Re: AntiDraft Policy - a failed standard of the Sixties (fwd)
Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:09:52 -0400

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 23:25:33 -0400
From: Dennis N. Randall <>
Subject: Re: AntiDraft Policy - a failed standard of the Sixties

This message was submitted by "Dennis N. Randall" <> to lis=
t If you forward it back to the lis=
it will be distributed without the paragraphs above the dashed line. You ma=
edit the Subject: line and the text of the message before forwarding it bac=

If you edit the messages you receive into a digest, you will need to remove
these paragraphs and the dashed line before mailing the result to the list.
Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you
should be able to do so by simply replying to this note.

----------------------- Message requiring your approval -------------------=

Sender: "Dennis N. Randall" <>
Subject: Re: AntiDraft Policy - a failed standard of the Sixties

drieux H. wrote: >=20 > What seems to have gone missing in the general > review of the Failed Policies, and agenda items > of the sixties, is the current position we find > ourselves in with our 'all volunteer' armed forces > and it's slow but stead detachment of the the US Military > from it's traditional role as both the Citizen's Armed Forces, > as well as a portion of the 'melting pot' in this land of > the great cultural diversities. >>>SNIP<<<< > ciao > drieux


Nixon=92s decision to end the draft was, in retrospect, a brilliant political move. While it limited =96 for a time =96 the US military=92s ability to quickly increase the ranks it gutted the anti-war movement.

The numbers of students and citizens attending anti-war rallies in Washington plunged. Campus rebellion against the war was quickly reduced to a hand-full of "professional" malcontents.

I can still recall the bitterness I and many of my fellow anti-war vets felt over the collapse of the student anti-war movement when the threat of the draft was removed. A cynic might say that self preservation, not idealism, motivated the vast majority of war protesters. Sadly, I would have to agree.

The downside of the "all-volunteer" army - as pointed out by drieux - is both real and troublesome. Now that the business of fighting and dying is left to "professional warriors" the average American=92s interest in foreign military affairs seems to have advanced to the vanishing point.

As much as I hate and despise war I believe that if there be fighting to be done -- the cost should be carried by the citizens. A draft based military insures that the "man-on-the-street" [today, add women to the equation] maintains an abiding interest in foreign affairs. After all, they may be asked to cash the check written by our political leaders.

Since the end of the draft we=92ve been witness to a series of questionable military adventures. None of which received the degree of scrutiny they would have if the folks on the front lines were "drafted Americans."

The draft at least provided a "reality check" to our leaders when it came to the commitment of American fighting people in harm=92s way.=20

-- Dennis =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Home: http://www2.pcix/~randall Work: "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."