Comments in another thread have discussed the relative merits of a national program of service – a draft, essentially. This is only tangentially important to the instant issue of ground forces size and military end strength: For both proponents and critics, this has much more to do with national character.
Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is probably the least serious, and therefore least important of those people currently agitating for a renewed draft. His intention is mostly political: He seeks a pulpit from whence to sermonize on his contention that politicians at the national level face fewer barriers to committing troops on adventures when they have no personal or political skin in the game. After all, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright when she was facing opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the commitment of ground forces in one or another of the Balkans butcheries, “They’re volunteers, aren’t they?”
Rangel also has a persistent – even if persistently incorrect – belief that the burdens of military service fall disproportionately upon the underprivileged and those of color, so his advocacy of a draft isn’t entirely political. It also has roots in the daddy-knows-best brand of paternalism that so many of today’s volunteers find so comprehensively offensive – witness his burblings about the lack of “career choices” driving people towards a volunteer service.
But a more compelling line of thinking is that compulsory national service, whether that be in the military, peace corps or what have you, would be a way of inculcating sequential cohorts of American youth with the knowledge of what service actually means, the sacrifices necessary to create and sustain the foundations of a great and prosperous society. Some people make this argument from an emotional standpoint – they don’t like to see men with earrings and goatees spouting off in Starbucks about issues whose complexity they only dimly comprehend. Others make the argument from a concern that generations of soft youth have come to voting age taking the advantages of geopolitical pre-eminence for granted, and for whom national security and personal prosperity are givens rather than an inheritance deeded down to us for safeguarding through the blood and sacrifices of our forefathers. Serious thinkers have proposed such a service, including Samuel Huntington in the conclusion of his seminal, but growingly dated book, “The Soldier and the State.” There is also an argument that the memories of a shared and common service in youth could be the glue that holds together an otherwise fractious polity – this would only hold true of course in a truly universal compulsory service, or else we’d run the risk of running new fault lines through society as once again the wealthy and privileged found ways to evade the service.
But even though a truly universal and compulsory national service might help to put a welcome quietus on the pseudo-intellectual musings of such dim bulbs as Matt Damon – whose maunderings on the topic should be given all the weight due an actor who played a role as a wicket smaht Hahvahd student that one time – and while I do admit a certain prurient curiosity as to what Paris Hilton would look like in fatigues, with load-bearing gear (and a rifle!), the prospect of compulsory service holds little attraction to me.
Five years after 9/11, virtually every man or woman now serving in the US military has enlisted, re-enlisted or voluntarily continued to serve knowing that there was a high likelihood of serving in combat. The moral value of having an all-volunteer force, committed to the fight, is not to be underestimated, especially keeping in mind Napoleon’s dictum that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” From a qualitative standpoint, especially in the combat arms, the services are as strong or stronger today than they have ever been.
Nor does one need to use the “army of slaves” language that Milton Friedman used in debating General William Westmoreland to believe with him that the idea of compelling young people to serve in a way that might end up costing them not just their liberty but their very lives is fundamentally illiberal – in the most cherished meaning of that often misused word.
Not everyone wants to be a soldier and not everyone that wants to be one is cut out for the task. Compelling the inadequate and malcontent to serve alongside those who truly believe in their mission – absent immediate, existential need – is a recipe for undermining the effectiveness of the latter while denying ourselves whatever useful production the former might provide if freed from constraint. This a kind of redistributive social taxation that Friedman recognized early in the volunteer force debate:
When a young man is forced to serve at $45 a week, including the cost of his keep, of his uniforms, and his dependency allowances, and there are many civilian opportunities available to him at something like $100 a week, he is paying $55 a week in an implicit tax.
where there is compulsion, there is resistance.
better, that we only permit the privilege of service to those who would voluntarily render it.
even better, that the nation should itself remain worthy of the service that the volunteers render.
Cap’n,
Compulsory service is also something of a ‘crap shoot’ for the more technical branches of the Armed Forces (USN/USAF). There is no guarantee a given batch of inductees can adjust to the technology inherent in a large weapon system. Lord knows I had enough trouble trying to keep an AEGIS system running with a severely reduced division. The volunteer force at least lets us screen candidates.
I am in favor of compulsory service right out of high school and before college. Peace or Jobs Corps, CCC or something like that. Matters not what income band they come from, they get to serve at mininmum waqe, 3 squares and a rack to sleep in for 2 years.
Of course, we could go the way of Heinlein’s Federal Service requirement in his novel (NOT the movie!!!!) Starship Troopers
“MajMike Says:
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:42 am
where there is compulsion, there is resistance.”
Now I get why I hate writing that check every April 15th. Anyway…
I seem to remember in 1991, masses of conscripted soldiers running towards our lines with their hands held high and sporting pretty white flags. If that image is lost on our political rhetoritions, then maybe they need to spend a week at Pendleton pounding the ground with 100 + pounds of gear strapped to their backs and every appendage available. That ought to do the trick. Maybe then they’ll appreciate the dedication, perserverence and determination that goes hand in hand with an all volunteer military. As for Rangel, that clown really needs a new career, I for one am sick of his silly antics.
CAPT-
I agree that “the memories of a shared and common service in youth could be the glue that holds together an otherwise fractious polity,” and one can see that this memory and shared respect carried out on numerous milblogs, where public debate is held, but respectfully, as each acknowledges the other’s insight into the stakes. That is usually the easiest way to identify a poseur – they just don’t get it, and their tone proves it.
However, while I can see the benefits of an enlarged federal service program, I do not believe that the above statement “would only hold true of course in a truly universal compulsory service.” Even if the respect and understanding that comes from spending some time devoted to working for Uncle Sam is increased only in some, and not all, that is still a greater number that “get it”, and that, IMHO, is an overall positive for the country.
I do not, however, propose any kind of mandatory service (the watery eye is for you, SeniorD ;-> ) or Henlein style “service guarantees citizenship” setup, because, as you so aptly state, this is “a recipe for undermining the effectiveness” of our military.
So I agree and disagree at the same time? Not exactly. Why not expand the federal services, and heavily incentivize them? Spend the money they would on the new draftees on having people work with DHS, ICE, TSA, Coastie support, or military/federal paper pushing or desk riding or engineering support or national infrastructure improvements. Will that give them the same feeling of fraternity as the military? Probably not, but it might at least give them a greater sense of investment in the government, and a better understanding of just how things work. Maybe. Hopefully.
However, I will take issue with your parting shot, “If the day should ever come that we can no longer provide for our defense with the service of courageous volunteers, then the day has perhaps come when we no longer deserve to be defended.” Absolutes make for nice position statements, but are almost always (I said almost!) false. Hopefully the day will never come that we are in such dire straits that we require compulsory service, but should it, I will likely still believe that the ideals this country stands for are worth it.
I do believe that there should be some form of mandatory service, the better to give the up coming generations some sense of ownership in this Nation, but I do not think that it should be in the military (let the military be an option, howe’er), but, as stated above by my esteemed co-commenters, something like the Peace Corps, the CCC, or something that will provide a domestic return on the investment.
Shipmates,
The universal system I described in my other comments would allow for service in a variety of areas, not just the military.
I fully understand Lex’s position and I agree with much of what he has written. And yet, something MUST be done.
The short version is that this nation can no longer afford to maintain the large stock of parasites which reside within it’s borders. they are those who freely game the system, taking every advantage of the blessings of citizenship, yet refusing to bear any further burden than that of aggrieved taxpayer. Even then, we have those who find that burden onerous.
As a nation, we have embraced welfare reform, forcing those of able body and/or ability to go into the workforce to assist with their own support. Why should not the same be done for civic responsibility? We told those who refused to work that they would face loss of benefits, and then backed it up. As a result, the welfare rolls were quickly thinned, leaving the available funding for those truly needy, with a far smaller percentage of layabouts than had existed previously.
Our nation is full of those quick to complain but of no value to the solution. Everything is about “My Rights” and when asked what the solution to the problem should be, the answer from them is as often “Not My Problem”. Well, it IS their problem too, and I am tired of seeing my fellow citizens, especially veterans, pulling so much dead weight.
There MUST be something done to alleviate the burden. We can see the results of inaction in this field by listening to the remarks of those who have recently taken control of Congress. It’s not about “These United States” anymore, but about embarassing the other party, gaining power and holding it, punishing those who disagree, and, most eggregiously, failing to understand that there really ARE folks out there who WANT to kill us all, and are trying to do it RIGHT NOW.
There was a time when this nation could count on every citizen to do what needed to be done. That responsibility was taught not just at home, but in the schools. The nations educators have abandonded that charge, walking away from civics courses, many schools not only abandoning the morning ritual of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but of even removing flags from classrooms.
If we cannot count on the support from those charged with educating our youth, of reenforcing the values this nation was built upon, Then the citizens themselves must take over that responsibility. and do so through the power of the federal Government by mandating national service.
We set aside the treatment of this issue at our national peril.
Respects,
I agree with Sgt B. @5 there. Mandatory service, either in the military or some sort of domestic-type service, i.e. teaching at an inner city school or CCC, can be a wonderful experience for young adults. Get them to see and do something that they may never have dreamed doing, and gaining the fulfillment of giving something back, for the betterment of their school, city, county, state, country or what have you.
And for their service they would qualify for some type of Civilian GI-Bill (or student loan forgiveness) to pay for college or vocational training.
Snip…”It?
Snip…”It’s not about “These United States” anymore, but about embarassing the other party, gaining power and holding it, punishing those who disagree…”
I agree. Both the Republicans and Democrats are pretty good at that.
The culture of “Me! Me! Me!” and sleaze is killing us.
No, yes, no…or something like that.
Compulsory service is not necessary without extenuating circumstances. I just don’t agree that I need to impress ownership of nation, on a nation of immigrants and children of immigrants. Neither compulsory voting or any of those items that seem to indicate that the citizens of the nation have lost interest in owning, passing on or otherwise educating their children on the responsibilities of citizenship.
It reminds me of my objection to sex education in schools: why do we continue to believe that it is the state’s responsibility to do such education when or just because we, the individual citizens and actual responsible parties, are responsible for that education and failing?
For those that currently serve, have family who serve or support those that serve, who told you it is right and proper to serve your country and protect it? The state? Or, your family or friends? Was it a self realization?
Odds are, it wasn’t the state, hard as they try and as hard as some try to blame their advertisements for hoodwinking poor, unsuspecting rubes into “dangerous, indentured servitude” (please note sarcasm).
I don’t care for state organized and compulsory service. That smacks of socialist, communist, fascist or other monarchic governments, not free societies. Of course, is speak of conscript militaries in times of peace, peace corps or other types of service not related to war time military.
Where I would agree to conscript service is a war time military, when necessary.
We are not fighting such a war at this time. Unless, as some have suggested, we are preparing to have a regional or world war, I don’t see the necessity for a draft military. We are simply not fighting that kind of war. Thus, I am opposed to a draft at this time.
If the war expands to Iran or other nations or if some other immediate threat arises, I reserve the right to change my mind. But, I regard a draft ramping up our military by several more million an abuse of power and quite frankly, possibly destabilizing to other nations who may see that build up and dispostion of forces as a potential threat, either directly to their own nation or as a threat to their financial, political and militarily allied states.
kat-missouri,
And yet, there was a not-too-distant time where every able-bodied man between the ages of 15 and 45 was required to maintain a weapon, accoutrements, ammunition, and attend drill meetings. It was part of the Militia laws.
Of course, that is somewhat of an apples/oranges example, but still.
My point is that, under what conditions do the 10% doing the work finally lay down their shovels and move to a bunker in Idaho?
Respects,
Agree with SGT B and jpr: SOME form of domestic national service is mandatory. It should be simple:
You live in America
You give back to America
In the best way you personally can
You get lots of choices how to give back, but opting out is not a choice. Peace Corps, inner city or rural teaching, VISTA, CCC and other civilian organizations are all proven, honorable and necessary ways to contribute that MOST people can do well. And be well proud of it.
Personally, I would never make a draft or other military service compulsary. Because today’s maneuver warfare is NOT something most people can do well. The unable and the unwilling are a danger to themselves, to the mission and to those willing and able volunteers compelled to carry the extra load. Volunteers who meet standards and put service before self don’t need additional PC burdens that ignore the age-old cruel realities of war.
If we had civilian agencies at the local, state, and federal level that functioned with the same honor, courage and committment that our military forces do, many of our problems dumped on the military by default during natural disasters would be prevented or certainly be a lot more manageable. We actually can, because people will rise to the level of expectations. Why should only the military expect more of–and get –the best efforts of its members?
Honor, courage and committment are moral virtues open to EVERYONE, regardless of physical ability. But you have to want and choose them freely first. Perhaps that is what the draft fear-mongers secretly hate most:
That a Nation of volunteers with high expectations will realize it has no need for cynical poseurs with none.
Lex,
Extremely well written and thought provoking article, as are the comments. A question, how does the example of the Israeli Defense Forces fit into the thoughts expressed in your last paragraph?
Wow, this is a great discussion. Lex used the subject heading of “Compulsory service”. I think it is equally important to point out what he did NOT say, he did NOT say, “Compulsory MILITARY service”. This is EXTREMELY important! Let’s face it, the draft didn’t work back in the 1960′s, the same is true of today. The military, in my view, must remain an all volunteer force. This having been written, it is equally true, we must adjust our expectations. Our Nation’s leaders need to live within the “human budget” of ONLY our ACTIVE duty force. Therefore, leaving the reserve and guard for primairly for state and homeland security. The guard and/or reserve could be activated for a short term surge, maximum 1 or 2 months. If our young people are not joining, the question is “why”. We need to look at the people we have in our military. We hear of the monthly quotas for recruitment, what is the ratio of “old salts” versus “new blood”? I chose the word “salts” because of their value. During the Roman Empire, salt was used as money. It was also used as a poison to an enemy farmer’s field. They would sew his field with salt. It was also used as a preservative with meats and foods. I don’t believe this will ever happen soon? No, this should still be the target we are aiming at for a goal. One last thing, Lex, to you and yours, to your readers and commenters, MERRY CHRISTMAS and a VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR! “Grumpy”
Grumpy,
Best wishes, shipmate. You wouldn’t happen to be that “Grumpy” from over to the A/C forums, would you?
Fellers, I would have no trouble separating the military from a compulsory National Service prgram, for many of the reasons Capt J points out.
Kat-Missouri, I would also add that, yes, it is the primary responsibiklity of the parents to teach their children the values we hold dear. However, my point is that it is the duty of the schools to reenforce those beliefs and values. At present, they are not. they are failing in this task, and I believe that to be the primary motivator between both the rise in home schooling, and the desire for vouchers.
Respects,
Exactly Lex.
For the military.
Stated simply, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Especially now.
There’s enough social engineering, PC and Chicken-you-know-what on the active force right now to trice up with another “experiment”.
However compulsory service for other things is compelling for all the reasons Dr. AW1 Tim so eloquently expounds on. JPR suggest teaching at inner city schools as an excellent example. I couldn’t handle it! I’d rather go to S.E.R.E. school again!
However….there is a downside- did you catch my drift about the cost and TSA workforce analogies in the last thread? Govmint is already huge.
Distilled down: If you’re mandating something because it feels good or just levels a field, or, even worse- mandates sacrifice, it probably ain’t a good idea.
Kat- Re parental responsibilities: Right on-right on! Show Me da Pure Mizz. However, sorry to say, have you noticed that the Navy and other services, have core values training (secular humanist oriented, IMO)? Jury is out on those programs but THIS IS The Nanny State, you know. I’ve pontificated on this before but most of the folks from my generation who volunteered came “home-built” with those values. The active folks tell me a lot of the newbies, even officers, supposedly better educated and worldy, come in tabula rasa re same. It’s shocking to those elders who hold Captains Mast or sit on CMs.
b2
I can see both the pros and cons for a military draft, so I sort of sit on the fence on that issue. But I really like the idea of some sort of compulsory domestic service – I do think we really need to instill some sense of civic pride and service in our young people. We keep going down the path we are on today at our own peril – it seems like we keep watering down society so much so as to appease all and offend none. Eventually we will end up becoming what ….. simply nothing? A group of people who stand for nothing? Believe in nothing?
And society has become so rights-based, its all about what “I” can get and what “I” am allowed to do, without much thought for any corresponding responsibility. I am trained as a lawyer, my work tends to champion the plaintiff’s “rights”, yet far too often I see this taken too far and flouted by those who seem to least require that type of protection. I believe there are some in our society who do, people with disabilities have a very soft spot in my heart for example, but I see it exploited by others who …… let’s just say I strongly question their bona fides.
Should we be suprised then, in that kind of society, to find more and more who seem to be in it only for what they can get for themselves, with less and less thought for others? Always looking for the easy way out?
But I find Lex’s last comment rather disturbing and unsettling on a couple of different levels:
“If the day should ever come that we can no longer provide for our defense with the service of courageous volunteers, then the day has perhaps come when we no longer deserve to be defended.?
I can see both the pros and cons for a military draft, so I sort of sit on the fence on that issue. But I really like the idea of some sort of compulsory domestic service – I do think we really need to instill some sense of civic pride and service in our young people. We keep going down the path we are on today at our own peril – it seems like we keep watering down society so much so as to appease all and offend none. Eventually we will end up becoming what ….. simply nothing? A group of people who stand for nothing? Believe in nothing?
And society has become so rights-based, its all about what “I” can get and what “I” am allowed to do, without much thought for any corresponding responsibility. I am trained as a lawyer, my work tends to champion the plaintiff’s “rights”, yet far too often I see this taken too far and flouted by those who seem to least require that type of protection. I believe there are some in our society who do, people with disabilities have a very soft spot in my heart for example, but I see it exploited by others who …… let’s just say I strongly question their bona fides.
Should we be suprised then, in that kind of society, to find more and more who seem to be in it only for what they can get for themselves, with less and less thought for others? Always looking for the easy way out?
But I find Lex’s last comment rather disturbing and unsettling on a couple of different levels:
“If the day should ever come that we can no longer provide for our defense with the service of courageous volunteers, then the day has perhaps come when we no longer deserve to be defended.”
I know it certainly wasn’t meant this way but it could almost be taken as a slap in the face to those who have served their countries honourably during past drafts.
And I disagree with its intent too, I think. The time may well come when a draft will be necessary (perhaps due to a combination of factors)and to set yourslf up to see that as a failure seems like a very dangerous thing to do. Can’t articulate that last one very well, just know that at some level it doesn’t quite sit right.
Well I will still continue to tilt at this particular windmill. National Service is for sure a non starter politically-but the corallary of not having it is that the nation is denied full access to its manpower..and that folks can simply opt out of their obligations as a man (or woman…).
Unlike Europeans, Asia has made conscription work in several cases. Japan no longer uses it, Korea just stopped last year, but almost all of the Southeast Asian nations still use it. Singapore has a very effective system of national service and failure to satisfy the obligation has further impacts down the line on the person who does not serve.
Israel and Switzerland also make it work. So do some of the Latin American nations.
Not all would serve in a program of national service. Assuming there were a birth date lottery system system probably 50% would not be needed and would have their obligation satisfied by the luck of the draw. The key would be deciding which things needed to have national service applied to it, as I have stated before it does not have to be solely miltary service- its just that the best and quickest way to complete the obligation would be through military service. Done at the 20 year B-day, it would give someone who volunteered a leg up over the person who waited for the lottery. Incentives etc.
I for one think that the military is afraid of having to have a real “system” that would acclimate folks to the requirements of military service. The dirty little secret that this debate exposes is how watered down the boot camp/ other indocrintation programs have become , which makes bringing non volunteers into compliance doubly daunting. Just look at what has happened to the plebe systems at the Academies!
Ans despite assertations to the contrary, the side price of the AVF is the continuing disconnect between the values of the military and the society it serves. As B2 points out for all the smart people coming in there are some criminals getting in and more than just a couple of statistical bad apples. Not just guys doing stupid things, but real criminals who think they can do criminal acts and get away with it-like the guy who murdered a defenseless Japanese woman over here a year ago. Yea he is in jail, but there are folks who will be happy to point out he has plenty of company who have not been caught yet-somehow the volunteer recruiting process is not quite foolproof.
No matter how one feels about national service-the bottom line for me is this: THE ARMED SERVICES NEED TO BE BIGGER! There has to be a way to get not just the right number of volunteers but the right kind of volunteers. What is troubling are some of the subtle trends that say the current ability to make quotas will not last forever, particularly if the economy heats up and the long war continues.
Compulsory Service is effectively a tax. The rich have always paid taxes in cash. We have in America, unfortunately, an “entitlement class”, which believes that it is entitled to government largess as a birthright.
So I will argue for some sort of compulsory national service for the opposite reason Rep Rangel uses.
There are those in our society that have never done anything to contribute to the national good. They’ve never paid taxes, they rarely hold a job. They feel entitled to a portion of my sacrifices while being unwilling to sacrifice anything of their own.
Well, my major concern is that the state simply stinks at certain kinds of education. Particularly today, in an atmosphere of so much concern for others sensibilities, it’s watered down.
On the other hand, I don’t much mind that it is because you run the risk of going too far one way or the other: whether it is the “rah-rah” for the state and duty to nation (such as fascist Germany of the 1930′s) or communism or socialism. All of which run a certain risk.
However, in the days when people believed in service and patriotism and defense of those things, it was a grass roots projection. The state reflected the attitude of the citizens, not the other way around.
Thus, I believe that the current state does represent the attitude of the citizens and, to change it, to develop citizens who believe that service to the nation, in defense of it’s citizens and it’s core system, requires the citizens to change. Enforcing such concepts from the top down seems, in fact, anti-democratic.
Further, compulsory service does not guarantee the continuation of a state. neither do, as Lex puts it, Heinlen incentives such as “citizenship”. Two examples would be the Spartans (for compulsory service) and the Romans (for the “citizenship” guarantee).
The fact of the matter is, states change as the citizens change. States come and go as the ability or even desire to perform, produce and protect within the auspices of geographic borders or political allegiances change.
To engender service to a nation means that the nation, it’s politics, it’s core beliefs, etc, must be germaine to and represent the citizens.
You don’t get that from compulsory service. Military or otherwise. You get that by citizens, such as we, educating our children and others on the concepts of service, patriotism, and a respect for the sacrifices made for them by those in the past and present.
In otherwords, the protection of the state and service to it’s citizens must have value and meaning to it’s current citizens.
It’s up to us to make it so.
And, it’s an uphill climb because people don’t feel threatened in any way. September 11 was a long time ago. No other attacks are on these shores. There is no big red bear with missiles or a possible invasion of the yellow horde.
We appear still economically, physically and militarily stable, if not superior still to all others.
Thus the children sleep with dreams of iPods and PS3′s in their heads. And really, isn’t that what we really want?
So, if you wish to move our future back around towards a national service, defense, etc, it is our responsibility, not to just talk amongst ourselves, but to tell our children the stories of our history, to provide the value or worth of our political system and remind them that it is not safe, their dreams of vast futures flying into space, exploring Saturn, saving the whales, becoming president, being a football player or a CEO or any such other dreams of the future, cannot exist without the system that makes it possible. And, that system cannot exist unless the citizens believe in it and defend it.
We do that. When we begin to do that, the state changes and so do the standards of education that would simply re-enforce those concepts, not be the major conduit through which it is enforced.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see us old retirees called back to the colors, where else can they get people already acclimated to the military?
Having been both a Peace Corps Volunteer and a Chief in the Navy, there is no comparison. The Peace Corps is global and very liberal, and the military is very conservative. I describe the difference as “hoping to make a difference” and “making a difference.” I am much prouder of my military service.
Missing from this discussion I think are two issues that tend to obscure the ever-growing need for a draft:
1. Military Outsourcing and Privatization, and;
2. Excessive reliance and repetitive deployment of Reserve components.
Apparent military manpower required is artificially obscured when it becomes outsourced to KBR, Blackwater, etc. Nor is it any cheaper. The amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse in many of these contracts have been stunning. And the experienced, quality non-com no longer continues on active duty, but still performs the same needed service. He becomes a mercenary, receiving double or triple wages from civilian contractors for doing the same duties he and his predecessors used to do while on active duty.
Furthermore, because of the continuing shortfall of active duty personnel, Reserve and National Guard units are now taking the place of otherwise needed conscription. They are performing missions far in excess of what has ever been envisioned for them, and in many instances beyond their level of training and expertise. They cannot continue this much longer.
If we are having difficulties now with the manpower at hand in a “defeated” land, then think of the extraordinary additional manpower requirements required if we proceed with a more “real” war against an “undefeated” power.
As an aside, I wonder how the history of the Vietnam War would have been rewritten, if this country did not have a draft at that time?
Also, interesting lex that you should mention Samuel Huntington and his book, “The Soldier and the State.” He was an interesting, if not controversial figure. Some things he said were absurd ?
Missing from this discussion I think are two issues that tend to obscure the ever-growing need for a draft:
1. Military Outsourcing and Privatization, and;
2. Excessive reliance and repetitive deployment of Reserve components.
Apparent military manpower required is artificially obscured when it becomes outsourced to KBR, Blackwater, etc. Nor is it any cheaper. The amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse in many of these contracts have been stunning. And the experienced, quality non-com no longer continues on active duty, but still performs the same needed service. He becomes a mercenary, receiving double or triple wages from civilian contractors for doing the same duties he and his predecessors used to do while on active duty.
Furthermore, because of the continuing shortfall of active duty personnel, Reserve and National Guard units are now taking the place of otherwise needed conscription. They are performing missions far in excess of what has ever been envisioned for them, and in many instances beyond their level of training and expertise. They cannot continue this much longer.
If we are having difficulties now with the manpower at hand in a “defeated” land, then think of the extraordinary additional manpower requirements required if we proceed with a more “real” war against an “undefeated” power.
As an aside, I wonder how the history of the Vietnam War would have been rewritten, if this country did not have a draft at that time?
Also, interesting lex that you should mention Samuel Huntington and his book, “The Soldier and the State.” He was an interesting, if not controversial figure. Some things he said were absurd – like saying heavy bombardment of South Vietnam was to “drive the peasants and VC into urban areas…” However, some of his thoughts were for their time, extraordinary prescient – that “post-Cold War conflict would occur most frequently and violently along cultural lines,” like the West against Islam and others.
Duty, honor, country. Values that every 18 year old high school graduate needs to learn. Maybe not through conscription, but through service of a sort. Today, I saw a bmper sticker that said “It’s all about me.” WRONG!
I’ll say what I always say, every time this question comes up:
THE FOUNDERS GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!
That is, everybody shows up for militia drill, with weapon, ammo, boots, accouterments, etc., or he doesn’t get to vote.
And… Volunteers only for foreign wars.
The Navy is special, as the Founders also understood.
“Duty, honor, country. Values that every 18 year old high school graduate needs to learn.”
This is true. The rub is that they can’t be taught. Those core values must come from within. We can expose children (or E-1′s) to them, but in order for them to be effective they need to be internalized.
I have yet to see anyone in this discussion talk about what we would actually DO with these kids we were forcing to serve us, except teach them some set of values.
We already have a system in place that forces children to be educated. We call it, surprisingly enough, the education system.
Perhaps instead of taking people, who are perfectly capable of contributing to the nation as taxpayers, out of the economy we should revamp the education system so that children learn what we need to teach them while they’re still economically useless.
DBS…I concur. LOL
I’m not convinced you can use Israel or Swtizerland as examples of situations where conscription works. Although compulsory service undoubtedly does work well in these countries, both are unique in being geopolitically under clear and dire threat for most if not all of their history. That was the case for a lot of the United States early history, I don’t believe it is the case today.
From a civilian who has never served:
You don’t have to serve, to honor and understand what those who have served do on a daily basis, nor what price they may be called to pay for their nation: you need only study the military, as I have. As a good friend, a Lt. CDR once told me, “you get it”. Yes, I do. I came from a much more patriotic era, one that held the services in high honor, and I’ve taken the time over the years to read every decent book and article about military service and armed conflict I can get my hands on. I get it. This being said, I will make this statement about conscription: If I were serving professional, whether I was an E-3 or an 0-6, I would not want a conscript covering my back when the bullets started flying. I’d want my brother under arms to be a committed volunteer just like I am. To do anything less is folly.
About National Service: what most people who quote Heinlein forget about his theory, is that there were required classes on the subject that students MUST pass in order to graduate. The National Service only works if the entrants are pre-indoctrinated (or educated if you wish) in the reasons for National Service, from its ethos to its’ end result. That, my friends, is whats missing from our society today. Nominal adults graduate school with exactly zero understanding of what our military is all about, what the very history of our nation, its founding and it’s trials, and how the political process works.
What I think is necessary to right the course of our nation, is make sure that everyone who shapes our national policy is a VETERAN. Only those who sacrificed 20 years or more of their life in service to their country should stand for Congress, including the President. Only those who understand the price should be allowed to make the decisions that will affect the lives of the people that will stand in harms way. This is must-do. And it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing, if we also passed a law that stated that lawyers won’t be allowed to stand for office on any level
I’m generally opposed to a draft, but lately I have been pondering the Scriptural example wherein it seems the choice to “opt out” was given *after* conscription and training but *before* combat.
Perhaps mandatory boot camp would grant many of the benefits of mandatory service, but allowing the newly trained “recruits” to choose to leave the service before being assigned to a permanent duty station would maintain the benefits of a volunteer service.
(just kind of thinking out loud…)
When I talk to teens and early twenties folks they seem to be questioning the very idea of the “state”. Their world is so cross cultural and boundryless I really think that generations after them will not be able to think in terms of service to the state or country. Threats to this country seem so far away that they have not had to think in those terms. They have not been forced to like previous generations. 9/11 has faded into the dim and misty past for many and I have not seen anyone answer the question of why do we need any kind of compulsary service of any kind. What specific problem is it addressing?
Richard,
I think you’ve answered your own question: To whom do the young owe their allegiance? That is the underlying problem this thread has explored.
While 9/11 may have faded into the “dim and misty past for many”, for just as many it is front and center in their thoughts and motivations. It depends where you are geographically and perhaps demographically as well.
I’m not dismissing your question at all, for many teens and twenty-somethings actually believe that we are or should, be beyond the need for states by now. Utopia and all that. When, not if, we are attacked again, harsh personal experience may lead to a different conclusion. Those who have not learned from history, or naively believe we are past the end of it, are condemned to repeat the lesson.
I understand the thread Sir, but, I think that point has been argued to death in this and other forums. My personal opinion is that, unless the threat is upon us and immediate there will be no draft, based on our past use of the draft in the Civil War and WWII. I do not think that the question is to whom do you owe your allegiance. I think it is more basic than that. How do the current generations define terms such as honor, committment, culture and self sacrifice? These seem to be the basic building blocks of being able to find out how to motivate the teens and a little older folks into recognizing we are in a cultural war and that their help is needed too. This is a networked war that involves military, culture, media and history. We are only using one weapon. How do we get the others into the fray? I know this is rambling. If I am unclear please ask me to clarify.
Richard,
You’ve been very clear, and made a critical point: we ARE in a networked war, and we are currently using [and maybe wearing out] only one of our weapons in this fight–our military. Media seems to have a lock on our “culture”, so that leaves us with our own personal stories and family histories –which the MSM does not own or control.
You may recall the phenomenal interest shown by the general public in the Ken Burn’s Civil War TV series years ago. Aside from being very good history, Burns managed to capture the individual and family emotional connections that we still deeply resonate with today. Major Sullivan Ballou’s last letter to his wife Sarah is probably the strongest example. It was clearly more than just a historical artifact. People still read it aloud to each other. It captured resolute faith in a cause with devotion to one’s family. Caught in the middle of terrible choices, the author knew what mattered most to secure the future of his loved ones. He clearly saw himself keeping faith “with those who went before us through the blood and sufferings of the Revolution.” If they could stand it, so could he. So could we all.
In our time, a Ballou letter may well be a YouTube video or some digital equivalent. Whatever it takes to make the viewer recognize themselves in it and say: “Yes –that’s why I care…”
As far as motivating the teens and 20-somethings, make them try to realize that nothing is free. You want to go to college? Fine, pony up 2-3 years of service to (your favorite national service program here). You just might discover something about yourself you never thought possible. You just might learn something about life that you can’t learn in any school or in a comfortable & familiar environment.
My father, a lifelong Chicagoan, was drafted into the Army just after graduating college in 1954. I remember his stories about boot camp and army life, including one about teaching a fellow recruit how to lace his boots (a la Full Metal Jacket, no lie) because it was the first real pair of shoes that 19 year-old ever had.
He also talked about when he was at Ft. Gordon, near Augusta, GA, and seeing “Whites Only” signs, and “Colored” drinking fountains. And being told politely by a bus driver that he was sitting in the “colored section” of the bus.
Being from Chicago, this completely blew his mind.
So, he raises his future children, with the future wife and mother he meets while at Ft. Gordon, and among lots of other valuable things, teaches his five children about tolerance and a disdain for racial injustice.
In a way that overall experience taught him to be a better citizen and later wonderful father.
My continued $.02