Conscription: The Machiavellian Solution In Search Of A Problem (And Why It Will NOT Help The Youth Rights Movement)

With World War III looking more and more likely on the horizon each day that goes by due to current events, it is only a matter of time before one of the biggest American taboos returns to the forefront.  The specter of bringing back the military draft (conscription) has been raised occasionally since it was last abolished in 1973, but it never seemed to catch on since then for a number of reasons:  1) it was unnecessary and redundant with today's technology, 2) it would mess up and dilute the increasingly professional all-volunteer military, 3) most Americans don't support such a policy.  And that's to say nothing of the collective trauma from the ill-fated Vietnam War that has lingered ever since to one degree or another.  

And there are also the fundamental philosophical-ethical arguments against conscription as well, of course, including Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative:  "Always treat humanity as an end itself, and never solely as a means".  And predictably, Niccolo "ends justify the means" Machiavelli himself, often seen as Kant's philosophical foil, was a huge fan of conscription, as he felt that mercenaries would be untrustworthy in terms of loyalty (gotta love that false binary there with no room for nuance whatsoever).  

But every so often, the old zombie arguments (often in superficial shiny new drag) in favor of bringing back the draft resurface like a bad case of herpes.  They can be grouped into the following:  1) Necessity, 2) Equality/Equity, and 3) Social Engineering.  And here we will not only debunk them, but also debone, slice, dice, julienne, and ultimately lay waste to their scorched remains.

The "necessity" argument is probably the only good and coherent argument strong enough to justify the forcible confiscation of labor services (i.e. slavery, which is what conscription really is) of innocent erstwhile civilians in an otherwise free society worthy of the name.  That is, if the necessity in question is actually true.  Spoiler alert:  for most wars throughout history, to say nothing of peacetime, that was not really true.  That is because a) most wars throughout history were unnecessary wars of choice that could have been avoided, and thus inherently wrong except on the side legitimately defending itself, b) there are almost always alternatives to conscription even if a war is necessary, such as (gasp!) paying our troops more, rather than forcibly doing it on the cheap, and c) a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.  (And being the world's de facto police force is really NOT a war of necessity, by the way.)  And all of these apply a fortiori with today's technology, which reduces the need for the large numbers of troops in the wars of the more distant past.

(And any fair-weather "allies" halfway around the world who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves without forcing Americans to fight their battles for them, also deserve to lose by the way, a fortiori.)

Of course, to be fair, given a large enough scale AND a long enough duration of a war that really is NOT a war of choice and absolutely can't be pulled out of, the necessity argument CAN perhaps become valid in those select cases.  World War II and the American Civil War are textbook examples of such from history.  (Ditto for, God forbid, World War III, assuming it isn't largely an air and nuclear war, which would supersede this argument, albeit in a bad way).  But these "edge cases" are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then comes the "equality" or "equity" argument, sometimes called the "poverty draft" or "skin in the game".  That is, poor and working class people (who often join at least partly for economic reasons) are disproportionately overrepresented in the all-volunteer military, and the rich are grossly underrepresented.  That thus makes it easier for our elected leaders and their wealthier supporters to be cavalier about making war in general, knowing that they or their kids won't personally be affected.  Also along with that, it is seen as a gross injustice towards the poor and working class, and especially for racialized minorities, that they do such a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying.  While there is a kernel of truth to both components of this argument, that does NOT change the basic fact that the elites have ALWAYS been able to get themselves out of harm's way, draft or no draft, and practically ALL wars in recorded history have been primarily fought by the poor and working class for the benefit and wealth of the rich.  And the real corrective for that is to simply abolish poverty and the desperation that goes with it with a robust social welfare state including, but not limited to, Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, and free college.  And yes, per the iron laws of supply and demand, we will have to pay our troops significantly more than they are paid now, or more accurately, pay them what they are really worth for once!  And, of course, we have got to knock it off with the imperialistic wars of choice!

As for any supposedly "altruistic" or "humanitarian" wars (in the rare cases when it is not merely a cover for imperialism), hey, if you feel like YOU personally have a duty to risk dying for random people halfway around the world for whatever reason, be my guest.  You can even go start your own "Human Shield Brigade" with like-minded folks.  Just don't force or coerce other people to do it for you to soothe YOUR aching conscience, capisce?  Such "vicarious altruism" with other people's blood and treasure is really not altruism at all, but rather egoism in disguise.

(By the way, the mere presence of a draft does NOT preclude a country's leaders from being cavalier about war or getting stuck in long military quagmires.  See Vietnam, for example.  Or more recently, Israel.)

Regardless, in any case, two wrongs do NOT make a right!

Then there is the perennial "social engineering" or  argument, which is probably the most vexing one of all.  Not because is it particularly hard to debunk (it's really quite easy, as you will quickly see), but because of the way it sticks in people's minds so puzzlingly well even after the first two arguments are revealed to be hollow.  Basically, some people arrogantly seem to think that they somehow know what is best for everyone else at a personal level, and believe that they therefore have the right to force or coerce it upon them if they won't willingly accept it "for their own good" and the supposed "greater good" of society.  Such a thing is utterly patronizing and paternalistic, but we see it in so many other areas of life that few of us hardly even notice it anymore.  So when people claim that bring back a (presumably universal) draft would somehow be a panacea for whatever ails society, there will always be some people who listen and agree.  But regardless of how one feels about that and the limits of social engineering in a free society, it is literally the WORST argument there is for forcing people against their will to do something with as much gravitas (and danger) as military service.  Regardless of what ancillary utilitarian benefits there may be to a draft, it all comes back to Machiavelli versus Kant once again.  If we truly believe that human beings are ends in themselves and not just means to an end, then conscription is automatically a non-starter.

Otherwise, it is a Machiavellian solution in search of a problem, whatever that problem may be.

And all this is before we even get into the issue of age.  As Phil Ochs famously sang in the 1960s, "It's always the old, who lead us to the war, it's always the young who fall".  And that remains true to this day.  If we really want to "share the sacrifice equally" like some modern conscription advocates claim to want, then by that logic, perhaps we should draft people in their 40s and 50s and beyond too.  And of course, the very first to be drafted should be the billionaires, followed by the millionaires, and so on down the pyramid.  After all, they are the ones who benefit from it the most, while being historically the most underrepresented.  Or even fairer still, perhaps we could have "consensual conscription" where all wars are put up to a (non-secret) popular vote, and those who vote yes are drafted as needed, followed by those who abstained, and those who voted no would be exempt from the draft.  But otherwise, there is really no such thing as an equitable draft, since drafts are by their very nature discriminatory.

Finally, there also sometimes is brought up the idea that being back the draft would somehow help the youth rights movement.  It is true that the lowering of the voting age, age of majority, and drinking age from 21 to 18 was partly spurred by the Vietnam draft and the idea that it was wrong for someone to be considered old enough to die for their country but too young to vote, drink, etc.  But guess what?  The existence of a draft was neither necessary nor sufficient to effect such a change.  First, the draft was in effect with a draft age of 18 from 1941-1946 and from 1948 to 1973, and yet it took three decades until 1971 to lower the voting age and until 1973 to lower the drinking age and age of majority in most states to 18.  And meanwhile, Canada and the UK didn't have any draft since 1945 and 1960, respectively, and yet they still managed to lower the age for full adult rights to 18 by the early 1970s, which then became an international consensus.  And no Western country, draft or no draft, raised its drinking age from 18 back to 21 except the USA in the 1980s and Lithuania in 2018, the latter country doing so after they brought back the draft in 2016.  And in general, countries that currently have significant conscription don't seem to be more youth-rights friendly than those who don't.

It's more likely that demographics were the biggest factor:  in 1968, fully half of the American population was under 18, and a vast majority was under 25.  The same was true in many other countries well.  Thus they had a strength in numbers that we wouldn't see in today's ageing population.  Bringing back the draft would almost certainly backfire on the youth rights movement today, even if it may invigorate the anti-war movement all the same.

So let's put this zombie idea to rest once and for all.  If WWIII happens, then all bets are off of course, but in any case, it is NOT a net benefit to the youth rights movement.

And to those who still think we should bring back the draft, we say, "YOU FIRST!" Go on.  (crickets)

(Mic drop)

No War With Iran!

The legendary Senator Bernie Sanders once again hits the nail right on the head:

The TSAP does not take a position on whether or not Iran "deserved" the attack.  And granted, Israel as a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself from existential threats in general.  That said, launching a preemptive strike on Iran while the U.S.-Iran negotiations were still in progress was NOT a wise move, and is at best a very risky strategy.  And it is really, really reaching at best to claim "self-defense" for a preemptive strike in the absence of truly imminent danger.  The case for that is about as strong as the case for claiming "self-defense" in a bar fight turned deadly that one had clearly provoked.  Which is to say, not very strong.

And it has escalated from there since, of course.

And make no mistake, we unequivocally believe that regardless, this is NOT America's war, and we should NOT be dragged into it.  Period.  Inflaming it any further can VERY easily turn it into WWIII.  America absolutely needs to engage diplomatically with both countries to help reach a peace deal quickly before this escalates any further still.

CEASEFIRE NOW.

You KNOW things are bad when The Notorious MTG suddenly starts to sound like the voice of reason!

(Mic drop)

Just Say NO To World War 3!

It has come to our attention that there is a faction in the USA and elsewhere of largely neoconservatives who are incessantly itching for a hot war with Iran more than ever.  The casus belli this time (as though the warmongers really needed a new one) is 1) that Iran has long supported and funded both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is true, and 2) that Iran's fingerprints are (allegedly) all over Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, which is debatable.  That is in addition to Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, of course, which was the previous justification, as well as their proxy attacks against American troops in Iraq and Syria.

(For the record, we thoroughly condemn Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, without qualification.)

That said, going to war with Iran directly would be a major strategic blunder for a number of reasons.  First, a ground war and occupation there would be an even worse quagmire than the ill-fated ground wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Secondly, even a predominantly air war, which could set Iran back centuries if we really wanted to, would ultimately create a "failed state" which would be a magnet for extremists in the future.  The inevitable blowback sooner or later would be horrendous to say the least.  As the saying goes, "you break it, you own it".  At the same time, a half-assed war would in fact be the worst of all options in the long run, and any forcible "regime change" will inevitably create a dangerous power vacuum sooner or later.  And finally, a war with Iran would be very likely to draw in Iran's staunchest allies:  Russia, China, and North Korea, three nuclear-armed countries that any sane person does NOT want to get into a hot war with!  That would be World War 3, essentially, and even if it somehow doesn't go nuclear (which is far from guaranteed), it would still be truly horrendous and extremely costly in both lives and resources.  Any "victory" would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

(Nuclear war is simply too horrible to even contemplate, something no sane person could ever support, period.  But just one miscommunication and it can happen.)

In other words, the USA attacking Iran would not be like cutting of the head off of the proverbial snake, but rather more like a Hydra whose heads will keep multiplying each time one is severed.  OOPS!

At the very least, a three-front war like that (without going nuclear) would NOT be even remotely possible to win with an all-volunteer military for very long.  The Reserves and National Guard can only buy us so much time for what will likely be a very long and bloody war of attrition that would likely dwarf World Wars 1 and 2 and the American Civil War combined.  That's the biggest elephant in the room.  So for all the people who want to go to war with Iran (or any the other aforementioned countries), let's put it up to a vote.  Those who vote "yes", well, greetings, you have just been drafted!  Those who abstained will be next if needed.  Those who vote "no" shall be exempt.  And the vote should be repeated annually to decide whether or not to renew the war effort for yet another year.  And if that is still somehow not enough for a truly existential war that already began and where withdrawal is truly not an option, and a more comprehensive draft is still somehow needed, then draft the billionaires first, then the millionaires, and so on.  It's only fair.

With absolutely NO apologies to the modern-day Ayn Rand disciples who are itching to fight Iran, and yet paradoxically quail at the very thought of personally having any sort of skin in the game themselves.

(Normally I would agree that a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and that in any case they could easily have enough recruits for an all-volunteer military if they simply paid them enough.  And in principle that still remains true.  But a World War 3, due to its inherently massive scale and duration, would kinda be the exception that proves the rule.)

So seriously, warmongers.  KNOCK IT OFF.  Yesterday.  Do everything you possibly can to defuse any impulse to start such a war.  Yesterday.  The life that you save may very well be your own.

QED

Did Trump Just Start A War With Iran?

On January 2, 2020, Trump apparently ordered a drone airstrike near Baghdad, Iraq, that killed Iran's top general, Qassim Soleimani.  This assassination was of very, very questionable legality given that Trump did not notify Congress (or really anyone else, for that matter) before giving the orders.  And now Iran is openly threatening (unspecified) revenge and retaliation for this foolish and reckless act of bravado and hubris by the Manchild Who Would Be King.

We are well aware that General Soleimani was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, nor is his own Revolutionary Guard Quds Force particularly cuddly either.  They have in fact been officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State years ago due to their notoriously rogue activities in the region, including their support for violent militias in Iraq.  But when the "leader" of the USA decides to go rogue himself and arbitrarily assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation that we are NOT actually at war with, that is a dangerous and irresponsible escalation that threatens to unleash a conflagration across the whole region, if not even further.  At the very least, it will delay any hope for peace in the region by at least a generation, and at worst can perhaps even trigger World War III.

And of course we can kiss goodbye practically forever any chance of reviving the Iran nuclear deal that, while imperfect, was in fact working to keep Iran from getting their hands on The Bomb for the foreseeable future--before Trump pulled out of it of course.  If Iran didn't have a reason to want nukes in the past, well they sure do now!  This latest stunt thus clearly does FAR more harm than good, and we at the TSAP condemn his reckless and irresponsible actions.

(As for motives, can you say, "Wag the Dog"?)

No War With Iran!

After the recent attacks on oil tankers in the Sea of Oman and Strait of Hormuz by an unknown attacker, Trump and his warmongering cronies are now hastily blaming Iran for these attacks.  But there is plenty of reason to believe they are being, shall we say, "economical with the truth".

The timing alone is suspicious, as Trump has every reason to "wag the dog" to deflect from his ever-mounting scandals including, but not limited to, Russiagate.  Also, the evidence is lacking and what little there is, just doesn't really seem to add up.  And we know that Trump has been hell-bent on provoking Iran ever since pulling out of the nuclear deal last year.  Time will tell, of course, but this really has "false flag" written all over it.

Besides, going to war with Iran would most likely be a disaster of epic proportions, and certainly not something to take lightly.   And even if Iran does somehow turn out to be the culprit, the fact remains that the ships attacked were not even American tankers (they were Norwegian and Japanese), and fully zero Americans were harmed in the process.  In fact, this was apparently a "property damage only" (PDO) incident.  So let's NOT fall for this would-be modern-day Gulf of Tonkin incident and get sucked into yet another decades-long quagmire again.

The best foreign policy can be summed up in four words:  "first, do no harm".  Seriously, this is not a game, and the stakes have never been higher now.

UPDATE:  Just a few days later on June 20, Iran confirmed that they shot down an unmanned American spy drone (again, PDO) that they claim was flying in their airspace, while the Trump administration claims it was over international waters.  Time will tell who is telling the truth, perhaps even both if, for example, it turns out that the drone entered Iranian airspace first but was subsequently shot down over international waters.  Maritime borders can be tricky and nuanced.  Regardless, this is still not a good reason to go to war with Iran.

It is exceeding unlikely that the Orange Cheeto in Chief actually wants a shooting war with Iran.  He himself has said as much.  He would rather just bluff to make himself look tough while distracting from his myriad scandals closing in on him in the late stage of his failed presidency.   And his puppetmaster Putin apparently doesn't want him to go to war with his buddy Iran, either.  But now that Iran apparently called his bluff, and Bolton and Pompeo are still itching for war, the United States is now in a very precarious situation thanks to Trump's stupid bear-poking saber-rattling routines, and a war may still happen inadvertently in spite of him canceling it at the last minute.  He is clearly like a crackhead playing with matches and gasoline, and every day he seems more and more unfit for the office of dogcatcher, let alone for the office of the Presidency.

We Need a War Like We Need a Hole in the Head

With the US government weighing what to do about Iran's defiance over their growing nuclear program, a top American general appears rather pessimistic about what a military strike on Iran would accomplish.  General James Cartwright notes that the US would be unlikely to permanently stop Iran's nuclear program unless we fully occupy the country.  Simply striking them would, at best, merely delay the inevitable.  At worst, it would likely inflame an already volatile Iran even more in the long run, and galvanize support for the current regime. Thus, the US military has wisely been rather averse to any such attacks on Iran, and remains as such. 

All things considered, invading and occupying Iran would most likely be a disaster, one we simply cannot afford to risk.  The magnitude (read: number of troops required, and thus the cost in both lives and money) would necessarily be much greater than for the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation.  Unlike Iraq, their military has not been softened by twelve years of draconian sanctions and periodic bombings.  It may even spiral into WWIII for all we know.  The occupation would need to last for at least a decade, perhaps even two.  With two other ongoing wars, a massive budget deficit, and numerous other problems in our country, the question remains:  where will we get the troops, not to mention the money, to commit to such a massive long-term endeavor?

One wildcard in the whole issue is Israel, currently led by the right-wing hardliner Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.  Their government has been saber-rattling for many years now.  If they were to launch a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities (very difficult since most are underground), that would be just as bad (for the region at least) as the US doing it.  And if we are foolish enough to be dragged into it, either by tacitly (or explicitly) authorizing or joining in after the fact, that may very well be the end of America as we know it.  Did you know that Israel currently has about 200 nukes already prepared?  Let's not encourage anything of the sort, tacitly or otherwise.

What Iran will do with their nuclear technology remains a mystery. They claim it is for peaceful purposes only, but we can't be too sure about that. That said, it appears that going to war with them would do more harm than good. Thus, the TSAP does not support any sort of strike (or invasion) of Iran unless they attack us first. This is consistent with the party's general foreign policy.

Fortunately, for the near term at least, the government has ruled out any sort of military attack on Iran.  However, they are continuing to pursue more sanctions on Iran through the UN Security Council until they agree to stop uranium enrichment.