We’ve finally gotten to the point of debate I’d hoped for: whether the intended effects of less military adventure would actually come to fruition by a 10% draft.
Lots of good posts to respond too, I’ll try and go thru a couple of the counter-arguments
1- see below.
2- Money, when used for it, is political clout. This is America. Without getting into a debate about the Obama election (or any election), any serious Presidential candidate needs money backing him before the public, of any financial means, can vote him into office.
3 - I’m not really talking about the outcome of a war, only whether they should have been entered into in the first place. You do make a good point, though. Let’s assume there was no misrepresentation about Iraq. A lot of times a valid case can be made to attack a country, but it might not be totally necessary to do that. Even if it’s somewhat necessary, it might not be worth the loss of American lives. I’m hoping a lot less cases will be made to go into war in the first place (through political pressure), thus the vast majority of Americans won’t support it.
4 - Do you mean if the politician’s child was in the military? I would hope the politician would vote for a war thinking everyone soldier was his child; having a real one serving, would solidify this. If that’s not what you mean, then let me know.
I distinguished between voluntary and involuntary service, but even a “rich” person would not want their child to serve in an unworthy war. So that’s a minor point. I read the report again, carefully, and if I read it right the top “quintile” was $52k - $200k; and not $52k - infinity. You should check to make sure I’m reading that correctly.
If so, then that’s not the rich I’m talking about. Not close. I wouldn’t even start “rich” with political clout at anything under $250k. And I’d rather it be well above that. Let’s just say I’m looking at the Top 1% of income to have the kind of influence it would take.
Good point. It does mean they would “care” then, whereas before they might not have. I’m not sure how to get around this, though. You’d have to use the ole, “what, you’re too good to serve in the military” type of pressure and hope they respond, “No, not at all. I just don’t think we need to be fighting over there because of x, y, z”. Anyone else got ideas?
I think it would still be extremely effective. As long as they can be trained effectively, and the pressure to perform by the other 90% of the military notwithstanding, should keep things in check. It’s a good argument, though. You will no doubt get some people who are less unwilling than a volunteer, but I bet there are volunteers who are/act the same way in the military today.
The soldiers themselves would not act as a check, but their friends/relatives (the public). The public can influence their elected Congressman. Politicians should act as a political check on foreign policy.