>From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The Return of the Draft
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:13:40 -0700
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The Return of the Draft
>
>
>|All these draft-is-coming-back arguments ignore at least two
>|important points: 1) the conscript army of the Vietnam era was a
>|disaster as a fighting force (see the piece quoted below),
>
>
>so is today's all volunteer (and lots of mercenaries) military. tillman's
>unsurprising death by friendly fire surely is the tip of the iceberg.
>since so much of the military is being privatized, i'm lead to believe
>today's army of one is useful for cannon fodder and that's about it.
>
>i strongly doubt Hienl's article is representative of all thinking about
>the
>vietnam era military. anyone know his background? his opinions contrast
>mightily with David Hackworth, members of special forces, et al. he does
>allude to a fact which apparently gets lost in this small quote: political
>wars are devastating to morale. the drugs and whores intended to placate
>troops destroyed their character. fragging was largely a reaction to
>incompetent, arrogant, stupid officers playing war while jeopardizing
>troops' lives in a pointless war. the problem wasn't the troops; it was
>the
>leadership, in vietnam and washington, dc. does Hienl say anything about
>this?
>
>how many LBOers remember the move toward unionizing the military toward the
>end of the vietnam war? the result of drafting college and post grad
>students who decided it would be fun to turn the military inside out. they
>would have succeeded had the war not ended.
>
>
>|and 2) the
>|risk of political backlash would be enormous, the best recruiting
>|assistance the antiwar movement could ever ask for.
>
>i wouldn't be so quick to overestimate today's youth. this may provide a
>galvanizing force, a hoped for result of a draft. and it may not. as
>barnam said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
>american public. patriotic fanatasies die hard in this most nationalistic
>of countries.
>
>in any event, there's no reason to assume our "law makers" ever use reason
>in their decisions. particularly the empire and religious fanatics of the
>shrub group. what would be conveyed to the american people, if they have
>the courage to face it, is one more example of how the powers that be have
>utterly no respect for them. one thing i believe we can count on is a
>draft
>is coming.
>
>one of the interesting rumors about the possible draft is that plans
>include
>having Homeland Security, that great oxymoron, close the canadian border as
>much as possible so draft age men and women cannot get across unless they
>know wilderness survival, or are part of some kind of underground rail road
>yet to be developed.
>
>i believe your perspective is too citified and too intellectual, doug.
>
>R
>
>
>|Doug
>
><http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html>
>
>THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
>
>By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
>North American Newspaper Alliance
>Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971
>
>[...]
>
>THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces
>are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime
>in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.
>
>By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam
>is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or
>having _refused_ combat, murdering their officers and non
>commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near
>mutinous.
>
>Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk