In addition to not agreeing with the idea, I also don't think it'll ever happen. The same Congress who won't want to go to war because their kids (or, more likely, their grandkids) will end up going is the same one who will NOT vote this into law.

Secondly, I don't think you've got an America that will allow it. There will be too many "constituents" that will fight tooth and nail to keep this from passing.

So, it'll never happen. And in my opinion, that's a *good* thing.

Dan

Consider it a philosophical view of things, though there are considerable practical issues that need to be dealt with:

First, it's hard to be fair, since not *everyone* can be included (not feasable). The simplest example of this is for medical issues. I'm assuming that there is already a specification for this that defines whether you can get into the existing military. However, when *everyone* has to be involved, this specification is going to be a pretty big deal (those that want to get out of it, etc.). There will probably be other criteria that's "officially" accepted that keeps you out (such as being a parent, mentally incompetent, criminal, etc.). That's not to say there *should* be other criteria...but we're talking about politicials here, and they like to create loopholes (and if they do, you can be sure that they try their best to create some for themselves).

Second, I'm assuming that those in service are being paid for it (outside of being fed and housed). If not, it's less than what they would get today (and it may be considered prison at that stage....but I think it's a fairly safe assumption). Someone's got to pay for it, and it won't be cheap (since those that are in service won't be in the private world paying lots of taxes). I think the cost alone would be prohibitive.

I believe it would become a big enough issue that it would actually require an amendment to the constitution. The reason for this is that if it wasn't, I could easily see some law student filing suite against the government for forcing him into military service and having it take away some of his rights. As an amendment, it would carry considerable more weight than a simple law. Of course, I'm no law student, so I've no real idea what would happen there. Of course, the creation of an amendment isn't necessarily an argument against it.

How long the service would be required hasn't even been covered. No details in the article means to me that not a lot of thought has been put into it (beyond the keeping of Congress from going to war too easily). Obviously, as more details arrive, it will become more clear how it will be implemented.

But, regardless of all the stickiness of issues involved, and regardless of the chances it has of becoming real, I go back to simple, personal, philosophical reasons for not liking it.

America isn't Sparta.

Of course, that's somewhat of a useless comparison, since there are considerable differences between the two societies. I mention it mostly has a *directional* sign. That is, which *direction* are we headed. Some things are bad not in and of themselves, but from the momentum they can create in a particular direction.

But, fundamentally, I don't think it'll solve the problem it was meant to fix (preventing Congress from going into war too quickly). Enough loopholes or whatever will be built in so that Congress won't have to fear (at least not fear anymore than they do now). And, to be honest, I think they will fear their constituents more than their own children/grand-children (I think there will be more grand-children for Congress to worry about than actual children). If it were to be successful, it would be for *that* reason (constituents screaming), and not their own, that would prevent war. And if that's the case, those consituents (that would be us) should be more involved (yes, I'm aware of Vietnam, etc. and the amount of complaining going on then, and how little that may have helped to stop it).

On top of that, I don't believe in coercing people to fight, or be involved in the military. Does that mean I disagree with the existence of a military? No. Was I ever in the military? No. Do I salute and appreciate their lives? Absolutely.

I wonder, too, how many would go to jail, rather than be forced into military service. Maybe there wouldn't be any. Maybe there would. I hope we never find out.

I appologize for not giving any really good reasons against. Simply put, it feels wrong (and I know that's not worth much).

Dan

One of "Hack's" points in his article was about how many died because of incompetence. Putting more people into service (whether via draft or manditory) would only worsen that because of the lack of training that would occur (would have to occur, since training is *really* expensive, and from a statistical perspective, the more people you have from a centralized perspective, the less training possible, assuming you don't have unlimited funds).

I'm certainly not suggesting we go to war. I'm also not suggesting that we *never* go to war. It happens. For whatever the reasons (usually not good ones, but that's besides the point).

Also, let me clarify one of my statements. Coersion (sp?) to fight is different (in my book) from defending oneself (and we're certainly NOT defending ourself by attacking Iraq). The reason for this clarification is that I'm not against the draft...just manditory service for all. The draft was meant to create soldiers in times of war. Manditory service is meant to coerse people to be involved in the military (outside war-time).

If the only reason (I've only heard one really good one so far) for creating a manditory service is to *prevent* us from going to war, I think it's a waste of time. There are other ways and other issues that, to me, are more important in deterring war (and/or the casualties of war).

Dan