Posted on 04/11/2004 2:23:01 PM PDT by Rams82
Prominent lawmakers such as Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and others argue that our volunteer military is not representative of society, and that it offends fairness to have casualties in Iraq disproportionately drawn from members of America's less advantaged classes. A presidential election is shaping up in which two veterans of the Vietnam era have had to assert or defend their performance in that conflict - America's last draft-based war.
To anyone under age 45, discussions of the draft must seem like discussions of the Great Depression seemed to their parents. The last time a young American male faced any selective service obligation beyond a one-time registration was in 1973. Even to Americans over 45, memories of the draft may have faded or been frozen inaccurately in time. Before we engage in serious consideration of resuming the military draft, it is important to understand the social, military and political forces that originally led to the draft - which, from its beginnings, has been a litmus test of public attitudes toward civic responsibility.
The modern military draft (also known as the selective service or conscription) began in World War I. Behind solid encouragement from the military establishment, President Woodrow Wilson declared we would raise the large army needed to win the war "chosen on the principle of universal liability to service," rather than by the traditional reliance on volunteers. A somewhat resistant Congress agreed.
Efficiency and fairness, in that order, prompted the decision for the draft. Workers in the factories and on the farms were as important as soldiers on the front line. Concerns for fairness dictated that the privileged should face the same obligation as the disadvantaged. Here, the memory of the Civil War draft loomed large, where wealthy draftees had been permitted to "buy a substitute" - causing rioting in New York City.
In a crucial decision, Congress put the work of selecting the draftees for the first world war not on the military, but on the civilian "friends and neighbors" in the draftees' local communities. It was a structure that would guide selective service for the rest of the century. The law also provided the basics of selection, which first applied only to young men ages 21 to 30. Three grounds for exemption - physical and mental health, responsibility for the support of spouses, children or parents, and performance of work deemed in the national interest - did disqualify better than half of the registrants from induction into the armed forces.
In a remarkable assertion of national purpose, almost 10 million young men registered for service on June 5, 1917, the one day all those eligible were to enlist. By the hundreds of thousands, they were selected for service, trained stateside and shipped to France where they helped the Allies win the war. They were joined by thousands of other volunteers, who often were too young or too old for conscripted service. The promise of equal service was more than talk. While many privileged men of draft age avoided actual service, many did not. Among the fatalities of the war in combat or military training were one son of President Theodore Roosevelt (two other sons were seriously wounded), former New York City Mayor John Purroy Mitchel, and veteran Massachusetts Congressman Augustus Gardner.
Altogether, about 4 million men served the United States in World War I. At the dawn of American involvement in World War II, the picture was different. The American Army at that time was smaller than the forces of some Balkan nations, which prompted a return to the draft in 1940. That act was renewed a few months before the attack on Pearl Harbor - by one vote in Congress. In this second experience with world war, 12 million Americans would eventually serve. And despite the remarkable service of our "civilian soldiers" in the "good war," a large number of those troops were there because of the draft.
The start of the Cold War shortly after the German and Japanese surrenders in 1945 kept the draft as part of the American experience for young men. With the exception of one year in the late 1940s, conscription was a fact of life from 1940 to 1973. Draftees were a considerable portion of the forces that fought wars in Korea and Vietnam and that served in the tense 40-year standoff with the Soviet Union and Communist China.
The maturing of the baby boom generation and the considerable downsizing of the armed forces after the end of World War II posed a challenge that would eventually help to undermine the draft. Unlike during World War II, maintenance of military strength did not now require the services of every physically eligible young man. How, then, would the "selective" in selective service really work?
By the time of the Vietnam War, the answer was rather clear - the children of the privileged classes could avoid military service if they wished. As Vietnam became both bloody and controversial, large numbers of them wished exactly that. The draft laws and regulations aided their mission. Extensive physical disability standards provided ways for otherwise healthy young men to be physically disqualified, often with the help of supportive family doctors. Extensive occupational deferments provided a way to avoid military service, as did enrollment in higher education, which encouraged some students to pursue a decade-long ramble through undergraduate and graduate institutions.
It was during this time that enrollment in one of the military reserves or National Guard became popular as an avenue of exemption. By contrast with the level of preparedness of today's "total force," these auxiliary units were often woefully below the military capability of the active armed forces. They also provided a reasonably strong assurance to a prospective recruit that duty would only minimally disrupt a civilian career and could often guarantee avoiding Vietnam service. As a consequence, the draft may have served to provide manpower for an unpopular war, but it assuredly did not spread the sacrifice among all social classes.
President Richard Nixon came to office amid the debate over the fairness and efficiency of the draft. His political instinct led him to adopt suggestions for an all-volunteer force for a war that he needed to de-escalate (at the height of the war, the U.S. had more than 550,000 troops in that country). His correct perception was that sufficient volunteers could be found if pay and conditions of service life improved. A generation of new military leaders, with Colin Powell as a most visible member, rebuilt the war-shattered armed forces in the mode of the volunteer army.
That armed force has served the country well for three decades in which the demand for personnel has been light, when we have avoided lengthy and unpopular wars, and when fairness concerns have not loomed large. If we are now facing a world in which those assumptions no longer are true, all bets may be off for the continued success of an all-volunteer force.
The 20th century experience should convince us that we must think very hard about both efficiency and fairness in any consideration of resuming the draft. It is pivotal to ensure that our military is truly representative of the people.
Another reason is the types of forces we now utilize. A great deal of the Terror War is being fought by Spec Ops type forces, and guess what? Draftees are not, and never have been, eligible for Special Forces, SEALs, modern Rangers or Airborne, or Marine Recon.
Draftees are also excluded from working around nuclear weapons or powerplants (including ALL submarines), and in areas which require a TS clearance or higher. They cannot serve as Naval Aircrewmen, which includes Rescue Swimmers.
Why in the WORLD would the military wish to iduct, house, train, and support large numbers of men and women for whom it had no real use, and whose career would not be able to include so much of what the services actually NEED?
If you wish to enlist, God Bless, and good luck. If you think waiting around for a draft is the way to go, forget doing anything except mopping floors, nowadays.
I do. It would wake a lot of females up to this feminist movement bull sh*t.
I joined during the Vietnam war, times were bad for my family as my Dad had just died at an early age while he was employed by LAPD.
I feel the draft is fine, IF this country is being directly threatend, or attacked by another nation. No draft is ever needed to fight groups of terrorist.
And given the fact that there are now about 10 *million* illegal aliens in country, that are sitting in America, enjoying all of it's freedoms and benefits, at little or no risk of ever being drafted,(we don't even know who they are, undocumented) I would say no draft ever, until the government cleans up this epic mess.
I would have no problem if my two boys got drafted, as long as the 10 million people illegally in this country won't be staying behind, enjoying the benifits of this great country, while our kids die for it.
I think a draft would severely backfire on the left.
I don't care whether or not the draft would backfire on the left. The defense of our country shouldn't be a political issue. The draft should be considered only if it will add to our ability to defend ourselves. At this point, our military leaders don't think it is necessary. I agree with them.
1st Battalion, 162nd Infantry, just got back from Baghdad.
I agree to an extent. However trying to sell or implement a draft in America at this point, to fight stupid Iraqi street gangs in the back alleys of Iraq, would probably be a hard sell, as Iraq is not a direct threat to this country, and in my opinion, never really was.
You hold the same opinion, by the way, as the DNC talking points do.
I'd say yes. The principle still holds. Make the country worth fighting for and you'll have no trouble getting volunteers. Continue down the road of tax slavery and totalitarian govt and even if you do draft your army will be worthless. No one really fights for the slave master.
Nope, thanks for the recommendation!
I agree to an extent. However trying to sell or implement a draft in America at this point, to fight stupid Iraqi street gangs in the back alleys of Iraq, would probably be a hard sell, as Iraq is not a direct threat to this country, and in my opinion, never really was.
You hold the same opinion, by the way, as the DNC talking points do.
DNC talking points? And are your words, RNC talking points?
So you think that Iraq is a threat to the United States, the largest military superpower on the planet? Are they going to send the great Iraqi navy and their nuclear submarines to our shores? Their crack armies? Iraqi airforce? Those people are lucky to have running water. Their leader was found hiding in a hole, like some begger that just stole a bottle of cheap wine from greedymart. Even their infrastructure was set back 10 years. I find your statement to be very ignorant, even for you Cultural Jihad.
Exactly how is the country of Iraq, a threat to the existence of the United States?
Quartermaster school, U.S. Navy - I remember my 4.5 years 1959-1963 in U.S.A.F; could've been a day job, no guns, no wars, no pay but I would never have made it a career.
I worry, but what can I do.
Actually, early in the Vietnam war, blacks died in slightly larger numbers than their representation in the Army as a whole. But that's because in 1964 and 1965 the units doing the fighting were all-volunteer elite forces: Special Forces, the 101st Airborne, and the Marines (none of which accepted draftees at that time). They were units that were hard to get into, full of career fighting men... and in the early sixties, a military career was one of the better deals a still-segregated nation offered a bright black kid.
Nowadays, blacks and hispanics (a new minority, at least in such great numbers) are disproportionately represented in the Army as a whole, but more blacks are in clerical or maintenance jobs than in combat fields. Social scientists think it is because young whites are more likely to be seeking adventure in the Army, and young blacks are looking for College Money, and as a fallback, a job skill that will let them earn their way through school. Meanwhile, hispanic men seem to seek out and thrive in combat assignments.
Not a big deal to everybody in the service. Everyone has a job to do, and usually it is one he or she volunteered for. Even the Rangers want their paychecks posted on time, and somebody has to do that... but the left, operating from the stale old 1960s false premise, tries to drive wedges between us.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Nonsense.
For more on the draft (including its history, and a page debunking current draft rumours) see selective service online at sss.gov.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Why? Why not take some of the 50,000 clerks (MOS 71L and related) and reclassify the positions, and create more maneuver brigades and battalions? Hey -- that's exactly what the Chief of Staff is doing!
Divisions don't apply in this war. Brigades, and more so, battalions, do. We don't need bloated HQs, redundant staffs, and self-consuming logistical trains. We need small units under junior leaders who have the power to make decisions, and the judgment to make them well. Gen. Schoomaker gets this. The conventional forces in Afghanistan mostly took long walks in the weather and/or terrified the locals that had been supporting the USA and TISA. They are trying to do their best but it is a new world for them and they are not adapting quickly enough.
I shudder to think what we could do with three or four new divisions of draftees. We could call one the Americal! Compare the 4th Division in Iraq so far, with the performace of the same division in the latter part of the Vietnam war: I think you will see that the unit is back performing at its WWII peak (and yeah, it was full of conscripts in WWII, but war was was less "nuancy" then).
The scary thing about such a harebrained idea is that some of the human desk-set accessories at the Pentagon would just love it: it's more general and E-9 slots. (We already have more generals and admirals than we had on V-J day).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Disagree, there is another reason. The all volunteer system has made the best, most professional military in history, and it belongs to the USA.
Leftists seek to undermine our military, and the draft would be a way of doing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.