Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Ustwo · 09-17-2004, 09:14 AM

I found this to be a very interesting article about why a draft would be bad for the poor. I don't agree with everything 100% but the logic seems sound.

Quote:

When faced with a dangerous situation, what may seem like a proper response at the time may turn out to be one of the worst decisions one can make. The idea of a “Universal Draft” seems to be a sane reaction to a terrible situation, but is it? From first appearances, it appears to be a fair and just solution to help share the burden of military service during times of war that is disproportionately placed on poor and middle class U.S. citizens (especially in Black and Brown communities). Yet, a slightly deeper analysis of the concept of a Universal Draft will easily demonstrate that the ‘negatives’ outweigh the ‘benefits.’

The argument laid forth by Congressman Rangel, in his many interviews on TV and print, is that poor Blacks, Hispanics and rural area Whites should not serve so disproportionately in the ranks of the military and that those from the ‘upper classes’ should also serve, especially during times of war. His belief is that a mandatory draft would correct this imbalance and would make citizens who support war and politicians who commit citizens to such actions more thoughtful about sending U.S. military to brave hostilities if there sons or daughters faced service as well. Mr. Rangel has also made it clear that the draft would not be just for military service, it could also fall under numerous service projects such as guarding U.S. ports, borders, etc.

Although this seems like a great idea, this line of thinking has many inherent problems. First, there is an issue of democracy and representation. Reinstating a draft, while nearly 50% of the population believes that the current hostilities in Iraq should end and that the U.S. should have never invaded Iraq at all means that much of the populous is being ignored. (New York Times, 2004) If the increasing opinion, held by many U.S. citizens, continues to support removal of troops out of Iraq, who would the draft benefit?

The assertion that the draft would correct racial and economic imbalances that exist in the military is a false one. Although each individual is different, countless studies have demonstrated that those with higher social, economic and political status will, on average, score higher on placement exams than those with lower social, economic and political status.

The military’s objective, as it should be, is to place the most skilled and qualified person into a field or specialty. Therefore, those who have had the benefit of a quality education and supportive infrastructures that can often be found lacking in poorer environments can expect to be placed in safer and more satisfying positions. Further, if Rep. Rangel’s claims that all of those drafted will not necessarily serve in the military, but where they are needed, then the gates are open for those with higher skills, talents and abilities to avoid military service and be placed in a professional or semi-professional status elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who do not have the advantage that high social, economic and political status brings can find themselves in the same disproportionate numbers in combat roles and menial positions. If they are fortunate enough to be spared military service and have to serve in another capacity, what type of work will it be?

Therefore, what advantage or equal treatment can those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds expect to have when up against individuals who have had sufficient or superior instruction and facilities at their disposal to help them to reach their potential? What happens when the 24 year old working at Burger King goes ‘head to head’ against the 24 year old accountant when their numbers come up and assignments are handed out? The answer is obvious and the proposed draft instituted to bring about fairness would create the same inequitable arrangement, however now it’s more deadly due to the seriousness of the service called for.

At this point, according to the US Army, they have already met their “6 month goal” for recruitment in 2004. (Associated Press, 2004) If that is the case, why is the threat of a draft being increasingly offered as a measure to shore up the military’s numbers? Is there a foreseeable drop in volunteers that is forecasted for the future? Is there an expected conflict that the U.S. plans to enter or expects to be drawn into that will require more soldiers than the military can recruit during the next few years?

Although there are disparities that exist in terms of those from poor and underprivileged backgrounds serving in the military, especially in combat conditions, creating a draft will not lessen that fact. It is this author’s contention that it will make it worse. Realistically, serving in the military as it stands now is voluntary, the soldiers coming from underprivileged or poor backgrounds on active duty now made the commitment willingly to serve. If service becomes mandatory, those who are drafted from lower social, economic and political backgrounds will no longer have the choice to volunteer, but will instead be forced to comply. This would also result in higher numbers from these groups than were already serving in the first place.

Let’s be honest, the only benefit that is obvious from reinstating the draft is giving the Bush administration or any future “highly aggressive administration” muscle and cannon fodder for their war aims. It also provides cheap, exploitable labor not only from those that hail from disadvantaged communities, but from society as a whole. At a time when many disagree with the Bush administration’s foreign policy and in some cases are terrified of his administration’s next foreign policy moves, what sense does a universal draft make?

None!

http://www.globalblacknews.com/universaldraftpart2.html