See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Obama calls for US military mobilization
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13.shtml
Published: Sep 14, 2008
Author: Patrick Martin
Post Date: 2008-09-14 09:46:17 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1906
Comments: 81
In remarks that clearly pointed toward the restoration of the military draft under an Obama administration, the Democratic candidate said Thursday night that his job as president would include demanding that the American people recognize an “obligation” for military service. “If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some,” Senator Barack Obama declared. Obama’s comments came as he and his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, took part in a forum on national service at Columbia University in New York City. Earlier in the day, both candidates joined in a memorial service at the site of the World Trade Center, commemorating the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. While “national service” encompasses more than the military, including such government-run programs as the Peace Corps, Americorps and Teach for America, as well as private and religious programs, both McCain and Obama focused on expanding the US Armed Forces as a major goal of the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. In an indication of the bipartisan support for the increasing militarization of American society, McCain jokingly offered to name Obama his coordinator for national service if the Republican were to win the election, and Obama reciprocated. The forum was co-hosted by Judy Woodruff of the Public Broadcasting Service and Richard Stengel, editor of Time magazine. Woodruff introduced Stengel as the man responsible for the magazine’s 2007 cover story, “The Case for National Service,” which Woodruff said had “ignited this movement.” McCain was the first of the two candidates to appear at the forum. In response to a direct question from Woodruff, he rejected the restoration of the draft, voicing support for maintaining an all-volunteer army. Such a disavowal is to be expected 55 days before a presidential election, and no doubt Obama would have given a similar response had he been asked the same question. But in the course of his discussion with Woodruff and Stengel, McCain repeatedly connected the imperative of “national service” with the outbreak of international crises in which an American military role would be posed. Citing the Russian intervention in Georgia and the deteriorating position of the US-backed regime in Afghanistan, he said the American people could “see a whole lot of things happening in the world that’s going to require us to serve.” McCain also said that he would sign the bipartisan legislation, co-sponsored in the Senate by Democrat Edward Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch, to triple the size of Americorps, the domestic version of the Peace Corps. Obama’s comments were even more directly related to building up the US military. He spoke at some length to offer effusive praise for the armed forces. Woodruff asked him about the record number of Army officers leaving the military because of repeated, lengthy overseas deployments. The candidate responded, “Well, first of all, as commander-in-chief, my job is to keep America safe. And that means insuring that we’ve got the best military on Earth. And that means having the best persons in uniform on Earth. We have that right now, but as a consequence of these wars, they have been strained incredibly. I think it’s important for us to increase the size of our Army and our Marines so we can reduce the pace of tours that our young men and women are on.” After recalling his grandfather’s service in World War II, in the army of General George Patton, he noted that his grandfather was eligible for GI Bill education benefits and Federal Housing Administration loans to help purchase a home because of government policies favoring the discharged veterans. “There was that sense of sacred obligation that, frankly, we have lost during these last two wars,” Obama said. “I want to restore that.” Obama went on to make his most direct statement of the campaign about expanding military service, declaring: “But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.” Taken in the context of a forum on national service, these comments have an unmistakable and ominous implication. Military service in the volunteer army is undertaken disproportionately by small-town and rural youth, for both economic and cultural reasons. It is far less common for middle class and working class youth in large cities, and especially their suburbs, to enlist in the military. Obama holds out the prospect that, at least initially, his demand for wider participation in military service would consist of encouraging more enlistments in the volunteer army. When that failed, as it undoubtedly would, to produce sufficient cannon fodder for the next round of imperialist wars, the logical next step would be reactivation of the Selective Service System, which still exists, albeit in mothballed form. In political terms, Obama’s appearance at Columbia was aimed at demonstrating to the American political establishment that he is prepared to reject any pressure from antiwar college students, who are a major component of his campaign’s personnel and volunteers. To that end, Obama not only called for expanded military service, he directly attacked the exclusion of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) from many college campuses. Stengel noted that Columbia had invited President Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak on the campus, but “haven’t invited ROTC to be on campus since 1969.” Obama replied, “Yes, I think we’ve made a mistake on that. I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy. But the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren’t offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake.” The suggestion that young people at Columbia or anywhere else are denied “the option of participating in military service” is preposterous. In no country in the world is there so much media advertising and societal pressure—largely, at this point, economic—to impel young people into the military. ROTC became a focus of hostility on hundreds of campuses during the Vietnam War era, and was in many cases banned as a student organization. These restrictions largely ended after 1975, but they were continued or reestablished on a handful of campuses after the Clinton administration established the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, reaffirming the longtime Pentagon ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Such a ban violates the non-discrimination rules imposed by many campuses on corporate recruiters. In response to a further question from Woodruff, Obama elaborated on his efforts to recruit young people to become participants in, and potential victims of, military violence. “Inspiring young people to serve is something that the president is uniquely positioned to do,” he said, adding that this could be for civilian positions that are adjuncts to US military operations overseas, such as the State Department, USAID or civil engineering. Obama returned to the subject of widening participation in military service in words that were cautiously phrased but deeply reactionary. “I think there are special obligations during wartime,” he said. “We always have potential conflicts around the world, and our military has to remain strong and ready. And so I want to encourage military service, as well as other ways of serving, regardless of whether there’s war or not. But I do think that over the last several years, the fact that the burden has been shouldered by such a narrow group is a problem.” In a closely balanced election, with the outcome still very much in doubt, Obama hopes to win the support of the real decision-makers—the topmost levels of the financial, political and military elite. Only a Democrat, he is suggesting, with the smokescreen of “equal sacrifice” and “fairness,” can provide the millions of recruits for the US military machine that will be required for wars against countries such as Iran, Russia and China. While utilizing the occasional high-flown phrase to appeal to the idealism of youth and students, Obama is offering the ruling class a brutal bargain: Select me as president, and I will repay you in blood.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: Ferret Mike, buckeye (#32)
The most egregious abuse of class warfare was under the esteemed President Lincoln, can you imagine that?????? If you had $100 you could buy your way out of the draft. It was so lucrative that he finally raised it to $200 and the government was making a bundle.
You suppose wrong. Quit pulling shit out of your asshole.
That may be case law ferret. But it is unconstitutional and more importantly immoral. They can take their case law and stuff it up vasts ass.
Mandatory public service is for nazis. Wake up Mike. The elite will still be exempt no matter what they say.
In a body bag.
Your wiser then most on that issue buckeye. Im wholeheartedly in your camp on this one.
Perhaps... I heard such long ago but it never happened. Ones best insurance is to have a connection of some kind, it always works.
During the Vietnam war draft, the elites still managed to find ways for their kids to be far from any risk. On paper, everyone was eligible. In fact, Joe Six Pack was sent to Vietnam while the kids of the political and financial rulers stayed home. Why would it be any different this time around? If they bring back the draft, do you really think that there will be any Cheneys or Scheunemanns sent to Kabul?
Remember the draft riots of New York in July of 1863? The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history. The rich could pay 300 dollars and keep their kid out of the draft, but the poor were expected to go. People should look at what strong seething and resentment at privilege does to people. All the Martial law and new crowd control techniques in the world are useless to save them unless the privileged people out there don't send their kids into the military with those of the poor. And if they have to do so, the likelihood of a war truly being unavoidable and necessary are much more likely to be the case of the rich kids have to go. We can see riots and insurrection on this question quite easily if things get worse and more kids have to go to more and more useless wars just waged to advance political policies of a few instead of for national defense. Better we level the playing field and make it so all kids go, not just some. It is just smart politics.
See I think this kind of bouncing back and forth between different manifestations of big government is ineffective. That's where I'm coming from here. I totally agree that the NeoCon offspring aren't made to participate, but I am confident that it will be optional for the upper classes no matter how "fair" it is made to appear in legal form. I meant that I assumed you were a civil libertarian, not one of party affiliation. Much respect goes to you for your efforts to protect the environment, especially from government-sanctioned monopolies who tear from the land without the people benefiting.
Menorahs welcome this Christmas, but spare us the Crèches, already!
Mike, you are olde enough and wise enough to KNOW that will never happen. What is right and proper has NEVER been the rule of the day when it comes to war. Actually, politics has nothing to do with it. The people at the top are of one mind on the subject. From personal experience. The day the Korean War started, I knew I was dead meat and cannon fodder, and I knew exactly which ones of my friends would never serve. All of the trash either "volunteered" or were dragged away, the others escaped thru loopholes. Class warfare. The ruling elite start the wars and the trash bleed and die.
You know full well that won't be how it is implemented. Because politics are involved, there will be loopholes large enough to drive a truck through and any parent with the means will be able to keep their kids out of any so-called "mandatory" national service OR will be able to arrange for a nice safe posting. ...like the Texas Air National Guard...
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Because politics are involved, there will be loopholes large enough to drive a truck through and any parent with the means will be able to keep their kids out of any so-called "mandatory" national service OR will be able to arrange for a nice safe posting. ...like the Texas Air National Guard... Even if it was on a level playing field. Screw that it is slavery.
Oh, no way. Everything's going to be different with the Majik Mullato Messiah. Change, baby!
There is good change and there is bad change. Turning the clock back and bringing involuntary servitude to be the norm once again is bad change. Obama is building a bridge to the 17th Century with this.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Excellent... Serfdom has not been forgotten.
No, and anyone who supports enserfing and/or enslaving the population of a country obviously hates freedom. We have no need to turn the White House into a Plantation Manor House where citizens are bought and sold in open-air slave markets. Anyone who supports involuntary servitude is an enemy of freedom and hates liberty.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Obama is building a bridge to the 17th Century with this. Exactly what 99.9% of the people want. They deserve it.
Sometimes what they deserve is not what they should get, particularly when it impacts others. Hey, if people want to volunteer for the Military or for National Service, then God Bless Them and they should be allowed to do just that. But under no circumstances should it be mandatory. I don't see any of the proponents of this "mandatory servitude" speaking one word about either volunteering themselves or sending their kids off to it. Therefore, one can only draw the conclusion that they simply want a new slave class to serve them.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Dream on. Obama, you'll never be President.
Freeper: I read, but do not understand, write, but make no sense, think, but nothing happens.
Therein lies the problem, it has ALWAYS been mandatory and will continue because such a process sweeps up the lower classes. It is intentional. Everything calling for "volunteerism" is smoke and mirrors, and in plain language BS. Ruling elite of society never fight wars, never, ever.
Mike Do you find that statement to be true or false?
Nor will they ever. They will ALWAYS put a loophole in big enough to drive a truck through.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
C. Wright Mills "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill Freedom also includes the choice to say "no" and stick to it.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
True. Guns, physical persuasion and prison do have a tempering effect.
Actually, I made an error in my statement. Freedom includes the choice to say "no" and Liberty provides the means to stick to it. One cannot exist without the other.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Mike you have never been one to duck a question. But you just did. Can you please answer the question in post 59 instead of quotes from unknowns.
They do take ones liberty away. During the Korean thing, many of the Army and Marines voted with their feet. When caught they refused to go to Korea, that was the end of their freedom and certainly their liberty. They were put in irons and chains, flown directly to Korea, and put into the front lines as replacements. The number of those refusing to go dropped to near zero. The man with the gun does win.
Then we are fortunate because our Limousine Liberal Elitist Dictators don't like guns, claim not to have any, and tend to avoid shooting ranges. This "National Service" debate is silly. Its two sides of the same coin. Serve in a war zone in Iraq or serve in a war zone in Detroit. Chances are you'll be shot at regardless. Both sides of the coin wish to enslave the population to serve their will. What, pray tell, is the difference between the two arguments? I can't see one. Both use the same means to get to an end. Its like Affirmative Action. If racism is the problem, use racism to solve it. Yeah, that's a brilliant idea. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the difference is between a military draft and a national service draft. Is there one?
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
I'd take it a step further. Manditory draft, EVERYONE gets a number between the ages of 18 and 65, no exceptions, and the richer you or your family is, the higher your number. Bill Gates goes first. Imagine how he'd take to being screamed at by some drill instructor. Oh yes, I'd pay to see that show.
Which is why I support mandatory public service.
#37. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#26)
I suppose, it makes no difference to you whether Alta California pledges allegiance to Washington DC or to Mexico City.
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#32)
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#32)
Which is why I support mandatory public service
#40. To: Cynicom (#28)
If they come for you or your children, you and they will go. No one will stop them.
#41. To: buckeye (#33)
We're either free or we're not. I say if we have mandatory service of any kind, we become slaves.
#42. To: Old Friend (#40)
In a body bag.
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
I used to be against the draft, but the way neocons use poor people's kids to fight their wars for them with their kids safely tucked away from danger changed all that
#44. To: Cynicom (#34)
"I voted for and supported Ike on the service thing. He knew full well it would never fly with the upper classes and he was correct. Therefore we were saddled with the draft of the lower class as usual. With a draft there are built in loopholes for the majority of connected people, always been that way."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#45. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
I used to be against the draft, but the way neocons use poor people's kids to fight their wars for them with their kids safely tucked away from danger changed all that.
#46. To: Esso, Eoghan (#30)
GOD BLESS THE U.S.I.!!!!
#47. To: Ferret Mike (#44)
Better we level the playing field and make it so all kids go, not just some. It is just smart politics.
#48. To: buckeye (#46)
"Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#49. To: Ferret Mike (#44)
Better we level the playing field and make it so all kids go, not just some. It is just smart politics.
#50. To: mirage (#49)
You know full well that won't be how it is implemented.
#51. To: mirage (#49)
Because politics are involved, there will be loopholes large enough to drive a truck through and any parent with the means will be able to keep their kids out of any so-called "mandatory" national service OR will be able to arrange for a nice safe posting.
#52. To: Esso (#51)
Oh, no way. Everything's going to be different with the Majik Mullato Messiah. Change, baby!
#53. To: mirage (#52)
Obama is building a bridge to the 17th Century with this.
#54. To: Cynicom (#53)
Serfdom has not been forgotten.
#55. To: mirage (#52)
Turning the clock back and bringing involuntary servitude to be the norm once again is bad change.
#56. To: Esso (#55)
Exactly what 99.9% of the people want. They deserve it.
#57. To: christine (#0)
#58. To: mirage (#56)
But under no circumstances should it be mandatory.
#59. To: mirage, Ferret Mike (#54)
Anyone who supports involuntary servitude is an enemy of freedom and hates liberty.
#60. To: Cynicom (#58)
Ruling elite of society never fight wars, never, ever.
#61. To: Old Friend (#59)
“Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.”
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#62. To: Old Friend (#59)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
#64. To: mirage (#63)
Freedom also includes the choice to say "no" and stick to it.
#65. To: Cynicom (#64)
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
#67. To: mirage (#65)
Liberty provides the means to stick to it.
#68. To: Cynicom (#67)
The man with the gun does win.
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#32)
Which is why I support mandatory public service. If rich folk have to worry that their son Bernard and perhaps even daughter Rhapsody will have to serve in any war they start with the 'meaningless kids' of 'commoners' with say the names of Johnny and Sue from across the railroad tracks U.S.A. we will have more care taken concerning war making.
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#70. To: mirage (#68)
Difference indeed, that is why we will have a draft. The government flails the national service thing when they want a draft or to keep one and they get it. A draft is so full of holes that people with connections have no problem of escaping. National service calls everyone and the connected do not want to be bothered, so they go with a draft which they avoid. Cheney said he had more important things to do than serve in Vietnam. Bush hid out in the air guard, Biden took 5 years worth of deferments. So, the draft is preferable to the upper class. They do no military nor no national service, a free ride every time.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the difference is between a military draft and a national service draft. Is there one?
#71. To: Old Friend (#66)
The question is a vague one, and not really answerable. Defense and military service is something that needs doing, and those who serve lose opportunity for housing and employment those staying home enjoy. It is not a regular profession in many ways and we should stop pretending this is so. It is a burden all should share. There is also a responsibility to not swerve from the legal use of the military for defense into these bullshit policy wars they feel arrogant about starting and perpetuating. And they use the war status to take away our rights at home on top of it. War status that will be used to institute martial law when they feel the time is right. Young people should serve, if not in the military, in the capacity of doing something else for the community. It is a useful rite of passage for them, teaching them to be mindful their freedom and happiness is directly tied to how well they care to protect that of others around them. It makes those sending them to war more careful that they do war making right and for the right reasons, and ends how they take for granted the service of military people figuring it is a mercenary voluntary force anyway. I strongly support ending the voluntary military for good. I don't see this as involuntary servitude, and reject how you frame the issue. That is my answer.
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
Amen... Our military is being propped up with girls, criminals and the uneducated.
I strongly support ending the voluntary military for good.
#73. To: Cynicom (#3)
The frauds who vote for these war mongers (O & M) should be required to toss their 1st born into battle. But like all chicken hawks, they're full of crap. War is for other kids, not theirs.
#74. To: Cynicom (#70)
Would not a better idea be to simply bring back the Militia system and do away with the standing army then?
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
#75. To: mirage (#74)
yes, the constitutional militia intended to protect this country's borders and people--not going off to fight pre-emptive foreign wars. what a concept.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
#76. To: mirage (#74)
Indeed it would. However that would give authority to the states and the government would never allow that. If you recall a few years ago under Clinton that Maddy Albright said..."What good is the military if you never use them"....
Would not a better idea be to simply bring back the Militia system and do away with the standing army then?
.
.
.
Comments (77 - 81) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest