It's getting chilly in here

Question: If there's not going to be a draft, if no one has any intention of instituting the draft, why is there so damn much talk about "is there going to be a draft?"

Why was the Christian Science Monitor's Terrorism & Security column for February 22 devoted to it?

Why is the cover story of the March issue of the Washington Monthly called "The Case for the Draft?"

Why did Lou Dobbs have the authors on his show on March 3 to pitch their idea?

Why is the Pentagon moaning about its recruiting shortfalls?

Why is there talk about a "maxed out" Army and a "broken" Reserve?

Folks, this is what's called setting the stage. But for what? A draft, yes, but even beyond that for a celebration of a deepened militarism as the hallmark of our relations with the rest of the world. The draft would not be a tool of defense - whatever that means in military terms - but of aggression and dominance.

Consider for just one example the Washington Monthly article. Reading it, you realize that the authors are basing their argument on the assumption that every military deployment, every battle, every war we have undertaken or been involved in since the end of Vietnam, including the invasion of Iraq, was entirely correct and justified and what's more, there will be more such in the future. Put another way, if we hadn't engaged in an illegal, immoral, inhumane war based on lies (albeit it has to be asked what war isn't) the legacy of which has been chaos and the justification of torture, this whole question would never have arisen.

I have said this for my gosh over 35 years now and I haven't budged an inch: I am opposed to military conscription at any time, in any form, by anyone, for any purpose. And if the result of that would be that, in the claims of the authors of the Washington Monthly article, the US could no longer be the world's superpower, I say so much the better.