![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmExcept I'm not a single-issue voter -- rather, I'm arguing that we all are, just that in most cases that issue changes from election to election. I came to this conclusion having to code the 1000 photos of American soldiers who have died in Iraq that was in the New York Times earlier this month. This time around, my issue is Iraq -- which is sort of novel as I've always had to vote before based on my rights to my flesh. Now granted, the fact that Kerry is against the war in some measure makes this easy, as I agree with him on abortion and he the preferrable (if not correct) position on equal marriage rights as far as I am concerned.
But we have _got_ to get out of Iraq, and we've got to do it in the right way (which is not "slowly, gently" I don't think) and it's just absolutely the most pressing thing going on because of the massive debt it's incurred, what it's done to our relationship with our allies, what it's doing to further erode our image in the Islamic world, what it's doing to the soldiers over there and what it's doing to America's perception of its military. It's a big fucking mess, and it's all over everything.
The last time I saw my father, we got into a discussion about whether America should have compulsary military service for all citizens, not just in times of war, but at all times -- sort of like Israel, but I think that's a bad comparison because Israel could be said to be always at war, and the basis of our argument was not the "permanent war on terror" but the role military service and it's expectations have on shaping a society.
My father and his brothers were all in the military, although I don't know much about it. I think at least one brother served in Korea, and I don't know about the other. Korea ended while my dad was in basic in Texas, and after he did his time he used to the G.I. Bill to go to art school. So it's not like we have a military family or anything. None of the children have been military. But it was there to do and they did it for whatever their reasons (there are reams of things that just don't get discussed in my family, often I think because it just never occurs to people to do so).
At any rate, my father thinks it would be not so bad a thing if there was some sort of compulsary service in the U.S. Not a draft for this crap war (that let me remind you again, isn't even a war, and if Congress is supposed to be the ones with the power to declare war, how did we get into this multi-year mess of an action? Somewhere, a check and balance is not working so well methinks), but just in general, and I am inclined to agree with him.
I know a lot of people's first reaction to that is horror. I remember when that was my reaction to it growing up, when a girl in my class with dual citizenship in Israel talked in a panic, as far back as 6th grade, about what she was going to do, because she didn't want to carry a gun, or be in an army and didn't think she could survive basic and didn't want to put off college, etc. and in the end, I don't know what she did.
You can argue that it is wrong for a society to compel its members to do something they find distasteful, object to on moral or religious grounds, or just plain don't want to do. It's a hardship, it's slavery, it's just not fair. And I wouldn't disagree with you there either.
But a society, is to my eyes, like a company (I know, I know corporations are bad, waaaah), is a self-perpetuating orgasnism that must compell its components to ensure its survival, and must do things that other organisms maybe aren't so keen on. What did you have for breakfast?
But all in all, I'm okay with people's moral and religious objections and even with the "but America means freedom and that's not freedom" thing (I would posit that freedom isn't about doing only the shit you want to do when you want to do it, that the idea is both bigger and smaller than that and that we've confused self-reliance and choice with selfishness, laziness and isolation, but there's a rant that encompasses a lot of America's sins including our crap education systems and gated communities that belongs elsewhere (urban planning rant will have to wait for a week)), but if there's anything I hate and I think is a complete falacy it's when I have this conversation with someone and they say, "but I just couldn't bear it."
Yeah, actually you could. Even my pathetic weak little ass could. You wanna know why? Because when push comes to shove, we bear things, and we excell at it, that's what humans do. If compulsary (or even culturally expected) military service had been a part of the fabric of our country for the last twenty, fifty, one-hundred, two-hundred years -- you'd hate it, or you'd fear it, or whatever, but you'd do it, because that's your world. That's the funny thing about people, we adapt, to horror and hardship all the damn time, and while it can be argued that that is a great failing of the human race, that this is what allows us to perpetuate horror and hardship on each other, it's also why we're still here as a species.
When the World Trade Center collapsed, and Rudy Giulliani was asked about the number of dead, he famously said in a press conference, "It will be more than we can bear." It was a beautiful and eloquent thing to say. But we did bear it, as we bear all things.
Which brings me back to the fucked up mess that is our engagement in Iraq. What we're doing to the National Guard there sucks so bad, and it's a mess created by so many things other than our president misleading us into war. We've recruited for the National Guard for decades now on the basis of "you won't really have to go do anything too dangerous and here's money for school" and now we got a bunch of soldiers, who never thought they'd have to do anything like this, over there for these extended tours, families completely at loose ends for it, and it's just insane to me.
Giving soldiers money for college is part of treating our soldiers well -- a debt we owe, and I agree with it. But promoting the National Guard as an extreme sports college scholarship program is just one part of the massive emotional disaster that is Iraq. The National Guard is there to be used, and that its members and their families were ever reassured otherwise in the recruitment process infuriates me.
I think it's a fantastic ideal to have an all-volunteer force (despite all my musing above). How fucking noble, and yes, you get better more enthusiastic soldiers that way. That's the theory anyway. But when that force is recruited through misinformation and simple economic realities (and disparities) something's gone wrong, in a whole lot of places. And now we're stretched to thin, recruitment is way down and we have no-go zones in Iraq, which is just going to make this shit worse, not better when we decide to change that.
I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for or against here. But right now I feel like we have a lot of kids on the ground in Iraq who never expected anything like this and that there are a hell of a lot of people to blame for it. And our culture, that at least in my part of the country, involves being too good or wealthy to go into the military is definitely part of it.
I dunno. I'm frustrated. I don't remember when last I recognized my country.
P.S. -- I will be doing analysis of the debates at my job, which will prevent me from watching the debates in their entirety (I know that seems odd, but just trust me), so I will be writing up stuff here, but it will be incomplete, I will indicate which chunks I've seen though.
But we have _got_ to get out of Iraq, and we've got to do it in the right way (which is not "slowly, gently" I don't think) and it's just absolutely the most pressing thing going on because of the massive debt it's incurred, what it's done to our relationship with our allies, what it's doing to further erode our image in the Islamic world, what it's doing to the soldiers over there and what it's doing to America's perception of its military. It's a big fucking mess, and it's all over everything.
The last time I saw my father, we got into a discussion about whether America should have compulsary military service for all citizens, not just in times of war, but at all times -- sort of like Israel, but I think that's a bad comparison because Israel could be said to be always at war, and the basis of our argument was not the "permanent war on terror" but the role military service and it's expectations have on shaping a society.
My father and his brothers were all in the military, although I don't know much about it. I think at least one brother served in Korea, and I don't know about the other. Korea ended while my dad was in basic in Texas, and after he did his time he used to the G.I. Bill to go to art school. So it's not like we have a military family or anything. None of the children have been military. But it was there to do and they did it for whatever their reasons (there are reams of things that just don't get discussed in my family, often I think because it just never occurs to people to do so).
At any rate, my father thinks it would be not so bad a thing if there was some sort of compulsary service in the U.S. Not a draft for this crap war (that let me remind you again, isn't even a war, and if Congress is supposed to be the ones with the power to declare war, how did we get into this multi-year mess of an action? Somewhere, a check and balance is not working so well methinks), but just in general, and I am inclined to agree with him.
I know a lot of people's first reaction to that is horror. I remember when that was my reaction to it growing up, when a girl in my class with dual citizenship in Israel talked in a panic, as far back as 6th grade, about what she was going to do, because she didn't want to carry a gun, or be in an army and didn't think she could survive basic and didn't want to put off college, etc. and in the end, I don't know what she did.
You can argue that it is wrong for a society to compel its members to do something they find distasteful, object to on moral or religious grounds, or just plain don't want to do. It's a hardship, it's slavery, it's just not fair. And I wouldn't disagree with you there either.
But a society, is to my eyes, like a company (I know, I know corporations are bad, waaaah), is a self-perpetuating orgasnism that must compell its components to ensure its survival, and must do things that other organisms maybe aren't so keen on. What did you have for breakfast?
But all in all, I'm okay with people's moral and religious objections and even with the "but America means freedom and that's not freedom" thing (I would posit that freedom isn't about doing only the shit you want to do when you want to do it, that the idea is both bigger and smaller than that and that we've confused self-reliance and choice with selfishness, laziness and isolation, but there's a rant that encompasses a lot of America's sins including our crap education systems and gated communities that belongs elsewhere (urban planning rant will have to wait for a week)), but if there's anything I hate and I think is a complete falacy it's when I have this conversation with someone and they say, "but I just couldn't bear it."
Yeah, actually you could. Even my pathetic weak little ass could. You wanna know why? Because when push comes to shove, we bear things, and we excell at it, that's what humans do. If compulsary (or even culturally expected) military service had been a part of the fabric of our country for the last twenty, fifty, one-hundred, two-hundred years -- you'd hate it, or you'd fear it, or whatever, but you'd do it, because that's your world. That's the funny thing about people, we adapt, to horror and hardship all the damn time, and while it can be argued that that is a great failing of the human race, that this is what allows us to perpetuate horror and hardship on each other, it's also why we're still here as a species.
When the World Trade Center collapsed, and Rudy Giulliani was asked about the number of dead, he famously said in a press conference, "It will be more than we can bear." It was a beautiful and eloquent thing to say. But we did bear it, as we bear all things.
Which brings me back to the fucked up mess that is our engagement in Iraq. What we're doing to the National Guard there sucks so bad, and it's a mess created by so many things other than our president misleading us into war. We've recruited for the National Guard for decades now on the basis of "you won't really have to go do anything too dangerous and here's money for school" and now we got a bunch of soldiers, who never thought they'd have to do anything like this, over there for these extended tours, families completely at loose ends for it, and it's just insane to me.
Giving soldiers money for college is part of treating our soldiers well -- a debt we owe, and I agree with it. But promoting the National Guard as an extreme sports college scholarship program is just one part of the massive emotional disaster that is Iraq. The National Guard is there to be used, and that its members and their families were ever reassured otherwise in the recruitment process infuriates me.
I think it's a fantastic ideal to have an all-volunteer force (despite all my musing above). How fucking noble, and yes, you get better more enthusiastic soldiers that way. That's the theory anyway. But when that force is recruited through misinformation and simple economic realities (and disparities) something's gone wrong, in a whole lot of places. And now we're stretched to thin, recruitment is way down and we have no-go zones in Iraq, which is just going to make this shit worse, not better when we decide to change that.
I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for or against here. But right now I feel like we have a lot of kids on the ground in Iraq who never expected anything like this and that there are a hell of a lot of people to blame for it. And our culture, that at least in my part of the country, involves being too good or wealthy to go into the military is definitely part of it.
I dunno. I'm frustrated. I don't remember when last I recognized my country.
P.S. -- I will be doing analysis of the debates at my job, which will prevent me from watching the debates in their entirety (I know that seems odd, but just trust me), so I will be writing up stuff here, but it will be incomplete, I will indicate which chunks I've seen though.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 03:18 pm (UTC)Which raises the question -- is that avoidable... anywhere?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 04:20 pm (UTC)Though I'm not certain some of the posters above will like the conclusions.
1: The oath of fealty runs both ways. That so many people feel they owe the Gov't nothing but scorn (and Reagan had a lot to do with that, it may be the most enduring, God forbid, aspect of his tenure) means that those in public service (esp. those who entered for altruism, and get a decent, but not truely commensurate, wage, for what they do) are less than happy with those they are trying to help.
Accepting that one will be underpaid is one thing, being mocked for it, and treated poorly, well it makes one cranky. This sets up a positive feedback loop, and the situation degenerates.
Where a group feels a common obligation to a common end/good, then there is positive feedback in the other direction, and the social network of the civil service improves.
As for National service which works, I can think of two examples, but both are of a single type (military) an homogenous culture(mostly... though with a decided mix, and one is failing, but the failure is noteworthy for what it show of the issue we are discussing) and almost universal acceptance of the need.
In addition both places feel themselves at great risk.
They are... Israel, and Swizterland.
Of the two Switzerland is doing the better job. Service is compulsory (CO status is gainable, but frowned on, and has repercussions in civil life). The Service, while obligatory is not onerous, at least in terms of time. Basic and specialty training, a couple of weeks a year, and it last for the rest of one's adult life. It is one of the warps in the weave of social life. One's fellows are comfortable.
When one is too old for regular service, one moves to a local unit, guarding the town/canton in which one lives. If one pursues rank, it takes more time in a year, but has carryover benefits in the civil world.
Israel: Troubled, mostly because there is a disconnect in the system, it isn't universal. Yeshivot, and the very Orthodox can get out it. That they are paid to go to Yeshiva, and they tend to be those who are most militant in using the Army, as well as living where the Army has to defend them, means those who serve, or whose sons have to serve, are a tad resentful.
The Orthodox are demanding the State care for them, and protect them, but they aren't willing to lift their part of the load.
So far the pressing need (Isreal, while it may be handling it poorly, is under siege) and sense of common identity (the various Swiss are Swiss sort of first, and sort of second, the Israelis seem to be sort of Sabra, and sort of Jew, all at once... even the Goyim) have kept things from falling apart, but the tensions which wracked the US over the draft of the underprivileged (even when those draftees were being, by and large, excluded from Viet-nam) are starting to show in Israel.
With the need for the coalition to form a Gov't the Right has more sway than it deserves, and the situation is heading to a boil.
Outside of that, a single point of service, which can either be agreed to (a non-universal draft, with no exceptions) or seen as absolutely imperative for the national survivial, National Service will be seen as a tax, a burden on those selected. Given the number of jobs which need skills, those jobs in National Service will be mostly scut work, and as such the scions of privilege will get strings pulled to land cushy ones, wherein they build networks of support (a la Skull and Bones) and they get ahead, while everyone else gets a tan, clearing brush in Montana.
TK