I was against the war from the start, although my opposition never translated into a protest march in Washington or a letter to my congressman. It remained no more than a quietly held belief. Today, there’s talk of leaving Iraq, but I don’t know what to think. I want our soldiers to come home, but can we really abandon the Iraqi people to what is essentially a civil war of our own making?
I don’t have a solution, but I think I may have figured out what’s missing from my perspective on democracy: pain ”” universal, democratic pain. In terms of the Iraq war, this country’s burden is being shouldered by a select few. Some families and communities have been devastated by the war. Others, like mine, have been far too insulated. We can’t truly share the responsibility for our democracy until we all share in its suffering.
And so, in the name of shared pain, I support the reinstitution of the draft.
The draft is a terrible idea. The major reason that our armed forces are so effective today is that they are an all volunteer force. Every person in the military volunteered for the military. We have the most professional force in the world today.
Re-instituting the draft would flood the services with thousands of men (and women?) who do not want to be there. It would reduce the professionalism of the NCO corps (which is the backbone of the service) and reduce the quality and preparedness of each unit.
Please don’t start the draft again.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
No. There is absolutely no necessity for conscription. None. The Armed Forces oppose it vehemently. If Ms. Mory wishes to share the pain, she is welcome to enlist. If she can not enlist due to age or physical disability, then there are plenty of contract and volunteer jobs available in Iraq.
Further, she is in error as regards to “essentially a civil war of our own making”. Again no. If anything the internal tensions in Iraq are lower than they have been in generations. Prior to our invasion, the tensions were hidden by workings of a relatively efficient secret police backed up by a political apparatus and private army beholden to one man.
At the risk of being banned, I haven’t read anything so fatheaded in a very long time. Were I not horribly busy I would dissect it line by illogical and unthinking line.
Brilliant — you have a screwed up war being fought by volunteers who have a choice whether or not to support it. What a great idea — let’s drag in people who hate this war and make them fight it!
You know, the Marxists used to have a concept called “the heightening of the contradictions.” What this meant was that if things in a country got REALLY REALLY bad for the workers, this was actually REALLY REALLY good, because then they’d become aware of the “contradictions” of capitalism that much sooner and rise up that much faster. So…let’s make the Iraq war MUCH MUCH worse by forcing people to fight against their will so that more Americans will realize it that much faster and end it. Amazing thing is I’ve actually heard people suggest just that.
#1 I politely beg to differ. Unfortunately, the notion of restoring the draft generally comes up only as matter of liberal threat a la Charlie Rangel or “shared sacrifice” as related in the article above. I came of age during the draft and Vietnam and in lieu fo being drafted, I volunteered as a matter of having (what I thought) would be some self-determination in the matter.
Call it a draft, national service, universal compulsary military service or whatever, the nation would be better off with a system that commits young people to military service for reasons that far outweigh the handwringing evident when restoring the draft is connected with the reality of why a military actually exists. A volunteer army is great if we want to protect segments of national population from having to make some difficult choices at a young age or if we want others to do our dirty work for us. But is also creates a professional military class that is disconnected from the larger society….albeit the solider knows much more about American society than society knows about the military. But the disconnect definitely exists. Likewise, miltary service builds elements of character that are missing from most instiitutions and cultural artifacts that are the currency of young folks today. The military forms “communities of difference” into cohesive units where values of teamwork, cooperation and respect for others is paramount. As a college teacher, I observe daily youthful behaviors and attitudes that would be challeged for the better by military service.
Right now, there area lot of cheap patriots. Liberals can ignore the war, without understanding the costs that families have.
People join the military for lots of reasons. Some jion because they want to protect the country. Others join because it helps pay forschool. I hear that, as it is harder now to recruit, it is one of the few places that will now take people who haven’t graduated from high school, or join because they think they can get a college education. Personally, I think this is dangerous.
A true patriot is someone who loves this country but fights its wars anyway. We’re having fewer and fewer of those.
It’s easy to support a war when you don’t see the cost.
Phil, as far as effectiveness – you’ll have to give me some criteria. It’s not the soldiers, necessarily, but the technological firepower we have. We spend, after all, more than the rest of the world – the entire world – combined on our military. with great technology, you don’t need someone bright to do the military’s job.
Catholic Mom seems to think that there is a
I think Aileen Mory is spot on. If you didn’t listen to Shields and Brooks on the News Hour last week, listen to it. Mark Shields is calling our attention to an army that is recruiting more and more people with serious criminal backgrounds to meet its recruiting goals. The idea of a volunteer military of idealists willing to carry the load needs to be demythologized. A convict military doing our dirty work alongside unaccountable private contractors is going to do its work poorly and unenthusiastically, and is going to damage democracry’s longterm chances of military success and of its own survival. I serve soldiers and I know a little about them. An army is healthiest when it knows that it is a people’s army in the best sense. It may take a draft to make us care about our soldiers and the cost of the wars they fight.
#2 [b]The Armed Forces oppose it vehemently. [/b]Segments of the command stucture do oppose the draft and will until they see a national need for its restoration. The closer the military gets to politics, the more intense an internal oppostion to the draft.
[b]If Ms. Mory wishes to share the pain, she is welcome to enlist. If she can not enlist due to age or physical disability, then there are plenty of contract and volunteer jobs available in Iraq. [/b] I am not sure that this lends much to the dialog.
[b]Were I not horribly busy I would dissect it line by illogical and unthinking line. [/b]Well, when you can break away, I for one would be interested in you dissection of the line by illogical and unthinking line.
#5 [b]I hear that, as it is harder now to recruit, it is one of the few places that will now take people who haven’t graduated from high school, or join because they think they can get a college education. Personally, I think this is dangerous.[/b] I would be careful to call something aquired as hearsay, “dangerous.” Hopefully they will do more than [u]think [/u]they can get a college degree. Their WWII GI Bill predecessors certainly did.Likewise, I have more than a few ex-military in some of my classes and they too are apparently doing more than thinking about getting an education.
[b]with great technology, you don’t need someone bright to do the military’s job.[/b] This statement boggles the mind. I will only respond to it in the context of my own experience as a military cryptologist who spend 9 months 8-5 in class learning my craft with a lof of other “not so bright” people.
i heard this saturday morning and frankly couldn’t agree more. the way we rushed into the invasion without any real national discourse about why and if it even was a good idea, would no doubt have been more carefully considered if politicians and the general public had to face the possibility of sending their own children off to die. i will forcibly resist writing a sarcastic comment about the bush twins…
#8 – Young people joining the military is not sending them “off to die.” And I would not find any comment regarding the lack of military service on the part of the female Bush twins sarcastic, rather unfair and petty. But that comment about sending “children” off to die along with #5’s perverse notion of military technology certainly validates my point regarding the American public’s general ignorance of the military.
I do agree that compulsory military service would sharpen the national debate during times of essential foreign policy decision-making and that would be a very good thing. But the problem is that we are a republic…a representative democracy…but seem unwilling to support common institutions when our elected leaders do not conform precisely to our personal ideology and representational expectations. And because we are a republic, I have always believed, rightly or wrongly, that American governmental leadership has more information than I with which to make decisions on which I may well be conflicted as a matter of my ideology. But I do not intentionally make uninformed statements or attempt to demean the family members of those leaders with whom I do not agree. I leave that up to the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos.
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: NO sane military member wants to have to go to war! I know, because I’ve been there and done that. I am a retired professional USAF NCO, and I can tell you what I personally think of glory-hunting “warriors:” Not much, believe me!
This war was not started by George W. Bush. We didn’t attack anyone without good cause when we went after terrorism. Some have said that WE caused the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. WRONG! The terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and they were aided and abetted by Al Qaida.
Is this war a “right war?” It depends on how one looks at it. Were we right in going after terrorists in their own back yard? Yes! You fight terrorism by fighting “dirty,” because that’s the only method they understand. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAN WAR.
Am I in favor of the draft? No! Am I in favor of young Americans serving in the Armed Forces? Yes! Does such service help to build character? Yes, I believe that it does! Do Americans have an obligation to their country? If they want to be good citizens, yes, they do!
It also helps to keep us safe and free.
I am not a soldier myself, but I come from a family with three generations of soldiers. In fact, I have had a close family member in every major conflict (including Afghanistan and Iraq) since the Korean War.
All three generations choose the military at some point when they could have gotten out. Mad Padre, we’re not convicts. Magnolia, we didn’t send our children “off to die.”
We aren’t poor or uneducated. We have family members with masters and doctorate degrees. Over the last forty years, we didn’t grow up on base, but in non-military neighborhoods around normal people. That’s because most military people are by and large normal people (I’d make an exception for Marines, but that would say rather too much about where my family has and hasn’t served).
The cold hard fact (and the only one that military people really care about) is that conscript militaries get more soldiers and civilians killed than professional forces. Wars are longer, dirtier and deadlier.
To wish that on my family and the tens of thousands of families like mine with a tradition of service in search of some nebulous hope that somehow wars will be less common, isn’t exactly a welcome show of support – and its historically dubious to boot – the biggest wars the world has ever known have been fought with conscript militaries. Instead it just shows a scary disconnect between people like Mory and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that probably quietly live in her neighborhood.
With respect to #5 John Wilkins’ comment about technology, I would say that while technological superiority is undoubtedly part of our military strength, tech means squat without people willing and able to carry it into the theater and use it. And it needs soldiers who are more skilled and educated to use it, not less.
On the general topic of draft versus AVF… I’ve always thought of the all-volunteer force as being a fundamental exercise of democracy. If the leadership of the country can’t convince enough young people to join up and fight the war the leadership wants to fight, then the war has been voted down by those citizens most directly affected. The leadership can either come up with a better pitch or find another way than war to achieve their ends.
Correct…but Iraq had exactly nothing to do with Al Qaida. George Bush said that. His argument was that they were amassing weapons of mass destruction which they were about to unleash. He NEVER linked them with Al Qaida or even tried to do so.
I agree completely. If the citizens don’t want to fight a war that is their right. Under what strange philosophy can you force people to fight for something?
Speaking as a liberal (today anyway)…
I have long advocated a universal draft of both men and women, but not just for the military. I believe everyone should spend some time serving their country in some manner, be it in the military, in the National Parks, Veterans Hospitals, wherever.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure I’m ready for the bureaucratic nightmare this could create…
Jeffri
The draft is essential. For the young men, this is a partial payment of the comfortable world that has been made for them. (Women should not be drafted because they ought not to be in the armed forces at all. OUr society should have better things to do for its young women.) Second, the young males need one place in the world in which they are made to work, to obey, to keep their mouths shut, and to learn to respect and be respected. The armed forces are the only place left in the US where such antiquities are mandatory. Third, it will teach them practical skills while it gives them, at the same time, at least two years to grow up and discover what to do with themselves.Larry
#13 –[b]I agree completely. If the citizens don’t want to fight a war that is their right. Under what strange philosophy can you force people to fight for something?[/b] It is frightening to think that very many Americans might agree with this statment absent any consideration of the consequences of not fighting. I know of no right attached to US citizenship–save that of contientious objector status– that constitutionally confers a”freedom from fight.” Neither would I consider self-preservation much of a “strange philosophy.”
#14 —The current US muilitary, Peace Corps, Job Corps, the depression-era CCC etc. were bureaucratic. And I don’t beleive they are (or were) nightmares.
#15 Larry Morse seems to be talking about universal military service, such as some European countries have. I think to most people in the U.S., “the draft” conveys the notion of a particular conscription to fight a particular war, and which ends once the war is over. These aren’t necessarily the same kind of beast, although there are obviously many similarities. It would probably help to keep that distinction in mind for this conversation.
In response to #16 on the notion of “voting down” a war by not signing up for it — I never suggested that this would always be the right decision for the country. But stepping up to put your life on the line in defense of your country’s interest requires two things: first of all, you have to be convinced that you are acting in defense of your country’s interests. People contemplating joining the military have every right to make up their own minds about that in particular cases. (After they join, they can still have an opinion, but they have to go if they’re told to go.) Secondly, it requires a degree of moral courage that cannot be compelled by fiat.
If the leaders of a country can’t convince enough of the people who would actually be risking their lives for the sake of a given strategy that the strategy is in the best interest of the country, then they need to find a better way of making their case. If the people are convinced but not enough of them are actually willing to fight for it, then the country has bigger problems than whatever war is at hand.
#9 (Rudydog) wrote in part:
“And because we are a republic, I have always believed, rightly or wrongly, that American governmental leadership has more information than I with which to make decisions on which I may well be conflicted as a matter of my ideology. ”
You sound like a Hamiltonian (and that is a good thing). Of course, the trick is to make sure that the governmental leadership is acting on good information, acting in good faith, and acting in the best interest of the country as a whole. Sadly, our willingness to trust those in authority (or even give them the benefit of the doubt) has been frayed by Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, the Monica Lewinsky affair, general fecklessness on the part of those entrusted with our government and a host of other reasons (both good and bad). Right now, I can’t help thinking that we need both more virtuous leaders and a more virtuous citizenship.
For those who think that Al Qaeda isn’t involved in Iraq: Guess again! It’s true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other, but remember: Their common goal was the same……along with their hatred of everyone who didn’t share their religious faith.
Are young Americans willing to stand up and fight when they know their cause is just? Yes……they are! Are we fighting for a just cause now? I would hope so…….especially if it means that people can finally live without fear of terrorism.
#16 Your mention of universal military service and the right of an individual to reject such ervice during a time of national peril is instructive in the sense that the former may be a condition of citizenship, the latter a supposed “human right.” However, I know of no instance where conscripted soldiers serving in peacetime have opt out rights should an unpopular war become a reality. Military service is (to my mind) an obligation of citizenship regardless of whether that service is performed in a voluntary or conscripted force. The fact that most of American society does not perceive it as so signficantly reduces the credibility of [u]any[/u] justification that national leadership may provide with respect to the use of military force. The reality of the fact is that we cannot continue to defend the United States on the backs of a few who perceive this obligation as their own and are willing to defend the many “others” who have absolutely no sense of such an obligation irrespective of national peril or its consequences.
#18 — Amen to the need for virtuous leadership, which was, as I am sure you know, a condition that the founders set for the survival of an American Republic. So did Plato, for that matter….but certainly not for an American Republic!
I spent 10 years active duty and 15 years in the Reserves and was deployed twice during my reserve duty. I think the draft is a good idea because the military is a sub culture in the US. Many civilian leaders don’t understand or care to understand the military yet they are in charge of the military. Some of these leaders condone things like the General Betrayus ad. Francis Schafer’s grand son joined the Marines after graduation from an upper level prep school and one of the comments from the faculty was “WE need to find out where we went wrong”. The banning of Marine recruiters in areas of California is rediculous. There are many institutions (colleges, High schools etc.) that ban recruits as if they are an evil invader. I am afraid at some point the military may decide they can run the country better than the civilians. Our citizens need to understand the military and it is good for the military to have more citizen impact.
You are right. I am indeed talking about universal service. It is one of the prices we all pay for our freedom. Larry
Those colleges and high schools which ban military recruiters are actually doing their students a disservice. Many of my college classmates chose to serve their country in uniform following graduation…..as I did. I met several of them a few years later, and asked them if they thought they’d made the right choice. With the exception of one, they said “yes, I did……and I don’t regret it.”
This from men who could’ve gone on to professions in civilian life after serving their tours……but who felt that serving their country was more important.
I openly admit that I did the same thing……and I’m not sorry I did.
Cennydd ,My son is now struggling with the same issue (to stay in or get out). The problem I have is I see a disconnect between civilian and military that I find troubling. I think a draft or universal service could be a help to resolve this. There has been expressed a view that those in the military are less able etc. The opposit is actually true as you know.
We already have involuntary service… check out the movie Stop Loss. Not the same as conscription, but a far cry from voluntary as well.
Dave B, I would be in favor of some kind of universal service for those not interested in joining the Service.
It takes a special kind of person to devote his or her career to the military or naval service of his country, and it’s not for everyone. I served because I liked it and felt that what I was doing was important.
I certainly never entered into my contract with the government for the money, but for the satisfaction I derived from serving. My wife and I both served, and we made many friends over the years we spent on active duty in the Air Force, so I guess you could say that the friendship and camaderie was and is an important part of military life. I am quite sure that your son knows that.
I sympathize with him, and I’m sure that he’ll do what he thinks is right for him. There is one thing, though, that might help him in his decision-making, and perhaps he knows about this: The last I knew, the Services offer those leaving active duty counselling about transitioning to civilian occupations in addition to furthering their education.
SpringsEternal- Don’t for one tenth of one second think ANYTHING Hollywood does about the military is close to reality. I have been involved in stop loss. It prevents critical shortages in critical MOS’s (military occupation specialties). It ussally lasts several months and is not that bad. Thank you for the thoughts Cennydd. My son is pretty bright and will do well where ever he goes but he really does like the military, and yes he is in combat arms. He joined after college graduation to challange himself and he didn’t want to sit at a desk in a cramped cubical. I am very proud of him.
While I’m not whole-heartedly embracing the Hollywood version, I beg to differ with the statement of “it’s not that bad”. It lasted more than a year for six men in my brother’s unit – long enough for two of them to be KIA. It may be a few months for some but it is life-alteringly long for many.
#28 An American soldiers death is always tragic. However, to beg to differ with another person’s own experience lends little credibility to your own point of view. Stop/Loss is similar to reservists being ordered to active duty or active duty extention. The drama and loss of war is much more profound in the Hollywood versions when anti-war sentiments are the purpose. Remember the great old book/movie “The Bridges at Toko-Ri? Same thing.
SpringsEternal , I am sorry for the loss your brother’s unit suffered. The people in the Armed Forces face possible life altering events all the time. There are training accidents and illness that occur often. For ever person injured or killed during deployment for war 9 or ten are incapcitated or killed in non combat situations (these were figures for vietnam). I was in Germany at the start of the war. We took care of military personnel with injuries from triping over tent stakes, hands mangled in generators, traffic accidents, illnesses etc. You started using a propoganda film as a source. Also stop loss is not involuntary it is in the contract that each soldier signs. I bet youve never heard of “Boots on ground”. The military says you are activated for a year in Iraq boots on ground. The colck doesn’t start running till you are in Iraq. It can take three months to get there so you are activated for 15 months.
The issues of standing armies versus militias our forefathers lived and dealt with appear so blaise and old fashioned.
non combat to combat injuries should read 3 to 1. thank you
And lest we forget: These stories and situations don’t just apply to American servicmen and women, but to ALL of our allies as well. They, too, suffer!
What actually is the objection to universal military service? Larry
alright – I agree: I think people who don’t want such a war should not have to fight it.
And we shouldn’t have to pay for it either.
Paying for policies with which you disagree is one of the drawbacks of not being a hermit.
#36 – that’s the issue isn’t it? Most people have their heads in the sand when it comes to this war. The draft is one way to make us less hermetic.
Saying only those who support the war are the ones who should fight it is much like saying they should pay for it too.
an idea I most heartily agree to.
#35 Your comment informs only to the extent that it provides conclusive evidence that this discussion thread has lost its capacity to rationally argue competing viewpoints.
Personaly John, I find using a draft to place the heaviest tax burden (in the form of enforced military service) on a narrow cohort of the population (18 year old males) much more distasteful than spreading the costs over a wider base through financial taxation which is then used to hire professional volunteers. That is before we reach the arguments that conscript armies tend to be less skilled and to suffer greater casualty rates than professional armies.