Posted on 05/08/2002 10:33:16 AM PDT by Starmaker
Is conscription making a comeback? Will the word "lottery" be reassigned its 1969 definition? Can we look forward to seeing the lifeless bodies of 18-year-old draftees coming home draped in red, white and blue? It's not likely, but the subject of reinstating the draft is being raised once again.
In a May 7 article in the Jewish World Review, columnist Jack Kelly made a rather disturbing statement: "If we are serious about winning the war on terror, and serious about homeland security, we'd better think seriously about reinstating the military draft." Now, unless "Military Draft" is a new brew from the folks at Sam Adams, I'm not interested.
Our seriousness in combating terrorism is not limited to the number of people running around in fatigues playing "Cowboys and Muslims." To address Jack Kelly's statement, I would counter that if we were truly serious about winning the war on terror, and serious about homeland security, we'd better think seriously about reinstating the right to keep and bear arms.
In all fairness to Mr. Kelly, his call for a draft focuses mainly on forced recruitment into domestic military service for homeland defense:
We should draft for the Army National Guard. Airport screening and border patrols are tedious work which cannot be well paid, but for which we require intelligent, vigilant people who are loyal to the United States. A 15-month period of service would permit a year of active duty after basic training.
But even this is going too far. The National Guard is not the state militia of old. All servicemen and women in the Guard are subject to direct federal control and can be called up at any time.
There was a time when citizen militias were the norm. These were groups of average citizens who rose to the occasion when their homeland was threatened. The Second Amendment to the Constitution recognized their importance: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias were important because they were considered to be one of the last lines of defense the states had against attack, not just from a foreign power but from the federal government itself. You won't hear it discussed much today, but one of the reasons the Second Amendment was proposed in the first place was that the framers believed the people of this nation had the G-d-given right to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny.
There were also many concerned colonists who feared the prospect of a strong standing army, and looked to the militias as the best means of providing for a national defense. The Constitution did allow Congress to call upon those militias to help defend the United States if the need arose, but those days are gone. Today, we have a standing army, a permanent national military that is more powerful than any other fighting force the world has ever seen.
Unfortunately, even that did not help us last September. The strongest military in history failed to prevent a handful of Muslim radicals from killing over 3,000 people within our own borders. I fail to see how reinstating the draft would address that.
But perhaps that isn't what Kelly has in mind anyway. Reinstating the draft would be symbolic of our unity. He goes on to say in his column that "reinstitution of conscription.....would be an important signal of national resolve," and that it would stand apart from the empty gesture of patriotism that, up until now, "largely has been restricted to rhetoric and flag-waving."
Kelly is right about one thing—our security is indeed something that demands serious attention. However, if we do want to get serious, forget the draft. The single biggest threat to our security as a nation comes not from foreign terrorists, but from an over-zealous, ever-expanding federal government. If we truly wish to remain secure, that government must first be made to restore the rights it has deliberately and systematically stripped away from its citizens.
For example, we need to see the resurrection of the right to keep and bear arms and all the unconstitutional gun laws taken off the books. This includes repealing such restrictions as the ban on "assault" weapons and armor-piercing bullets, and affording citizens the right to defend themselves—yes, even on commercial airliners. After all, if our inalienable rights become alienable, what would we have left to defend?
If you are one of those people calling for a draft, may I suggest you stroll down to your neighborhood tavern and have the bartender pour you a tall, frosty one. Kick back, relax, stuff your face with pretzels, watch the ball game, maybe throw a few darts or shoot some pool. If, however, you are serious about homeland security, fight to recover the rights that have already been taken away from you and help restore the federal government to its constitutional limitations.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Lee at ever_vigilant@hotmail.com .
Just don't make me say it aloud.
No, we chose to stake the survival of America on a volunteer Military, and we will have to play that hand out.
Also, as I have noted elsewhere, the huge training base that would be needed for a massive draft simply no longer exists, and would take at least tow years to rebuild- even as a "crash priority".
There was never a place in this country for the draft.
I disagree. With the current volunteer force, military service falls disproportionately on the lower socio-economic classes of society. While many better themselves significantly as a result, we still see an increasing detachment of upper and middle class America from the realities of military service.
As an alternative to the draft, I like Robert Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers - military service is voluntary, but the price one pays for citizenship, and the right to vote or hold public office.
I am not sure that is the case, although I am open to it. I do not claim to be an expert, but I understand that while the leftists all claim that we sent all the poor negroes to die in vietnam, the reality is that more than half of the casualties were white volunteers. I don't see why this would be any different.
I'm not trying to be snide, because this is a serious moral question on which good people can (and do) disagree. BUT, do you think we could have put twelve million men under arms, and won WW II without a draft? Really, do you?
That said, I tend toward the position that, if enough young people just will not volunteer to defend this country, perhaps the country is deficient in some way. Perhaps in ways that a renewed draft could not cure. If so, we are doomed, anyway.
Ahem...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Government is only just if it is instituted by the consent of the governed. Limiting the vote to those of any subset of Americans (save age) causes there to be a large portion of the population whose consent is not given.
In other words, Liberty is a birthright, not a privilidge to be given by one's Magistrate at the price of State servitude.
Since consent of the governed is the only way a government can draw legitimate powers, the one you suggest would be illegitimate, unjust and the people would be fully justified in heeding the Declaration's next paragraph:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Tuor
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.