Good news/ Bad news

I'm one of that 1/4 who think we should reinstate the draft. I think it would make the American public much more circumspect about going to war, and would strengthen our sense of community and service. (For instance, I don't think Bush et al. would have ever been able to sell the poorly thought-out war in Iraq to a citizenry subject to a military draft.) Additionally, while there are benefits to a professional military (increased efficiency, for instance), history teaches that a republican form of government and a professional warrior class don't mix. I think it's utterly bizarre that the civilian leadership of the military (i.e. our elected officials) are practially devoid of any military service themselves--this is historically anomalous, and imho a very bad thing. There are also a lot of social benefits that would likely result from mandatory national serivce (like making 18-year olds break from their parents and grow up faster). Anyway, I think that on balance a draft is beneficial to a democracy, and I don't know why most of my fellow liberals are so quick to condemn it. Thoughts?

Rachel, reading your comment gave me chills. I've opposed all wars during my lifetime, and the thought of sending our soon-to-be eligible son to war against his will twists my gut like few other thoughts.

Mandatory national service, or voluntary mission work - that's fine. But history has also shown that even during our drafts, the scions of the privileged class usually didn't have to serve anyway, or landed the cushy, safe assignments far away from the battlefied.

I don't see how reinstating the draft would benefit democracy.

How about requiring national-level elected officials to have active-duty military experience?

CSA: "Mandatory national service, or voluntary mission work - that's fine. But history has also shown that even during our drafts, the scions of the privileged class usually didn't have to serve anyway, or landed the cushy, safe assignments far away from the battlefield."

To clarify, I do not think that everyone should have to serve in the military, but I do think that everyone should be subject to mandatory national service for a year or two after graduating from high school. Serving in the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or Teach for America is cool with me, too, and ought to exempt one from a military draft. But I don't think anyone should be able to say he has "other priorities" a la Dick Cheney and not serve his country in some way--not without at least a substantial social cost.

I know that the wealthy have always been able to finagle their children out of such obligations; the privileged are privileged. But often they haven't, because of the social costs of skipping out of a socially-recognized duty. Teddy Roosevelt lost two sons to war. In any case, I don't think it's a coincidence that virtually all politicians had done some military service when we had a draft, and that today so few of our elected officials have.

I also don't think that we ought to be able to go to war on the extreme sacrifice of a few (some Marine units are now facing their fifth tour of duty in Iraq) while the rest of us can't even commit to a "support the troops" bumper sticker. (A yellow ribbon magnet is so much gentler on the paint! What if an actual sticker hurt the resale value of one's car?)

I do think it influences politicians' readiness to send soldiers to war when they themselves have been soldiers. I also think that it is good for 18-year olds to be forced out of their parents' house and then forced to interact constructively with people with different geographic, ethnic, and economic backgrounds than their own. Also, I think that self-sacrifice makes people better citizens, even when it's coerced.

Of course, I'd be happier if everyone did volunteer work for the good of their country/communities all on their own, and if all 18-year olds voluntarily left their comfortable childhood homes to broaden their own horizons, and most of all if Americans did not so readily buy so patently incompetent a war plan as was the one for the war in Iraq. That would be nice. So it's not that I think that a draft is a good thing; I only think it's better than the alternative.

Also, to be clear: My support for a draft is independent of Iraq. As I've mentioned, I am not sure we'd be in Iraq if we had had a draft in 2002.

And I hope this does not nullify your earlier offer to buy me a beer. After all, I'm only 31, never had to deal with a draft, so what do I know? :)

For what it's worth, I think a national service requirement is not bad either. It would be democratizing and I have a scheme to turn it into national health care.

That said, now isn't the time to implement a draft.

And I'd vigorously oppose requiring elected officials to have military service. Some people don't have that service for very good reasons, and those people's voices need to be heard in Congress.

If you require military service as a prerequisite to making military decisions, you should require elected officials to have worked as economists or accountants to make economic decisions; a degree in biology, forestry or similar for environmental decisions; to have experience as physicians, therapeuts or nurses to make health-care policy; to be over 65 and on welfare to decide on retirement and social services, respectively - and of course to have passed a bar exam to make law at all.

Good luck finding anybody at all eligible for any public office.

Of course I'll still spot you that beer, Rachel! And yes, more 18-year-olds need to experience life on their own as opposed to staying in their parents' warm, comfortable nest.

I agree that a politician's enthusiasm for war fades in proportion with the extent of their military service. Josh, I understand that some can't serve because of very good reasons, but there are too many whose reasons consisted of Daddy's position of influence.

Janne, good point. No politico can be an expert in all things. When it comes to deciding whether our nations sons (oops - and daughters) should be sent to the battlefield, though, I'd trust that decision to somebody with combat experience over somebody who spent the term hiding in Daddy's pockets. I guess that's why we have the JCOS to advise our politicos.

But do those in the adminstration & the legislature listen?

Wow! Way to try to inflame things Blair. That's a classic example of taking an opinion expressed by an individual and conflating it with a bad comprehension of history and political movements to arrive at a rather insulting insinuation directed a an entire class of people.

There are plenty of historical examples of conservatives supporting the draft, all through the 20th century.

There are plenty of religious people who support the draft, and you are suggesting without evidence that Rachel Robson is an atheist.

Then you bring in a point, that of extending the draft to women, which was not only irrelevant but suggests that Rachel Robson wasn't thinking clearly.

And you completely ignore the points made subsequently by CSA and Rachel Robson that some military service may reduce the chance of the U.S.A. invading other nations, casus belli or not.

Bravo!

Your post was very, very funny.

Blair and Goldstein are petty trolls. Do not feed them.

If more people in power and more voters knew someone in the military, they'd be less likely to bad asinine military adventures like Iraq or Iran. With a volunteer army, you can always just say that the mounting casualties volunteered knowing the risks. With mandatory service (to include things like Americorps and Peace Corps) that wouldn't cut it.

Reinstatement of the Draft is a poor decision. There are basically two types of armies, drafted and standing. Standing armies consist of highly trained, highly motivated individuals willing to sacrifice life, limb and liberty for a greater cause. These are highly motivated people. Standing armies have high morale and high confidence due to the security of excellent training and the knowledge that competant soldiers will be watching one's back.

A drafted army consists of conscripted individuals who on the whole have no desire to serve the greater cause. A drafted army suffers from low motivation and poor training due to the lower quality of recruits. Morale is poor due to the lack of trust among the ranks. Incidents like fragging and general disobedience are higher due to the desire to get out.

Historically, conscripts rate poor when compared to professional soldiers. If one has seen Band of Brothers, you will note that all of the paratroopers were volunteer soldiers. Most who joined expressed the desire to serve the country and to get away from the general conscripted ranks and into a highly trained and motivated (professional) outfit. Many stated that the conscripted outfits were likely to get one killed while they could rely on the professional cadre to watch each others' back.

These same observations held consistent in the Vietnam War where many draftees used drugs as an escape. Incidents of fragging were very high in conscripted units as well. Morale takes a real beating when part of the unit is unfit due to inattentiveness or repressed anger at the command units. It is hard to trust you compatriots when they are incapable of or don't want to watch your back.

Consider that in 1991 when the US invaded Kuwait, the Iraqi units stationed along the Kuwaiti border were mostly conscripts. Most of these units surrendered even without American forces engaging them in a direct battle. Only the professional units of the Republican Guard stood and fought in open combat.

Conscription reduces the overall fighting capability of the military. If the objective is to use overwhelming numbers then I guess conscripts will do, but the US politically can not use the Human Wave strategy as it is untenable to throw away millions of American lives in foreign lands for little gain. This strategy is only effective in massive offensive combat anyway. It would degrade our services more than they are now to reinstate the draft. The draft would eviscerate our fighting capability.

Additionally consider the German Wermacht in WW2. At the beginning of the war, the German Wermacht was a highly trained professional army. The campaigns in 1939 and 1940 were some of the most successful offensive campaigns ever waged. However after the successes of the early war years, the German Wermacht was brutally beaten and the professional units were ultimately reduced more and more in wasted and frivolous campaigns where wasteful orders such as fight to the last man were given. By 1944, the Wermacht was conscripting and forming units consisting of old men and young boys. While these units fought tooth and nail as defensive campaigns tend to be, these units were ineffective and could only delay the inevitable. Arguably, the destruction of the professional army was one of the primary reasons Germany's offensive capability dwindled to nothing. Yes there are many reasons, but the professionals were the spearhead and without them, the spear was blunted to impotence.

Rachel, I presume your reasons for supporting the draft are to improve the character of our citizens; however, the army has a purpose and it is very important. Flooding the army with disaffected and unmotivated 18 year old rebels is not a good thing. I applaud your desire to improve the character of our citizens, but the army is not something anyone should be forced into unless the entire country is on the verge of collapse (ie facing immenent invasion). I just don't see how diminishing the fighting capability of the army is a beneficial thing. Also, as a country based in Democracy, forced conscription is about as undemocratic as it gets. As far as the leaderships' lack of military service, that is the voters' fault. As voters, we should insist on qualified representatives and boot out anyone who doesn't make the grade. We as a society can't seem to do that. That is the failure of our democracy.