B. wrote:
"Strategic or not, I don't support the state proposing forced conscription, whether it's to get folks "to see a point about war" or not. Abraham Lincoln said that anyone who supported slavery ought to be the first to offer themselves as slaves. I think the same with war in Iraq or anywhere else. The cheerleaders should be the first to go. Later on, the article Julio posted does mention something like that. "
Me: Yes, I know in reality the Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time maneuver to undermine the South's offensive, and don't hold Lincoln in high regard. Still, if I he said what I quoted above, I agree with it. I'm sure others on less morally impeachable grounds have also said it, so replace his name with theirs if you like.
J. Tyler wrote:
"Even though I most closely identify with anarchism, I have no problem with instituting a draft, absent any exemptions that would statistically favor the middle and upper classes. Simultaneously, I have no problem supporting resistance to said draft by working class people (which would be rampant). In other words, I would be the first to offer myself as a 'slave' and then also the first to overtly resist said 'slavery.'"
Me: I have a problem with the US employing physical, state coercion to force folks into boot camps to train them to kill. Maybe a formalized state draft would inspire resistance. That's certainly a heck of a way to do it.
On the other hand, what if it didn't? Wow would that suck. We'd have adraft, yay. I'm not so optimistic that the already fairly jingoist American public might not rally behind it as a new kind of nat'l renaissance of power. I don't have a crystal ball, and don't know what it would inspire in people, except maybe to end the same draft they'd supported. But -- not necessarily the war. Seems a roundabout way to about getting achieving a goal.
-B.