Re: [A-List] US and UK Imperialism: Conscription Ahead

["Doug Dowd" <aplusd@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Michael:  To which I would add that, as part of the Steering Committee
of the Mobe from its inception to its demise, I am at one with others on
that same commitee that it was the draft resistance movement that provided
our main strength once we began and the end of the draft which accompanied
our demise -- while the war was continuing.  No coincidence there.
I am all against war and all in favor of the military draft.  Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Keaney <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] US and UK Imperialism: Conscription Ahead


> Conscription is one of the solutions proffered by Chalmers Johnson in
> "Blowback". His argument is that it is because of the professionalisation
of
> the US military that the adventurist tendencies among the civilian
staffers
> in the Pentagon are allowed freer rein, while the uniforms get to indulge
> their techno-fantasies.
>
> It's a lame proposition, but it's one that is taken very seriously by
people
> in Europe. In Germany, for example, conscription is considered to be one
of
> the major brakes on German adventurism, and traditionally has been viewed
by
> the Social Democrats as an obstacle to the reformation of anything
> equivalent to the Prussian officer elite that led the country to disaster
> twice last century. Similarly, Finnish neutrality is easier to maintain
(at
> least in theory) if all young Finnish men have to spend some time doing
> military service. Conscription must be viewed as a contributory factor to
> the waning of support for the Vietnam war -- the actions of George W. Bush
> and J. Danforth Quayle say all that need to be said in this respect.
>
> All of which is to say, conscription would create its own deeply
problematic
> political consequences and force a greater number of US citizens to look
> more closely at the consequences of US foreign policy, and hence the
causes.
> Politically speaking, it could be deeply counterproductive in the
> not-so-long run.
>
> Presumably the powers-that-be are aware of this and would be reluctant to
go
> down this road. The veneer of voluntarism serves as a useful cover for the
> undoubted use of incentives that characterises the present recruitment
> method, and it would be very dangerous to dispense with it. Far better to
> squeeze, wherever possible, fellow "coalition" members for more manpower
> whilst tapping the growing (but also more unpredictable) private security
> firms for additional personnel.
>
> Michael Keaney
>
>