a general strike in response to the draft. Kane is right about one thing. The American public does need to be prepared for a clash of colossal proportions. But the clash would be a clash between sensible persons, who see that Iran still does not have the capacity to threaten us, and a subset of sensless persons who fail to see that we cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
To add a little of that most unwelcome spice -- nuance -- I would add that there is a difference between maintaining a credible deterrence, and actually preparing for war. The question is, where is the line between the two?
(Note: The Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
posted by : Joseph j7uy5 at 4/20/2006 06:28:00 PM
:
Joseph j7uy5
<< Home