This article in Slate, with appropriate liberal hand wringing suggested it. The difference between a drafted soldier and a slave doesn't amount to a frosty mug o' mud. Reinstituting slavery or the draft will do nothing to enhance democratic fairness in America.
Mr. Weisberg uses the higher injury rate in Iraq as compared to Viet Nam to argue the injustice of death and dismemberment not being more democratically distributed.
He concludes that because Iraq is more dangerous than Viet Nam, forcing the unwilling to suffer and die is a morally superior option. In Mr. Wiesberg's calculus of how fair pointless death and dismemberment should be I'm certain there is a seamless logic at work, unfortunately, it escapes me.
His assumptions are the problem. He assumes that the invasion of a country that has never attacked or even meaningfully threatened this country is somehow "national defense." He assumes that the maiming and killing of America's young people (not to mention many thousands of innocent Iraqi's) is the price we must pay for "defending our country."
But American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere in the world are not defending our country or our freedom. They are defending the American Empire of IOU's.
There is little danger of the sandy, oil-bearing backwaters of the world invading or seriously attacking the U.S. (A 9/11 every month wouldn't kill as many Americans as car wrecks do.) The real danger is that the camel jockeys might start requiring payment for their black goo in euros, or dinars or, heaven forefend, gold.
Such a move would deal a killing blow to the to the dollar, to American prosperity and ultimately to the Empire. It's a blow our government will struggle mightily to avoid, but which the average citizen is unaware of and utterly willing to sacrifice a son or daughter for.
