ehnyah
08-18-2005, 02:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html][/url]
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Philip Schug
I copy here an email I sent to Bob Herbert:
Your sentiment expressed in your column:
"If the war in Iraq is worth fighting - if it's a noble venture, as the hawks insist it is - then it's worth fighting with the children of the privileged classes. They should be added to the combat mix. If it's not worth their blood, then we should bring the other troops home."
is exactly what should be repeated over and over again until it sinks into the public's awareness how irresponsible a war this war of Bush's is, and how craven Congress has been in their complicity.
Further, I suggest your sentiments should -- must -- be engrained in the Constitution. When the founding fathers framed the constitution, one of the greatest of their concerns was how to prevent the power to wage war from being invoked for self-serving purposes by a power-hungry monarch. They themselves had lived a life of sacrifice and blood for the cause they fought for. Perhaps they would have appreciated then that the amendment I propose here creates the real test for government when war is contemplated.
Proposed amendment to the US Constitution:
On the executive and legislative agreeing to go to war, automatic military conscription will be in effect for the age-eligible children and grandchildren of all congressmen and senators, the Pres, VP, cabinet, and all appointed heads of agencies, etc.
For all time, American wars shall therefore not be entered into without the heads of the government demonstrating their full commitment to the sacrifice the war entails.
I think this proposed amendment is a far more significant, relevant, historically resonant and powerful adjustment to the constitution, with full recognition of the principles for which its framers stood, than the frivolous and intolerant, plaintive sort of de-constructive amendments our president has fatuously bandied about in recent years. Imagine this as being part of the framework of the world's mightiest military -- and the immediate respect it would re-capture from other nations. Imagine how it would re-frame the debate on America's military stance, how it would bring to ground the heated discourse of the hawks and neo-cons. Imagine ...
[b]This constitution was designed to be tough on government, not on the freedoms of people, to prevent abuse and excess of power, tyranny, and the desire to go to war. Apparently, based on the performance of the Congress in recent years, we might do well to amend it in such a way as to remind Congress of their duty to maintain their control over their power to wage war, as was intended in the Constitution.
If anyone wishes to react with the objection that this sort of measure is too extreme, consider telling it to the Reservists, the National Guard and the other soldiers who have been held in combat under Stop Loss.
Regards,
Philip Schug
Palo Alto, CA
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Philip Schug
I copy here an email I sent to Bob Herbert:
Your sentiment expressed in your column:
"If the war in Iraq is worth fighting - if it's a noble venture, as the hawks insist it is - then it's worth fighting with the children of the privileged classes. They should be added to the combat mix. If it's not worth their blood, then we should bring the other troops home."
is exactly what should be repeated over and over again until it sinks into the public's awareness how irresponsible a war this war of Bush's is, and how craven Congress has been in their complicity.
Further, I suggest your sentiments should -- must -- be engrained in the Constitution. When the founding fathers framed the constitution, one of the greatest of their concerns was how to prevent the power to wage war from being invoked for self-serving purposes by a power-hungry monarch. They themselves had lived a life of sacrifice and blood for the cause they fought for. Perhaps they would have appreciated then that the amendment I propose here creates the real test for government when war is contemplated.
Proposed amendment to the US Constitution:
On the executive and legislative agreeing to go to war, automatic military conscription will be in effect for the age-eligible children and grandchildren of all congressmen and senators, the Pres, VP, cabinet, and all appointed heads of agencies, etc.
For all time, American wars shall therefore not be entered into without the heads of the government demonstrating their full commitment to the sacrifice the war entails.
I think this proposed amendment is a far more significant, relevant, historically resonant and powerful adjustment to the constitution, with full recognition of the principles for which its framers stood, than the frivolous and intolerant, plaintive sort of de-constructive amendments our president has fatuously bandied about in recent years. Imagine this as being part of the framework of the world's mightiest military -- and the immediate respect it would re-capture from other nations. Imagine how it would re-frame the debate on America's military stance, how it would bring to ground the heated discourse of the hawks and neo-cons. Imagine ...
[b]This constitution was designed to be tough on government, not on the freedoms of people, to prevent abuse and excess of power, tyranny, and the desire to go to war. Apparently, based on the performance of the Congress in recent years, we might do well to amend it in such a way as to remind Congress of their duty to maintain their control over their power to wage war, as was intended in the Constitution.
If anyone wishes to react with the objection that this sort of measure is too extreme, consider telling it to the Reservists, the National Guard and the other soldiers who have been held in combat under Stop Loss.
Regards,
Philip Schug
Palo Alto, CA
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION