HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr 23, 2004 Lately there has been increasing ‘chatter’ among pundits and politicians about reinstating the military draft. One of the first was the crackpot Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who argues that a draft is the only way to fix what he sees as various problems with the demographics of our volunteer military. Specifically, he argues that blacks and the poor are over represented due to economic factors and that all Americans should share in the responsibility to defend their country. To some extent, the pro-draft camp has a point. I have always admired the Israelis for, among many other things, their practice to insist that all (non-Arab) citizens serve in the armed forces in some capacity. It’s somewhat hard to see how the United States would be hurt by a similar requirement. After all, there is certainly no shortage of people who would holler till they were hoarse if citizens were denied the right to vote. Why do we not demand that people provide some service to earn that right? Those who argue that a draft is necessary to maintain a constant War on Terror could be correct. It is possible that volunteer-based Armed Services could turn out to be insufficient to complete the job. It is also somewhat difficult to counter the point that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum tend to serve at a greater rate than those with more substantial means. Finally, I do feel some draw to the idea of shared sacrifice. There just seems to be something right about all Americans drawing up ranks, standing shoulder-to- shoulder and vowing to fight Terrorism to the death. That being said, there are both practical/logistic and philosophical issues that I find associated with compulsatory service. One of the arguments for the draft, as I just mentioned, is that there should be shared sacrifice in fighting America’s wars. To me, those words: shared sacrifice should mean just that if they are going to be used to justify a draft. Literally, each and every American should shoulder his or her share of the load. What would that mean in practical terms? According to the 2000 US Census, there were ~18million young men and women between the ages of 20 and 24. If we were honestly going to require all Americans to share the burden, then we would have ~18million of them to find jobs for. As our current standing forces total a small fraction of that number, I’m not sure where they would all go. What would we do with all these people? We would have to devise some system to pick those who would fill combat roles and those who would fill support and other positions. Does anyone smell the opportunity for string-pulling and all those fun Vietnam-era goings-on? However, even short of outright cheating, it is hard to imagine a system that would do any more than set up a sort of lottery. I’m not sure that people who support the draft have a roulette wheel in mind when they think of shared sacrifice. A second particle issue is as simple as desire. It seems that a volunteer is likely to be more motivated that a conscript. This is in no way meant to disparage any draftee in any war. Our drafted and volunteer soldiers fought alongside one another and did so honorably in both WWII and Vietnam. However, all other things being equal, there are bound to be motivation issues. If we look hard enough (e.g., here and here) we can find daily examples of hard-fighting American volunteers who strive with all their being to keep the rest of us safe. Could the same be said if we have a conscription service? I hope so, but I don’t know. The idea that strictly volunteer-based Armed Services are insufficient to conduct a long and arduous War on Terror strikes me as both insulting and completely unsupported by fact. This concept is insulting to our current and future volunteers in that it suggests they are not up to the challenge. Based on what I know of military personnel, for your own safety I would not suggest bringing this up in the presence of any solider. As for the facts, it would seem that although we often hear how concerned some people are with the re-up rates, it would seem that we’re doing all right (scroll down to find “Re-up”). I realize this is but one example. Only time will tell for sure. Finally, we come to what I believe is the most important point of all. Just as there can be no piety without choice, so can there be no patriotism without the freedom to choose to be unpatriotic. During Saddam’s terrible reign I’m sure you’d have found any number of ‘patriotic’ Iraqis. But you simply cannot call that patriotism since the alternative is death. In the case of a draft, we would no longer be able to discern among those who actually wish to serve in the Armed Forces and those who are just putting in their time as required by law. Further, those who do not wish to be there would be deprived of the opportunity to instead use that time to contribute to the betterment of our country in other ways. So, with the draft we actually lose at least two very valuable things. We devalue the choice that one might have made to serve in the military, and we lose whatever services a conscript might have otherwise provided during his or her mandatory service. The question, then, comes down to this: Do the benefits of forcing all Americans to share the burden outweigh the loss of freedom and, therefore, the value of making an individual choice? The answer to that question should determine whether or not we reinstate the draft. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Check out his blog MuD&PHuD. Email Thomas Carroll: carroll@student.uchc.edu Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
