Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Interview: Noam Chomsky supports a draft army without class bias
MY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, speaking on Sunday in Princeton, New Jersey.
Afterwards, he was asked a series of question, one of them was, would the
draft be reinstated.
Afterwards, he was asked a series of question, one of them was, would the
draft be reinstated.
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think it's extremely unlikely. I should tell you this as a
word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance
movement in the 1960's. In fact, I was just barely -- the only reason I
missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and
the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance,
but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends
and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody
seems to agree. In my view, if there's going to be an army, I think it
ought to be a citizen's army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the
top brass, they don't want a citizen's army. They want a mercenary army,
what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And
in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a
very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history
of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen's army to
fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that
kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas
or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often
drawn from the country that they're attacking like England ran India with
Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That's the standard way to run imperial wars.
They're just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going
to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started
falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because
the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not
going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole
thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And thats why I think that
they're not going to have a draft. That's why I
m in favor of it. If there's going to be an army that will fight brutal,
colonial wars, and that's the only likely kind of war, I
m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I
mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen's army so that the attitudes of
the society are reflected in the military.
word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance
movement in the 1960's. In fact, I was just barely -- the only reason I
missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and
the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance,
but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends
and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody
seems to agree. In my view, if there's going to be an army, I think it
ought to be a citizen's army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the
top brass, they don't want a citizen's army. They want a mercenary army,
what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And
in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a
very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history
of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen's army to
fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that
kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas
or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often
drawn from the country that they're attacking like England ran India with
Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That's the standard way to run imperial wars.
They're just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going
to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started
falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because
the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not
going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole
thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And thats why I think that
they're not going to have a draft. That's why I
m in favor of it. If there's going to be an army that will fight brutal,
colonial wars, and that's the only likely kind of war, I
m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I
mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen's army so that the attitudes of
the society are reflected in the military.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Of course there won't be a draft. Today's hi-tech military only takes people who can read.
showing that the Guard is having trouble keeping experienced officers and that the military is falling significantly short of its recruiting goals
one of them, a column by Col. David Hackworth, was posted on indybay yesterday, I believe
I suspect that the refusal of veteran officers to reenlist is emerging through the military, the guard and the reserves
another article, a couple of weeks ago, actually emphasized how the military is trying to having paraplegics returned to Iraq in non-combat roles
so, I'm not sure that Chomsky is right when he says that we will not have a draft, and I wonder if the left generally is too remote from what is socially happening amongst people who have historically performed military service
I'm sure that Bush doesn't want to have a draft, but that doesn't mean that we aren't going to have one, events sometimes get beyond the ability of even neo-conservatives to control them
as for Chomsky's support for a drafted, civilian military that reflects the values of our society, I suspect that this is another one of those examples of 1960s radicals idealizing the past and seeking a return to it, a utopian notion devoid of any connection to current events
for example, as I posted about a month ago, one cannot discuss the draft without an understanding as to why it would come about: to facilitate the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible expansion of them to places like Iran, Syria and elsewhere
understood in this light, opposition to the draft, as part of a package of activities designed to starve the military of the people it needs to prosecute these conflicts, is the most concrete means possible of resisting these wars
and, note that Chomsky's support for a draft can be harmonized with the efforts of people like Kerry, McCain and the NYT editorial board, all of whom want 40,000 to 50,000 more troops for Iraq
in other words, Chomsky's view could be controversially characterized as the . . . . ['gasp'] . . . neoliberal position
supporting the draft on the grounds that it would engender massive resistance to the government may be another one of those paradoxical utopian notions, just because the draft in the 1960s fueled rebellion doesn't mean that it will do so in 2005
and note that, for all the civil unrest that the draft generated in the 1960s, the war in Vietnam did not end until 1975, with a lot of American troops staying till 1973, so, all in all, such an approach may not be the most effective way to go
--Richard Estes
one of them, a column by Col. David Hackworth, was posted on indybay yesterday, I believe
I suspect that the refusal of veteran officers to reenlist is emerging through the military, the guard and the reserves
another article, a couple of weeks ago, actually emphasized how the military is trying to having paraplegics returned to Iraq in non-combat roles
so, I'm not sure that Chomsky is right when he says that we will not have a draft, and I wonder if the left generally is too remote from what is socially happening amongst people who have historically performed military service
I'm sure that Bush doesn't want to have a draft, but that doesn't mean that we aren't going to have one, events sometimes get beyond the ability of even neo-conservatives to control them
as for Chomsky's support for a drafted, civilian military that reflects the values of our society, I suspect that this is another one of those examples of 1960s radicals idealizing the past and seeking a return to it, a utopian notion devoid of any connection to current events
for example, as I posted about a month ago, one cannot discuss the draft without an understanding as to why it would come about: to facilitate the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible expansion of them to places like Iran, Syria and elsewhere
understood in this light, opposition to the draft, as part of a package of activities designed to starve the military of the people it needs to prosecute these conflicts, is the most concrete means possible of resisting these wars
and, note that Chomsky's support for a draft can be harmonized with the efforts of people like Kerry, McCain and the NYT editorial board, all of whom want 40,000 to 50,000 more troops for Iraq
in other words, Chomsky's view could be controversially characterized as the . . . . ['gasp'] . . . neoliberal position
supporting the draft on the grounds that it would engender massive resistance to the government may be another one of those paradoxical utopian notions, just because the draft in the 1960s fueled rebellion doesn't mean that it will do so in 2005
and note that, for all the civil unrest that the draft generated in the 1960s, the war in Vietnam did not end until 1975, with a lot of American troops staying till 1973, so, all in all, such an approach may not be the most effective way to go
--Richard Estes
possible arson of vehicles used by military recruiters in the DC area
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1709014.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1709014.php
I liked your comment. It has long appeared to myself and some better known others that Chomsky has some strange quirks; apparently he still holds to the notion that "israel" has a right to exist "between secure & recognized borders".
"No Grunts, No War": my own view is that all of us lefties have to start focussing on directly affection the power of the imperialist state, which means continuing to expose every abuse but not always getting totally hung up on trying to win reforms. Instead we should make the main focus at the enemy's weakest point, which I believe to be the need for cannon fodder.
I've ordered some literature & stuff from CCCO, & will be accumulating more from other sources. I'm going to put together a table, & if the Vets For Peace continue to hold vigils at the MEPS I'll bring it. And/or to the corner of 7th & J Sts downtown, which is the nearest thing to 16th & Mission around here. St Rose of Lima park, if you know our lovely little burg.
I submit that socialism-minded folks will see a much bigger payoff from this kind of activity than will ever be achieved by writing your congressperson or participating in "town mtgs" about how to reform the demotweedle party.
Yes, I WOULD vote for Cynthia McKinney for President. But she's the exception that proves the rule. Real progressives have to start separating from both the Zionist-dominated parties. People who try to tell you it can be reformed probably also believe there is or was actually a Peace Process which involved compromise on both sides, between the Israelis & the Palestinians:)
Remember the Maine! Who started the Reichstag Fire? How do you know there is anything queer about a three dollar bill? Ever seen one face to face?
Sorry -- there I go disgressing again:)
"No Grunts, No War": my own view is that all of us lefties have to start focussing on directly affection the power of the imperialist state, which means continuing to expose every abuse but not always getting totally hung up on trying to win reforms. Instead we should make the main focus at the enemy's weakest point, which I believe to be the need for cannon fodder.
I've ordered some literature & stuff from CCCO, & will be accumulating more from other sources. I'm going to put together a table, & if the Vets For Peace continue to hold vigils at the MEPS I'll bring it. And/or to the corner of 7th & J Sts downtown, which is the nearest thing to 16th & Mission around here. St Rose of Lima park, if you know our lovely little burg.
I submit that socialism-minded folks will see a much bigger payoff from this kind of activity than will ever be achieved by writing your congressperson or participating in "town mtgs" about how to reform the demotweedle party.
Yes, I WOULD vote for Cynthia McKinney for President. But she's the exception that proves the rule. Real progressives have to start separating from both the Zionist-dominated parties. People who try to tell you it can be reformed probably also believe there is or was actually a Peace Process which involved compromise on both sides, between the Israelis & the Palestinians:)
Remember the Maine! Who started the Reichstag Fire? How do you know there is anything queer about a three dollar bill? Ever seen one face to face?
Sorry -- there I go disgressing again:)
<<just because the draft in the 1960s fueled rebellion doesn't mean that it will do so in 2005>>
This is one of those instances where the capitalism-supporting ethos of selfishness will, i firmly believe, boomerang against our rulers' plans, if indeed they institute the draft as Chomsky hopes they will.
The "every man for himself" view of the world works against any demands to sacrifice for something larger than oneself.
In the case of a prospective draft, that "something" is imperial war.
Having taught high-school students, I have observed that there are many teenagers out there who have no problem with those who enter the military "voluntarily" and fight for the red-white-and-blue, but become almost apoplectic (not just fearful) when the idea of compulsory military service is raised as a possibility. It is taken as an affront and a betrayal.
Compounding the tensions for working class kids is that the economic situation is much much worse than it was in the 60s. There isn't the same deep reserve of loyalty to the system that there was forty years ago. Anger and distrust is a lot closer to the surface.
I don't have any doubt that there will be riots if the military draft is put into effect.
This is one of those instances where the capitalism-supporting ethos of selfishness will, i firmly believe, boomerang against our rulers' plans, if indeed they institute the draft as Chomsky hopes they will.
The "every man for himself" view of the world works against any demands to sacrifice for something larger than oneself.
In the case of a prospective draft, that "something" is imperial war.
Having taught high-school students, I have observed that there are many teenagers out there who have no problem with those who enter the military "voluntarily" and fight for the red-white-and-blue, but become almost apoplectic (not just fearful) when the idea of compulsory military service is raised as a possibility. It is taken as an affront and a betrayal.
Compounding the tensions for working class kids is that the economic situation is much much worse than it was in the 60s. There isn't the same deep reserve of loyalty to the system that there was forty years ago. Anger and distrust is a lot closer to the surface.
I don't have any doubt that there will be riots if the military draft is put into effect.
[The "every man for himself" view of the world works against any demands to sacrifice for something larger than oneself.
In the case of a prospective draft, that "something" is imperial war.
Having taught high-school students, I have observed that there are many teenagers out there who have no problem with those who enter the military "voluntarily" and fight for the red-white-and-blue, but become almost apoplectic (not just fearful) when the idea of compulsory military service is raised as a possibility. It is taken as an affront and a betrayal.
Compounding the tensions for working class kids is that the economic situation is much much worse than it was in the 60s. There isn't the same deep reserve of loyalty to the system that there was forty years ago. Anger and distrust is a lot closer to the surface.
I don't have any doubt that there will be riots if the military draft is put into effect.]
Perhaps, this is correct, and I certainly hope that there will be massive resistance if a draft is imposed, but the risk strikes me as awfully high when someone like Chomsky starts actually advocating the reinstitution of the draft as a desirable way to foment opposition to the war.
After all, it tends to be forgotten that the draft predated the Vietnam War, whereas, in this instance, the reinstitution of the draft, with bipartisan congressional support would invariably be construed as strong US public support for the war domestically and globally, and even if there was strong subsequent resistance to it, I am fearful that the reinstitution of the draft would also bring along more rigorous suppression of dissent in its wake.
I also spoke with one of my friends, who, coincidentally, is a high school teacher as well, and he is already encountering a an increasing unwillingness of students to enlist for military service, so the movement that I mentioned to starve the military of the people necessary to fight the war may have already left the station and gone pretty far down the tracks.
It may be a classic case where "the people" have already taken the initiative while the political theorists like us keep talking amongst ourselves.
Chomsky strikes me as uniquely unsuited to address this intelligently, given the social dimensions of this issue, which was implied in my original post, a harsh, arrogant thing to say, certainly, but I give much more credence to your remarks, given your personal experience, than I do him
--Richard
In the case of a prospective draft, that "something" is imperial war.
Having taught high-school students, I have observed that there are many teenagers out there who have no problem with those who enter the military "voluntarily" and fight for the red-white-and-blue, but become almost apoplectic (not just fearful) when the idea of compulsory military service is raised as a possibility. It is taken as an affront and a betrayal.
Compounding the tensions for working class kids is that the economic situation is much much worse than it was in the 60s. There isn't the same deep reserve of loyalty to the system that there was forty years ago. Anger and distrust is a lot closer to the surface.
I don't have any doubt that there will be riots if the military draft is put into effect.]
Perhaps, this is correct, and I certainly hope that there will be massive resistance if a draft is imposed, but the risk strikes me as awfully high when someone like Chomsky starts actually advocating the reinstitution of the draft as a desirable way to foment opposition to the war.
After all, it tends to be forgotten that the draft predated the Vietnam War, whereas, in this instance, the reinstitution of the draft, with bipartisan congressional support would invariably be construed as strong US public support for the war domestically and globally, and even if there was strong subsequent resistance to it, I am fearful that the reinstitution of the draft would also bring along more rigorous suppression of dissent in its wake.
I also spoke with one of my friends, who, coincidentally, is a high school teacher as well, and he is already encountering a an increasing unwillingness of students to enlist for military service, so the movement that I mentioned to starve the military of the people necessary to fight the war may have already left the station and gone pretty far down the tracks.
It may be a classic case where "the people" have already taken the initiative while the political theorists like us keep talking amongst ourselves.
Chomsky strikes me as uniquely unsuited to address this intelligently, given the social dimensions of this issue, which was implied in my original post, a harsh, arrogant thing to say, certainly, but I give much more credence to your remarks, given your personal experience, than I do him
--Richard
I don't support Chomsky's call for reinstitution of the draft. Sheesh, if more leftists come out for it, maybe we'll find the anger that the draft will inevitably produce turn against opponents of the system and not its supporters and beneficiaries! (If you're going to be cynical, why be so transparent about it?)
Regarding your reference to the fact that the draft pre-existed the Vietnam war, I would just repeat that this is a much differnet world than forty years ago. The white working class, in particular, is not nearly as unthinkingly loyal to the system as it was back then, and the cullture itself has become a lot less conducive to calls for sacrifice.
Regarding your reference to the fact that the draft pre-existed the Vietnam war, I would just repeat that this is a much differnet world than forty years ago. The white working class, in particular, is not nearly as unthinkingly loyal to the system as it was back then, and the cullture itself has become a lot less conducive to calls for sacrifice.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network