| A strange loop.
| |
| A strange loop.
| |
The DraftJoe Katzman at Winds of Change wants to open a discussion on the utility of a draft, inspired by two articles at Washington Monthly, Now Do You Believe We Need a Draft? and First Draft. I'll bite.
First, I'd like to express my objections to any draft of any kind, on a matter of principle. Draftees are not like slaves because they are paid, and they are not like indentured servants because they do not enter the condition voluntarily. I do not believe that a draft is compatible with a free society. If you cannot get sufficient people to defend your society against invasion, your society deserves to die. If you cannot get sufficient people to fight your campaigns overseas, it's a sign that your policy doesn't have sufficient support. Compelling people to serve against their will is not a good way to overcome a rotten society or a raft of bad policies.
I should note that I favor a larger military. In fact, I think we need to increase our units of action to the level we had at the end of the Cold War - something like 1/3 more than we have now. This would allow us to undertake a war on the same scale as Iraq, while simultaneously undertaking an occupation on the scale of Iraq. That's no small ability, considering the number of threats we face. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (in that order) may all have to be subdued in order to win the Terror Wars. But I don't think a draft would be a good way to do it. And since I'd probably be largely outnumbered on the philosophical point about slavery, let's look at the practical problems instead, focusing on Washington Monthly's proposal.
The core of the Washington Monthly proposal is the focus of the draftees' work, not as conventional combat, but in a defensive anti-terror role:
That terrorists might poison municipal water supplies, spray anthrax from crop dusters, or suicidally infect themselves with small pox and stroll through busy city streets, is no longer considered farfetched. That we might need to draft some of our people to counter these threats---now that's considered farfetched, to the extent that it's considered at all.[snip]
A 21st century draft would be less focused on preparing men for conventional combat-which probably won't be that extensive in this war---than on the arguably more daunting task of guarding against and responding to terrorism at home and abroad.
One can imagine a similar three-tiered system of youth service in America, with 18-month terms of duty for all citizens age 18 to 25. In this new-style draft, conscripts would have what all Americans now demand: choice. They could choose to serve in the military, in homeland security, or in a civilian national service program like AmeriCorps (there's no reason women couldn't be drafted for the latter two categories). In return, draftees would get GI-bill-style college scholarships, with higher awards for those who accept more dangerous duty.
To suggest that draftees "have a choice" is to trivialize choice: the draftees would inherently not have the choice of not serving at all. Worse, though, is that offering a choice between civilian and military service would undermine one of the authors' key arguments, that a draft without deferments would bring America together. In actuality, it is very likely that the schism in American society would intensify, with "blue state" kids choosing AmeriCorps and "red state" kids choosing the military. The mixing would be less complete than hoped for, I strongly suspect.
The authors don't address the cost of such a "GI bill" program - I suspect it would be considerably larger than the cost of raising salaries to the point that you get the number of recruits you need for any given job - the market actually works. After all, the authors are suggesting what amounts to a "no exemptions" policy:
The best way would be to require all young people to serve. One reason more young people don't serve now is the fear that while they're wearing the uniform, their peers will be out having fun and getting a leg up in their careers. If everyone were required to serve, no one would feel like a sucker.[snip]
It's possible, however, that the country won't have the need for every eligible young person to serve. What then? One answer is a lottery with no student deferments.
Why not pass a law that says that no four-year college or university can accept a student unless and until that student completes a 12-month to two-year term of service? No lotteries, no deferments.And now the authors assert a government power to abrogate freedom of association based on how compliant a person is with government wishes??? I think this is so absurd that I'm at a loss for words, and in danger of excessive use of exclamation points and capital letters.
Let me suggest an alternative that does not compel us to violate our values, and that would provide a better pool of recruits.
If we need additional people to guard institutions in the US, particularly public facilities; act as community watchmen; respond to emergencies and the like, why not hire them? And if we cannot afford to hire enough people or if their duties are less full-time jobs than part-time duties, why not reinstitute local militias? With some forethought given to training and organization, and particularly with some indoctrination introduced into the public schools (don't gasp: the schools indoctrinate kids now, just not in generally-useful points of citizenship), it would be a reasonably-simple and well-precedented way to create a first-responder and community watchman capability sufficient to any purposes I can foresee.
The Washington Monthly seems to think the idea has widespread support:
But if the chance of universal service was measured by what the American people actually think, a different picture might emerge. In late January, a Newsweek poll found that 14 percent of Americans favored and 38 percent would consider reinstating the draft; only 45 percent would refuse to consider the idea at all. As it happens, that poll did not describe the kind of draft that Rep. Rangel has proposed, one in which young people would be able to choose either military or civilian service. The only poll I know to pose that question was conducted in November 2001 by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), and found that 60 percent of Americans favored a draft that offered a choice between military or civilian service.It's hard to know exactly what to make of these poll numbers. Among other things, they don't reveal whether those who oppose the draft are more intense in their opinions (as one might expect they would be) than those who favor it. Nevertheless, the polls do suggest that a majority of Americans are at least open to the idea of some sort of draft--more than supported the president's tax-cut-heavy economic plan in early February (46 percent), and more than supported a U.S. ground invasion "soon" (37 percent) rather than giving U.N. inspectors "more time."
Many young people would surely object to such a draft--if "draft" is the right word for it. But none would have cause to feel that their peers were getting an unfair head start on the career ladder, because all prospective four-year-college students would be in the same boat.Well, if the authors don't like "draft", we could always talk about "forced service" or even "involuntary servitude". And of course, what if we don't need as many people as a no-exemptions policy would generate? Then we're back to a lottery system and their argument on this point utterly evaporates.
I do not believe a draft is useful, nor do I believe it is moral. The Washington Monthly's two pieces on this have made me more - not less - certain of that position.
Posted by Jeff at December 1, 2004 12:46 AM | Link CosmosNo draft. A draft ruins the quality of the Army. I was drafted for VietNam. My son is active duty Army now - the difference between those who join and those who were drafted is day and night.
We need a larger Army, but not by draft.
Posted by: Xixi on December 1, 2004 08:32 AMFrankly, I've heard this before from people who think that "national service" will somehow bring us all together. What disturbs me is that I often see this coming from conservatives who, amazingly, don't see the big government implications in this, while at the same time decrying the ever-expanding role of government in their lives (although it's often also couched in terms of getting those damn slacker kids in line). As you noted, this proposal could serve only to further distance people. I would expect that a group of 18-year-old draftees would be unmotivated and surly at best. And that's one of the key points about why we don't need conscripts for the military anymore. We can get highly motivated people who are there by choice and who will stay long enough to be properly trained in their jobs.
As for homeland defense duties, I think there is likely a large corps of people out there who want to help. I've been participating in the Keller Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). CERT is organized by FEMA and the Keller Fire Department to respond to large-scale disaster events in the area (they also take trained CERT members for volunteer duty in other areas; e.x. many CERT members from Texas went to Florida after the hurricanes).
As you mentioned, if we needed something beyond disaster assistance, I'm sure we could find people willing to volunteer for local militias. At a minimum, there are a lot of ex-military and veterans out there who are too old to be accepted for active service, but who are looking to help out. These people have valuable experience that we can tap into. In fact, I've encountered several people like this in CERT training.
FYI--Our CERT team is new here (we just finished up training at the end of October), and we're now organizing ourselves to run as an independent organization. We've just got our website up and we have some links for more information on CERT there. http://www.kellercert.org/
Posted by: Aubrey Turner on December 1, 2004 01:44 PMSo we deserve to perish as a nation if the anti-american media succeeds in convincing a significant portion of the population not to volunteer? The first duty of government is to protect the civilian populace from attack, and what you're saying is if confusion or propaganda prevents us from doing that we deserve to die? I think not. I was in high school and college when the draft was in effect for Vietnam, (I entered ROTC and took a commission) and I agree it didn't do great things for the quality of the military, but your standing on principle (the nation be damned if we can't raise a volunteer army to defend it) is absurd.
Posted by: Doug on December 1, 2004 03:48 PMDoug, perhaps you are confusing the people with the nation? Any society whose citizens cannot be bothered to defend it does deserve to perish. This does not mean that the citizens themselves deserve to perish - I'm not saying there should be a pogrom or anything - but that the citizens in failing to defend their system have in effect said that their system does not deserve to survive. I don't see the absurdity in that, frankly.
Speaking of Franks, let me give two examples. The French were rolled in WWII. The vast majority were passive under occupation - this is actually the normal case, given human psychology. These people were content to see pre-war France die as an independent country rather than resist, for whatever reason. Some were active collaborators with their occupiers, in effect willing the death of pre-war France. Some fewer were willing to actively resist, thus affirming France as an independent country. And with their resistance, increasingly large numbers of uninvolved French citizens began to work towards France's eventual liberation.
Another example, one where countries died and arguably deserved to, can be found in the Japanese city-states prior to unification. When the conquerer came, he was Japanese (the Japanese would likely have resisted, say, Koreans, as they had before) and he was accepted as ruler, with effectively no resistance from the commoners. Would you then argue that Japan shouldn't exist, because even though its people weren't willing to defend the prior political order, there was a prior political order?
No, I say again, if a political order, a nation, is not worth defending to the point that its citizens will defend it, then it deserves to die.
Doug's right. While I disagree with the draft on purely technical and practical grounds, the belief that a nation-state doesn't sometimes have the right to overrule individual autonomy in times of real, authentic emergency is preposterous. In all likelihood, the nation wouldn't have been saved without the institution of the draft in the Civil War. Should we just have let the Republic die at that time knowing now what grandeur lay in store for us? Just because the public will is weak at some point doesn't mean the short-sighted among us (not even or especially if they constitute a majority) should dictate public policy on something as critical as the survival of a society. Not having a draft if it were needed could easily spell the doom of a lackidaisical, fat, suburban, feminized, even infantalized culture such as ours. But having one wouldn't necessarily guaranteed it's survival, so what's the harm in having one (again, only if it's truly needed)? If a civilization is so decadent and corrupt that it has to die, a draft wouldn't do much to prop it up.
Posted by: nemesisenforcer on December 4, 2004 02:38 AMThe question lies, I think, in where sovereignty vests. In the US under the Constitution, sovereignty vests in the States, and limited grants of that sovereignty are given to the Federal government. In current interpretation, sovereignty vests in the Federal government, and my belief is that sovereignty should vest in the individual. I realize that my view has approximately three adherents, but we're talking theory here, rather than practicality. (For all practical purposes, the Constitution is nearly meaningless by this point, since any action at all can be shown to have some effect, no matter how tenuous, on interstate commerce.)
Under the first interpretation, a Federal draft is not possible (the power to compel service is not enumerated to the government), but a State draft is not ruled out. Under the second, any government can compel involuntary service. Under the third, there would have to be an explicit grant of authority from the population to the government before the government could compel service.
In any case, a nation-state has no rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. If the nation-state is compelling service from its subjects (and in this case, subjects is definitely a better word than citizens), it is ipso facto not doing so with their consent. I'll leave to others the discussion of whether practical consent is even a meaningful concept, but it's pretty clear that a government which compels the service of its citizens rules, rather than governs, them.
Like I said, it's all pretty theoretical, but I contend that any society whose people believe in its continuance would in the event of an attempted conquest have sufficient defenders, even without a draft, because the people would defend their society willingly. If the people wouldn't defend their own society, is it worth defending? I'd say no.
Our society would certainly have plenty of defenders. Our society is able to voluntarily muster a large number of volunteers to, if needed, conquer other countries, so why should we fail of our own defense? I think we are not as " lackidaisical, fat, suburban, feminized, even infantalized [sic]" as you seem to think.
"Why not pass a law that says that no four-year college or university can accept a student unless and until that student completes a 12-month to two-year term of service? No lotteries, no deferments."
Why not restrict the various and enormous loans and grants bestowed on students and faculty by Uncle Sugar to students and faculty members who had actually participated in such a service program or served in the military?
