Wednesday, May 30, 2007

We Need a "Special" Military Draft

Regardless of the type of group one might speak of, the best group leaders are those who lead by example, not word. It's far easier and more effective to convince the gaggle to accept all forms of hardship and sacrifice, IF the leader is "in the trenches" with the rest of the team.

In regards to the war in Iraq, our elected national representatives in Washington, DC are leading by word, NOT example. While both the Bush administration and the US Congress continue to execute the war on Iraq, few, if any of them, have members of the own family in harm's way.

To remedy this deplorable circumstance, I have a proposal for a very "special" military draft. (This draft would also be advantageous for our troop numbers as recruitment has been way down as of late.)

Each and every member of the Bush Cabinet (and their subordinates) plus each member of Congress would have one age-appropriate member of their immediate family drafted to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. If no individual in the immediate family meets the specification, then the pool would be widened to nephews/nieces, uncles/aunts, cousins and on down the line.

Because of his devout support of the "War on Terror", George W. Bush's would send both of his twin daughters.

At this juncture, I could fathom several war hawks saying, "Sure, we'll go along with this plan." (wink, wink) "No problem!" Of course, these wily folks would be thinking that they'd get their family members assigned stateside or in a cushy position inside the protected "Green Zone".

But my proposal takes these high jinks into consideration. Each "recruit" from the special draft would start out at the bottom rank. They would each be assigned to platoons that conduct daily excursions into Sadir City, Fallujah, Basra or the hundreds of other cities and towns in Iraq or Afghanistan.

They would have no special standing. They would be outfitted like other foot soldier. They would sleep in the same tents, eat the same food, run on the same schedules and drive the same vehicles.

If this proposal were adopted, then I think a great many more Americans would stand solidly behind the war. They would understand that our elected leaders weren't asking average citizens to sacrifice something they would never dream of sacrificing.

Our leaders would be leading by example and we would gladly follow them to hell and back.

4 comments:

  1. Once a socialist, always a socialist ey?

    Why are you still pinging Oregon blogs when you're in Washington? Is there not blog central that cares about your posts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doggie,
    I do it just to annoy YOU. Obviously, it's working. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel oddly torn about your post this round. You're a very insightful person with interesting opinions on a variety of topics, and although all you've posted about of late are your anti-war activities and opinions, I'm still willing to read through it, as you still make a lot of sense. Today's, though, just struck me in an odd way.

    It's not that I don't agree with you, I do. But that just seems...extreme. I know you don't actually think that would ever BE implemented, you're making a point in the form of a proposition, right? But it just seems inhuman to me to tell a person "if you take this office, your son will be forced into fighting for his life."

    Yeah, that will cause the congressman to think about troops as human beings rather than resources, but doesn't the very thought of that go against the ideals this country should strive toward? The congressman's son did not commit a crime, nor did he make a conscious decision to join the military. And you're saying "put him in the most dangerous region available," which is playing russian roulette. I don't believe that's reasonable, and I don't think you do either, but you talk about it like you actually want it in place. You're willing to kill people to further your agenda?

    I have a problem with the war, yes. I agree with you that we never should have gone, and I always have thought that it was a bad idea, since the Bush administration first started pushing for it in 2002. But of late, your posts seem to have been growing in fanaticism as your activism increases, and you've become less of the reasonable, insightful blogger that I remember. Your posts have taken on a spiteful, vindictive, and angry bent, and I'd rather hear the wise and thought-provoking social commentary of your older posts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doug from Michigan6/18/2007 10:11:00 AM

    Hey Trey:

    Good points, but I agree with another point of view...it's not the Bush Twins fault they were cursed (or blessed, depending on what side of the fence you're on) to be born to such ignorant people.

    To your defense, though, maybe the Special Draft would force our "leaders" (and I use that term loosely) to reconsider their position on war.

    Personally, I would like to see the Commander In Thief on the front lines...it's his/her decision to go to war, I think they should be there setting the example, right? I still wouldn't support the war, or any war, but I think your point would be well taken...if it's YOUR loved one in harm's way, maybe war would be taken a bit more seriously.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want. We may respond...or we may not. It depends on the mood and preferences of the specific author of the post. Ta-Wan generally responds in a timely manner. Trey responds some of the time and Scott rarely replies (due to limited internet access). You can be assured that all comments are read by this blog's two administrators: Ta-Wan & Trey.