FACEBOOK
TWITTER
CONSCRIPTION, the Republic, and America’s Future
Though I don’t concur with all the views of this Army Combat Studies Institute article, for example despite the fact that the Pentagon lowered fiscal year quotas for military recruitment in order to able to say they have made or surpassed Army enlistments in the first time since the end of the Bush administration, 
The "American people have only one part to play in the Nation’s wars-that of spectator." Adrian Lewis is a professor of history at the University of Kansas.
I still do believe the Army does have enough recruits to avoid asking Secretary of Defense Gates, the Congress, or President Obama to implement the draft. That is at least until the end of the Obama administration shortly after 2011.
I’ve also posted a counter-argument from an active duty Army officer’s perspective. However, I believe that there does need to be a serious debate over conscription in our nation given the reasons expressed by Dr. Lewis. That said, this debate pro, con, and otherwise must not be the exclusive realm of those in the Armed Forces, because it is not those on active duty who decide when and where America goes to war, their job is to implement civilian government controlled authority and orders.
This is a must read, because it is no longer politicians (from the left or right) advocating the draft, but thinkers within the Pentagon and our Armed Forces now teaching young officers that conscription is not longer a political debate but a necessity if we agree with that premise or not.
All comments should be addressed to Dr. Adrian Lewis and/or the Army Combat Studies Institute that published the article, unless a reader is specifically responding to something I said.
Due to the complexity of the issue, and the length of Dr. Lewis’ research this will be a TWO PART posting.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Editorial Board Member
Veterans Today News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder
THE U.S. ARMY AND MARINE CORPS are too small to do all that we ask and require of them, and the American people live comfortably with a lie. The lie is that the U.S. armed forces have sufficient men and women to do their job, that morale is high, and burdens and pains are negligible. But the American people are absent from the battlefields, and Soldiers and Marines are angry. They are angry that they have had to serve extended tours in Iraq, that stop-loss policies have prevented some of them from pursuing their dreams, that there were too few of them to correctly implement coun¬terinsurgency doctrine, that their families have had to sacrifice much because of their repeated deployments, and that-while many of them have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan-many Americans of the same age have contributed nothing to the war effort.
This is because of one fact: American political leaders made an expedient decision to place the entire burden of the War on Terrorism on a small, professional force. This breeds anger, pain, and contempt. However, these are all out of sight and therefore out of mind. The distance between the American people and their armed forces has grown considerably since the Vietnam War, facili¬tating the comfortable façade that the American people have only one part to play in the Nation’s wars-that of spectator. The American people must acknowledge the need to reinstitute conscription.
Some argue that this is not possible, primarily because the United States is no longer a cohesive, unified nation, and because Americans are too culturally damaged, too focused on consumption. According to this school of thought, consumer culture has produced selfish people incapable of sacrificing for the greater good.
Others argue that conscription is not possible because political and military leaders fear the public might restrict their freedom of action. They also fear the people’s will is as weak as it was when it failed the military in Vietnam.
Consider the words of Andrew Bacevich in his recent book, The Limits of Power: "As for the hope that reinstituting conscription might reenergize poli¬tics, it’s akin to the notion that putting Christ back in Christmas will reawaken American spirituality. A pleasant enough fantasy, it overlooks the forces that transformed a religious holiday into an orgy of consumption in the first place." (Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power (New York: Henry Holt, 2008), 173.)
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps are both overcommitted, stretched beyond their capacity to succeed in their missions. Constant deployments are wearing out Soldiers, Marines, and their families physically, psychologically, and emotionally.
The United States lacks the strategic reserve to respond immediately to serious threats. As a matter of national security, the country needs to significantly expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps. The only way to do this in the current political, social, and economic environment is to reinstitute the draft.
While there is ample evidence to support Bacev¬ich’s conclusion, we must not lose sight of one fact: the American people have not yet been asked to serve. There has been no national debate on the subject. Political leaders have lacked the courage to initiate one, and military leaders are too uncertain of the American people and too comfortable with professional forces to challenge the status quo.
In the years after the Vietnam War, the armed forces became a "military cluster" (representing 0.5 percent of U.S. households), a professional group with its own unique system and set of values, ethics, and beliefs. They have fought the wars of the United States from 1973 to the present. The end of the draft in 1973 effectively removed the American people from the fighting; be sure, they wanted to be removed. The Vietnam War left an anti-military atmosphere in the country, and it was not until the Reagan administration that this atmosphere started to change. However, the Reagan administration made no effort to put the people back into the equa¬tion for war. The removal of the people from the Nation’s wars continues to have significant ramifica¬tions, the unacknowledged net effect of which has been disastrous for the military and national security.
After the horrendous 9/11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration declared a "War on Terrorism;" promulgated a new, aggressive strategic doctrine of "preemptive war" (really preventive war); and committed the Nation to war in Afghani¬stan and Iraq. It also deployed U.S. forces in other parts of the world such as the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. The Bush administration relied on forces already in existence to fight this extended war. It did not mobilize the American people for "a long, difficult struggle," though it persisted in a propaganda campaign of demagoguery through fear by naming it such. With its Manichean, black-and-white world view and bellicose rhetoric, it effectively alienated allies and told them they were not needed.
Thus, almost the entire burden of the so-called War on Terrorism fell on the regular, professional Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force and the National Guard and Reserves. The burden rested on less than 1 percent of 300 million Americans. Moreover, with the American people removed from the equation, it was easier to go to war. There was no fear of an antiwar movement such as that expe¬rienced by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
The Bush wars are not national efforts in a way that would rouse the ire of large numbers of people. In fact, it is wrong to say, "The United States is at war." It is more accurate to say that the military of the United States is at war and the American people are either spectators or disinterested bystanders. They have no duties, no responsibilities, and no commitments. Indeed, after declaring war, the Bush administration instituted tax cuts and told the American people to go shopping. Bush never asked the American people to make even small sacrifices, nor did he appeal to their better nature. He appealed to greed and self-interest. This was not the tradi¬tional American response to a war, and this was not the traditional role of American presidents in war.
Why Conscription?
The strategic reserve of the United States now consists primarily of air and naval powers.
Conscription is necessary at this time because we have too few Soldiers and Marines doing too much. However, this is only a partial explanation. The threats facing the United States are real, substantial, and growing. Part of the reason for these threats is ineptitude in managing foreign affairs and military policies. The presence of American forces in various parts of the world in the past 60 years has created stability and prosperity, making it possible for people to grow their economies without fear of invasion from their neighbors. From Korea to Europe, U.S. forces have maintained the status quo. The unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces by the Rumsfeld Pentagon, while necessary to meet the growing demands for U.S. forces in the Middle East, created new oppor¬tunities for aggression. The strategic reserve of the United States now consists primarily of air and naval powers. United States ground forces cannot adequately respond to new or old threats.
U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine required four to five hundred thousand Soldiers in a country the size and population of Iraq, yet the United States was incapable of deploying and sustaining two hundred thousand troops. The stability achieved in recent years in Iraq is fragile, and the country will likely require the presence of substantial American forces for many years to come.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are recovering in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and NATO allies have failed to provide the forces or leadership necessary to prevent this resurgence.
The stability of the government of North Korea is uncertain. A change in leadership seems to be in progress. This always creates uncertainty in oligarchies, because they lack the institutional and constitutional systems for an orderly transition of leadership; and war sometimes appears to be a viable option for consolidating political power. Yet, the United States has withdrawn most of the 2d Infantry Division from South Korea.
Not satisfied with the status quo, Russia invaded Georgia. Russia has also worked to destabilize the government in the Ukraine and has challenged the American deployment of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Its naval forces are reemerging as a significant force. Yet the United States has withdrawn the bulk of two corps from Europe, and the U.S. Navy has committed consider¬able resources to the Persian Gulf region.
The United States is still responsible for the secu¬rity of Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China is rapidly expanding its navy, particularly its fleet of quiet diesel submarines, and has improved its ability to destroy communication satellites. It is modern¬izing its ground forces as well. Yet the United States retains no significant strategic reserve committed to conventional war.
Iran is rapidly developing nuclear and missile technologies and, by some estimates, it may pos¬sess the wherewithal to produce nuclear weapons and missiles capable of striking Europe in roughly two to five years.
The rapprochement between Russia and China aligns two of the most powerful nations on Earth, both of which are allies of Iran and have no affinity for the United States.
Pakistan, a state that possesses nuclear weapons, is going through a period of instability. Its new government lacks significant public support and is under pressure from the army. The disintegration of Pakistan’s government would directly influence the decisions of the government of India, which is also a nuclear power. India, too, is experiencing instability and terrorist attacks.
American influence in Europe has declined. The European Union is poorly armed and frequently seems more willing to deal with Russia than the United States. This is understandable, given its dependence on Russian oil and gas and the dismis¬sive, go-it-alone attitude of the Bush administra¬tion. The U.S. cannot count on Western Europe to provide a strategic reserve of armed forces.
General George W. Casey, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, discussed the current imbalance of U.S. forces:
While we remain a resilient and commit¬ted professional force, our Army is out of balance for several reasons. The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustain¬able supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies. Our Reserve Components are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced. Current operational requirements for forces and limited periods between deployments neces¬sitate a focus on counterinsurgency to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions. Soldiers, families, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deploy¬ments with insufficient recovery time…. Army support systems including health care, education, and family support systems that were designed for the pre-9/11 era are strain¬ing under the pressure from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it.
No terrorist organization, undeveloped country, or failed state possesses the wherewithal to do more than minor damage to the United States. However, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, India, and Paki¬stan can alter the strategic, international situation dramatically. The mere presence of trained, ready, well-equipped U.S. forces creates stability, deters aggression, and is evidence of America’s commit¬ment to peace. The absence of American forces is an invitation to aggression. The United States needs to maintain a significant strategic reserve of ground forces ready to deploy and conduct conventional operations and maintain a significant presence in ground forces in various regions to prevent war.
The Bush administration overcommitted U.S. forces and created vulnerabilities. It squandered numerous opportunities to diminish threats and secure real allies. The Obama administration inher¬ited this situation. It needs to restore balance, and the only way to do this without sacrificing our gains in Iraq and Afghanistan is to significantly increase the size of American ground forces.
We are not in a new environment. We have been here before. The United States has a long history of conscription. Conscription has been the nation’s response to labor-intensive wars since the Civil War. In 2006, I wrote: Many Americans believe it is wrong for the small "military cluster" to bear the full burden of war while the rest of America does nothing. Hence, there have been calls for the reinstatement of the draft. As the demand for U.S. forces around the world increases, which seems very likely after the [Obama SURGE of 2009], the arguments and demands for reinstating the draft will also increase. At the end of 2005, the Army and Marine Corps were overcommitted, trying to do more than was reasonably possible with current troop levels.3
Obviously, I was wrong, at least, in part. The demands for U.S. forces in various parts of the world have increased. However, there has been no sustained call from any segment of American society to reinstitute the draft. The reason for this is because Americans are once again disgusted with war. Most Americans believe the war in Iraq is unnecessary, poorly planned, and poorly executed. Americans are also too enamored with high-priced, sophisticated weapons systems, which substantiate the lie that additional people are not needed for war fighting.
In 1961, on the eve of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army had 858,622 Soldiers organized into 14 active duty divisions, roughly half its size ten years earlier. In 1968, the year of the Tet Offensive, the U.S. Army numbered 1,570,343 Soldiers organized into 19 active duty divisions.
[The U.S. Army Center of Military History provided the figures on Army manpower strength and numbers of divisions].
In 1973, conscription ended. Many lessons have arisen from the failure of the United States to achieve its political objective of a free South Vietnam; however, one of those lessons should not be that the citizen-Soldier Army failed. Tactically and operationally, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps were not defeated in Vietnam.
On the eve of the first Persian Gulf War, the George H.W. Bush administration was in the process of drawing down American forces. The Cold War had ended and the American people were about to receive a "peace dividend," primarily at the expense of the Army. Demobilization stopped temporarily to fight a conventional war in Iraq. After the war, demobilization continued, and the Army went from a force of almost 800,000 Soldiers to less than 500,000 and from 16 divisions to 10.
When George W. Bush came into office, the U.S. Army still numbered less than 500,000 men and women, organized into 10 divisions, but in 2001, under the heading "transformation," the new Bush administration started developing plans to further cut the Army by more than two divisions. The terrorist attack on 9/11 put a halt to these plans, and the administration instead geared up for war in Afghanistan.
Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. Army was repeatedly under strength and ill prepared for the wars it fought,
and conscription became necessary. In each case, the citizen-Soldier Army rose to meet the requirements of war, and was successful in it.
Adrian Lewis is a professor of history at the University of Kansas.
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=9837
Posted by Robert L. Hanafin on Dec 18 2009, With 0 Reads, Filed under Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
The US Army Advantage: A Professional, All-Volunteer Force
The United States Army is definitely not broken, our morale is extremely high, we can meet our commitments across the globe, and we are not disconnected from the American people.
As a Soldier who has been on active duty for over 22 years with two operational deployments to Iraq, two operational deployments to Afghanistan, a peacekeeping tour in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a combat tour in Somalia I feel many things-but angry, disconnected from the American public, and broken are simply not concepts that appear within my cognitive processes. I take great pride in the fact that I am a volunteer, that I am not forced to serve but instead that I do so out of a sense of duty, obligation, and love for our nation. Moreover, I take great pride in the continued selfless service of all of our Soldiers that serve in an All-Volunteer Force.
Soldiers in an All-Volunteer Army serve out of a sense of patriotic duty, under an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies. With this in mind how is it possible that we could be angry at the citizens of our nation that we are sworn to protect? If we are angry at all it is focused directly at those enemies of our country who flew planes into buildings on September 11th, 2001-not at those citizens who were victims on that terrible day. It does not matter how many times we are asked to deploy, or how many sacrifices we are asked to make, our Army will continue to perform its mission relentlessly no matter what the costs.
Our Army is not broken, not even close. We possess the combat readiness and capability to respond to all threats to our national security across the globe-anyplace, anywhere, anytime. I know this to be a fact, not only from countless Unit Status Readiness (USR) reports, external evaluations, inspections, and training exercises-but much more importantly from looking directly into the eyes of the Soldiers who stand daily within our formations.
The American Soldier in an All-Volunteer Army is the best educated, best trained, best led, and most capable Soldier in the world. I can assure you that as an Army we will meet whatever contingency threats may arise and defeat those threats in order to keep the democratic republic of America safe for ourselves and future generations.
General Washington once stated "When we assumed the role of the Soldier we did not lay aside that of the citizen." With this concept in mind how is it possible that as Soldiers we could be disconnected from the citizens of the nation that we serve? I was an American citizen long before I had the honor of becoming a Soldier, and I will be an American citizen long after I turn in my combat boots. It is impossible for me to become disconnected from a populace that includes my parents, my siblings, my relatives, and countless loved ones.
Moreover, I can tell you that on a daily basis I see the immense gratitude of the American public for the service of those in uniform. When I stop at a gas station, when I go shopping in a grocery, when I go to a movie-in all cases I run into citizens who take the time to stop and thank me for serving our nation. The citizens of our nation are painfully aware of the sacrifices required by those in uniform, and they greatly appreciate it.
We do not need conscription in order to maintain our national security. What we need is exactly what we have-a professional, All-Volunteer force that will gladly continue to perform its mission in order to keep the American people safe. The citizens of our nation deserve the very best Army possible; that is what we have and that is exactly what we will maintain.
The continued support of outstanding citizens like Dr. Adrian Lewis who speak on our behalf is greatly appreciated and goes a long way towards maintaining the high morale of all Soldiers. As the 34th CSA, General Eric K. Shinseki stated: "Soldiering is an affair of the heart." In other words, it is precisely the proclivity to serve that gives our Army an overwhelming advantage in combat. No matter how well-intentioned, I do not believe that any form of conscription can possibly match that advantage.
To see other comments from active duty members go to:
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/blog/blogs/cgsc_student_blog/archive/2009/12/10/the-us-army-advantage-a-professional-all-volunteer-force.aspx [usacac.leavenworth.army.mil]
An incredible reply, Respectful Counter-View: Thank you for your service to the U.S.A., and I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.
For anyone interested in resistance to conscription, please go to:
http://www.draftresistance.org
I oppose the draft because I view it as immoral and amounting to slavery. You might as well take innocent people off the streets and put them on death row.
Baculus,
If you go to the link to the respectful response, you will note that it is even more respectful than what I posted here, and I’m frankly for the draft. but welcome Scott Kohlhaas to post a draft resistence website http://www.draftresistance.org [www.draftresistance.org] just in case. That said, (1) I don’t believe the response responds to all the points that are brought up about the American people not being commited to war. The American people have been able to do something they failed to do during Vietnam. When we returned from Nam the American people who began to oppose the war failed to separate the war from the warrior. Today is quite different, the American people have not only managed to separate the war from the warrior, but even what anyone would call an anti-war movement today manages to separate the war(s) from the warrior. (2) True or not, if Dr. Lewis focused more on the facts or his points than beating up on the Bush administration his argument would have been much stronger. However, it is hard to not sway from the truth.
POINT: The response to me was more in reaction to Dr. Lewis’ attacks on the Bush administration than the points he made.
Throughout the past decade, Pentagon leaders [both military and civilian] have consistently used excuses and flawed rationale to not only say we need no military draft to accomplish what they, and our government leaders (regardless which party claims it owns OUR goverment) want, but also to downright demean all of America’s military draftees from the Civil War to WWII, and least we forget the Vietnam War by repeating the myth that volunteers are better warriors than draftees. Draftees added no value to the war effort(s). We could never have won WWII without the outstanding efforts of men who in large part were drafted. I know of members of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) who were draftees but no less proud of the valued service they provided as I was and am, and I volunteered.
Not only does our government and military leaders (heck the active duty force itself) demean and degrade the service of military draftees primarily of Veitnam, but a few left of center extremists also demean that service as Jim Mulveney does calling it servatude and slavery. Frankly, what makes military service for those who volunteer any more or less servatude and slavery Jim? SEE MY POINT?
Of course there is always going to be a minority within a minority in American who are pacifists and going to claim all wars are immoral and those who volunteer to serve in them are slaves. It that were true, and it is not, America sure has the most highly paid, intelligent, and proudest slaves in world history including the Roman Empire.
That is not to say that the history of American military conscription has been fair, equitable, or flawless as many concerns from those on the left of center know all too well. The counter-argument centers around the claim that our ground forces are not broken, and can continue to handle endless deployments. Mulveney’s response if typical of most Americans (who also cannot relate) means that he and they could care less how many endless deployments volunteers go on. Hell, they volunteered did they not? If that is true, and I doubt it, then it is way past time for any active duty member who finds themselves without a career [becomes a VETERAN) to stop complaining about how the VA is not taking care of them, and so on. Frankly, I believe that as long as one is allowed to stay on active duty for a career, we remain happy cowboys and cowgirls choosing the mission over our family every time.
"It does not matter how many times we are asked to deploy, or how many sacrifices we are asked to make, our Army will continue to perform its mission relentlessly no matter what the costs."
However is this only the opinion of young, ambitious, military officers, all officers, or is it the opinion of a few respectfully responding to an attack on their former Commander-In-Chief? I doubt if this would be the response of rank and file troops who do the fighting and dying on the front lines.
Regardless how our active duty troops feel, they frankly have about as much say in America going to war as any other American – NONE! Frankly, that is how it should be, and the response mentions nothing about our troops playing a role in the decision to go to war as it should be. Their mission is to implement the decision made regardless what that decision is. If their current Commander-In-Chief, and Congress order a withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan, they have no choice but to implement that decision. If on the other hand Congress, and their Commander-In-Chief, regardless what the American voter thinks, order our troops to stay the course for the next 20 years that also is a decision our troops have no say in UNTIL THEY BECOME VETERANS and no longer under Pentagon and Federal government control.
I support conscription for the same reasons Dr. Lewis does but not because our Army or Marine corps is broken that is debatable, but as a means to force the American people to be either more committed to the war(s) our elected officials get us into, (Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, and Lt. Cols ARE NOT elected officials) or as a means to end the war(s) if the American people as a whole do not support them.
"Moreover, I can tell you that on a daily basis I see the immense gratitude of the American public for the service of those in uniform. When I stop at a gas station, when I go shopping in a grocery, when I go to a movie-in all cases I run into citizens who take the time to stop and thank me for serving our nation. The citizens of our nation are painfully aware of the sacrifices required by those in uniform, and they greatly appreciate it."
Every military base I go on, I also see the immense gratitude of the American public for our service in uniform. When I stop at the BX gas staton on base, when I go shopping at a Commissary on base, when I go the the movie theater on base, in all cases I run into citizens who take the time to stop and thank us for serving our nation. The last time I went into an American Legion, VFW, VVA, DAV, VVAW, IAVA, IVAW, or anyother Veterans Service or Activists organization, I get the same reception. When AmericaSupportsBush.mil was running high as the Pentagon’s primary propaganda program to give us the illusion that the entire American people supports us – it was just than an ILLUSION, smoke and mirrors, because where is AmericaSupportsYou.mil NOW?
Nope, the Obama administration did not destroy AmericaSupportBush.mil propaganda program, it destroyed itself. I feel that Secretary of Defense Gates would have kept the propaganda program going full swing under Obama if the propaganda program did not abuse and misuse MWR funds, and lose credibility itself.
Sorry, Major but I do not seriously believe that beyond lip service, and even if you are getting the welcome reception in the town outside your military base (that’s natural) what base town is going to not welcome us home? However, I do believe that as Dr. Lewis intelligently stated, and no one really wants the truth, because the truth hurts. Most of the American people cannot relate to us or our endurance of carry the burden for the rest of the nation regardless how many thanks yous we get.
Alot of that is also in response to the lack of thanks yous and welcome homes that the Veitnam generation did not get. This too means that even those who most passionately oppose the war(s) we must fight go out of their way not to blame the warrior for decisions we have not part in. I don’t think you’ve adequately addressed Dr. Lewis’ concerns in this area. How do we get the American people to relate to us when they are more focused on what is going on at home, where the next job is going to come from if they are too old or too unfit to serve in uniform?
At this point the American people (much like our troops) have proved that they have no say in when, how, or if we go to war, and could care less. Our Armed Forces should not have any say into when, how, or if we go to war or we welcome a dictatorship or military coup. Frankly, the American people must have a say, we may desire to endure neverending deployments until we burn our, get wounded, or killed, but they have to pay for it. In fact, at the rate we are going their children and grandchildren will have to pay for it.
The right-wing today is running a BRING DOWN THE DEBT TV ad in Ohio right now using children as the bait and switch. Unless they include the cost of the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the formula to BRING DOWN THE DEBT, they are pissing in the wind regardless how many black children they use in that commercial.
Dr. Lewis argument is the most intelligent, scholarly, and convincing argument I’ve heard thus far as to why we need the draft today. If not, he would not have gotten the respectful response that he did. However, suffice it to say that it coming from the Army Combat Studies Institute took courage that would have gotten anyone in uniform or DOD civilian fired under the Bush administration’s Pentagon. But Dr. Lewis still needs to watch his back.
Despite his accurate attacks on the Bush administration, the overall focus of his argument is not politically based or motivated, regardless if we endorse his thesis or not, it zooms in exclusively on long-term military necessity, social and patriotic obligations of a nation’s citizens, and it is up to the rest of us to ensure equity in how the process is carried out so that the genuine concerns of the Vietnam generation are satisfied best as humanly possible.
By posting this I’m not going to endear myself to even friends on the left of center who are pure anti-war regardless what I say or agree with. Those on the right of center who are best at cheering other people’s children onto war are going to be the first the refuse to serve if drafted but not in the same tone as the left. Those on active duty who oppose conscription are more into the career aspects of surviving a war – war means promotion, glory, and valor. Then of course there is the revenge factor that sounds more like a Crusader’s cry than a rational reason to go to war. "If we are angry at all it is focused directly at those enemies of our country who flew planes into buildings on September 11th, 2001-not at those citizens who were victims on that terrible day."
Evidently the battle cry of September 11th is still alive and well among our active duty as an excuse to exploit an event to continue rallying the troops regardless who runs the government. I have to respectfully as who exactly in Iraq or Afghanistan, beside possibly Al Queda, had anything to do with 911? How long are we to continue taking revenge on the Muslim religion? America, well our military, has already surpassed the number of killed on 911 in the name of revenge."Vengence is mine sayth the Lord."
The bottom line of this articulation from a military combat veteran turned college history professor is to me that if any war is not worth fighting and dying for, young people are going to resist the draft, parents are going to resist the draft, then eventually the nation is going to oppose the war(s).
That said, the only thing that makes me personally leary of the draft, is that the tendency for those who cannot relate to us to blame the warrior increases significantly when there is CONSCRIPTION!
ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Sent to Veterans Today via email:
I haven’t read the whole piece yet, but one thing immediately leaps out:
The accepted assumptions regarding the reason for these wars of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.; that these imperial ventures, sold to the public at large as the "war on terror," are actually legitimate.
Is this country really and truly threatened? This argument for the resumption of dragoon squads seems to accept that argument. "Our troops, those good ‘uns who volunteered, are out there fighting for us while the rest of you just sit home and buy shit." Well, wasn’t it Bush it said "Don’t worry. Be happy. Go shop"?
If I get some time, I’ll go through this more closely and perhaps write a longer response. Or we can collaborate on something if you wish. You can snag what I already scrawled and bounce it back to this knuckle head "history professor," if you wish.
P.S.: There’s one other thing that should be brought up, of course:
That the bipartisan powers that be still are wary of what came to be known as the "Vietnam Syndrome"; at least that part which they studied quite well — that a military made up largely of conscripts, especially of youngsters who believe in democratic rights, etc., becomes unreliable and politically costly when sent off to fight these god damned wars for greed and empire.
The old slogan "Brass lives high while G.I.s die" had quite the salience back in the day. Imagine the increase in the level of IED events if you had a largely conscript army on the ground in Helmand?
That’s also one of the reasons why there’ been the turn toward the corporate neo-Hessians – the privatized merc military.
Allen Ruff
A follow up on my initial quick comments:
The demographics on who has been joining tell us that those opting for the military are mainly white and rural rather than say, black/Latino and urban. Which suggests that it isn’t entirely about JOBS, but has something to do with beliefs/ideology — god and country stuff, patriotism, a bit too much Fox network, etc., thrown into the mix. The desire to get out of Podunk also figures in. Regardless of what the reason, those who join for employment eventually come up against the reality of that particular vocation — Yuh can’t tell “the boss”, “Hey, man, this job sucks. Fuck it, I quit”.
There’s something to the argument for the draft resumption — what it would mean to have an even larger number of kids there who don’t wanna be there. And that’s exactly what Los Militares understand. The politicians know it too since everyone (except for some of the most lame) understands that the game is already a loser. At some point, there’ll be a “negotiated settlement” and the kids’ll come home. Then the right wing squawking will once again resume about how “They” (take your pick) wouldn’t let us fight the kind of war we could have, in order to win.”
And that gets to the other question: What the hell would “winning” mean? Can the AfPakis (Pahstuns) be “pacified;” can they all be bought as long as there’s an occupation army on the ground? Will/can the region be stabilized? Crap, the Tajiks under Rashid Dustum now comprise the majority of the Kabul/Karzai army. Ain’t no way the Pashtuns can let that stand. The Durand Line would have to be erased, for cryin’ out loud. And that just ain’t gonna happen.
In my initial note, I alluded to the new reality of an increasingly “privatized” military. The fact of the matter is that there are more Pentagon-contracted mercs on the ground than US active duty forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Partially drawn from right-wing elements around the world, they currently fulfill scads of jobs that the average GI used to do – everything from K.P. to base security, and in the case of such merc outfits as Blackwater and others, actually carry on not only military logistical support, but do covert and overt ops, (often as subcontractors to the CIA). One of the obvious reasons for this proliferation of a privatized military are the US domestic political concerns, bipartisan in nature — these outfits remain largely invisible. When their guys get wounded or offed, the count doesn’t enter into the official figures. (It sure as hell has nothing to do with cost, since the average merc is far better paid than the average combat duty grunt). The privatization has come about in part to avoid reinstating the draft!
I finally read through the entire initial text, as difficult as that was. (Having nothing to do with my reading or comprehension skills, but with the arguments put forward.) I did get a kick out of the bit about new possibilities for “new aggression. Does the author truly believe that North Korea might push into the South? Or that Iran is going to initiate something? Would China, at this time, readily mess up its relationship with the US, its major market and source of so much else like the huge debt in T-Bonds it currently holds, by taking a shot at Taiwan? Who, in the author’s imaginings, are the major adversaries currently? Who is challenging US hegemony in the world? Certainly the Euro bloc, for one (The NATO allies). The new “co-prosperity sphere” in East Asia, led by China and Japan this time around (Again, major US trading partners) is another.
The Taliban as threat, an “aggressor”? Be serious. And al Qaida in Afghanistan, supposedly making a “comeback”? If our friend the historian from Kansas took some time to look more closely at the situation, then he’d know that the Afghan Taliban has had quite the falling out with al Qaida over the latter’s backing of insurgents in Pakistan. Is he unaware that the Pakistan ISI and a good chunk of those in the military actually support the Afghan Taliban while they’ve been waging offensives in the Northwest Provinces and Waziristan against the “Pakistan Taliban”? (While all the while receiving huge amounts of funding from Uncle Sam?) Is he aware that India (also considered a strategic US ally), Pakistan’s adversary, is backing the regime in Kabul, primarily because Pakistan is supporting the Taliban? The situation of the ’80 and early ’90s no longer applies.
So this guy wants to bring back the draft so’s to have enough bodies to maintain the empire, the global hegemony that the US clearly no longer has? So he believes in the public rationale, the post-Cold War, post- communist threat “war on terror” justification? What does one say?
I was reading Eric L Wattree’s column “Cheney Certainly Didn’t Dither
During Vietnam-He Hauled Ass” and it struck me that the problem is
not with our military or civilian population, but with the idiots in
Washington who are making the decisions. If every politician who
calls for war was run through boot camp, BUDS, Special Forces
Selection, etc. they might change their tune. Having said that, the
13th Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude of any kind. When
the State decides their needs are more important, that is truly dangerous.
9-11 happened because the Bill Of Rights, specifically the Second
Amendment was not enforced. Those people on the planes died
because they were disarmed by their own government. If they had
been armed, 9-11 would have been just another day and we would
not be in this situation now. Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. and every other
President who did not enforce this right should be brought to account.