The premise here is - The world is growing increasingly unstable.Terrorism on a large scale may be coming to this country.Nuclear events are a growing prospect.Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Therefore, would it not make sense to institute cumpulsory military service for,say, a period of 2 years for everyone reaching the age of 18?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
This topic is related to the topic calling for the institution of a National Service.
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
If a nation does not inspire it's people to voluntarily engage in it's defense, exactly what is it we are defending? Conscription is the meanest form of slavery (odd that the first conflict using extensive conscription was the Civil War). To force someone to involuntarily participate in murder and mayhem on behalf of a gov't, or policy, they do not support is the ultimate evil. Those willing to participate in the defense of their country should receive high praise, generous reward, and elevated status among the citizenry. Full tax exemption for life for combat personel would be reasonable. Any one who's moral conscience, or lack thereof, prevents them from willingly participating should not be forced to do so.
No nation has a right to secure it's continuance by conscription.
Retired but Active
EVERY Nation has a RIGHT to secure it's continuance by conscription. Ever since the draft ended, our military, especially the Army, has seen the overall quality of its forces deteroriate to the point where it is no surprising to see how poorly we are doing in Iraq today. The recruiting standards have been lowered, and lowered, and lowered again in order to meet recruitment goals. This is not to say the EVERYONE in the Army is dumb. There are thousands of well trained and qualified personnel in the Army but there are also thousands of personnel that can do little except serve as cannon fodder. In the meantime, we are spending BILLIONS of dollars on a ground force that is barely capable of meeting its mission commitments.
The other services have also suffered, of course, but not nearly as much as the Army. The simple fact is that far too many of our "elite" or well educated population is perfectly willing to let someone else carry the weight. In addition to the quality issues discussed earlier, this practice is patently unfair. There was a time, in this country as well as others, where the RICH could simply buy their way out of military duty by paying someone to serve in their stead. This is still being done, just not so openly and clearly. If we had a mandatory conscription system we could accomplish several things. 1) We could ensure that the burdens and risks of military service were shared more equally amongst our population. 2) We could ensure that the quality and expertise of our armed forces was constantly up to par. 3) We could help to ensure that our cowardly congress and presidential administration would be much more diligent in getting us involved in conflicts such as Iraq where there is NO possibility of ever actually "winning". This would occur because of the natural desire to protect, in as far as possible, our own offspring, relatives, and friends. As it now stands, very few of our newer crop of elected officials have ever served their country in the military. And it is very unlikely that any of their children will ever serve either unless mandatory conscription is reinstated.
I volunteered for the Navy in the late fifties and spent over 22 years in the defense of my country. I served in three campaigns in Viet Nam (which was a HUGE national blunder, much like Iraq is today) and retired in one piece. Some of my friends were not so lucky and some of these were draftees as well as volunteers. We just do not have the overall quality and intelligence today that we had even then when MANY of our servicemen were not the brightest bulbs in the closet. But, at least everyone (more or less) had a similar risk of serving in the War. This is NOT true today.
I totally agree Darryel!! Apart from the Army competency thing which is very important, I think we need in some way to instill a sense of Shared Sacrifice and a sense that all the wonderful entitlements this blessed country bestows on us comes with the all imprtant other half - the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship. This disconnect is our biggest failing now as a nation as we put way too much burden on our troops (disproportinatey poor and non-white) in far ramparts and their families. It's time for some shared sacrifice and I think mandatory national service would go a long ways to share the burden and maybe instil that lost sense of obligations/resposibilities of citizenship. It may even make our policies wiser and more circumspect in the process. We need a rebalancing thru some system of 2 year National Service. Give people options that are needed (inner city assistance, eldercare help, military, peace corp, VISTA, Americorp, etc fill in the blank there are many needs out there).
For that 2 years we could maybe provide Education Assistance much like the GI Bill for undergrad or grad school. I would not limit it for age either for the many non-military tasks. Esp on the Military we need to have that reflect America once again and share/spread the sacrfice of making our Country/World a better place. WAY too much burden has been placed in recent years on the brave brave Military in far ramparts and their struggling vastly overburdened families!! We MUST do much more than slap yellow-ribbons on the back of our SUVs!
We could give people choices/options on the type of service they could go into - military, inner city, peace corps, eldercare, infrastructure improvement, americorp, etc. Shared experiences required at a very young age in service to others would solidify the sense of responsibilities of citizenship that is the true underpinning of all our freedoms. ALL would serve no matter how rich/priveleged or poor/deprived. It would/could be a common touchstone of citizenry that we lost long ago.
We could also give people the option to stay on longer than 2 years in their opted service. Also provide them a GI-Bill like program for that 2 years of service. A good education paid for is money in the bank and will enhance those profits for sure later on in spades. The experiences gained will be invaluable! It would give all some context and perspective on other kinds of people other than their demographic and give people some context maybe for what being a citizen means and the larger picture beyond their navels.
And it could give the young some good eye opening real life experiences at service that may focus their lives better and broaden their horizons and make them better citizens to boot! We can still keep a career path if people that choose the military track choose to stay after 2 years service. The 2 years of schooling freebie would be very enticing esp for the loaned-out-to-the-hilt grads! and I would open some paths for those who chose in Mid-Career or in Retirement (gets younger and younger nowadays it seems) to serve 2 year volunteer stints in a non-military path of their choice. Minimum requirement would be 2 years of something for those under 22. So it would be a combo of mandatory and volunteer really. But service orientation is the key!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Conscription is opposed to the very foundation of a free nation. If the people of a nation value its continuance so little they will not defend it, conscription only confirms their judgement. I find it astonishing that reasonable people can promote any compelled national service. How could you propose to confiscate my rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Have you never read the constitution? In the first place, nowhere is the power of conscription granted. In the second place the 5th amendment prohibits deprivation "of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law". In the third place, the 13th amendment grants "Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction". Both conscription, and compelled national service, are against the law, the very law every President, Congressman, and Serviceman swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
It seems our volunteer army is quite large enough to take more action than is necessary. If we would stop butting in where ever the notion strikes our fancy, if we would restrict action to "declared" war (the constitution again), It would be more than sufficient.
By granting the President power to engage in war unilaterally, congress escapes responsibility, which leads us into actions like Iraq. A Congressmen would be far less likely to risk his own constituents.
"EVERY Nation has a RIGHT to secure it's continuance by conscription", if fascism is the goal.
If Congresses' and presidents'sons and daughters were serving in the proportions the poor and deprived were military service, then our policies might be more circumspect and wise. Its not confiscation if you give them a good quid pro quo for their service (see GI bill). The founding fathers many times conscripted and that occurred many times in our nations history. As long as you give a good quid pro quo for their service and even provide options where they can serve - from border security to inner city assistance to eldercare to military, then why not. I think it is time when 95% of the demographics get a free ride off the overburdened sacrifices of the less fortunate and their families. I think we need to in some way Share the burden of defending freedom and citizenry responsibility for all and NOT just leave it to the underpriveleged few. We might then in the future have less flabby policies and Iraqs and not more.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The founders did NOT resort to conscription. Conscription did not occur until the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was definetly NOT a founder, rather one who showed little respect for their work. Suitable quid pro quo would give compelled service less status than indentured servitude, since both parties do not agree to terms. If the 95% are unwilling, they do not value their nation. There is little freedom to defend when over 40% of one's work is confiscated in taxes, which are largely redistributed in the form of political favor (buying votes). We are NOT a nation of Liberty and Justice for All. We are a fascist state, with gov't and corporations in collusion, with "civil" liberties replacing natural law; granted at the pleasure of those in power; with undeclared war at the whim of ONE MAN, police checkpoints, confiscation of property by unjustified eminate domain, confiscation of property on arrest, without due process, ad nauseam. People have an inherent, subconcious desire to be free. When it is frustrated, their behaviour becomes erratic and unconstructive, sometimes destructive.
If we wish to secure our defense, we must rebuild a nation of freedom, that citizens will rush to defend. A high mountain to climb.
Hey Freedom is not free. If we need to instill some measured shared citizenry sacrifice enccompassing 2 years out of our lives to help this country in tough times (and we are in them now if you haven't noticed) well then so be it JW. In a perfect Panglossian world when people do not extoll the entitlement mentality yours would be apropo JW. But in the real present world some with some virulent nasties and festering problems impinging small compromises must be made in some small shared to preserve the Freedoms we Do have more than any country around still. So I say sacrifice in a shared manner to preseve the Freedoms we do have if we want to continue having. Freedom is not Free dude! And we did have conscription early on from the Washington Prez on in some form and manner BTW. They were OK with it!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Liberty is never lost in LARGE compromise.
Before Lincoln, the closest we had to conscription was calling up the malitia, who were volunteers on the state level, and which the Constitution authorizes.
I prefer we sacrifice our imperial attitude.
Not so on conscript thing JW. Washington even mentioned it in his farewell address and the War of 1812 and Mexican-American War, etc there were forms of conscription before the Civil War. All I am saying is We need to understand the 2 dimensions of freedom and citizenry if we are to survive asa Republic for a few more centuries - the splendid rights and entitlements of US citizenship come with the other half - the reponsibilities and obligations of citizenship. Somehow in the last 40 years or so that balance has been thrown out of wack and we need to restore in some way.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
All state militias were NOT voluntary, so calling them up was in effect a draft . Congress did not authorize the draft until the Civil War.
Your arguments make no sense. What kind of world would you have grown up in if we had lost WWII?
I would suggest that you go somewhere and live under a TRUE facist state. Perhaps then you would understand the real difference between freedom, and fascism.
If you were interpreting the constitution for the rest of us, our nation would have ceased to exist long ago...
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
He doesn't have to go anywhere else to live under a TRUE fascist state. All he has to do is endure the remainder of the current administration and maybe another year or two of Benito Ghouliani or Hitlery Clinton and there will be a TRUE fascist state right here!
HC,
When the president of Columbia was introducing Ahmadinejad yesterday (more of a lecture than an introduction actually), you should have listened; he was speaking not only to the Iranian president, but also to you.
As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between you and Ahmadinejad. You both believe in the same things, you are both equally bigoted, and you are both manipulative liars. Like him, you lie about 9/11, you lie about the holocaust, and you will stoop to anything in the defense of your hateful, twisted misinterpretation of history. Do you understand that real people are hurt by your "theories"?
How does it feel to know you share the ideals of a would-be dictator?
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I interpret nothing, I quoted the Constituion.
We now live in a fascist state. Comparison to others is one of degree.
Whether we would have lost WWII without conscription is arguable, many conscripts simply waited for draft notice instead of enlisting. With conscription in place, volunteers are less likely, with citizens assuming the draft will take care of it.
Your disagreement does not invalidate my argument.
Retired but Active
You make statements as though they were FACT and not simply the rantings of your imagination. "With conscription in placae, volunteers are less likely, with citizens assuming the draft will take care of it." Perhaps there are SOME citizens that would fit this idea, but certainly not all, as you imply. I can say this because I volunteered when there WAS a draft. You need to get your language straight before making such wild and unsupported statements.
The concept of national service is not based on the fact that people are unwilling to defend it and thus some sort of conscription is required. The flawed method of trying to separate civil liberties from the context of freedom in which they operate is unreasonable. Freedom provides its own rich context from which concepts of civil liberties are developed. There are no civil liberties without first defining the parameters of freedom. The parameters of freedom in America contain elements of responsibility and, correspondingly, citizenship. Talking in absolute terms undermines the context of freedom and is thus, unreasonable.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
So, the Constitution is "unreasonable".
No, I am suggesting that you are misreading the context in which it operates.
People come together first. They decide they want a free country. It is from there that they lay out civil liberties. However, those civil liberties do not extend beyond the condition that freedom provides for laying those terms out. Civil liberties do not come first. You first must be free to write a constitution.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
What you call "civil liberties", I call inalienable rights which exist in every person, and cannot be taken away by others, only abridged.
A nation who's citizens are unwilling to defend their freedom, will soon lose (have lost) it. If they are unwilling, compulsive service will only illustrate the loss.
I agreee, call them inalienable rights. However, those rights are only inalienable in an ideal theoretical world that does not exist. It is only when one chooses to group with others that inalienable means anything. One can not secure any rights until they join with others that can enforce rules so you can keep that benefit. Try it, how long would those inalienable rights last if a person stayed off to the side and tried to exist by only their individual rules? Off by oneself, what you call inalienable rights is no more than a thought in the head of a person. Such a thought has no meaning as a right until one makes a contract with other people. That is reality. The reality of what happens in anarchy is why people form nations. Once they do, they become citizens and have obligations.
Nations do not suddenly materialize out of nothing. Citizens are not made in the abstract. Once people come together, they form nations with citizens. The most precious duty or obligation of those citizens is to perpetuate the nation that has been created. It's called a trade-off. You give something and you get something in return. Just because a right is inalienable does not negate the basic trade-off that must occur. The obligations of citizenship do not belong to just some of the people, they belong to all people that are part of that nation. It is an unrealistic for anyone to think that others should fulfill their responsibility for them.
Your call for there not to be national service is like saying, I want the benefits that the group provides but, I don't want to give anything in return for that benefit. What makes you think that you have a right to do that? When you take back your word, you are stealing from the group. It is stealing from the group to agree to a trade off for the benefits, and then turn around and not want to contribute your share. You have already agreed that you would trade, or give something in return. What you give up, or trade, are the obligations of citizenship. What you are suggesting is that it is okay to say there is a deal, then turn around and take your part of the bargain back.
Compulsory service does not illustrate the loss of rights, it is how people decide to share in the responsibilties for everyone's benefit. Freedom does not exist in a vacuum.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Nations are indeed abstract in nature, and though not suddenly, do materialize out of nothing, there is no clay. Gov't is the concrete apparatus of a nation. As long as the actions of that gov't are moral and just, the citizen has a duty to defend the nation at the direction of that gov't. One who does not fulfill that duty may be scorned, ridiculed, derided, shunned, etc. As soon as a gov't determines it is necessary to compel that defense it starts to erode the abstract aspect, and identifies ITSELF as the nation. At what point when the conscript is forced out the door of transport, at gunpoint, to face hostile forces are his, or any other conscript's, rights being protected? There is a contract of citizenship, but it is not one sided, and if the collective does not fulfill it's side, the individual is not obligated to fulfill their side. If the gov't of my nation decides we are to engage in an unjust war, even though it may be popular, and my moral conscience will not allow me to paricipate, conscription turns me into a criminal, or a corpse. Conscription is not "how people decide to share in the responsibilties", it is how gov't decides people will share in the responsibilities. In my opinion, a gov't that does so is tyrannical, and undeserving of defense.
I have not elaborated on cumpulsory civil service for the simple reason that we already have it. Currently, anyone who earns a wage is effectively performing civil service more than 40% of their working life through their extravagant tax burden. I have no objection to service required in exchange for subsidy, since there is no compulsion.
Another we will not agree on.
There is a duty to be disobient when government exceeds its authority and becomes immoral, IMHO. Though it was not the original intention of the framers of the Constitution to have a standing army, a smaller world and other circumstances have changed that need. I believe we need a standing army today. I would qualify that sentiment and say that having a standing army does not mean that a president should be able to unilaterally go off on tangents and commit our soldiers to war on a whim (Only Congress has the right to declare war). I support the notion of a national service under terms that eliminate the influence of immoral and negative policies that have led our country astray.
That being said, I would go on to say that our country has abrogated responsibilities to its citizens. Foreign military adventurism reflects the misguided actions of our government. I think a foreign policy similar to what John M. advocates is absolutely necessary to bring coherent purpose and reform to keep special interests out of the policy arena. We need to get America back on track.
The establishment of a national service must be in the context of a government whose actions are guided by the mandates of a coherent foreign policy. Such a policy must reflect our national self-interests and converge with a just domestic policy.
Top on my list of foreign policy objectives is the elimination of the self-serving interests of corporate America. We need to identify and isolate those self-serving corporate interests from the realm of policy. Public debate is necessary whenever we consider adding any corporate interests as part of our national interest. I contend that through slick campaigns and influence buying, corporations have sustained a concerted effort to create the perception that our national interests include their self-interests. The disaster of our foreign policy has been a result of promoting and supporting these corporate self-interests. Average Americans are dying to advance a misguided national self interest. It is no wonder that much of the world perceives our policy to be one of greed.
I want to inject one criterium for what does not qualify as a national self-interest:
Madison avenue campaigns have created the illusion that consumerism is a worthy goal for Americans. Consumerism has dominated the media and our culture for too long. The advancement of consumerism that wastes resources and pollutes our world, is not a national self-interest. Such a national self-interest places us squarely in the middle of a larger conflict with the world for control of their resources. Corporations would have you believe otherwise. We need to consider the consequence of ever-expanding markets in a finite world.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Retired but Active
In EVERY conflict this country has EVER been involved in there have been those that value the freedom of their fellow countrymen and families more than they FEAR the dangers of military service. The sad part of this, however, is that there are not nearly enough of these types of individuals with the intelligence and skills to do the jobs that are required to run and maintain a modern, technologically advanced organization such as our military services. And, yes, there are a lot of enlistees that are hoping to gain the training and/or education to help the make a better living IF they survive their military service. But to suggest that CONSCRIPTION is opposed to the "very foundation of a free nation" is simply the rantings of, most likely, someone that is perfectly willing to let everyone else take the chances and die if necessary to make their life safe and prosperous. People like this do not deserve to enjoy the freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. EVERYONE that is physically and mentally able should be required to serve a minimum amount of time in some MILITARY service unless there is a compelling reason why they can't. And, there have been such compelling reasons throughout our history but only a very few, relativelly speaking, have found it necessary to seek these reasons out. To dismiss the idea of compulsory military service in order to help secure the freedoms of ALL of us is bordering on disloyalty. I, for one, have absolutely NO respect at all for anyone that harbors this type of idea. I have never had any respect for a coward. And, I am sure you could care less. OK, that is is your right, AT THE PRESENT TIME. But, if this country were actually put in danger of being overtaken by a foreign power or other national and pervasice emergency, do you have ANY DOUBT that the rest of us would FORCE you to serve, even if it meant you could only clean out latrines or serve as cannon fodder on the front lines.
You have somehow reached the conclusion that because I do not agree with conscription, that I am unwilling to defend my country. Nothing could be further from the truth. While not very able, I would give it my best if the need arose. I am not, however, a blind follower.
You are correct, your opinion of me, or what I may deserve, is of little concern.
I have much doubt that "the rest of us" can force me to do anything but live until I die.
It is possible that reasonable discussion could change my mind. Rabid vitriolic raving will not.
The draft arguement is a ploy to cause division in America. The idea that only the poor serve, to get out of poverty or get a cash bonus, is mostly propoganda from the anti-war anti-military crowd. The reality is a large portion of the military are loyal patriots from middle and upper class families. There is also a very large percentage of college graduates that go into the military because they feel strongly about protecting their families and the American way of life.
It is propoganda that the draft would send more of the "rich, white, elite" to the war thus ending wars as we know them. Hogwash. The draft forces many disgruntled and unpatriotic individuals into two years servitude. This causes more problems in the military than it solves. These people don't want to be there and find every excuse not to perform their function. It puts the volunteers at risk and endangers every American, in the world, not only in theatre. The draft is a sneaky way for politicians to thwart and undermine military and US interest globally. It is protectionism on a grand scale. Force American military power in to a corner, due to lack of funding and lack of qualified personell, and we can stay in our hidey hole until the bad guys give up. With our military prestige in tatters our global economy will follow.
No the draft is a very bad idea. Forced government service, absolutely, however send our disgruntled and unqualified masses to do something constructive. Bring back something old and make it new again, have them build roads, bridges, dams, clean highways, teach them a trade at home. The draft stinks put them to work.
I am not saying that only the poor and non-white etc serve. But a great majority of the less well off and less educated and minorities do serve and serve magnificently. I just want the rest of the population (and their families) to bear their fair share the poorer less educated minorities (and their families) seem to be bearing of late. I agree we have a military that is Number 1 and with a draft we will still be numero uno as we would not eliminate a military careere if those who go into the military might want to stay on. We may even get some more good long-termers out of it who never would have thunk about a military or other service career.
Plus it might give a chance for one demographic to learn about the other a bit more in a common cause. Not a bad trade-off IMHO. Give kids a good quid pro quo (Full Education and maybe even Health Care Coverage) and instill in them in some way a service/endowment mentality that can enrich their lives, open their horizons instead of continuing with the growing entitlement mentality the majority of the better off and better educated seem to embrace when it comes to the obligations/responsibilities of citizenry of late. I see in the draft a glass half full. You see it half empty.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Retired but Active
You make statements that are simply not supported by the FACTS. Tell us, please, exactly what you mean by "a LARGE portion of the military are... from middle and upper class families. .....also a very LARGE percentageof college graduates..." These statements are totally unsupported by the evidence. All you need to do is check the statistics readily available on the inernet in several different places. I suggest you put your brain in gear before putting your mouth in motion.
"It is PROPOGANDA that the draft would send more of the 'rich, white, elite' to the war thus ending wars as we know them." Again, this statement is simply NOT supported by the facts. Do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL what the enlistment statistics are regarding income levels, college graduates, etc... of new recruits under the all voluntary force is? NO? I didn't think so.
You sound like someone that wants others to fight the wars for them so you won't be placed in harms way. The milatary is inherently a DANGEROUS occupation, even in peacetime, and not everyone has the guts to stick it out. Perhaps you should talk to more people than just your cowardly friends to get an idea of what the real world is like.
The U.S., Great Britain and Canada are unique among the world's democracies in not requiring some form of national service as a condition of citizenship. While circumstances vary from country to country, in general, males are required to perform military duty (or, in some cases, an alternative form of service) in most western nations and in many developing countries as well.
In France, for example, all men register at 18 for one year of compulsory national service which must be completed before age 22. They are given three service options: military, domestic civilian or overseas civilian service.
Denmark registers all males at birth and selects by lottery approximately 40 percent of the 19-year-olds to serve for nine months. In Spain, 19-year-old males register for 18 months of mandatory service when they turn 21. Exemptions are made for sole sons.
West Germany's national service experience is particularly instructive, as it includes an alternative civilian component. Young men who are drafted for a 15-month term in the armed services may instead choose to serve three years with the police or border patrol, two years with an overseas service program akin to the Peace Corps, or a part-time and unpaid commitment to civil defense and disaster relief over a 10-year period.
In 1983, Germany created another civilian service option, Zivildienst, for conscientious objectors. Those who declare as conscientious objectors must serve a term one-third longer than military service (now 20 months) in Zivildienst, though they are paid roughly the same as soldiers.
Nearly 60,000 young men serve in the program which has come to play an integral role in the delivery of human service in West Germany despite an already extensive social welfare system. Objectors are typically assigned to tasks in hospitals and sanitoriums, nursing homes, the ambulance corps, day care, and to other positions in welfare and social work.
Thus Germany has gone farther than any other country toward establishing a large-scale peacetime civilian alternative to military service. While its national service system is mandatory, the civilian component can perhaps offer a model for similar voluntary service projects in the United States.
Why not!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
John German model sounds like a plan to me. As I stated above. Bring back the old depression model, using unemployed in government service was a tried and productive enterprise. I believe a little hard work could go a long way to ending a great number of problems in this country. Forced government service does not need to be in the military, to acomplish great things. A couple of thousand workers in New Orleans will go a long way to put that area back on it's feet. It may even be a eye opener for our disillusioned youth.