Rangel is making an important point, even if his argument for the draft does not work. War is a special activity of society. It is one of the few in which the citizen is expected -- at least in principle -- to fight and, if necessary, die for his country. It is more than a career. It is an existential commitment, a willingness to place oneself at risk for one's country. The fact that children of the upper classes, on the whole, do not make that existential commitment represents a tremendous weakness in American society. When those who benefit most from a society feel no obligation to defend it, there is a deep and significant malaise in that society.

Perhaps. Certainly the nature of political discourse has evolved (for the worse, most would agree) since World War II.

I might argue that the apparent absence of obligation can be easily explained. "Those who benefit most" are not compelled to defend because they do not really feel threatened and do not feel that running around Ramadi in a HMMWV is really protecting Americans. If the mood of the general public reflected the sense that America faces an existential threat, I think plenty of people would be ready to make an existential commitment.

So when "those who benefit most" display no feeling of obligation, they are reflecting a general disregard not for the fundamental existence of America, but for the chronic plight of the rest of the world. This disregard is quite widespread and does not split along class lines. Why should Americans feel more obligated to prevent civil war in Iraq than in Sudan? That's easy; because Americans actively established the conditions for civil war in Iraq, but merely failed to act in Sudan.

The reasons given by enlisted volunteers are as various as the volunteers themselves, but broadly, the Army is seen as both an opportunity and (perhaps ironically) as a (financial) "safe harbor". As evidenced by the "who's Rumsfeld?" comment, the motivations of volunteers are not necessarily political. If you polled new Army recruits about their reasons for joining up, I think you'd find very few who refer to the prevention of African genocide or to the encouragement of women's literacy.

There is room among the arguments against leaving Iraq for something about not creating a "haven" for anti-American terrorists. But this does not translate into an argument for going to Iraq. By staying in Iraq to suppress civil war, we accomplish very little toward eliminating the existential threat to America, to the extent it is even real. There is little reason to expect successful businessmen to join the Army when the threat is sufficiently abstract that the most accessible means to understanding it is a RAND monograph.

If, as the RAND monograph suggests, "deny[ing] sanctuaries to terrorists" is a pillar of the war on terror, and if civil war zones are assumed to create such sanctuaries, then the war strategy now obligates the US to intervene in all future civil wars. Clearly our (in)actions indicate that we do not believe in our own strategy -- neither in its merits nor in its practicality.

This is amusing:

If you can play tennis as well as you claim to for as long as you say, you can patrol a village in the Sunni Triangle.

As for Friedman's claim that

There is no inherent reason why enlistment -- or conscription -- should be targeted toward those in late adolescence.

I wonder about the futility of trying to train a 50-year-old bankruptcy attorney how to hunt terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan. Something about old dogs ...

Stratfor (and Rangel) on the Draft

The head of al Qaeda's Iraq operations yesterday ... praised US voters ...

It's worth noting that this statement is coming from al-Masri. We still have not heard from Zawahiri since the madrasa attack. The clock is ticking ...

In neighboring Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also expressed satisfaction with the Democratic gains in the US vote, calling them a boon for Tehran.

"This defeat [the thumpin'] is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

A vote against Christian conservatives is a vote for militant Islam? Were you thinking about that when you decided to punish them for Brownie's ineptitude?

On Tuesday, you were mujahideen, and your Diebold was your Kalashnikov.

Al Qaeda gloats over US election

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

The relevant section from Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases

I can't help but notice this can now be referred to as the "PERP Act".

Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006 -- H.R. 2679 -- provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees.

With regard to the Boy Scouts angle, see BSA Legal:

Boy Scouts of America appreciates Congress’ interest in the litigation facing Boy Scouts and the solution Congress is pursuing in the “Veterans’ Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006.” For the past decade, Boy Scouts as well as federal, state, and local governments that support Boy Scouts, have been the targets of ACLU lawsuits challenging Boy Scouts’ relationships with government entities. Those lawsuits seek to use the Establishment Clause to sever government relationships with Scouting merely because Boy Scouts pledge a nonsectarian promise to do their “duty to God.” Boy Scouts of America hopes that the Veterans’ Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006 will help eliminate this frivolous litigation against Scouting and government entities.

From the record:

The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the City of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts.

Also:

In Redlands, California, the city council reluctantly capitulated to ACLU's demands and agreed to change their official seal. But Redlands didn't have the municipal funds to revise police and firefighter badges that contained the old seal so, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, `rather than face the likelihood of costly litigation,' Redlands residents now `see blue tape covering the cross on city trucks, while some firefighters have taken drills to `obliterate it' from their badges.'

Further:

The official name of the City of Los Angeles (known as `The City of Angels') is `The Town of Our Lady the Queen of Angels of the Little Portion,' which refers to Mary, Mother of Jesus. Many other California cities contain religious references, including San Clemente, Santa Monica, Sacramento (named for the `Holy Sacrament'), San Francisco and San Luis Obispo (named for Saint Louis the Bishop). Under precedents groups like the ACLU are setting under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the very names of these cities are in legal jeopardy.

To the section which begins "including, but not limited to, a violation resulting from--", they might as well have added "(5) a government employee's particularly pious demeanor." How can you disagree with that? Shouldn't government employees have the same rights as everyone else, wi... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy? The signs are not good.

Is Persuasion Dead?