Fighting a War With Someone Else's Children
We Americans are no strangers to hypocrisy, but we're currently in a fix that's beginning to smell bad. It's true that the open society of the Western world is in jeopardy from people who want a closed society and are willing to have their children commit suicide to get it. It's also true that we pretend we can deal with this threat by casual self-serving attitudes about who should fight our wars.
Fighting any war without the public sacrifice of a universal draft is an unjust misery for military personnel and their families. Really, if war is necessary, if you want war, risk yourself or your children and grandchildren in combat. Otherwise your war is an exercise in hypocrisy.
The war-hawks on the Right never want their own children to fight the wars they drum up -- they want their wars fought by the children in other parts of town.
But the Right is at the moment not in the White House, and I'm uneasy about what's in the minds of the White House people. Will we really continue to fight what they tell us is a needed war without public sacrifice? It's not only hypocrisy, it's a serious political mistake that may ultimately cause Obama to be a one-term president. Without the Left, Obama's base is weak, and with a weak base he may be finished in 2012.
What this country needs is a test of will about the war in Afghanistan, and the proper test of will is a push by the White House and Congress to institute a universal draft by lottery. The draft can be small. Let's find out if the American people are willing to put at risk 50,000 of their children a year to go to war in Afghanistan. Universal, across the board, rich and poor alike, no deferments. If the answer is yes, then fine, we're in a popular war and we will do our best to win it. If the answer is no, then as a democracy we should forget about Afghanistan and suffer the consequences, if any at all.
Our politicians, of course, do not want a replay of Viet Nam, the war with a draft that had millions of our children in protest that they could see no reason to risk their lives in a far-away jungle fighting against people who were really no direct threat to America. It turned out those kids were right -- Viet Nam was a useless bust and everyone knows it.
The sad fact is that politicians tend to be short-sighted imbeciles, and at the moment many of us are unfortunately getting the idea that the current crowd of politicians in the White House is not much different from what we've had before -- a gang who think there's no difference between governing the country and running an election campaign. Many of us supported Obama with all our hearts -- but now our hearts are being broken into pieces by the reality of what politicians are all about.
We need a draft, public sacrifice in all quarters. All else is hypocrisy.
Follow Dan Agin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danaginzz
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks to everyone for their various comments. The point remains the need in a democracy to end skewed sacrifice during a war. One way is to end the war, another way is a universal draft. I don't know any other way to end skewed sacrifice in a war. If you say a "volunteer" army does not involve skewed sacrifice, I totally disagree with you. Enlistments out of high schools are overwhelmingly from poor and working class districts throughout the country--not from New England prep schools. That's a fact that embarrasses the idea of a volunteer army in time of war.
But you then will need to continue the draft during peacetime to be fair, and the opportunity to volunteer along with it, or you will lose the professional military. And then you in essence have a mandatory national service military force. And who will volunteer for the career service as a long term occupation except those same poor or working class kids? And in what proportion or ratio of draftee to enlistee will achieve the appropriate balance between them? And if in the process, since the draft is based on fairness rather than need for numbers, you get too many numbers, and then who gets let go, and what is the fairness mechanism that chooses to keep some and let some go? And do you break faith with career enlistees in the process?
Clearly you haven't thought this out at all and in the end would put the military itself and those it's supposed to protect in more danger in the interest of fairness to a few. It's nice to have ideals and compassion, but not if the means don't justify the ends.
Sorry, Dan - there never has been anything such as a " universal draft ". Those who could pay could always get a " deferment " - all the way back through recorded history.
The economical
So while I agree that the pain should be shared equally in a Democracy, it really isn't how things actually work.
Thought you woulda picked that up somewhere along the way...
Sorry, you're off the mark. Sure, some people, like Dick Cheney, will dodge a draft. But I've lived through three drafts, World War II, the Korean War (in which I served), and the Viet Nam War, and what I "picked up" is the reality that the existence or non-existence of a draft shapes the politics of war.
Sorry Dan,,, the hypocrisy lies with you,.,,,,,
Abolished? Uh, males of draft age are still required to register under the Selective Service program.
We haven't _done_ a draft, because modern wars can't be won by throwing untrained bodies at them, but it's not abolished.
the liberals did not abolish the draft; it was Nixon, Ford, G W Bush, Mark Hatfield that finally ended FDRs slavery. the Kennedy's, Rangel (yes he was in congress then) and the military fought for a draft to the end.
The all 'voluntary' military is not really voluntary when there are no other jobs in an area and the poverty is so huge that poor young people and those with families have NO OTHER way to make a living but join up so that they can feed, clothe, shelter themselves and have medical care.
As well as offering pay bonus's to people who would not otherwise afford to buy a new car or other large expenses or to go to college.
Have you thought about learning some history before making inflammatory remarks?
Last I checked, our brave men and women volunteered to be in the army. How would it be better if people were forced to serve against their will? How would that make it a more effective military?
Well, the objective of the proposal is not to make it a more effective military, but a less (ab)used one.
All wars are fought with the children of others.
A fine political idea, but not necessarily a good military one.
The US military, in terms of function and mission, needs to be an all-volunteer force. There is no constructive place to put draftees in the US military where they can meaningfully contribute to the mission, and their presence would threaten morale and discipline.
The introduction of draftees into the military, especially at the front lines, would decrease the effectiveness of our forces, increase casualties, and vastly increase the nation's risk of a dangerous international incident.
An all volunteer force may be good for the military, but its bad for the Republic. When only a small percentage of the population is required to serve the national intrests, then the larger percentage of the population do not understand what the national intrests are.
We could establish an organization for mandatory, non-military civil service which seems like it would accomplish the same thing without potentially damaging our military force.
So, I guess it is a good thing we didn't have the draft during the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Oh, wait, we did have the draft during all of those wars.
I guess I needed to specify 'for modern wars'.
The leadership and discipline needed to effectively fight wars from Vietnam onward were more than draftees could be expected to bring.
Dr. Agin - excellent post.
My particular generation (HS grad 1983) had the benefit of NOT having manditory military or community service. We had the luck to be raised and of age to go and fight a war when there were no major external conflicts to be seen. Grenada, Panama and the tail end of a Cold War didn't need the large call to service we seem to need now - IF we are to continue down our current path.
It almost sounds a bit self-serving for me - a mid-40s educated, married white guy with no kids to say this, but we really should have some sort of public service (military, educational, or community-based) program for our youth.
I think we all would be the better for it it many ways - and not just because a call to war would mean we all had some of our fat in the fire.
We do have public service for our youth, under the Obama administration. Kids in schools where I live are required to do public service as part of their curriculum.
Attempting to institute a draft would turn lots of Americans against war very quickly. It would also turn any politician who supported it out of office, which is why it won't happen again without a WWII-scale national emergency.
Bring back the draft. Until all American's are honestly vested in our activities abroad, nothing is going to change.
No loop holes, no outs, no Dick Cheney better things to do.
Out of high school, and into uniform.
For those who think this is too stiff, maybe we should offer a Heinlein-esque alternative: You can serve your country and win the privilege of full citizenship, or you can sit back and let others sacrifice and give up your ability to vote, hold public office, own property, and the like.
We used to say Freedom Ain't Free. It's time for the majority of Americans to pay up!!
You would have to get rid of Draft Boards. They exist to keep the local wealthy from joining the military .
Here here! This is one of the smartest posts I have ever seen.
But war is Obama's jobs program! Don't you want 40,000 of your sons and daughters to be gainfully employed in Afganistan? War is the only industry America has left. Besides, without it, Obama wouldn't get to be a War President. And as we all know, unless you advocate for war against SOMEONE, you just can't get elected president in this country.
WHAT A LINE !
President Obama wants all American Troops out of Afganistan.
How can he leave several million people without the basics in security ?
Sure glad people who think like you are no longer running the country.
This sounds like a good idea unless you are one of those being drafted. The problem is other people deciding what is an appropriate sacrifice on your part. Those men eligible for the draft are certainly not the majority, and if the majority believes their situation can be improved by our sacrifice, then only those eligible for the draft suffer.
Yet another old man deciding how we should waste the youth of today.
This is an excellent point. There seems to be a conflation of people in general with the specific people (18 year olds?) who will be subject to the draft. I am a middleaged man with no children. If I where completely self-serving I would be just as willing to sacrifice some draftee as I would some volunteer. Of course I would have cousins and children of friends subject to the draft but I already have connection to several such people in the military. The only difference if I were so self serving is that with draftees I would get away with having the military pay them even less and treat them even worse than the current service people. The people choosing thee war are still separaete from those fighting it, only people who do not choose it have less opportunity to avoid being sacrificed.
Another point is that there are only so many draftees that a modern military can use. If we were to simply have an armed horde that was much less effective per person (more casualties and less success, in the same war) we could have a preponderance of "entry-level" personnel and the draft might work. If we want a high percentage of the forces to be have several years of experience and training, able to effectively use powerful and expenseive equipment, we will still be depenedent on a lot of volunteers unless the draft actully were to force some into a long term enlistments.
I have a better idea: exclude the poor and minorities. Emphasize the rich, wealthy, and Christians. They always want to go to war, always talk of ultimate sacrifice, country before self, etc. Let them put their rhetoric on the line for a change.
Love it. Make draft numbers correlate with with daddy's income--the higher the income, the lower the draft number. Those with the lowest numbers should be first to get front line duty also.
Our wars would end overnight.
Just out of curiosity, if we reinstitute a draft, does that mean women can also be drafted? Because that's the only thing that's fair, right?
Every man and woman should be drafted. Everyone should have to register with selective service.
Equality is a b*tch.
Every man and woman should be required to register with Selective Service.
Equality is a b*tch.
When men can get pregnant, carry a foetus/baby for nine months, give birth, and suckle, then, and only then, will I be in favor of including women in a draft.
I agree. But then I'm not of draft age any longer (I think anyway). I was, however, of draft age during the first Gulf War and when talk of a draft began, the one thing I found from all partisan corners was the complete dismissal of the fact that people we consider adults (18 years or older) will be forced, against their will, to join the military and possibly loose their lives in combat.
You can argue effectively that one way to stop a war is to have a draft that will wake up those apathetic individuals whose children would indiscriminately be subject to the draft but you never consider the ramifications of the people actually drafted and forced into military "servitude".
Do not forget that these are human beings...n
Please do not forget the trees when you are discussing the forest.
If everyone had had to worry about actually being killed in the first gulf war, or Iraq, or maybe even Afghanistan, what makes you think we would have voted for it? The people who are "volunteering," do you realize we are essentially exploiting the poor and uneducated in this country? They are the ones who have so few prospects after high school that they gravitate to the military in large numbers. Do you think they are any more anxious to die than you are? Maybe the argument should be that someone with only a high school degree that might end up selling tools at the local big box store is worth less than a Harvard grad, but as for as the right to live in this country - NO! We have been so involved in the rest of the world's wars simply because most people didn't have anyone they cared about in the fight. A draft would make us a less militaristic country, and one where neither the Congress, nor the President could blightly send us off to war without it being a national emergency.
What are you talking about? I'm very specifically talking about the kids that would get drafted to fight this war because, according to the author, their parents are oblivious or apathetic regarding ending the war. Or maybe rich and privileged. That's obviously the fault of the 18 year child of said parents, yes? So send him to war to wake up or punish his parents?
While you're off "voting" against the war (which you can't do anyway) or marching on Washington to protest, these draftees are going to war and dying and for what? So their parents will say, "Oh, wait a minute...t
I agree with the purpose but not the strategy. My point is that some kid, poor or not will most certainly pay the price for that parental apathy on the battlefield. That's fair to that child? That's ok if it ends the war?
You seem to think that the moment there's a draft, they'll be a protest and a new vote and the war will be over a few days later. Take a walk by the Nam Memorial and think about the thousands of names of young men and women who died. Tell them how their deaths catalyzed the end of the war for the apathetic. I'm sure they'll feel it was worth it...
Let me guess...yo
I understand the "social justice" aspect of the draft, but I don't understand how this will make life any better for our military. They are the ones that will have to deal with a group of draftee's who won't want to be there, not the politicians or scientists.
What social justice ?
Draft Boards exist to keep the local weathy from rushing off and joining the military.
The idea being to keep the next generation of leaders out of the military or make sure they get jobs in the military that does not risk their life,
Thanks so much for this article. Most insightful thing I've read in a while. Those who want to play should have to pay. Simple morality is about the only thing that will save us...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
