As it has several times in the past few years, talk of reinstating a military draft is bubbling to the surface again. Some fear that a draft would be used as a tool by the neoconservatives to support the prolonged war in Iraq and other “optional” armed conflicts. Others–including, perhaps surprisingly, some fairly prominent voices from the political left–think a draft might be a good idea.
I think it’s highly unlikely that the Bush administration will try to bring the draft back, regardless of how the November elections turn out, largely for fear that whatever support for the Iraq war still exists would drop out of the bottom. Still, the pros and cons of resuming a national military conscription is worthy of attention in the national debate because adoption or rejection of such a policy could have a major effect on America’s role in the Next World Order.
Under the fold: draft kids, draft beer, draft horses, draft manuscripts…?
No less of a war hawk than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that, “The last thing we need is a draft.” This is the one point on national defense policy–perhaps the only one–on which I agree with Donald Rumsfeld.
For better or worse, armed conflict has become a high tech undertaking. Hopefully, for America at least, the days of fighting wars by putting a rifle in the hands of any kid who can fog a mirror are gone forever. Moreover, not everyone is suited for military service. That doesn’t mean folks who don’t fit the armed service mold are slackers, sissies, unpatriotic, or any other epithet we may be tempted to label them with. It just means their natural aptitudes lie outside the loose set of talents that make for squared-away G.I. Janes and Josephs. I had fairly significant management and leadership experience in the military, and can state without fear of credible contradiction that supervisory personnel in all branches of the service would far rather work with volunteers than conscripts. Sure, a lot of dysfunctional personalities and attitudes slip through the cracks of the recruiting process, but in the main, you’d rather be around people who asked to wear a uniform than around folks who didn’t.
For all the talk about America now being engaged in a “global,” “generational” or “world” war, we’re really involved in no such thing. The “war on terror” is no more of a war than are the war on drugs or the war on poverty. It’s an ongoing problem that will require vigilant law enforcement and diplomatic, economic, and information measures. Our conflict in Iraq is an aberration–i.e., “mistake”–based on the delusional neoconservative notion that military force can achieve any and all U.S. national objectives.
America’s Navy and Air Force aren’t hurting at present for sufficient manpower or new recruits. Our personnel challenges are limited to our land power services, the Army and, to a lesser extent, the Marine Corps. The only reason we’d need a draft to supplement these branches would be so we could fight more wars like the one we’re currently fighting in Iraq. And the most important lesson we’ve (hopefully) learned from the Iraq War is that we don’t want or need to fight any more wars like it. Why should we? Did we spend most of the 20th century establishing ourselves as the leading world power so we could get bogged down in dirty little wars with third rate ones in the 21st?
Oceans Away
Of late, young Mister Bush has been fond of saying, “We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.”
As with most of Bush’s scripted rhetoric, both of these assertions are false.
What Abraham Lincoln said in 1838 is as true now as it was then:
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
Not the Chinese nor the Russians nor Iran nor North Korea nor al Qaeda nor anyone else can raise an army or an amphibious assault fleet large enough to cross the Atlantic or Pacific and invade and occupy the United States. No one will ever be able to do that. They won’t even try to develop the capability because it is unachievable.
The only military threat the U.S. is vulnerable to is the delivery of WMD, most notably a nuclear warhead, on American soil by means of an intercontinental ballistic missile. But we managed to deter that threat for more than 50 years of Cold War with the Soviets, and we can easily deter the same sort of threat from “rogue” nuclear states like North Korea in much the same manner. On last Sunday’s Meet the Press, Senator Joe Biden perfectly articulated the proper diplomatic stance to take toward North Korea or any other nation that threatens to strike the U.S. with a nuclear missile.
You do something like that, we will annihilate you.
There’s no need for a military draft to back that promise. We’ll always have plenty of qualified volunteers to man our missile silos. Compared to being an infantryman, being a nuclear missileer in an air conditioned silo is pretty skate duty.
As to the threat of covert terrorists, international or “home grown,” well, America has always been under that cloud too. A military draft won’t solve the problem.
Glamour Girls and Universal Conscription
Even if you could make a legitimate argument for the efficacy of a new military draft, you’ll never convince me that we can construct a system that will improve on the class inequities of Vietnam era conscription. Rifle toters won’t be sons of corporate CEOs. The Bush twins of our age will serve as flight attendants with the Texas Air National Guard, and latter day Dick Cheneys will have “better things to do.”
What of the “national service draft” concept that will require all able Americans between the ages of, say, 18 and 25 to serve in some capacity, military or peaceful, in government service? Riddle me this: what the hell are we going to do with all those kids, and how the hell are we going to pay them?
What’s more, such a requirement would amount to mandatory indentured servitude to the government as a condition of citizenship. How would that square with the admonition in the Declaration of Independence about “inalienable rights?”
So yes, the notion of a draft is well worth discussing, but no, it’s a very, very, very bad idea. It won’t make America better or safer or stronger. It will just make Americans vassals of the government, which is 180 degrees out from the way things are supposed to be in this country. While serving one’s country–by being a responsible and productive citizen–and serving one’s government are not necessarily mutually exclusive pursuits, they’re two very separate things. The very notion of “national service” itself is a tenuous concept at best.
Just consider Dick Cheney, who’s spent his life serving himself in the name of his government and country.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at ePluribus Media and Pen and Sword.
Also see the Next World Order series.
The Army is fairly damned broken right now. We see it more and more with each passing day, it is very depressing to witness what has taken place. Any ideas on how to speed this administration along to facing the inevitable leaving of Iraq. I’m all tired ears…….very tired ears.
as far as flight school in the Army goes..kids who normally would not have made the cut are being pushed along, and if they don’t pass their courses or their check rides the instructors are being blamed for being “poor” instructors. The Iraq war is causing a lot of things to come apart at the seems, it is affecting the level of skilled individuals available and choosing to serve.
…a draft won’t fix those things.
I hope it breaks. I hope the members of this monstrous institution shed their uniforms at the first available opportunity and do something useful with the rest of their lives. I hope that there is a sharp decline in the quantity and quality of new recruits. I hope that the public stops feeding the egos of our “warriors” with the kitschy hysterics of yellow ribbons and flags and good-versus-evil fantasies.
If the US military breaks, we would no longer be able to staff our imperial ventures and we could have our constitutional republic back. The balance of domestic power would shift back to the legislature and away from the executive and the pentagon. Our resources could be used for domestic needs. The terrorist threat to America would go way down once we stop violating foreign lands with our military presence.
At that point, we could reconstitute our military as a GENUINE self-defense force, much reduced in size, constitutionally forbidden from undertaking aggressive military action, and restricted to such activities as patrolling the coasts and evacuating Americans from foreign civil wars.
George Washington said that overgrown military establishments are inauspicious to liberty. That is like a message in a bottle to the present day.
Look, no matter what you think of the military, and I respect your right to say and think what you just said; however, we do need a strong military and this administration is breaking it as well as the rest of the branches, that constitute a military.
It is not the ordinary ppl that fill the ranks/rates of the military that is at fault here. Can you not see that??!! If you can not see it I suggest you take another good look at what is being said by many and you should see before your own eyes. Hell now, we do not like what this administration is doing to our—and I stress OUR—military. This is not good at all….plus I would rather them be volunteer as opposed to a draft…this might save y ou or someone you love from having to do such an ugly job…
I, and others have served, so that you can say that which you just said. Might it be otherwise, you might be in a Germany 1939 atmosphere
your two strongest points are:
The first may be an insurmountable obstacle (and possibly for good reason). The second should not be a serious problem.
As I said elsewhere, a compulsory service program could be drafted quite broadly. For some it would amount to no more than what a typical reserve goes through, and there is no real problem with having too many reserves. Others could fulfill their duty through the course of their normal studies (in education, social work), others could do it through summer work programs that mirror habitat for humanity.
There is plenty of money in the Pentagon budget and elsewhere, and the ‘indentured work’ would probably be cheaper than if found on the open market.
There are countless potential social benefits.
…the national service program were dedicated to internal infrastructure and cultural matters.
But then again, if we dumped tax dollars into those kinds of programs, would we really need to “nationalize” them and make participation mandatory?
…plus, we cant take care of the debt we have now what would one think of paying for such an adventure as boo subscribes to??!! for heavens sake.
I still want my social security and medicare someday when I do retire, if the world will allow me to retire, that is…considering we still have a nation to live in, that is…
Ok boo, let us think this through realistically. If we go your route, and then if some one gets the bright idea that we need yet another world war and we do not have the military to subscribe for this adventure, do we take those kids from the civilian ranks of public sevice to fill those vacancies? What do we do then? HUH?? I sit on a ss board and I want answers from you the public! Listen up, you ppl this is serious stuff you talk..not some some hyper-venting on things. Some one in civilian public service with some clout will someday make this a reality if we are not careful..I personally want some answers to your rhetoric not just hyper-venting. Do you really advocate changing the rules, or what?
i don’t see why a national service requirement makes it easier to draft people into the military against their will. If the need is there, they will do it with or without a national service requirement.
,,,i don’t see why a national service requirement makes it easier to draft people into the military against their will.>>>>
why then have it at all, then? You are asking for more than the society is willing to give, I think. Who do you think you are to tell my grand son or grand daughter that they have to serve in anything?? HUH!!?? If they did, I would want them to make it voluntary not mandatory…I hate mandatory anyhow…Just you wait until you have a son or daughter or even you yourself be told you will do such a thing. Right now, all we have to do is die and pay taxes…I volunteered to sit on the SS board. I want it to be fair not like others that have been around during the earlier draft, at least as far as I feel about it anyhow….there was lots I did not know until I went for my classes on it..you would be very surprised…I grant you that!
I guarantee you, their enlistement contracts would include contingency transfer to military service.
Like Tracy says, why else have such a thing?
I know, I addressed this over on the center page to this topic. just like you said….
Thanks, Jeff. Good points and a good tone to discuss this volatile subject.
I’m still surprised at those who would force young people to kill or be killed for some political agenda. How is this different from what the Bushites are doing?
The draft meant a choice between killing, going to prison or giving up your citizenship. That’s what we want for our young?
There was a concept we discussed in the 60s called “channeling.” It didn’t have anything to do with Ramtha or spirits of the dead. There was evidence that it was part of the purpose of the Selective Service system, which was to channel young people into either serving the military-industrial complex, or to get rid of dissenters by imprisoning or exiling them. And of course, use the poor and minorities for cannon fodder.
Those considering draft resistance were told that unless they did exactly what they were told, they would never get a job that had anythng to do wth the government, and probably wouldn’t get a decent job with anyone, with that on their record. After the Blacklist and McCarthyism, this was no idle threat. Now we’ve got no-fly lists and other blacklists nobody has any control over. I’m not going to support more totalitarian control.
If you want to increase equity in this society, support a realistic minimum wage, if not a guaranteed annual wage, and pay equity. Support education. Get rid of the economic and educational deficiences that drive kids into the miltary, where they are often cheated of those benefits anyway.
The way this government “supports” the troops is utterly shameful. We don’t need a roundabout way to address that. Address it at its source.
Captain Future,
That’s how I see it. A draft turning a supposedly peaceful societ into a militaristic one.
And for what? For whom?
Thank you for this diary.
Draft beer.. Most of the kids in Iraq aren’t old enough to “legally” drink beer… how’s that for irony and BS laws.
I agree with Captain Future’s points on these last few threads.
We don’t need to sacrifice more blood. We need to give up wars and killing.
Here’s an option. Instead of making this about citizens… how about making it about politicians.
If you’re a politician… you and your children MUST SERVE in the military and must go to the wars you start.
…do you actually think politicians would pass a law like that?
Nawww they’d just pass another pay increase for themselves.
My young friend spent three tours in Iraq, how inhumane, before he was old enough to order a beer in a US bar.
being alright ten or twenty years down the road if he’s okay today.
To put this in today’s context, I heard a discussion on Keith about neocons wanting to use the current Mideast warfare for U.S. attacks on Syria and Iran. How would this be accomplished? Impossible, said the military analyst, unless you had a draft.
To put this in today’s context, I heard a discussion on Keith about neocons wanting to use the current Mideast warfare for U.S. attacks on Syria and Iran. How would this be accomplished? Impossible, said the military analyst, unless you had a draft.