More on “Skin in the Game”

Eleanor Clift has more on “What Having Skin in the Game Looks Like”:

Fresh off a nasty campaign that centered on the war in Iraq, Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had no interest in a picture of himself with President Bush, and he didn’t want to exchange small talk with the man whose war policies he opposes. So he skipped the receiving line at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, creating the first of what we should all hope will be many ripples in Washington.

Webb’s  presumed snub of Bush is rare enough in a city where everybody who’s anybody has a glory wall, and social occasions are geared to a parade of picture taking. But what happened next is where the story really takes off. President Bush, spying Webb across the room, walked over to him and asked, “How’s your boy?” Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq.

[...]

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq,” he replied, according to several published accounts. “That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said, repeating his question: “How’s your boy?” Webb’s reply: “That’s between me and my boy.”

[...]

A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.

But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.” Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor? Or is that amusing by Washington’s odd standards?

Webb told The Washington Post that his intention was not to offend Bush or the institution of the presidency but that “leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.” By standing up to Bush, Webb became a hero to a lot of people who voted against this president and this war, and whose views have been sidelined for six years. Symbols matter. Bush certainly understands their importance, or he wouldn’t have jetted onto that carrier in a flight suit and stood in front of a banner that proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED more than a thousand days and thousands more deaths ago. A president snubbed by a junior senator-elect and then, more tellingly by the puppet prime minister in Iraq, should be wondering where he went wrong, not the other way around.

It’s justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness.

In Support of the Draft

There’s been a lot talk recently about reinstating the draft:

The incoming Democratic chairman [Rep. Charles B. Rangel] of the House Ways and Means Committee said yesterday that he will push to renew the military draft, as lawmakers in both parties sharpened their criticisms of the situation in Iraq and struggled for consensus and solutions.

Rep. Rangel explains his motivations for reinstating the draft:

"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," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft."

And, given the following, Rep. Rangel is clearly on to something:

With Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) “calling for resuming the draft to spread the burden of military service across society,” the Atlanta Journal Constitution notes that Congress itself illustrates the same gap.

“Only about 10 percent of the members elected to Congress for the first time this year are military veterans, according to a survey by the Military Officers Association of America. In all, only about one in four members of the new Congress will have served in the military — down from half in 1991 and three-quarters a decade earlier.”

The decline in military experience among members of Congress reflects the fading of the World War II generation — where most of the men served — and the decades that have passed since the end of the Vietnam War and the nation’s last military draft.

“The number of veterans in the House peaked in 1977-78, when about 80 percent of the members had military experience, said Strobridge. The peak in the Senate was in 1983-84, when 75 percent were veterans.”

As I mention at the start, all this talk about the draft has gotten a lot of people around the blogsphere chatting about the topic, its consequences and how we can address the current lack of service inequalities illustrated by the paragraphs quoted above.

A diarist over at DailyKos.com suggest that we should reinstate the draft, along with a slew of "public service corps" for those that don’t want to serve in the military.

If there’s a draft I would ONLY support it if everyone had to serve in the military in some capacity. I would not support the draft if draftees could serve their time in one of the "service corps" that the DailyKos diarists suggests; because the mechanism that the diarists suggests opens the door to abuse by those that wish to dodge serving during a time of war and, too, the "service corps" alternative offers a way for politicians to skirt the political consequences of an aggressive foreign military policy (just like we have now, where the consequences of foreign wars are not widely felt across our country nor by the political elite because they don’t have "skin in the game").

Of course, there are those that would object to serving in the military because of religious or other moral reasons, and for those individuals there would be an option to serve in a non-combat role within the military. But the point, though, is that everyone would wear the uniform and be exposed to the sort of discomforts that come with serving in the military — which, quite simply, are not the same sort of discomforts that one is exposed to in any other type of organization.

Of course, having everyone serve in the military would create a large and ready resource available to tackle some of our ongoing domestic concerns. Consequently, a peace time military with a large number of draftees could be used at home to do many of the things that the DialyKos diarists suggest: clean up and rebuild our crumbling cities and towns; work with patients in rural areas with poor medical service; work with conservation issues; etc. My point is that the draft is only fair if everyone is obligated to serve through the military; otherwise we will not be addressing the very problem that the current "draft reinstatement" discussion seeks to address, that is: making sure that our military is used more responsibly by our political elite by ensuring that the costs of not doing so are felt widely by the American public.