Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/03/2006 2:06:26 PM PST by NapkinUser
Once again the possibility of reinstating a military draft is being discussed in Washington, and while the idea seems remote it is not unthinkable.
Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, soon to be a powerful committee chair, has openly called for reinstating the Selective Service System. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey claims that our ground forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq are stretched far too thin, and desperately need reinforcements. Meanwhile, other political and military leaders suggest that several hundred thousand additional troops might be needed simply to restore some semblance of order in Iraq. We are nearing the point where a choice will have to be made: either decrease our troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan significantly, or produce thousands of new military recruits quickly. So a discussion of military conscription is not purely academic.
Yet the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft. A Pentagon report stated that draft registration could be eliminated "with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment." Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.
So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don't have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country labeled a threat or deemed ripe for regime change. Given the choice, many in Congress would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.
Military needs aside, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government. The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm's way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state-- a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence.
To many politicians, the American government is America. This is why, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but also preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and resign military conscription to the dustbin of American history. Five hundred million dollars have been wasted on Selective Service since 1979, money that could have been returned to taxpayers or spent to improve the lives of our nation's veterans.
Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.
Dr. Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. He consistently votes for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is the author of Challenge to Liberty, The Case for Gold, and A Republic, If You Can Keep It.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
That's true, but that certainly wouldn't stop most politicians from voting for a draft. The reason why a draft won't happen is because it's incompatible with reelection..
Critter Paul, put a bill before the House to do just that. I'd like to see how many back-peddlers come out of the woodwork.
Half true. There are a very limited number of people that are true warriors. But a true warrior can kill a hundred non-warriors in battle. And it is based in genetics and talent far more than it is in training.
One of the great myths of the modern era is that you can train a non-warrior to be a warrior. This is false. A trained non-warrior will almost always lose to a real warrior in battle. Technology really doesn't change things much.
Fortunately, the way our modern military is composed, non-warriors outnumber warriors 15 to 1. Non-warriors are just fine supporting warriors. And this is where a draft comes in.
You can draft as many non-warriors as you like to support your warriors, just as long as you don't try and make them fight. If you do, they are cannon fodder.
But your warriors you have to entice into service. And while they cannot be trained to be warriors, they can be trained to be *better* warriors. If you go to war with enough warriors in combat roles, you will do okay in battle.
The trick is to distinguish the two. If you know someone is a non-warrior, then don't waste their time training them with things they could never do as well as a warrior. Train them instead to be better at supporting the warriors you do have.
Vietnam lasted long enough for a natural segregation between the two to happen. Real warriors ended up at the front and often stayed there, reenlisting to stay with their unit. The non-warriors gravitated to the rear, or if they were sent forward, didn't last.
So a draft is fine, if it is non-warriors. Just don't expect it to get too many good warriors, because they are few and far between.
"Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude."
There are plenty of FR (cough - big government bots - cough) who would love nothing better than to turn many of their fellow citizens into their own slave labor force as "it'll do'em some good."
While I agree with Paul's principle this doesn't seem like a good time to make a draft illegal when we have Iran and North Korea breathing down our necks.
I truly believe that over half this country would have to be dragged out from under the bed to fight if we were attacked on a large scale.
We have become a nation of metrosexual whining girlie boys.
Since the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, about 20,000 mercenaries have been hired to work as private security contractors. This figure represents one mercenary for every seven uniformed American soldiers in these regions. With $30 billion spent by the US Government on private security contractors in 2004—its largest expenditure in Iraq after oil and construction—the contractors have found a gold mine in the Latin American market.
"While I agree with Paul's principle this doesn't seem like a good time to make a draft illegal when we have Iran and North Korea breathing down our necks."
I heard somebody on Neal Boortz's radio program ask this question:
"Is America worth defending if it can't even get enough volunteers in it's military to fight for it?"
It's a sobering question.
A draft has it's place but only in a national emergency....not for the reasons that Rangle Dangle wants it. Clinton ruined our military and it's just now starting to build back up. He hated the military because he couldn't control them and they hated him because he didn't respect them. Hillary even hates them more. One thing for sure, if she becomes President, our military will never go to war. They wouldn't trust her.
"...we simply don't have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country labeled a threat or deemed ripe for regime change."
The USA does not do this.
Sounds like a communist to me. He lost me with that ridiculous comment.
I am against conscription because this is supposed to be a free country.
"But your warriors you have to entice into service."
I know a warrior that was "enticed" by the threat of the draft. He actually enlisted for 2 years initially, which was possible--people called it "volunteering" for the draft.
With a draft in effect, many will go ahead and "volunteer."
Anyway, this warrior spent 37 years, reaching Lt. General. Combat Arms.
A true life instance of the draft "enticing" somebody to enter the service. During wartime, of course.
I favor the draft. If you need the draft, it means you are at war, and need a bigger military.
I believe both are now true.
There are a lot of warriors among the draftees.
I think it would send the wrong message to those who would do us harm, but I'd like to see every member of congress go on record, aye or nay.
Of course I'm one of the few who believes we never should have gotten rid of it in the first place.
Since the hate America first crowd controls K-12 schools, universities, MSM and the popular culture I find it amazing that our armed services regularly meet their recruitment goals.
But, just as Europe is no longer willing to defend itself I suspect we are no more than a generation or two behind. The current uncontested invasion across our southern border is only a prelude, an indication that we are close to abdicating our responsibility to protect this once great nation.
General Shalikashvili and Elvis were drafted around the same time.
I lurk on DU. About half of them support a draft for the America corps-working with the poor, the elderly, etc.
And they want EVERYONE up to the age of 51 to put in 2 years of such crap.
I think the libs would LOVE a draft, but they know it a poison pill until they have a president of their own.
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.