Antiwar.com Blog

A remarkable article in tonight’s Haaretz, remarkable not so much in that it talks of a ceasefire between the Israelis and the Palestinians, because those are certainly common enough, but remarkable in how succinctly it illustrates just how close the two sides are.

An Islamic Jihad leader is quoted as saying (and claiming that Hamas and Fatah are also on board), that they are willing to halt the incessant Qassam attacks on Israel if Israel stops it’s attacks on Palestinian territory. Pretty cut and dry offer of a ceasefire, right?

Then an Israeli government spokeswoman is quoted as saying they are willing to halt their attacks once the Qassams stop.

And therein lies the rub: both sides are willing to stop, but neither wants to go first. Why should that matter? Locked in a seemingly eternal stalemate and with scores of innocent people being killed: there seems so little to lose and so much to gain. All that needs to happen is for one side or the other, and it doesn’t particularly matter which one, but one side or the other to accept the offer, tell their army to take a long weekend, and see if maybe this thing will stick.

The ceasefire that eluded so many is sitting there on the ground like a lost coin, will anyone bother to bend over and pick it up?

Jonathan Schwarz examines the sunny side of Iraq-Vietnam analogies, and Leon Hadar measures Israel’s window of opportunity for attacking Iran.

Several people have written to inform me that Charlie Rangel’s draft proposal is merely a ploy to make war supporters squirm. Well, if it’s a ploy, then Rangel is playing with fire, because there are plenty of liberals out there who have rushed to defend his proposal on egalitarian grounds – and there are plenty of right-wingers who will be happy to read those arguments back to the libs when the Pentagon finally decides it needs more fodder than it can hoodwink into voluntarily enlisting.

Moreover, unless Rangel is simply a liar, it’s not a ploy:

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq … if, indeed, we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said Sunday.

Rangel floated the same idea in Congress two years ago, but ended up voting against his own bill, along with 401 other Congress members, when the measure came up just before the presidential election.

At the time, he accused Republicans of rushing it out as a stunt against Democrats instead of giving it a legitimate hearing.

But the soon-to-be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said Sunday a draft bill will be no stunt this time, insisting he’s very serious about it.

“You bet your life; underscore serious,” Rangel said on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday.

Fortunately, Rangel’s constituents, unlike sophisticated liberal know-it-alls, seem duly alarmed:

Along 125th Street in New York City on Sunday, Rangel’s draft plan was met mostly with derision.

“What, he was smoking pot or something?” said 58-year-old James Brown.

“He doesn’t represent the people of Harlem if he’s for the draft,” Neil Davis, 48, said.

Charlie Rangel and other liberals want a return to the draft on the basis of some ahistorical notion that it will prevent future wars. (See here for some background on all the wars conscription hasn’t prevented.) For one thing, as Scott points out below, no draft would ever be imposed without all sorts of loopholes and exemptions the powerful and politically connected could exploit – and if Charlie Rangel is so convinced the conscription of “fortunate sons” would do the trick, then why not propose a targeted draft? Children of elected officials only…

Not that I would support that, either. It’s quite legitimate to ask why – if this war is so critical to America’s well-being – Jenna, Barbara, Chelsea, et al. (not to mention the children of pro-war pundits) aren’t “serving.” But there’s no justice in forcing Jenna, Barbara, Chelsea, et al. to go kill or die because their parents are a**holes.

The draft should be opposed on first principles of individual rights. Besides, the utilitarian antiwar argument for conscription avoids unpleasant fundamental truths. There’s no quick procedural fix for American militarism. Radical cultural changes are necessary to shift this country from an aggressive, imperial posture to a defensive, noninterventionist one. Switzerland is a peaceful country with no expansionist tendencies; Israel, not so much. Mandatory military service in both countries is a rights violation, of course, yet it leads to very different results because Switzerland and Israel have very different societies. Anyone want to guess which of those two societies American elites (and, it must be said, many, many regular folks) believe we should be more like?

[youtube]2aC2eunpbSw[/youtube]

Charles Rangel thinks that having a society where human beings own each other is perfectly okay as long as the slaves are destroying lives and property for the state rather than producing things for private plantation owners.

From USA Today:

“Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

‘There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,’ Rangel said. …

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, ‘I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,’ said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

Don’t you see? Conscription will deter wars by providing the politicians with a bottomless supply of cannon fodder. And by the new magic principle of “everything works how Charlie wants,” the rest of the politicians will be somehow unable to swing exemptions for their own children.

As for those of us who have priorities other than killing foreigners, well, individual sacrifice for the greater good is the American Way, right?

Comments welcome over at Stress.

LewRockell.com linked to an article of mine today on the servile atmosphere in DC think tanks.  The piece is at the Globalist.com website but, since yesterday, the page with my article has been converted into a membership/registration required page.

Here’s the core:

Many think tanks have become as servile as military bases, as far as providing applause for lies from the highest level of government. Two decades ago, many people expected think tanks to revolutionize politics in Washington, bringing ideas and principles to sordid political clashes. Instead, some think tanks have become nothing more than props for politicians.

The article contrasts the courage of New York organizations fighting U.S. torture with the docility  of Washington think tanks on the same issue.

The full text of the piece is at my blog, where comments and cavilings are welcome.