<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 6/2/2004 1:20:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dhenwood@panix.com writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>All these draft-is-coming-back arguments ignore at least two <BR>important points: 1) the conscript army of the Vietnam era was a <BR>disaster as a fighting force (see the piece quoted below), and 2) the <BR>risk of political backlash would be enormous, the best recruiting <BR>assistance the antiwar movement could ever ask for.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV>Right.  Somebody tell me where Levich answers the argument that conscripted troops would probably revolt, use and sell drugs, commit worse atrocities than the thugs at Abu Ghraib, be easily defeated, and spur unprecedented anti-war protests.  In the face of historical facts, Levich's article does seem paranoid and hyperbolic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems far more likely to me that the ruling class is throwing out occasional references to the draft in order to get more support for the current militarization drive, and in general to move the war conversation, bit by bit, further to the right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The people to fear and fight back in this conversation are not the militaristic neocons, but the "communitarian" centrists and liberals who see military service as a civic duty.  But they'll never convince the Pentagon that draft would be anything short of a military disaster.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And don't forget the troop revolts that occurred immediately after world war 2...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>stannard</DIV></BODY></HTML>