> How does the concept of the global citizen survive?
Why do we need this concept? Find a country you can be proud of, become a citizen, join its culture, and defend it when it is threatened. Don't go live somewhere or get citizenship just because it's convenient.
Technical jobs yes. Infantry still requires a lot of physical strength. I'd welcome anyone who has that strength to be in the infantry, but anyone who can't, male or female, should not be in the infantry, or any job that might require dragging heavy people or heavy equipment.
Can someone explain to me how the Selective Service is constitutional? I know Congress "shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union", but that's only a call, not a legal requirement for anyone to answer the call. The argument seems untenable to me. Not to mention that it's a gross violation of individual freedom, and that if you can't get people to fight for their country then maybe there's something wrong with the country.
It’s the same reason there is a different legal system in the military than for everyone else.
Sometimes, you need to round up all the men and start killing folks - or everyone else dies. Such is life. Making it easy to find them is a basic operational best practice.
> Countries and most borders are just an abstraction.
Not true. Patriotism is very real. It's an affection for a group of people and for the ideals of those people. To some lesser extent it's also love for the geography of your land. But patriotism is rarer in the west than it once was. Also, if a country's territory is invaded by an enemy, at least some of its people will go to fight to protect their families from the oncoming enemies.
I'm probably going to get flagged for this, but here goes anyway.
Russia absolutely has reason to not want Ukraine to join NATO. I'm not condoning the invasion, but I say it absolutely makes sense for Russia to carry it out. Not a reason to commit war crimes, or to cause any more suffering than necessary, but from a national security perspective it makes sense to want to disrupt the process of Ukraine joining NATO.
Only if you accept the hidden assumption that Russia is an antagonist toward the rest of Europe. Otherwise the common "national security" justifications make no sense, because Russia benefits immensely from other NATO members investing resources into the development of institutions in newer member states.
A former Russian foreign minister has labeled NATO "free-of-charge security" for Russia, because NATO membership requirements turn a country into a stable and predictable place. The best neighbors Russia has are in NATO, and much of that stability is directly attributable to their membership.
Yes, that's what I said above. The US government doesn't give a toss, but the airline has to fly you back if you're refused entry at your destination, so they will do their best to ensure you have the documents you need.
reply