[Peace-discuss] ron paul, teabaggers, and some of their best friends

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're right about the mutiny, and that's why the Pentagon doesn't want the 
draft back. It much prefers mercenaries, whether working-class (enlistees) or 
petit-bourgeois (Blackwater, etc.).

The Obama administration has avoided publicizing the large number of mercenaries 
of the second type who are fighting its war in AfPak.  Obama in fact has more 
military of both types in the Middle East than Bush ever did. But that's to be 
kept quiet, too.  His supporters acquiesce and say, "He really wants peace."

Of course he does.  Everyone does - on their own terms.  The invasions of Russia 
and Vietnam - twenty years part in the mid 20th century were both in pursuit of 
peace, and Obama's ongoing invasion of the Mideast is not really different. 
(Obama needs the presence of terrorism to justify his military depredations, 
where the former two used communism for that purpose.)

I'd argue that the American anti-war movement of the 1980s (no draft) was more 
effective than the similar movement of the 1960s (with the draft).  When the 
Reagan administration came to office in 1981 it wanted to put troops into Latin 
America as the the Kennedy administration had put them into SE Asia 20 years 
before.  (The Reagan administration consciously modeled itself on the Kennedy 
administration across the board.)

But it was prevented from doing so by the "Vietnam syndrome" - popular 
opposition - so the Reagan war policy in LA was forced underground (where it was 
still as murderous as Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon in Vietnam).  It was opposed by a 
vigorous  (and largely church-based) antiwar movement.  Reagan didn't dare 
revive the draft because - as a Vietnam-vet/bar tender I knew said, "You can 
walk home from El Salvador."

You may recall that Rep. Rangel suggested your policy in 2003 and in subsequent 
years, introducing legislation that would make all Americans subject to the 
draft up to the age of 42. He didn't get much support.


On 5/5/10 8:25 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Right now, nobody has to register w/ a draft board. Nobody has to worry
> about deferments, nobody has to enlist or reup in the least objectional
> branch b/c the gov't will choose a worse one if they don't (except for the
> poor folks, deluded and otherwise who feel they have no other choice, and
> those caught in stop loss, of course). Trust me: if suddenly everyone betw 18
> and 25 had their nuts (and boobs?) in a noose, then yeah, I think that'd get
> folks' attention and there'd be a whole lotta squawking, whereas now there's
> essentially none.
>
> Vietnam: as I understand it, the rank and file in the military helped to
> bring the war to an end thru mutiny -- and that was certainly
> self-preservation (of their lives, of their mental-physical-moral
> well-being), along w/ a conviction that the war was pointless on top of that.
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Tue, 5/4/10, Anthony Pomonis /<apomonis at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Anthony Pomonis <apomonis at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] ron
> paul, teabaggers, and some of their best friends To: "David Green"
> <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> Cc: "Peace Discuss"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 7:55 PM
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:00 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> </mc/compose?to=davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> "In my opinion, the student antiwar movement of the 1960s (which was part of
> a much larger antiwar movement, including soldiers themselves), was NOT
> motivated by self-interest or even self-preservation." DG
>
>
> Be that as it may, self preservation and self interest are the lasting
> legacies of that time. (/Enter:/ /American Policy Sinc/e) Many positions of
> power are held by those from the era. I think that was Carl's main point.
> Stuart, I love your observation on the tax. All military families I know
> want their children to come home, rhetoric be damned. Anything to come home.
> The best question I can think of is, "How can we as a people learn and
> improve upon historical failure?" We need ideas. --TP
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> </mc/compose?to=galliher at illinois.edu>> *To:* Jenifer Cartwright
> <jencart13 at yahoo.com </mc/compose?to=jencart13 at yahoo.com>> *Cc:* E.Wayne
> Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag </mc/compose?to=ewj at pigs.ag>>; Peace Discuss
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> </mc/compose?to=peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> *Sent:* Tue, May 4, 2010
> 5:51:18 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] ron paul, teabaggers, and some of their best
> friends
>
> "The usual explanations for the difference between then and now won't do.
> The suggestion, for example, that the renewal of a military draft would
> ignite students' self-interest doesn't account for the fact that most
> 60s-era students were sufficiently sheltered from the draft to make their
> chances of seeing combat negligible. Lewis B. Hershey, director of the
> Selective Service until 1970, granted draft deferments to students and some
> white-collar professionals on the reasoning that engineers, scientists, and
> teachers were essential to national security and the war effort. By the time
> the lottery system evened the playing field somewhat in 1969,
> 'Vietnamization' was under way, and the number of combat roles filled by
> American GI's began shrinking."
>
> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Times-They-Changed/65192/
>
>
> On 5/4/10 4:54 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> The only way to get ANY folks out of the woodwork to protest the US's
>> imperialist wars is to reinstate the draft. How 'bout we [peace activists]
>> start a rumor that that's in the works and see what happens? Add that to
>> blogs and picket signs, get talk radio hosts ranting about it. Worth a try
>> :-) -- Jenifer

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.