Just read some excellent columns in a new online journal I highly recommend: American Greatness.
Among the columns was this one on Making America Victorious Again. The net is that our foreign policy sucks, is bipartisan, has stunk for a long time and perhaps the only way to fix it is to change the guy at the top. It’s a good argument and you should read it.
One commenter posited that a military draft – broadly enough applied, which would have to include the kids of Congressmen – could change our foreign policy and end the useless, un-won wars we have for so long pretended to be fighting. (The idea of Congress enacting a draft that included their own kids, the same Congress that excludes itself from every other law they don’t like but insist we follow, is not at-issue.)
My reply is below, in which points are made I thought worthy of sharing.
A draft will not lead to the conclusion that it would force hard thought [around where/when/how long we deploy our troops]. We had a draft in Vietnam, yet kept electing politicians sending our kids to kill and die in a war we had no intention of winning. Rather, had every kid, and the parent of every kid who went to Canada or to Europe or underground, stood up, said, “No,” and been willing to be jailed for their resistance to being uselessly killed, the course would have changed. America would not have locked-up 100,000 Middle Class sons, or 200,000 parents. By running away from the duty of those in a republic to resist when their government becomes non-representative and puts the interests of others first, they failed the nation, and all who died in that war. As the columnist points out – all those who died in every “limited war” since.
It is not a draft which will cause voters and the pols we elect to change course. Rather, is it an acceptance that war IS hell, that is MUST be that way, that it must ONLY be fought win, and won as productively, totally and quickly as possible. And by electing leaders who agree, who make war only when necessary (Afghanistan may have been necessary; Iraq was not), and make war so totally that the enemy becomes completely dependent on their conqueror and takes decades (if ever) to again become a threat to America.
If you want no more war, make it as brutal and overwhelmingly violent to the enemy as possible, while showing no effect on yourselves. Make it so horrible we do not only not grow too fond of it; that our violence is such that no one starts any more of them. Our most productive weapons are nuclear weapons. Not using them is an absurdity.
America at war with a 3rd world country should be seen as a giant swatting dead a mosquito: Almost no effort on our part. Total and immediate destruction on theirs. It is how we won WW2: Bringing the maximum available force to the enemy, whether Berlin, Cologne, Tokyo or Hiroshima, and crushing them absolutely.
Our ability to bring force has increased exponentially; our willingness to use force has declined to zero – along with peace and our leadership.
Germans and Japanese have ever since been economic, political and military allies – and freer, better-educated and wealthier than ever before in their history. (Why we hate the muslims so much as to reject similarly yanking them from totalitarianism and into education and wealth is beyond thinking people.)
Ike had it right @ CFR in Jan 1954: No conventional wars, no expensive conventional forces; if we or our allies are attacked, we are going “all in.” Note that he is the only post-war president who did not sent our kids to war during his time in office.
If war is NOT hell, we should, as Lee noted, grow too fond of it.
I would note that is exactly what has happened as we have made war small, used essentially “police” weapons (“smart” munitions) to minimize the brutality that is required to achieve victory in war, and has become generally nonviolent other than at the battlefield (we no longer are destroying reservoirs, electrical grids, transportation networks, farms, etc.) in our fantasy of a “nice” war.
And somehow we have convinced generations of American parents that the civilians of opposing powers are more valuable than are our own children: We are so fond of it that we celebrate it with flags of every kid who joins up and goes off to fight, kill and die in a war we – we, for it is we who elect our leaders – don’t want to win.
Had we dropped a tactical nuke on Hanoi in 1964, we would not have killed the (ultimately) 2M Vietnamese killed in our engagement, nor have killed 58,000 of our own. It would have made the – required – political statement that we are serious and, more likely than not, ended the war before it escalated. Ike’s threat of doing so got DPRK to the conference table, ultimately ending the Korean conflict.
Not dropping The Bomb on Hanoi was one of the more immoral choices this nation ever has made.
When the Yazidi were being slaughtered day-by-day on a mountain 2km distant from the ISIS encampment, 1.4km vertically removed, and 10km from the nearest village, we made nine airstrikes and killed 14 vehicles. And saved zero Yazidi.
Had we dropped a 5Kt nuke on the ISIS encampment with a surface detonation, those ISIS forces would have been annihilated, no towns or villages harmed, and the Yazidi, who were distant enough from the blast not only not been harmed, would have been saved. (Details here.)
The political statement of our doing so would have caused a re-think across the region – and around the world as to the value and commitment of America to our allies: We ARE serous.
Our choice not to use our most productive weapons was, again, immoral.
If America no longer is going to be serious about foreign policy and war – which is the net of the linked column – it is time to stop pretending and await the Eloi.
But if we want to continue to influence world affairs, our seriousness in that most serious of man’s endeavors cannot be open to question.