I’ve been writing here for over eight years, and every time I get into a comfortable little zone where I think I’ve heard every piece of nonsense the war loons can throw at us they manage to surprise with both their unending thirst for blood and treasure and the sheer audacity with which they pursue same.
Today’s atrocity to good taste comes to you, as so many have, by way of the RAND Corporation. The argument is summed up neatly in the first sentence of the article.
“If you have military-age children who have not served in this decade’s wars, then you owe a debt — meaning money — to those who did.”
The number of implications in that sentence are staggering, but there are at least a few I’d like to focus on.
1. The US government’s wars of choice impose obligations on every single American to sacrifice their children or their money to pay for it.
2. Not having a draft is “inherently unfair,” according to RAND’s Beth Esch
3 (and I think this is the best part). It’s the parents who “owe” even though they can’t force their adult children into the military.
That’s a helluva thing, isn’t it? Of course its a lot more cynical than the sentence makes it sound. The unspoken reason they’re targeting parents and not the non-troops is obvious: those wars have ruined the economy to such an extent that 20-somethings who went to college instead of joining the military are almost uniformly struggling to find jobs. The parents might be struggling in this economy too, but they had plenty of time to sock away some cash before all these wars broke out, and now someone’s decided to guilt them into turning over that cash as reparations for not having sent their son off to die in some pointless foreign adventure.
The fact of the matter is every American, whether one of their kids got suckered into the military or not, has paid mightily for these wars, and I’m not just talking about the unfathomable amounts of taxpayer money spent (or yet to be spent) on them.
Our economy is in shambles, our manufacturing sector is boiling down to little more than subsidized arms makers who spend their profits lobbying for more arms deals. Personal freedoms inside the country are eroding at an alarming rate under the guise of military prudence, while our president claims the inherent right to assassinate any of us at a moment’s notice. Domestic travel is a hassle, getting on an airplane means submitting to official molestation. Overseas travel is getting more and more dangerous: if you’re American there are some places you just can’t go anymore.
We’ve all paid too damned much by a fair site for these wars already. The unmitigated gall that it takes to demand even more now is staggering, but what the war party lacks in brains they surely make up for in gall.
The pro war politicians and corporations of any party should be drafted to fight wars. Ehud Barack Obomba and Hillbilly Clinton could provide proof of genocide in Libya or make their case for war with Iraq or Syria by risking and losing their lives. George Warmonger Bush & Tony Blair Witch Project could go to Iraq to search for WMD's that they'd never find and get blown up by roadside bombs.
Don't compare peaceful Hillbillies to that warmonger Clinton.
but they had plenty of time to sock away some cash before all these wars broke out, and now someone’s decided to guilt them into turning over that cash as reparations for not having sent their son off to die in some pointless foreign adventure.
All modern soldiers owe a debt to the people who are paying their welfare salaries while they run around playing GI Joe at the expense of their foreign victims.
The title of this blog post attracted my attention. It makes a great point.
Not too many people question the government's claimed right to force people to purchase health care. But, even more amazing in my opinion is the fact that far fewer people question the government's claimed right to force people to purchase war–including the killing of nameless people on the other side of the world without trial in drone strikes authorized by a single man.
Is it wrong for someone to refuse to fund such killings? If someone does not wish to pay (due to either moral or practical reasons) for expensive drone strikes that occasionally kill innocent people is that person free to not purchase such "services" or should that person be imprisoned using force for refusing to pay?
How many people seriously even consider this question?
Thank you Jason Ditz for the honorable work that you have done and continue to do on behalf of peace. Your actions have affected me personally and undoubtedly help to make the world a better place.
I feel like I’m often looking for interesting things to read about a variety of subjects, but I manage to include your blog among my reads every day because you have interesting entries that I look forward to.
I’ve heard every piece of nonsense the war loons can throw at us they manage to surprise with both their unending thirst for blood and treasure and the sheer audacity with which they pursue same.