Noam Chomsky, the draft, and your thoughts?

[Sarah Palin]

I found the following Chomsky quote particularly enlightening. I happen to agree with his thoughts about a volunteer army (As in the US) being nothing more than a mercenary army, e.g people who want to kill. I think I'm now leaning towards wanting a draft partly because of the quote and also because of the sorry state of the US anti-war movement has driven me to this desperation, and I think a draft is the only way to revitalize it.

Noam Chomsky:

I think it’s extremely unlikely. I should tell you this as a word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance movement in the 1960’s. In fact, I was just barely—the only reason I missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance, but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody seems to agree. In my view, if there’s going to be an army, I think it ought to be a citizen’s army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the top brass, they don’t want a citizen’s army. They want a mercenary army, what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen’s army to fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often drawn from the country that they’re attacking like England ran India with Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That’s the standard way to run imperial wars. They’re just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And that’s why I think that they’re not going to have a draft. That’s why I’m in favor of it. If there’s going to be an army that will fight brutal, colonial wars, and that’s the only likely kind of war, I’m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen’s army so that the attitudes of the society are reflected in the military.

Your thoughts?

[gorillafuck]

He seems to be thinking that just because it is volunteer, the people who sign up to fight actually know what is coming.

People can shoot and kill more easily now not because it's volunteer but because they use more effective methods in training people to kill. You can see an increase in how many people shot at the enemy from WW2 to Vietnam while both were draft armies.

[Dervish]

Under capitalism, no signing of contract is really "voluntary".
The workers are always driven by the necessities of survival and economic need.

[Dust Bunnies]

The loss in Vietnam was a result of tactics not because they used a drafted army.

The draft is still escaped by the rich. People such as Rush Limbaugh escape because of a tiny little problem (something with hair or warts). To force people to fight is not good, the rich will still escape, making it a higher chance the poor are sent to die. It lowers organization in a fighting force, since it is easier to train 20 men than 50 men. Though on the bright side, a draft army may help spark revolts. The Russian Army in World War I was draft I think and when they were taking heavy casualties and dying, they deserted.

[FreeFocus]

Chomsky often says stupid ass things. This is one of them. How an "anarchist" could support a draft, the very embodiment of the violation and usurpation of individual liberty in the form of disregarding a person's will, is beyond me. And obviously, there's the class aspect to the draft - there's always more poor people than rich people in a capitalist society.

Whether you have a draft or a volunteer army, you'll still have an imperialist army. Composition matters little. Furthermore, the anti-Vietnam movement disintegrated after that war ended - it didn't expand to a broader anti-imperialist movement. That was with a draft.

[x359594]

...How an "anarchist" could support a draft, the very embodiment of the violation and usurpation of individual liberty in the form of disregarding a person's will, is beyond me. And obviously, there's the class aspect to the draft - there's always more poor people than rich people in a capitalist society...

It's called anarchist realism. For the foreseeable future, the US is going to have a military that wages imperialist wars, and it will do so with a mercenary army. Chomsky seems to believe that a draft will cut across class lines and create mass resistance to the next US war of aggression as occured with Vietnam when every able bodied male was subject to being drafted no matter their class background. Indeed, expensive upscale colleges like Columbia University and UC Berkeley were focal points of resistance to the war. While it's true that there are more poor people than there are rich people proportionally, by far the greater number of white draftees came from the blue collar middle class.


...Whether you have a draft or a volunteer army, you'll still have an imperialist army. Composition matters little. Furthermore, the anti-Vietnam movement disintegrated after that war ended - it didn't expand to a broader anti-imperialist movement. That was with a draft.

No, that was not with a draft. By 1970, a lottery system was introduced, and by 1971 Nixon starting withdrawing troops from Vietnam; they were gone by 1972. Naturally enough the anti-war movement disintegrated with the threat of a draft lifted, with intensified state repression, with Leninist sectarianism rampant, with foolish adventurism on the part of the Weatherunderground, Black Liberation Army and Symbionese Liberation Army.

There are complex reasons why the anti-war movement didn't expand into a broader anti-imperialist movement. I think Chomsky understands these reasons. The problem with Chomsky's thinking here is that what mobilized people in the 1960s may not work at some later point in time (I don't know when he made the statement in question.) We really don't know (and can't know) whether a sweeping anti-war mass movement against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars would have emerged had there been a 1960s type of draft in effect. Apparently Chomsky thought so.

[x359594]

.[/QUOTE] He seems to be thinking that just because it is volunteer, the people who sign up to fight actually know what is coming...[/QUOTE]

Never underestimate the power of people to fool themselves. Note that volunteer recruitment has declined once the wars lasted more than a year.

.[/QUOTE]...People can shoot and kill more easily now not because it's volunteer but because they use more effective methods in training people to kill. You can see an increase in how many people shot at the enemy from WW2 to Vietnam while both were draft armies.[/QUOTE]

Where did you find the figures for this statement? And what are those figures?

[x359594]

The loss in Vietnam was a result of tactics not because they used a drafted army...

Chomsky is not talking about the loss in Vietnam as such. Had the public been willing to tolerate the use of nuclear weapons they would have been used (note that Nixon contemplated dropping one on Haiphong Harbor in December 1971 but settled for saturation bombing of Hanoi instead, the infamous Christmass Bombing Campaign; there was too much Soviet shipping anchored there.)


...The draft is still escaped by the rich. People such as Rush Limbaugh escape because of a tiny little problem (something with hair or warts). To force people to fight is not good, the rich will still escape, making it a higher chance the poor are sent to die. It lowers organization in a fighting force, since it is easier to train 20 men than 50 men. Though on the bright side, a draft army may help spark revolts. The Russian Army in World War I was draft I think and when they were taking heavy casualties and dying, they deserted.

I assume you meant to write in the past tense, because the US does not have a draft; and while many rich men received deferments, most sons of the middle class didn't.

Yes, the Russian Imperial Army was a conscript army and mutinies and desertions were common. The army went over to the revolution in part because the revolutionaries promised peace.

[ComradeOm]

An interesting point by Chomsky and I think that his analysis probably correct on the historical. The fact is that mass conscript armies are only really good for one thing - fighting major total wars against industrialised powers. For the other purposes of having a military - domestic control and imperial expeditions - a small professional, ie politically reliable, army is far more preferable. From an historical point of view if nothing else

As for his support of the draft... well here I think that Chomsky is indulging in the myth of the 'citizen army' that been so loved by bourgeois ideologues since the French Revolution. I'm slightly sympathetic to Chomsky's position, as it is undeniably better than a small professional force, but he seems to ignore class analysis. The reality is that a 'citizen's army' is a bourgeois army and an instrument of bourgeois control. It may be less effective at stifling dissent than a professional force but that does still not make it revolutionary or progressive. In both models the officer corp will still be drawn from the middle classes and will still have the responsibility of indoctrinating the rank and file. In a worst case scenario, as seen in early 20th C Europe, the ideal of the 'citizen-soldier' can be perverted and reduced to 'soldier-citizen'

Of course there is always the irony of a self-professed anarchist endorsing conscription into a bourgeois army

[Dust Bunnies]

I assume you meant to write in the past tense, because the US does not have a draft;


Sorry, I did mean to write it in past tense (or future tense if there is a draft again). Thanks for picking up on it. :)

[Glenn Beck]

As for his support of the draft... well here I think that Chomsky is indulging in the myth of the 'citizen army' that been so loved by bourgeois ideologues since the French Revolution. I'm slightly sympathetic to Chomsky's position, as it is undeniably better than a small professional force, but he seems to ignore class analysis. The reality is that a 'citizen's army' is a bourgeois army and an instrument of bourgeois control. It may be less effective at stifling dissent than a professional force but that does still not make it revolutionary or progressive. In both models the officer corp will still be drawn from the middle classes and will still have the responsibility of indoctrinating the rank and file. In a worst case scenario, as seen in early 20th C Europe, the ideal of the 'citizen-soldier' can be perverted and reduced to 'soldier-citizen'

The idea of a conscript army potentially having a democratizing and radicalizing role isn't without precedent in Marxism though, Engels wrote about it.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj97/achcar.htm


'The more workers who are trained in the use of weapons the better. Universal conscription is the necessary and natural corollary of universal suffrage; it puts the voters in the position of being able to enforce their decisions gun in hand against any attempt at a coup d'état'."

[ComradeOm]

The idea of a conscript army potentially having a democratizing and radicalizing role isn't without precedent in Marxism though, Engels wrote about it.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj97/achcar.htmI think that this is one of those occasions when we know better today simply through experience. When Engels was writing this in the mid-1860s* and a citizen (read:conscript) army would be associated with the heroics of 1793 rather than the slaughter 1914. We now know that the army, while of undoubted importance in 1917, is not in itself the "kingpin of the revolutionary strategy"

*Interestingly enough at the same time that the Prussian government was reforming its military along the lines of universal conscription. I'd love to see Engels' thoughts on these first hand but his section of MIA is frustratingly bare

[jake williams]

Fuck the army, fuck the draft. At this point I have no sympathy for soldiers in imperialist armies. I don't care if you're poor. Starve to death. I don't care if you're uneducated. If you don't think war is fucking horrendous, you're too stupid to walk, never mind participate in one.

[Revy]

He's wrong. It's more than likely, it's a certainty that the draft will be brought back. And no, it's not a good thing. The draft will mean that the youth, the working class, will be legally coerced to fight in imperialist wars. The draft is often used when propaganda is not enough to sustain a "volunteer" army. So it is of great benefit to those that want more war. And it usually means the repression of dissent.

Of course we will have reverse-revolutionists who think that these horrible conditions are justifiable on their own because it will bring about revolution. That the draft will cause anti-war radicalism not seen before. I do not think the wars of the past were seen as horrific because of the draft. In Vietnam you have massacres, chemical warfare, and bombings that were carried out by the military. People did not burn those draft cards only thinking about themselves. The people of Vietnam, this was on their minds all the time.

[ComradeOm]

Fuck the army, fuck the draft. At this point I have no sympathy for soldiers in imperialist armies. I don't care if you're poor. Starve to death. I don't care if you're uneducated. If you don't think war is fucking horrendous, you're too stupid to walk, never mind participate in one.Yeah, this is the sort of in-depth analysis that Chomsky is perfectly correct to distance himself from. I might not agree with the man's conclusions but at least he hasn't resorted to the likes of this. Something that, dressed up slightly, is all too common on the American left


He's wrong. It's more than likely, it's a certainty that the draft will be brought backWell that's an interesting thing. There's no question that a professional military is more suited to imperialist expeditions (the massive sea change in US military doctrine and structures post-Vietnam is testament enough to that) but the signs are the the weakening US hegemony is placing this limited tool under severe strain. To put it bluntly - there may not be enough soldiers to meet the mounting challenges to US dominance. Like Britain in the early 20th C, the US finds itself dangerously overstretched. The reinstatement of the draft would be a hugely significant admittance of that fact

[Yehuda Stern]

We don't support any bourgeois army, let alone that of the USA, but Chomsky is a hundred percent correct that the draft was canceled because the US ruling class was afraid of the army reflecting popular sentiments. I think the attitude shouldn't be one of support - supporting an imperialist army is a betrayal of revolutionary principles, but then Chomsky has no problem with that, considering his electoral support for the Democratic party - but to not resist the draft, so that the vanguard can be there along with the other workers and spread revolutionary propaganda - never mind the importance of learning how to use firearms.

[Lynx]

Most people are opposed to a draft, thus it has to be imposed. The ruling class would not have imposed the draft unless it were necessary.
Was Chomsky suggesting the war effort in Vietnam could have been sustained without resorting to the draft?

[x359594]

...I think the attitude shouldn't be one of support - supporting an imperialist army is a betrayal of revolutionary principles, but then Chomsky has no problem with that, considering his electoral support for the Democratic party...

He didn't support the Democratic Party as such, rather Chomsky believed that at present it was tactically wise to oppose the election of John McCain. He's been a vociferously public critic of the Democrats since the Truman administration and down to the present administration without break.

As for supporting an imperialist army, Chomsky was very active in the Keep Military Recruiters OFF Campus movement in the Boston area until his wife's death. His record of opposition to imperialist wars goes back to the Korean War and all of the US military interventions since then; he was in the minority in his opposition to US-NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, and his book The New Military Humanism is a very good analysis of neo-imperialist military intervention.

[MilitantWorker]

Has anyone seen the documentary "Sir, No, Sir!" ?

It's about the GI movement in Vietnam. It's very good and has a lot of good historical information in it.

I think that the idea that class plays a minimal part in the draft or army is a false one. People from the upper middle class and above often had the resources to maneuver around the draft and if they actually went to Vietnam they often entered as officers. Working class people probably made up a large part of the infantry, it'd be cool if someone could find statistics.

The ruling class is definitely aware that if the armed forces turn against them they are screwed. What action they have decided to take, if any, is anyone's guess but the privatization of armed forces is a scary trend.

[JimmyJazz]

He seems to be thinking that just because it is volunteer, the people who sign up to fight actually know what is coming...Never underestimate the power of people to fool themselves. Note that volunteer recruitment has declined once the wars lasted more than a year.

Indeed. I distinctly remember the morning that the Iraq War started--I was in a biology class when I found out it happened. Right afterwards I ran to the computer lab and started reading news sites online, and on the msnbc.com homepage, accompanying the story, was a poll: "How long do you think U.S. forces will be in Iraq?" with the options of three weeks, three months, etc. The highest option in the poll was "a year or more."

I will never forgive myself for not getting a screenshot of that.

[jake williams]

Yeah, this is the sort of in-depth analysis that Chomsky is perfectly correct to distance himself from. I might not agree with the man's conclusions but at least he hasn't resorted to the likes of this. Something that, dressed up slightly, is all too common on the American left
People who care more about imperialist soldiers (armies are made up of soldiers, believe it or not) than about their victims are the ones who are too common on the American "left". Precisely because it is a volunteer army - yes, a coerced volunteer army, but a volunteer army nonetheless - the soldiers are all at least partly responsible for the consequences of their actions. And the consequences of their actions are mass murder. I have no sympathy for even partially responsible mass murderers.

Capitalist coercion justifies a lot of things. It doesn't justify murdering for the state.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I do agree that the current 'voluntary' army definitely is coercive in its recruiting of the young working class men and women of America and I do not believe these people are simply cold blooded killers. I am not justifying what these men and women do however. I do not understand Chomsky's stance also, I am sure that a bourgeois countries draft is all but random. And I am certain the bourgeoisie will be unaffected by it. Both options injure our class.

[x359594]

People who care more about imperialist soldiers (armies are made up of soldiers, believe it or not) than about their victims are the ones who are too common on the American "left"...I have no sympathy for even partially responsible mass murderers...

Who are these people to which you refer?

I take it that you're an absolute war tax resisting pacifist. If so, more power to you.

[jake williams]

I may as well add that the net effect of implementing a draft would be significantly amplified coercion on the working class to join the army (although I'd still argue that you're not a decent person if you choose killing people over prison), and stronger imperialist military power. It wouldn't hurt the bourgeoisie. It might significantly affect public opposition to the war, but it really doesn't seem like it's worth the risk, frankly. If you're just trying to do it out of spite, I can understand the desire but it's not worth the cost - there are more efficient ways to get back at overprivileged brats who would be dodging a draft anyway.


Who are these people to which you refer?
The mainstream of anti-war America. If you define the "left" differently than it's a tiny part - but when you hear someone talking about the costs of the Iraq war, and they mention soldiers with PTSD - that's completely intolerable.

[mel]

People who care more about imperialist soldiers (armies are made up of soldiers, believe it or not) than about their victims are the ones who are too common on the American "left". Precisely because it is a volunteer army - yes, a coerced volunteer army, but a volunteer army nonetheless - the soldiers are all at least partly responsible for the consequences of their actions. And the consequences of their actions are mass murder. I have no sympathy for even partially responsible mass murderers.

Capitalist coercion justifies a lot of things. It doesn't justify murdering for the state.

Please, just get off it. I've literally seen military recruiters target the poor and disadvantaged, the academically struggling. I've heard the disappointment in their voice as somebody tells them that they're doing well and are going to get into college without their "help", and I've seen people out of desperation reach out for the only help they can get their hands on in order to get out of the situations they're in (and believe me, some of them are pretty shitty) and cling to the promises that maybe, just maybe they'll have a shot.

Your insistence that you wouldn't fall into that trap is meaningless if you've never been in that position. It's easy to be strong when a problem is distant from you, but when it stares you in the face and you have a choice between trying to build yourself a better life, and a chance at a college education you couldn't otherwise get, or staying in your rural rut of a shitty town where you have no life and no future you might change your tune. If soldiers had a fucking clue what they were getting into, and were really volunteers, you might have a point, but by and large these are people who are absolutely gripped by desperation and poverty and who cling to promises they don't know the state won't keep in order to try to deal with the situations they find themselves in.

Nobody should care more about the imperialists than their victims, but many of those soldiers are victims of capitalism and imperialism too, and its the policies of imperialists that sent them to war. You think if none of them "volunteered" imperialism would go away? Do you think it would even be severely hampered? A volunteer army may be easier to indoctrinate, and may be a more effective weapon for the imperialists, but a conscripted one will do the job too.

[jake williams]

Your insistence that you wouldn't fall into that trap is meaningless if you've never been in that position.
My mother and I have lived on her minimum wage job... basically forever. The last year and a half or so that's been part-time. I've never looked to being a mercenary, or a crack dealer, or an organ thief to get out of poverty. No one is justified in doing so. In fact, that list is offensive to crack dealers, who usually have real problems that cause them to do what they do.

I really can't think of any situation that would justify becoming a hired gun.

[mel]

My mother and I have lived on her minimum wage job... basically forever. The last year and a half or so that's been part-time. I've never looked to being a mercenary, or a crack dealer, or an organ thief to get out of poverty. No one is justified in doing so. In fact, that list is offensive to crack dealers, who usually have real problems that cause them to do what they do.

I really can't think of any situation that would justify becoming a hired gun.

It might not be justified, but it's explainable and you cannot just dismiss out of hand that these people had fucking reasons to do what they do. You're in a relatively unique position of being ideologically motivated and understanding the strings that are being pulled behind the scenes. Congratulations!

Most people who sell themselves to the state are not in such a glorious position as you are that they can immediately concern themselves with (as if they can even adequately comprehend) the full consequences of their actions. Theirs is a type of desperation that you cannot hope to match. The fact that you're here having this discussion is a testament to your ability to move beyond the influences which drive most people into the service to begin with. Not everyone has that capability. Consider yourself lucky. I'm lucky too, but not everyone is.

[RHIZOMES]

Yeah since noone joins the army because they have no other viable economic option available to them, right? :rolleyes:

[Revy]

an Army commercial (more so for non-American members who might not see these commercials):

cq-ZVIZJaI8

Isn't this just fucking bullshit? Seriously, these commercials piss me off every time I see them. But go on YouTube, and not surprisingly, a bunch of uber-patriots at the ready to cheer about it. Which is why I see propaganda as a major factor. the Army even made a VIDEO GAME called America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/), and released it for free, thinking it would act as a combat simulator and foster illusions about war in those that play it.

[jake williams]

Yeah since noone joins the army because they have no other viable economic option available to them, right? :rolleyes:
If someone gives you two choices: you get to blind a small child, or you get to eat your food out of a dumpster forever - which would you pick?

ed:

It might not be justified, but it's explainable and you cannot just dismiss out of hand that these people had fucking reasons to do what they do.
It would be insane to put all responsibility on soldiers, or to ignore the horrendous affects of a militarized, indoctrinated society on those soldiers. I don't. I'd say almost no one does.


You're in a relatively unique position of being ideologically motivated and understanding the strings that are being pulled behind the scenes. Congratulations!

Most people who sell themselves to the state are not in such a glorious position as you are that they can immediately concern themselves with (as if they can even adequately comprehend) the full consequences of their actions. Theirs is a type of desperation that you cannot hope to match. The fact that you're here having this discussion is a testament to your ability to move beyond the influences which drive most people into the service to begin with. Not everyone has that capability. Consider yourself lucky. I'm lucky too, but not everyone is.
First, I make it a habit not to think I'm that special. Frankly I think it's a little patronizing to say that we see the light and they don't.

Second, that only goes to my second point. You have to have a really unusual kind of insanity for the unspeakable atrocity of warfare to not be immediately apparent to you. It doesn't take a special kind of intelligence. It's bloody fucking obvious immediately unless you're a deranged psychopath.

[FreeFocus]

If someone gives you two choices: you get to blind a small child, or you get to eat your food out of a dumpster forever - which would you pick?

Clearly I would blind the small child, I mean, who wouldn't? It's my self-interest, the fact that the kid will be blind for the rest of their life is a distant fact for me and therefore irrelevant. I mean, I can have a better life at their expense, so why not? Especially if it's a little brown child. Who gives a fuck then.

[mel]

It would be insane to put all responsibility on soldiers, or to ignore the horrendous affects of a militarized, indoctrinated society on those soldiers. I don't. I'd say almost no one does.

You put a lot of blame on them that I think is undue. Do you really think that every soldier before they enlist thinks to themselves "Whoopee! I get to go halfway across the world and kill some shit. If it's a little brown kid, even better!" By and large these are people with no viable economic alternative, the immediate consequences of their enlisting are not necessarily apparent (a lot of recruiters make it sound like you'll never actually go to war, troops get stationed a whole lot of places, and you might never have to fire your gun). It's just for a few years, and then you get money to go to college, get a good job, etc. etc. etc.


First, I make it a habit not to think I'm that special. Frankly I think it's a little patronizing to say that we see the light and they don't.

You aren't special, but you are in a minority political position. One which is particularly critical of the status quo (which is the status quo for a reason) and are much more critical of propaganda than the average (and much more able to recognize it). You can pretend that just anybody (and in fact everybody) could be exactly where you are politically right now, but if that were true, then what is stopping everyone else? Why aren't they all class conscious? Why don't they see through the bullshit. You may not think of yourself as special, but you are in a class-conscious minority, and you have a wildly different political perspective than the class-unconscious majority. You can't deny that.


Second, that only goes to my second point. You have to have a really unusual kind of insanity for the unspeakable atrocity of warfare to not be immediately apparent to you. It doesn't take a special kind of intelligence. It's bloody fucking obvious immediately unless you're a deranged psychopath.

So any soldier that has enlisted is a deranged psychopath that enjoys causing death and destruction and leaving terror in their wake wherever they go? You have to have a really unusual kind of insanity to believe that anybody who agrees to be a soldier is that warped before they enlist.

[jake williams]

You put a lot of blame on them that I think is undue. Do you really think that every soldier before they enlist thinks to themselves "Whoopee! I get to go halfway across the world and kill some shit. If it's a little brown kid, even better!" By and large these are people with no viable economic alternative, the immediate consequences of their enlisting are not necessarily apparent (a lot of recruiters make it sound like you'll never actually go to war, troops get stationed a whole lot of places, and you might never have to fire your gun). It's just for a few years, and then you get money to go to college, get a good job, etc. etc. etc.

You aren't special, but you are in a minority political position. One which is particularly critical of the status quo (which is the status quo for a reason) and are much more critical of propaganda than the average (and much more able to recognize it). You can pretend that just anybody (and in fact everybody) could be exactly where you are politically right now, but if that were true, then what is stopping everyone else? Why aren't they all class conscious? Why don't they see through the bullshit. You may not think of yourself as special, but you are in a class-conscious minority, and you have a wildly different political perspective than the class-unconscious majority. You can't deny that.
Fair enough.


So any soldier that has enlisted is a deranged psychopath that enjoys causing death and destruction and leaving terror in their wake wherever they go? You have to have a really unusual kind of insanity to believe that anybody who agrees to be a soldier is that warped before they enlist.
I think people who actually enjoy killing are extremely rare. I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to the ambivalence about it. Ambivalence to atrocity is not, I think something rare in our society, but I think we should challenge it. Really, to me it comes down to this: you're given a choice between maybe making a woman watch two pieces of her husband sit on opposite sides of a street and not being able to do anything about it for days - or working at McDonalds. I just don't think you can say of soldiers that they don't realize war is bad - that's one thing that takes a special kind of psychopath. It takes another kind not to care. But soldiers are one or the other. Either they don't understand that mass killing is wrong, and no measure of the middle-level poverty even the worse off Americans experience could justify participation in it - or they're just ambivalent about it, and that's fucked up too, probably more.

[mel]

I think people who actually enjoy killing are extremely rare. I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to the ambivalence about it. Ambivalence to atrocity is not, I think something rare in our society, but I think we should challenge it. Really, to me it comes down to this: you're given a choice between maybe making a woman watch two pieces of her husband sit on opposite sides of a street and not being able to do anything about it for days - or working at McDonalds. I just don't think you can say of soldiers that they don't realize war is bad - that's one thing that takes a special kind of psychopath. It takes another kind not to care. But soldiers are one or the other. Either they don't understand that mass killing is wrong, and no measure of the middle-level poverty even the worse off Americans experience could justify participation in it - or they're just ambivalent about it, and that's fucked up too, probably more.

The other option is that they don't see it as atrocity, or again, don't believe that they'll actually be going to war. People who joined the military before 2000/2001 didn't think they'd really get stationed in a combat zone. People who have joined since have either believed the propaganda (spreading democracy, defeating terrorists) or have been desperate enough that it hasn't mattered. Some have left and/or been dishonorably discharged for not participating in the atrocities, some are traumatized. I sincerely doubt that anybody who has gone to war has REALLY understood what they were getting themselves into. I don't think anybody can adequately expect the things they'll see when they go out there. The picture painted by the "America's Army" game, by the recruiters, and by the mass media in general, is very different from how things actually are out there, and I can't really blame soldiers for not knowing what they were getting themselves into when they joined. You really have to seek out the horror to find it, nobody trying to get you to participate in it is going to show it to you before you join. Propaganda is a subtle sort of coercion, in addition to the more overt coercion that the recruiters also use, it is really quite formidable. Once you're in, and indoctrinated and dehumanized it just gets harder and harder to get back out.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

an Army commercial (more so for non-American members who might not see these commercials):

cq-ZVIZJaI8

Isn't this just fucking bullshit? Seriously, these commercials piss me off every time I see them. But go on YouTube, and not surprisingly, a bunch of uber-patriots at the ready to cheer about it. Which is why I see propaganda as a major factor. the Army even made a VIDEO GAME called America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/), and released it for free, thinking it would act as a combat simulator and foster illusions about war in those that play it.

Great post Eco. It is exactly this sort of propoganda which brainwashes the working class of America and makes them submit to the army. Surely everyone can understand that under serious economic pressure and this propoganda that it would be easy for a worker who had no interest in killing could be coerced into the army?

[x359594]

...Either they don't understand that mass killing is wrong, and no measure of the middle-level poverty even the worse off Americans experience could justify participation in it - or they're just ambivalent about it, and that's fucked up too, probably more.

I think it's more complex than that. People who volunteer in peace time don't think they'll be faced with such a choice. The first wave of troops deployed to Iraq for example enlisted in a peace time military. By and large they're naive kids (some are just stupid) who are conned into joining. Once in, many regret it, and once they find out their going to be deployed to a combat zone they want out. But once the fighting starts it's kill or be killed, and the human personality is quickly degraded so that moral choices cease to matter. A tragedy all the way around.

Returning to Chomsky for a moment, it's easy to see why he supports the military recruiters off campus movement. He also proposed that if military recruiters were allowed on campus to make their pitch for joining the military, then anti-war vets should be given equal time to make the case against joining the military. Realistically this is more effective than appeals to moral rearmament.

[Sarah Palin]

I think Chomsky was commenting on the draft as a means of anti-war. No one protests a war they don't have to fight.

[Outinleftfield]

One thing Chompsky didn't think of, even if they did bring back the draft and even if it did lead to a bigger anti-war movement wouldn't the fact that he advocated the draft so that there would be more resistance turn people off to the left? I can see how someone on the anti-war right could take Chompsky's words and paint the left as opportunists exploiting the draft to get recruits. Maybe as a result libertarian capitalists and even 'anarcho'-capitalists or national-'anarchists' might be the dominant voices in the anti-war movement. Chompsky's idea that the draft would help the left is a self-defeating prophecy.
Regardless it wouldn't be good for stopping wars of imperialism. If you think it's hard for people to do the right thing when the choice is between working at McDonalds and getting potential college and other benefits but possibly killing innocent people think about how much harder it is to do the right thing when the choice is possibly killing innocent people or going to prison and being branded by the state as a "criminal"! The draft would make it much easier for the US government to fight imperialist wars. Vietnam could not have been fought without the draft or they would've. In fact if I wasn't against voting for people I would've picked the righty Goldwater in 64 over LBJ just because Goldwater was against the draft (not only that but against it on principle), because without the draft the Vietnam War would've had to have stopped.
And let's not forget that the personal is political. If we have a draft that means we have to go over there and possibly be forced to kill people to aid the cause of American imperialism. This is repugnant. Alternatively people could choose to go to prison rather than join the military but that takes a lot of bravery and I could see a rift forming in the left over this as some people might see compliance as cowardly and unprincipled over going to prison. Another alternative is leaving the country, but do we really want all the leftists leaving the US? It's no coincidence that Canada moved left and the US moved right. That's because many of the draft dodgers never moved back.

I think it's more complex than that. People who volunteer in peace time don't think they'll be faced with such a choice. The first wave of troops deployed to Iraq for example enlisted in a peace time military. By and large they're naive kids (some are just stupid) who are conned into joining. Once in, many regret it, and once they find out their going to be deployed to a combat zone they want out. But once the fighting starts it's kill or be killed, and the human personality is quickly degraded so that moral choices cease to matter. A tragedy all the way around.

Returning to Chomsky for a moment, it's easy to see why he supports the military recruiters off campus movement. He also proposed that if military recruiters were allowed on campus to make their pitch for joining the military, then anti-war vets should be given equal time to make the case against joining the military. Realistically this is more effective than appeals to moral rearmament.
You're right many don't realize they'll be sent to war. I know someone who joined the military and his recruiter lied and said he knew personally that there was no way his platoon would ever get deployed. He hasn't been deployed but it did turn out his recruiter was lying and he was almost going to be deployed at one point but they changed their mind and didn't deploy him.
I even know "anarchists" who have considered joining the military. And these aren't just people who are into "anarchy" as a fad these people actually understand what "anarchy" is about, but don't think it could happen because there's not enough support and most people understand what "anarchy" is about.
I've heard great dissatisfaction with the status quo from about 9 out of 10 people. Most people don't like the government and don't like the corporations whether they identify on the radical left or not. Nobody is happy with where we're headed. I had a very intellectual discussion with some people about the problems in society, where we're headed, and what should be done(never did really resolve that last part).
The reason there isn't a lot of resistance is because sadly people are too disillusioned.