Of Thugs, Rambos and Honour

[Free Soul]

OF THUGS, RAMBOS AND HONOUR​

We in this world claim to live as nations.

Nations - Referring to communities/tribes of people having a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history? Or people who share a common territory a common government – people of different decent and ethnic make-up?. In any case – whatever describes us the best, it is an idea or ideals that bind people together for a period of time in history and at present.

A protector of ideals is person who stands up to defend his/her domain.

Would one call a Soldier an ardent defender of ideals? Set in his/her domain.

In a rationale society, who would be chosen as the protector? a soldier ? A Warrior
Surely not a thief, not a murderer, not a rapist.

In a rationale society – best amongst you will be chosen – they will defend you at will, Most important of all they will do it by choice.
War is no joke, and a warrior is no joker.

The above is a very crude and basic introduction that I put forth as a case. A case for the importance of choosing a worthy soldier.
What inspired me to write this piece was a not very strange debate that was being aired on a Radio station. I was on my way to office.
The issue being discussed was the overcrowded prisons in the UK. The petty thieves that are filling up the prisons – the thieves the rapists, the bullies who beat up 70 year old pensioners, the petty drug pushers on the streets , a burden on her royal highnesses hospitality centres (Prisons)
I was taken aback when a overwhelming majority and so called government and people’s representatives were of the opinion that all of them be put to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq and such like places, to serve in the Army.
It reminded me of a dramatised program where two friends engaged in a pub punch-up ended up being given a chance by judge to either serve few months in prison or serve 6 months in Afghanistan. To which they on balance decide to take on Afghanistan (A spine tingling thought)
I will cut the long story short. In my opinion inducting criminals in Army is like an agreement on war crimes and atrocities.
Criminals getting licence to kill in far off lands. No questions – No answers. Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq .......................

This got me looking into the topic ‘Forced Enrolment in Military’, Conscription and Drafting in the so called civilized part of the world.
The moral high grounds our great nations pretend to stand on are all awe inspiring. But their ideals are so week that they either have to force people’s hand into joining their so called justified wars, or just plain and simple get the lowest of the low to carry out their murders (in form of criminals being made to serve as soldiers).

"Every Tom, Dick and Harry"

Conscription is commonly known as the draft, the concepts are not exactly the same but not that different. Conscription is the compulsory induction of individuals into the Armed Services, whereas the draft is the procedure by which individuals are chosen for conscription. Men within a certain age group must register with the Selective Service for possible conscription.

Conscription in the US – The History

The Civil War
We will start from the US civil war, Which Howard Zinn's (A People's History of the United States) calls as one of the "Three Holy Wars” (on Howard Zinn and the Three Holy Wars at a later time)
The Union Enrolment Act of 1863 drafted all able-bodied men between twenty and forty-five years of age. The act provoked a hostile public response because it excused from military service those who were able to pay a fee of three hundred dollars. The law incited violent public disturbances, called the Draft Riots, in New York City between July 13 and 16, 1863. One thousand people were injured in the riots.
Conscription typically involves individuals who are deemed fit for military service. At times, however, governments have instituted universal military service, in which all men or all people of a certain age are conscripted.

The WW-I (Sept. 1917-Nov. 1918) 2,810,296
In 1917, one month after the entry of the United States into World War I, Congress passed the Selective Draft Act (40 Stat. 76). The act created a government office to oversee conscription. It also authorized local draft boards to select eligible individuals for conscription. The following year, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of conscription, noting that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies" (Selective Draft cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [1918]).

Interwar

The draft ended in 1918 but the Army designed the modern draft mechanism in 1926, what was the need there, a rise of a new empire could only be materialized if hands could be forced? If not voluntary then why not forced.

The WWII: (Nov. 1940-Oct. 1946) 10,110,104
Congress instituted the first peacetime use of conscription in 1940 when it passed the Selective Training and Service Act (54 Stat. 885).
One national survey found that 67% of respondents believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, and that 71% supported "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men".
Question here – if 71% were in support of compulsory Military training then why the need of conscription? Or drafting?

Cold War Times
The new law required all men, ages 18 to 26, to register. It also created the system for the "Doctor Draft" aimed at inducting health professionals into military service
Between the Korean War's outbreak in June 1950 and 1953, Selective Service inducted 1,529,539 men
Korea: (June 1950-June 1953) 1,529,539
Vietnam: (Aug 1964- Feb 1973) 1,857,304
Congress passed the Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C.A. app. § 451 et seq.), which was used to induct individuals for service in the Korean War (1950–53) and the Vietnam War (1954–75). Presidential authority to conscript individuals into the U.S. armed forces ended in 1973. No individual has been conscripted into the military since then.

In 1976, the Selective Service System was placed on a standby status, and local offices of the agency were closed. President jimmy carter issued a proclamation in 1980 requiring all males who were born after January 1, 1960, and who had attained age eighteen to register with the Selective Service at their local post office or at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States (Presidential Proclamation No. 4771, 3 C.F.R. 82 [1981]). Those who fail to register are subject to prosecution by the federal government.

In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of requiring only men, and not women, to register with the Selective Service (rostker v. goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646, 69 L. Ed. 2d 478). The United States has never conscripted women into military service, nor has it ever instituted universal military service. It has conscripted only individuals meeting certain age, mental, and physical standards. Congress has allowed the deferral of conscription for certain individuals, including those who need to support dependents or are pursuing an education. Among those who have been declared exempt from service are sole surviving sons, conscientious objectors to war, and ministers of religion.
The U.S. government also has the power to conscript property in times of emergency.

References:
“What the U. S. A. Thinks". Lifebooks.google.co.uk/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA20&pg=PA20&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
INDUCTION STATISTICS
Selective Service System: History and Records
Conscription in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Irfan Baloch]

When Soldiers Become Warriors
For some time, I’ve been hearing talk of “warriors” or “warfighters,” rather than “soldiers,” in my casual observation of the U.S. military. You hear this at all levels, from infantrymen referring to themselves, to the “warfighter standardized equipment” discussed at the highest echelons of the military-industrial mafia. At a recent talk in New York, the British journalist Robert Fisk brought home what this little switcheroo of words means. He compared the “Soldier’s Creed,” composed after the atrocities in Vietnam, to the “Warrior Ethos,” adopted in the early months of the Iraq War, apparently with Donald Rumsfeld’s blessing.


the American soldiers are now the glorified warriors whose actions really blur the line when compared to the actions of the terrorists.
both hate their targets, whether armed or unarmed, whether hostile or innocent. both show a very low interest to preserving life or total disregard to civilian lives.

normally when the Al Qaeda terrorists struck their targets then there is a unanimous outcry over the atrocity but when the same atrocity is committed by a lone or a group of American soldiers it is dismissed as an isolated incident or justified with a one-liner that they are soldiers, they are trained to kill. well so are the terrorists, whats the difference between the two?
anyone bother to think about it?

a soldier without morality and disregard for innocent life is a terrorist. and if such "soldier" is a product of some "brilliant" program to make use of criminals and giving them a chance to either do the time or spend time in Iraq or Afghanistan then the incidents like urinating on corpses, killing and burning civilians and desecrating their religious books shouldnt come as a surprise