Posted on 09/12/2001 8:41:11 AM PDT by Fury
Maybe now, in the wake of this terrible act of war, we can break our great taboo and at least consider a revival of the draft. We've been having our cake and fairly stuffing our mouths with it for three decades now. We managed a victory in the Persian Gulf with minimal casualties; won the war in Kosovo from the air; and now depend almost entirely on machines to do our spying. It's all worked marvelously well, until now.
I was at the dentist Tuesday afternoon. First thing he said was, "As soon as I saw how they did it, I realized they weren't Americans." We don't want to imitate our enemies, but no nation can stand whose citizens are unwilling to defend it with their lives. We Americans have become far too recognizable as a people afraid to risk casualties.
The terrorists who commandeered those planes were more than suicide bombers; they were probably also trained pilots, recruited with the aid of some government hostile to the United States. Is our military prepared to take on such a foe and still carry out our responsibilities worldwide? And now that our vulnerability has been exposed, the threats will surely multiply.
The truth is, military recruitment has been in a state of crisis for some time now, and it has seriously affected our readiness. The all-volunteer military would be unsustainable — even in its current troubled state — without the women who compose 14% of the force. Yet in order to admit enough women to keep force levels adequate, we have seriously undermined physical standards, the quality of training, and morale. Simply restricting ourselves to the small number of women who can meet traditional military standards would force a restoration of the draft. And that's without taking into account the increased demands on our armed forces that the war against terrorism will surely impose.
Of course, it would be better to make do with an all-volunteer military, and maybe Americans will rise to the occasion and come forward in greater numbers. The military is not chomping at the bit for a revived draft, and for good reason — draftees mean motivation and discipline problems. Yet there may be no other way out. So the matter must at least be seriously debated.
Having our military in its current ramshackle state already restricts the options available to the president for responding to any states that might be sponsoring this terrorism (or building weapons of mass destruction). But what really has our government in a box is our national unwillingness to risk casualties or permit a draft. Politicians from either party are desperately afraid of even uttering the "D" word. Yet it's downright dishonest, at this point, not to at least raise the issue.
Plans have been floated for a national-service program that would include, besides the military, the option of some form of domestic service. The requirement could be attached to college loans, or could simply be universal. Such a program would cultivate the much-needed sense that we owe some debt of service to our country. And these cultural changes matter, for without the will to fight, our military might counts for little. For too long now, we've indulged the fantasy that we can have our way in the world without cost. Our readiness has suffered significantly as a result.
But now we see that Americans can be killed, whether or not they intentionally put themselves in harm's way. Now we see that our military is not a place to play at androgyny, but an instrument we must call upon to defend ourselves. Now we see that machines alone cannot do our work.
We Americans are rightly jealous of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Understandably, we are reluctant to surrender our freedom, even temporarily, in order to defend it. Yet defend it we must. And we are not as soft as all that. We may not be a nation of suicide bombers, but the fire-fighters who lost their lives rescuing civilians from the tower lacked no courage. Then there's the crash of that plane outside of Pittsburgh, perhaps brought down by a pilot who preferred to die at his own hands before allowing his captors to succeed in their plans.
Or maybe you think we can still get away with it — that a few more high-tech listening devises, a few more cruise missile strikes and bombing raids, will be enough to make the terrorists and their sponsors back off. After all, it's worked just fine, until now.
And before you go calling me a coward, I hope you'll keep in mind that I've already fought in one war and would likely volunteer for another one if I believed in it.
The "extreme intervetionists" who would like to see WWIII come of this need to take a chill pill.
As a Pubbie, I'll say "amen" to that. I'm astounded by how easily the emotions of patriotic Americans can be manipulated for the benefit of the State. I've been shocked by the number of FReepers that now seem all-too-willing to expand the power and scope of the state (e.g. armed federal guards at airports) in the name of war.
It's no accident that the central government has always PERMANENTLY GROWN during times of crisis - including war. It's also no accident that liberties have been PERMANENTLY CURTAILED during times of crisis. And it's also no accident that all of our politicians have latched onto the war methaphor. They know what it means - more federal spending - bigger and more powerful government - greater control and regulation - etc.
People need to get a grip on their emotions - to stand back and NOT be caught in the vortex of popular (mass) sentiment. Don't go on your emotions alone. And don't just think short-term. Think about the long-term consequences of what you are advocating/proposing/supporting. This tragedy, as bad as it seems today, will pass. But the government expansion we approve of today will be with us forever.
So be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
If we have a problem gaining recruits, it's because of several reasons. One, the economic prosperity of the last few decades drawing people into more gainful employment. Two, nothing has been done to let the armed forces remain attractive to young people given the opportunities in reason One. Third, being in the armed forces now means keeping peace rather than preparing for war. When instead of war-fighting, you sit in a bunker all day, no hormone-bathed young man is going to want anything to do with it. Four, and more insidious than the rest, the armed force have not exactly been in favor over the last eight years, which drove morale so low reenlistment went in the toilet.
No, Mr. Kurtz, involuntary servitude is not the answer, respect and clear missions are.
LTS
Mow Your Own Lawn
Right now Rumsfeld is asking Bush to call back 50,000 reservists. Which is a good idea.
It is a bad idea to use 'green' troops to begin a war.
Besides, volunteering is more patriotic, than being drafted.
Paul C. Jesup
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.