Re: AntiDraft Policy - a failed standard of the Sixties
John Andrew (J_Andrew@ACAD.FANDM.EDU)
Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:17:53 -0400
>The view that the end of the draft and the institution of a
>volunteer army and the concomitant rise of a "professional military" are
>negative outcomes of antiwar, antidraft activism--that these moves have
>only served to further empower the military, and that they lead to
>class-based military service--are important points for consideration.
>But it's always seemed to me--and perhaps this is a minority perspective
>not shared by the *supposed* (H. Bruce Franklin has some interesting
>things to say about the myth of antiwarism as middle-class) majority of
>middle-class antidraft/war resisters--that the ultimate goal of antiwar
>activism was also anti-militarist, i.e., a fundamental restructuring of
>the role the military plays in US political economy. The positions
>expressed by drieux, John, Ed, and others *presumes* the legitimacy of
>the military's role because it presumes that only by having all young men
>eligible for service can the public have a legitimate right to monitor
>and critique the military.
>
>Michael Bibby
>mwbibb@ark.ship.edu
Michael,
You have my position wrong; can't talk for Drieux or Ed - There are
two considerations here. One is what you raise, the legitimacy (principle)
of using military force as an arm of the state -The other is a practical
one: the state WILL use military force and how might it best be contained?
That is why I argue against the all-volunteer military - I believe that
there is a significant difference between the two -
John
John Andrew email: J_ANDREW@ACAD.FANDM.EDU
Department of History fax 717-399-4413
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster, PA. 17604-3003
"Fantasy Will Set You Free" - Steppenwolf