Elias Isquith finds Tom Ricks of The Washington Post calling for a return to the draft, for all the usual reasons:
Since the end of the military draft in 1973, every person joining the U.S. armed forces has done so because he or she asked to be there. Over the past decade, this all-volunteer force has been put to the test and has succeeded….
This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences.
… One percent of the nation has carried almost all the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of us essentially went shopping….
Elias seconds the notion, and adds:
I’d like to see the draft come back for more abstract, public-minded reasons. There are precious few institutions nowadays that bring together Americans from disparate social spheres; the military used to be one of them. Implementation in this regard was never perfect, of course; there were fortunate sons. But the general principle that the military was a product of our collective labors, spurred by our collective interests, this was more influential during the time of a draft than it is today.
I understand why people say these things. But is there any reason whatsoever to have any faith at all in this country’s ability to bring back a draft in a fair, genuinely sacrifice-sharing way?
Do you honestly believe that the children of hedge fund managers and oil billionaires would serve as equals alongside the children of janitors and Walmart clerks? Do you honest believe that this inequality-saturated country could bring back conscription without building massive loopholes for the privileged (and probably a large number of loopholes for the merely well-off)?
Don’t you think we’d wind up about where we are now, with low-income conscripts on the front lines (commanded, perhaps, by gung-ho Southerners), while upper-middle-class kids were far from combat and superrich kids were still partying in Biarritz?
And don’t you think this new state of affairs would just become a new front in the culture wars, as right-wingers waged class war against the “liberal” upper-middle-class kids in the rear echelons (exempting the superrich, of course) while claiming kinship with the genuinely patriotic grunts? Wouldn’t a draft just become part of this problem, rather than part of the solution?
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
It wouldn’t be a universal military draft but a national service requirement, meaning that you can fulfill it by going into the Peace Corp or AmeriCorps or the Coast Guard or the Reserves/Guard or by entering into a government job (say, at the State Department, the CIA or the Department of the Interior, e.g., park ranger).
The idea being that we all owe something to our country, but many people are not made out to be soldiers.
If our military didn’t attract enough people, or if it attracted too many, options could be closed or opened.
Any such effort would face an immediate constitutional challenge. I have no idea whether it would survive.
Would it result in all the negative things you describe?
I think it would, but probably not with the severity you predict. Rich kids would tend towards softer, less dangerous options. In a time of major war where more troops are needed, it might turn out that loopholes are created, strings are pulled, etc.
But it would certainly be a lot better than simply going back to conscription.
I’m too damn slow with the keys. But it looks like we agree on this one.
I like this idea;
Yes, but there’d be class-based attacks by the right on “liberals” who wound up in the Peace Corps and Teach for America while “real Americans” were actually in the military. (Never mind the fact that no Trump, Romney or Koch would be among those brave troops….)
I agree. There would be a certain stigma attached to the softer jobs. And it would be politicized. But there would be other changes in our culture with more beneficial effects. One question is whether we want to go back to granting the government the right to control a couple years of our lives, regardless of the possible benefits.
“ One question is whether we want to go back to granting the government the right to control a couple years of our lives…“
I do not, even though I am past the age where that is a concern for myself. I do not, however, want that for my kids and grandkids. I hope that throughout their lives they will be socially aware, and will undertake actions and take part in projects in the service of humanity (NOT nationalism!).
“The idea being that we all owe something to our country…“
Whatever I may owe to my country is more than returned in the exorbitant taxes I pay, most of which are not used in any way that benefits me or anyone I know.
A draft wouldn’t solve much, but Rangel’s much-submitted Universal National Service Act would:
(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.
(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE – National service under this Act shall be performed either–
(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.
We talked about the concept when we got discharged (late 60’s), and pretty much all agreed Universal Service was infinitely better than a strict military draft.
My middle son, age 23, dropped out of college and was accepted by Americorps. He worked a full year, loved it, and applied again the following year. They were swamped with applicants, but sent him to work for Habitiat for Humanity instead. He loves that, too, and plans to reapply for next year.
I think there are plenty of ways to serve the country without going into the military. My son became a new guy through Americorps; more self-confident, physically stronger, and has learned about construction, teamwork, and what it takes to be a contributing member of society. More than that, he’s done work for those in need who are less fortunate than he is.
With a Draft encompassing ALL American 18y/o’s, Politicians would not find it so easy to go to war when THEIR kids could be on the front lines.
What is that “new” sick Republican talking point about “having some skin in the Game”? If the politicos Knew their kids might have to put some skin in the game, they won’t be so willing to “recommend” the GAME!
Now, Reality. We Need an all-encompassing draft of ALL 18 y/o’s, or whatever age is deemed appropriate. The draft doesn’t mean only Military service; the Draft means Government service wherever needed, the hospitals, schools, public service, etc.
The Draft will bring back the lessons of All Americans working with Americans from other parts of the country and learning the lessons of one working together with others for the Common Good. Lessons in “common discipline” that are not taught today like the Military does, without the threat of losing your life, if that is not your desire.
While some rich kids wound up in the front lines when we had a draft, they were volunteers. Rich kids got National Guard berths like Bush or were given non-combat roles like Al Gore who even had a Sergeant assigned “to make sure nothing happens to the Senator’s kid”. I’m not faulting Gore, mind you. His job was to photograph the aftermath of battles. Just being there and seeing and smelling the results of combat had to teach him a powerful lesson about war that Bush could never learn snorting coke in Texas.
Mr. Isquith is a bit off with this:
Not quite. This makes it sound like everyone who volunteers is accepted. Not so, there is- or at least used to be- some requirements to get into the Army, and I presume the other branches of the military as well:
A conscription based system would encounter the same problem; all branches of the military still have to have some sort of standard to join up.
IMHO, it’s all moot- conscription is not going to brought back. The powers that be learned their lesson from the Vietnam “war”. Forget about the wealthy- middle and lower class people would also rise up against the current terminal wars of choice, if those being killed were conscripted to join the military- just like they rose up and protested regarding the Vietnam fiasco.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2008/01/dumb_and_dumber.html
Why are there so many people who believe that history began and ended with the Vietnam War?
Did middle and lower class people rise up against the Korean War? World War Two? World War One?
Meanwhile, the country turned decisively against the Iraq War without a draft.
Regarding WW II, there were plenty of anti-interventionist, conservative GOP types in congress who fought tooth and nail against our entering the war. Churhill begged FDR for help, FDR only indirect assistance.. Pearl Harbor finally forced his hand.
Regarding lower and middle class opposition to the war.. not sure, I recall the Quakers were against it- as they are against all war.
The reason Vietnam is important is because it was a bogus war of choice- just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Note the Pentagon wanted to continue the war, the massive, long term anti war protests were starting to threaten business as usual and got the attention of congress.. congress slowed financial aid to S. Vietnam and cut defense spending supporting the war, and that was it.
“Decisively”?
Stats/links, please. If we turned decisively against the war, I’m wondering why a large number of Americans (falsely) believe Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and why it took ten years to demobilize (partly) out of Iraq?
Regarding WW II, there were plenty of anti-interventionist, conservative GOP types in congress who fought tooth and nail against our entering the war.
But once again, this opposition existed during the period when we didn’t have a draft, while the country was strongly behind the war during the period when we had one.
The reason Vietnam is important is because it was a bogus war of choice
Yes, this is what mattered in producing opposition to the war – not the draft. People turn against bad wars, draft or no, and they do not turn against good ones, draft or no.
Stats/links, please.
Really? You need me to link to polls about the war from 2006-2009? How about if I link to the 2006 or 2008 election results instead? You don’t remember public opinion turning decisively against the Iraq War?
OK: here are the google search results for “polls Iraq 2007.” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=polls+Iraq+2007&gbv=2&oq=polls+Iraq+2
007&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.13..0i15.1342.4663.0.5786.15.15.0.0.0.0.9
2.857.15.15.0.nVAUAKfMhBc
Here’s a typical sample: Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.
If we turned decisively against the war, I’m wondering why a large number of Americans (falsely) believe Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and why it took ten years to demobilize (partly) out of Iraq? Huh? What does any of that have to do with public opinion turning against the Iraq War?
Noted you don’t mention the 2004 POTUS election here- good reason for that, since well before that election many of us knew there were NO WMD’s in Iraq, bush admitted it after the election- thus the main rationale for the invasion/occupation was bogus. This is the worst sort of abuse of either an all volunteer or draft based military.
Candidate Kerry’s justifiable anti-war stance, regarding both the Vietnam fiasco and the Iraq war was crushed by the hawk pro war, pro MIC folks (including those in congress on both sides of the aisle), and the voters gave bush a second term!
So, yeah, I can see why you only want to discuss polling from 2006-2009. After the 2004 election, it took a full two years more of the bush cabal’s baloney in Iraq, with numerous people killed and injured on both sides, before the majority of Americans finally had enough.
Looking at a 2006 CNN poll, 36% still were in favor of the war– these is even more incredble if the poll was done after bush himself admitted in 2006 there were no WMD’s in Iraq.
Again, the “decisive” part of your argument just doesn’t hold up as strong as you present it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-08-09/us/iraq.poll_1_opinion-research-corporation-poll-iraq-war-poll-re
spondents?_s=PM:US
Noted you don’t mention the 2004 POTUS election here
So now your argument has gone from “There was no backlash” to “OK, there was a massive backlash, but it took a little while.”
Yes. Yes it did.
BTW, the headline on that story you link to is: Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war
A 24 point margin is what is known as a landslide. By way of reference, that is a larger margin than Lyndon Johnson’s victory over Barry Goldwater, larger than Ronald Reagan’s over Walter Mondale, and larger than Richard Nixon’s in 1972.
Again, the “decisive” part of your argument just doesn’t hold up as strong as you present it.
If you say so.
There’s a distinct fear being a parent of a draft age child that if indeed it were a pure military draft you would find your child in the line of sight.
I would want to know the ability of the overseers to bait and switch. Allowing for an Americorp service and then switching orders into something in the line of fire.
Of course if we could flush the Bush Doctrine and line up a military that was more aligned to act as First Responders to catastrophes from tsunamis, hurricanes and global warming type events would sit fine with me. That’s something that we just may need to start thinking about.
Good points Steven. I would favor a draft if it could be done fairly. People like Andrew Bacevich have also written about the disconnect between the American people and the military. He believes the public’s faulty perceptions of what the military does and what it cannot do are one of the factors that makes the US a militaristic society.
But US society seems even more inequitable now than during the 60s and 70s and I also have extreme difficulty believing a fair draft system could be created.
Even if it could be done fairly, the timing is all wrong. It took a few decades for American people to generally lose sight of what a waste the Vietnam episode was. The waste of Iraq is too fresh on the public’s mind. The multiple tours and hardships on military families are too fresh. It would take another 15-20 years at least to erase a few more memories before the draft could be more feasible politically.
I can’t for the life of me see how a draft would not make it easier rather than more difficult to start wars. Historically the draft has been the mechanism for ensuring there is plenty of canon fodder by removing choice. Hard to see that as a limiting factor.
As for using the draft to remove some of the inequality in society – really?! I don’t see it.
well, I can’t say that it would make it harder to wage for certain, but I can guarantee that the debate about the Iraq invasion would have been more even if average people were going to see their sons and daughters do the invading. And it couldn’t have dragged on as long as it did going in the wrong direction without massive dissent if the IED victims were evenly distributed throughout society.
Yes, that is a valid point. It is entirely possible that there was not more, and more adamant opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not to mention the ill-conceived actions in Afghanistan, because people were in danger of being dragged into it against their wills.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that is reason enough to reinstate a policy by which the government can kidnap its citizens and force them to become killers and canon fodder for its wars. This is particularly the case since the U.S. does not fight defensive wars.
The WWII draft was tolerated because the war was seen as defensive (Pearl Harbor) AND because it was much more inclusive as it had to be to get the numbers required which drained the country of manpower forcing employers to fall back on womanpower and thus planting the seeds of feminism as an unintended consequence.
Yes, the nature of the wars is a huge factor. Thank you for highlighting it.
I can guarantee that the debate about the Iraq invasion would have been more even if average people were going to see their sons and daughters do the invading.
Based on what, you can make this guarantee? When did this ever happen, when the United States had a draft?
This country marched off to war much more eagerly in 1917, 1942, and 1964 – when there was a draft – than it did in 2002 or 1991, when there was none.
By 1917, sure. But from 1914-1916 the country was pretty decisively against entering. When your rallying cry to winning an election is, “He kept us out of the war!”…
And, you know, we were attacked by German U-boats…not really like attacking a country that hadn’t provoked us nor attacked us.
And when was the draft introduced in World War One? 1917.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917&sa=U&
ei=VhuYT6fzJOT06QGs1p3nBg&ved=0CBIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG1IRzJpd9Dtcwx_71gBJYqKM8FUw
In the example you just brought up, the American public was against entering the war when there was no draft, but strongly in favor of it when there was a draft.
And, you know, we were attacked by German U-boats…not really like attacking a country that hadn’t provoked us nor attacked us.
I still weep when I think about the North Koreans unleashing submarine warfare against…oh, wait, I’m confused. I’m thinking about the North Vietnamese. Heh.
Bottom line: the draft has never, ever served to keep us out of a war, or even to make it more politically risky to get into one.
Oh yes, I agree with your premise. No qualms there. I just think the context matters: we weren’t truly a dominating global empire until after WWII. And I think THAT is what has made us more likely to go to war.
But I still oppose a draft anyway. I think a better way to make us less likely to go to war is to enact a law that demands we institute a special tax for doing it. Course that would prolly be gotten around, or used as a away to slash social programs for the “good of the war.”
That describes the Vietnam Era to a ‘T’.
This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences.
Shorter: We’ll lose fewer young men and women in war if we send more young men and women to war.
I do not know how many people there are in the USA between high school grad and, say, 23. But how many of them could be employed in all the ways of “serving their country?”
Can Americorps, Peace Corp, Military and whatever absorb them all?
On a related note: DRAFT / MILITARY SERVICE I credit the discipline that I learned in the first 4 – 6 years of my time in the Navy with being able to guide me through the vicissitudes of life. Now, not intending to raise a firestorm but when I look at all of my mother-in-law’s grandchildren and great grandchildren, not one of which served in the military, I believe that an enlistment in the military would have done them a ton of good.
Of her eleven grandchildren, 3 have a college degree – a master’s, a bachelor’s and an associate. All three are my children. Of the remaining 8 grandchildren, 4 incl one of mine are HS grads, with the remaining four being HS dropouts.
A “draft” that makes national service compulsory for everyone could be a good thing.
That’s some pretty shoddy reasoning, and history, by Isquith. Was it terribly difficult to take the country to war in the 50s and 60s? The lists of names on the monuments don’t suggest that this is the case. It is not easier to go to war now than it was when there was a draft.
Here’s a much more realistic prediction of what a draft would mean than this ahistorical fantasy that it would serve as a brake on warmongers:
If we had a draft, the generals would go back to throwing crowds of poorly-trained conscripts into the line under withering fire. Unlike the “fewer wars” theory, this one has the advantage of comporting with what we actually know happened when there was a draft.
Amendment Thirteen, Section One:
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.
I will lie down on the damn train tracks before I allow one of my neighbors to be taken off against his will to fight a war. Conscription is slavery.