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 .
You enjoy the luxury of being judgemental with 20/20 hindsight due to the sacrifice of those who served. Such clear perspective is seldom available when the need is immediate.
I don't question your sincerity when you claim that you'd volunteer under certain conditions and refuse to serve under others. I simply regard it as immature speculation.
Reinstating the draft in this political climate could start a armed CONSERVITITIVE revolt against the government.
And I regard your speculation of my integrity and continuity of character, idiotic.
Are we to beleive that 'lowly' citizens haven't the intelligence and wisdom to discern a worthy fight, but Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Hillary, etc... do?
Especially those of us with families on or near the border.
However, some of us exceed the BP's max age, so we also need to raise the age limit.
It happens to be my favorite pub.
No speculation at all.
I told you up front that I didn't doubt your sincerity.
But your lack of reading comprehension is also indicative of immaturity.
If you're ever around, let me know and we'll split a pitcher, or 10.
What you are to believe is that when national security is jeopardized, you will seldom have either the information available, nor the luxury of time to render such an evaluation. However, your point does illustrate the importance of selecting more responsible adults as your elected representatives. I can't imagine anybody willingly risking their lives to fulfill the political agenda of the quartet you named.
And you used it, too. Didn't you? It's an old and unimpressive tactic. I stopped using it years ago.
And speaking of 'maturity', can being condescending of people you don't know be chalked up into that column? Or is that simply a different type of immaturity? Or is it not immature because you're doing it?
It's too bad you're so cheap....because you write very well.
Grow up.
It doesn't take a hundred years or access to state secrets to know that involvement in regional power struggles, civil wars, meals-on-wheels, and peacekeeping missions isn't national defense of the US.
Case in point: Bosnia. A blind, deaf, 100 year old could tell our involvement there isn't for our national defense, from day one.
While the majority of US military involvement may have to do with United States interests, those ambiguous and never-defined 'interests' and national defense are seldom the same, no matter how much our government would like us to believe they are.
However, your point does illustrate the importance of selecting more responsible adults as your elected representatives.
I believe the point is that dangerous, foolish individuals will always find a chance to wield the power we mistakenly hand the state. Handing the power of conscription to government is akin to "giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". (Credit given to P.J. O'Rourke)
I can't imagine anybody willingly risking their lives to fulfill the political agenda of the quartet you named.
Conscription removes the ability of the people to make that decision. Conscripts will do whatever they are told, or go to jail.
No. That decision is made at the ballot box.
IMHO, conscription is the sole justification for 18-year-old suffrage.
In fact, due to conscription, I advocate full rights, privileges and responsibilities of adulthood for 18-year-olds... voting, drinking, whatever...
Remove the potential for conscription, and I become a staunch advocate of traditional 21-year-old adulthood.
At 18, the teenagers' heads are too full of adolescent mush to be considered adults.
Democracy and liberty are often confused. Democracy simply means rule by vote. Liberty means that even in a democracy (or a democratic republic) there are some decisions that the majority cannot make. The decision to sacrifice one's life in a war is one of those decisions.
In other words, your life is your own, and not the property of 51% of the population.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
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.