Let's Hear Nothing Of A "Draft" Unless We're Talking About Beer

ToogoodReports ^ | May 8, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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 .

[Eagle Eye]

Did you serve? I did, and I don't agree with a draft. How are you going to try to denigrate me?

[Tuor]

In "Starship Troopers" military service was required to be franchised. I don't believe it was necessary to be considered a *citizen*, only to be able to vote, which most people weren't interested in doing, anyway. It's been a while since I've read it (I've got a copy), so I may misremember.

Tuor

[ctdonath2]

"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." If they want to call up the militia, the right of the militia members to own their arms must be recognized. I want my M16; no M16, no draft.

[freeeee]

if enough young people just will not volunteer to defend this country, perhaps the country is deficient in some way.

More than enough people have volunteered to defend our country. The problem is that they are being used to pacify and babysit other countries. 140 other countries, to be precise.

And to add to the problem, there are many people, such as myself, who don't join precisely because of this chronic misuse of the military.

Bring our troops home from Europe, Bosnia, Serbia, etc... , treat them with decency and respect, pay them a fair wage, and you'll find that when the US needs defense, (not play World's Policeman), we will have plenty of manpower.

[ctdonath2]

military service is voluntary, but the price one pays for citizenship, and the right to vote or hold public office.

Ya got that backwards. The price to govern me and request my military service is recognition of my right of citizenship and right to vote or hold public office, among other rights enumerated in the Constitution.

No recognition of citizenship = no recognition of governance.

[Sir Percy Hot Spurs]

If you want to take over a country one way is to have all your people join their military...The only way to prevent this is to have a draft...Sir Percy Hot Spurs

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"In "Starship Troopers" military service was required to be franchised. I don't believe it was necessary to be considered a *citizen*, only to be able to vote..."

That seems like a distinction without a difference. The fact that a good many people fail to vote does not mean that the RIGHT to vote is not one of the perquisites of "citizenship".

Also, remember that Heinlein wrote STARSHIP TROOPERS for a juvenile audience- the details of libertarian philosophy were incidental to the action- adventure story. This particular scheme never struck me as being well thought-out, anyway- and I read this book when I was 12 years old!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

You make a very good point!

[ctdonath2]

There were two overlapping yet separate issues in WWII: defense of this country, and defense of other countries. There will be no difficulty obtaining volunteers to defend this country (we field 14 million snipers each year annually in the "Deer Season" war games). There always will be difficulty obtaining volunteers to defend other countries. Do not confuse the two. There may seem a gray area between defending other countries and defending this country, based on the idea that defending them ultimately defends us; the dividing line is whether you can get enough volunteers.

[steve-b]

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.

Indeed. Since the message just won't sink into some skulls, the only effective defensive action on 9/11 was taken by private citizens, not the government.

[Beenliedto]

do you think we could have put twelve million men under arms, and won WW II without a draft?

While I think the answer to the question is self evident, there is the broader question of whether we should have been involved in ANY of the wars (including the late misunderstanding of 1861-1865) for which men have been conscripted.

Perhaps if we could look at ourselves in that light, we might have to answer to many of the causes of the near police state in which we now live.

War is only good for the state.

[babylonian]

I say, reinstitute the draft and declare all illegals legal.

[Tuor]

I viewed it the other way around: that the action-adventure story was the surface stuff and the libertarianism was the real meat of it. Of course, I read it while I was an adult. Of course, you're right in that it was a Young Adult book.

The distinction, to my mind, if we're going to dice words (which I have a bad tendency to do) is that you can be a citizen insofar as you receive certain protections from the State and are attached to it in various ways, without necessarily being able to vote. It is sort of like having a chocolate cake without any frosting: good, but not as good as it ought to be.

On a practical level, I agree with those who say that restricting enfranchisement in such a manner is against the intent of the Founding Fathers. I don't agree with the idea. However, there *are* certain positive aspects to doing such a thing; sadly, they would be greatly overshadowed by the injustice inherent in such a system.

Tuor

[freeeee]

Thank you sir, and my thanks for your service to our country.

[steve-b]

It might be melded with the suggestion in Twain's "The Curious Republic of Gondor" (which Heinlein cited in his essay on ST) -- every citizen has one vote, and can earn extra votes in various ways.

[Eagle Eye]

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.

Amen.

[ctdonath2]

Just stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment and there will be sufficient armarments. Pump up the DCM/CMP to provide free/inexpensive proper training voluntarily. Between those two simple steps, we'll have the superior equivalent of the Swiss model.

[Protagoras]

Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said:

"...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state - not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers - to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

The military draft is nothing more or less than a form of slavery.