Why Progressives Should Support the Draft and Why Aren't People Protesting McCain's Lack of Patriotism?

If he becomes president Senator McCain has promised he will:

* Further weaken the military by continuing the Iraq war indefinitely against the advice members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the Army and Marine Corps who are stating our military is overstretched to breaking point

* Bankrupt our country with a war costing United States 3 billion a week

* Make us a debtor nation in hock to the Chinese and other governments

* Jeopardize the economic future of the United States

* Continue the Bush administration policies based on the misinformation and outright lies which McCain has embraced, in his words; "now [that we can] look ahead to the genuine prospect of success [in Iraq]..."

* Do nothing as America's international credibility slides into oblivion

* Empower the Iranians who are the only actual winners in the Iraq war

* Fail to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and put us at risk from more terror attacks.

Why don't people protest McCain's lack of patriotism? Because, the all-volunteer military means that civilians have to play the game of military hero worship. Most civilians never volunteer, and so they are hesitant to be critical of military policy articulated by military heroes like McCain. (Of course that didn't stop Bush/Cheney from ignoring the best advice of our military leaders when it didn't suit them.)

Since my son joined the Marines (in 1999) I have written books and articles about and supporting the military. Since the publication of these books I have gained a backhanded insight into how the military community feels about the civilian world. I keep hearing from military and former military personnel who compliment me on "getting it," or on "not being like most civilians."

One of the books I wrote, this one with a co-author, Kathy Roth Douquet, who formerly worked in the Clinton administration, was AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of the Upper Classes From Military Service and How It Hurts Our Country. In that book Kathy and I wrote about, and agreed about despite our different politics, the need for military service to be broadly spread throughout our society. Ultimately, however, we disagreed about bringing back the draft: I was pro, she was con.

Kathy and I never did resolve our argument, but I have continued to learn more about the military family. What I didn't know when I started to write on the subject of the military was that I would find that some people in the military perceive themselves as having been forgotten, underrated or disparaged by the larger society, even while at the same time there is a sense of superiority. I can't help noticing a real "we" against "them" edge, even a chip on the shoulder. For instance, in the midst of an email to me in response to one of my Washington Post pieces, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel wrote this to me:

"Problems [in the military] are only exacerbated by the propensity of Congress to micromanage and meddle, by media and academia seething with overt, relentless hostility, by political correctness, and by an irresistible tendency to treat the military as no more than a playpen for social engineering experiments."

The growing disconnect between the military and the rest of society has increasingly caught the attention of sociologists, political scientists and others who study contemporary society. Samuel Huntington, in his study, The Soldier and the State, said the armed services have "the outlook of an estranged minority." More ominously retired Admiral Stanley Arthur has suggested that, "The armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve. More and more, enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society they serve." Thomas Ricks echoes this concern in Making the Corps, asserting that "U.S. military personnel of all ranks are feeling increasingly alienated from their own country, and are becoming more conservative and more politically active than ever before."

A recent poll found that two-thirds of armed service members think they as a group have higher moral standards than the nation they serve. The unintended consequences of the all-volunteer force also includes:

* Wars of choice have become easier

* Civilian leadership of the military is weakened as civilian leaders without military experience are hesitant to tell those with experience what to do, as is in pathetic evidence in Congress, while at the same time people in the military wonder if their civilian leaders have their best interests at heart

* Wars drag out since for most Americans, our wars -- out of sight and out of mind -- cost "nothing..."

* We are not, "all in it together." The military is no longer a level playing field contributing to the melting pot factor and integration of our society...

* We have created a military class that sees itself as more patriotic, more American and more decent than the rest of society and looks down on those who do not serve

* The all-volunteer military is in fact an all-recruited military with recruiters concentrating on the "most productive" parts of society with need-based recruiting that has less to do with patriotism and more to do with a paycheck, benefits and health insurance

* Patriotism and service have become the professionalized commodities of military "specialists..."

* The line between and all volunteer force and a mercenary force has blurred

* The democratic tradition of citizen participation is going out the window

*The use of "contractors" in Iraq, where there are 160,000 contractors as opposed to 140,000 troops, means that the mercenary aspect of our military is being formalized with a second shadow military made up of those who have served in the official military becoming freelance mercenaries for much higher pay. (It also means that actual American casualty rates are much higher than reported because our contractors don't "count").

The result of these changes is a threat to American democracy. There won't be a coup, but the all-volunteer force is a threat because fewer citizens are involved hands-on in participating in our democracy at one of the most meaningful levels -- military service. It also gives a free ride to military religionists such as John McCain who can place themselves above criticism by simple virtue of service, something that used to be widely shared and is now regarded as special.

If you want to know why the war in Iraq has dragged on, the answer is simple: it doesn't involve you or your children personally. If you want to know why McCain is called a patriot, even though he is planning to bankrupt America and kill more of our children, it's because today in the all-volunteer era he can claim special exemption from common sense (even economic reality) in the name of past service that is seen as exceptional.

The most fundamental question about our military (and how to avoid more dumb wars) is this: should military service (or some alternate form of service to the nation) be included in the circle of those civic duties that all citizens owe, like paying taxes, voting and jury duty? If not, why not? And would a draft restore sanity to calculations about when and where to use force?

If the case against the draft is that the military doesn't want one, so what? Since when is military policy determined by anyone except our civilian leaders and those they represent? What the military wants is beside the point. The issue isn't what's good for the military, but what is good for the country.

America was founded by farmers, tradesmen, statesmen (and bankers) who were military men when circumstances called for it. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others did not want a country with a military culture, but they expected their countrymen to serve the nation when needed, when asked legitimately, without reservation.

Throughout the country's history, the story of military service has been a story of "plus-up" during crisis, and "draw-down" in the immediate aftermath of peace. The country maintained a navy and its marine corps, but not a standing army. This continued until the mid-twentieth century.

For most of this time, American citizens moved in and out of military duty when called, regardless of party and less constrained by class than today. There was no "military constituency" per se, nor could either party lay claim to it. In fact, it was popular to refrain from voting while serving in the military as a matter of principle, a way to demonstrate that all things military were unrelated to politics.

It is easy to forget how thoroughly common the experience of soldiering was among all classes once. In her diary Eleanor Roosevelt wrote: "I think my husband would have been very much upset if the boys had not wanted to go into the war immediately, but he did not have to worry very much because they either were already in before the war began, or they went in immediately..." The Roosevelt sons were in the military already, before the war began. And they were not in coddled positions. They were exposed to real risks. And so were the sons of many powerful families.

Progressives need to push for the reintroduction of the draft. It is fair, it is democratic, it will help prevent stupid wars. And that is why people who are determined to start wars don't want the draft back. A draft will confiscate their toys.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.

Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer

Comments

[aceholiday]

freedom requires choice. a draft is not a choice. it is fascism.

[interventor]

McCain has truly bled for the nation. Please attack his ppatriotism! Please!! Also, bring up Alzheimers and ensure all white and hispanic men over 55 will vote for him! Pleeze!

[aikani]

I am a liberal democrat, in 1981, I protested signing the draft registration form. I have come to believe that a draft (with an option for alternative service) that includes all citizens is a good thing. Why, it instills a value of service to ones nation. As a country we seem to have lost the ideal that we exist to make this country work, that the government (what ever that means now days) exists to make the country work while we get to carry on our lives. While not a McCain supporter, I find it admirable that his sons did join the military, he clearly taught them the value of serving one's country.

[ranchobob]

Once the Dems get through chewing on each other and the media has to sniff elswhere for blood, McCain will implode, and show himself as the semi-senile, cancer-ridden, dodderer and sell-out he is.

He is an American Hero, as soemone on MSNBC or CNN say every single day. But there are many thousands of American heroes who suffered valiantly in war and to whom we owe respect and gratitude. That doesn't necessarily qualify them for the presidency.

I thank him for the footage of him hugging Bush. Looking forward to seeing that in the fall.

[magen]

How many children of neo-CONS in our government are currently serving in the military?

I bet they could be counted on one hand. If that.

Neo-CON philosophy-"We'll start the wars, you guys go and die in 'em."

[fred123]

magen

I think you have things backwards - I dont know about neocons (thats a pretty subjective judgement as to what a neocon is), but the last time I saw figures on it, the military was far more Republican than the general public, and the officer corps was up to 80% self identified politically conservative. The problem with the all volunteer military, from the Progressive point of view, is that political conservatives volunteer, and become career professionals, while progressives dont.

Oh, and FWIW - McCain has two sons in the military - both officers, at least one's a USNA grad and both likely to spend time in Iraq or Afganistan

[Cybershaman]

80% conservative officers. Thank you for proving my point about the military being a conservative indoctrination machine. Why progressives would want their children to be brainwashed into a conservative ideology is beyond me! If liberals reinstate the draft I will NEVER vote for that party again. Period! The 'Greens' will have all my future votes. Bet on it!

[CitizenE]

I am against the draft and a progressive. What I am for is a progressive war tax that demands we right now pay for the war in Iraq with tax dollars. If we can't fund it out of pocket, then let's get the farm out. It's bad enough we have engaged in this disaster and stretched our military to its limits, but let's stop taking it out on the young in the way of a draft or a future tax burden.

[fred123]

I think Frank has some basic concepts wrong - the only moral excuse for a draft in America is military necessity - you only conscript troops when you can't get the numbers you need any other way. Americans have never "liked" the draft, although they have usually been willing to accept it when the national stakes are high enough. Sometimes not even then - there were draft riots during the Civil War and major protests in WW1.

I don't know where folks get the idea that getting the elite and powerful to serve in the military is going to inhibit the use of war - most societies that go that direction have some form of military aristocracy which increases a governments tendency to resort to force.

Right now, the Army would love an additional 50,000 motivated volunteers who would sign up for a 4 year tour, and be likely to re-up at the end of it. The Army would have no idea what to do with 500,000 reluctant draftees who would only be around for an 18 month hitch.

I do have to laugh at the claim that a draft would make things more equal - since when has the military been "equal" from a Progressive point of view? You might get the rich and powerful to serve but they won't be enlisted Army infantry . They'll go ROTC or the Academy route, become officers and fly fighters for the Air Force or drive ships in the Navy.

[moderationsmuse]

Amen. "Military necessity." People forget that the military serves a purpose. Its purpose is not served by people who don't want to be there.

[oogabooga]

This is a free country. Draft is unconstitutional involuntary servitude. Sorry bud. A better idea is closing our 750 overseas military bases, bringing every last soldier home, and adopt peaceful coexistence as a foreign policy, instead of war. Minding our own business, instead of the business of every other country in the world, should be the basis of our foreign policy. Then we can spend the money wasted overseas right here at home on schools and infrastructure.

[MGhamma]

I think that we need a draft, we should be prepared militarily. But I can't support a draft because of the reckless and irrresponsible way that our military has been used.

[zjr909]

The solution is not re-instating the draft; but rather de-mystifying the military. As long as military might is treated as a sacred icon, whether the force is volunteer or conscripted, the military will always think of itself as just a little better than the rest of society. On the day it becomes just a little embarrassing to mouth the great mantra "Support The Troops" - on that day, all humanity will have taken the first step away from the inevitable doom awaiting us.

[parrothead117]

If, as Schaeffer argues, the reason why the Iraq war has gone on this long is that it doesn’t directly involve members of the educated, left-leaning classes, why did Vietnam go on so long? The Iraq war is plenty unpopular already. Vietnam didn’t end when there was a sizable peace movement that protested loudly and regularly, when the police were beating protesters and the National Guard was killing college students. Those days were years gone by the time we finally accepted defeat and went home. Even a huge cultural movement, taking place during the TV era, involving scads of celebrities and shocking incidents, during a war (with a draft) that was so unpopular it forced an incumbent president to drop out of his own party’s primary, was in the end unable to sway war policy. So it is flimsy logic that we should to force more people to fight immoral and illegal wars because it might make the people who are already opposed to it more opposed to it.

When the draft was in effect, it didn’t get activated until a war had been going on for quite a while and there was a need for a troop infusion. A draft is used to put a war on a kind of life support, to expand it when it might otherwise have to be scaled back or halted entirely. Schaeffer is arguing for the “pre-emptive strike” equivalent of drafting, and it just doesn’t make sense.

[nofavorite]

Actually, the draft was in place during VietNam and the reason so many protestors were on campuses was because the students in college were exempt from the draft as long as they stayed in school. The draft was in effect since WWII until the voluntary service was passed into law during Nixon's administration. Most young men served 24 months or if they volunteered the service was 3 years.

[mawrm]

A critical benefit of compulsory military service is a nation well versed in military affairs. First of all, more Americans would have understood the commitment required to stabilize Afghanistan and would have not tolerated the distraction in going to Iraq. The bogus WMD lies would have gotten nowhere - general info on WMDs is standard military training. It would have not been a handful of generals but a chorus of ex-military civilians shouting back at the Bush Administration that the troop levels to invade Iraq were too low. They would have not bought the "we will be greeted as liberators" nonsense but have intimate knowledge from their own training of what it takes to maintain control of a hostile situation - an _occupation_. Our troops would have NEVER gone into battle without sufficient body armor and unarmored Humvees. Even after going into battle, the Bush administration would NOT be able to continuely move the benchmarks as it is doing today - people would have earlier recognized the escalating threat of an insurgency and not bought Rumsfield's dismissal of those fighting as "dead-enders". Folks would have questioned the wisdom of the sacking the entire Iraqi army without first taking a census of its members, their capabilities and securing the weapons. "The surge is working"? Try again!

However, as a result of having a US public massively uneducated about military affairs, this Iraqi tragedy drags on.

[drkazmd65]

You ask, "should military service (or some alternate form of service to the nation) be included in the circle of those civic duties that all citizens owe, like paying taxes, voting and jury duty?"

The answer to this seemingly simple question is a resounding "YES". Despite my feeling almost like a hypocrite at saying it (as I am of an age when such a conscription was not required of me - thus I didn't do it). Whether it be military, civilian job's corps, a new WPA, a term as a teacher's aid, or healthcare aid,... we should demand something more of our citizens than just spending money.

I would have chafed at least a bit at it at the time should I have been the 'first' of the new teens to be required to do so - but the country needs them, and us 'older' folks to do our bit beyond just working, payying taxes, and occasionally serving on a jury of our peers.

And that goes for all the rich putzes and their offspring as well.

[mawrm]

Pulling a draft in failing war Vietnam-style is a POOR example of how compulsory military service should operate. Having a compulsory militiary service does not mean _everyone_ who gets enlisted ends up going to war. Granted right now that would likely happen, but on the whole, if you look at nations that do have compulsory military service, most folks never see a battefield. Also, the military is used to do a lot of civil works _within_ the nation, like handling national disasters far more efficiently than FEMA-type bureaucracies, etc.
The deterrent aspect is often overlooked. Bush could have NEVER sold the bogus story about Iraq WMDs to a nation with compulsory military service - it's no surprise that nations WITH compulsory military service like France and Germany didn't sign up for the Iraqi misadventure. Their politicians would have to address a nation that was familiar and competent on military technology and the lies being told by Bush were patently obvious to anyone with weapons knowledge. Large-scale WMD labs in trailers? Moving and hiding these labs with ease? (Soil/air sampling easily detects this) Fighter jets with sprayer bars to dispense bio-chem warfare?
Finally, military service doesn't equate to "brainwashing" -it's more a function of how a military operates. Superior military training does not encourage blind allegiance but rather intelligent loyalty - understanding the principles of rule and freedoms in your nation, its history and why it is important to protect it.

[jjhayes]

I have been thinking that a draft should actually start at age 52 and work backwards from there. I calculate this roughly based on when the previous draft ended. It makes me uncomfortable that a large portion of the electorate who never had to face the draft should support it now. Obviously not all draftees will be fit for combat although many may be, but for two years they can bring a wealth of experience and education to support roles and other jobs currently being contracted out. There is no argument that I can see, other than an interruption of business interests (shall we put business above service to country?) that militates against expanding the pool in this way. Those of us who never had the chance to resist the draft would also get the chance to stand bravely for peace if we so chose, in imitation of the those patriots who went to prison in the cause of conscience.

[Sneaky]

"It makes me uncomfortable that a large portion of the electorate who never had to face the draft should support it now."

Very well said.

[lefilmnoir]

Bravo, Mr. Schaeffer, great article.

However, how can you be sure there won't be a military coup? Given America's current and possible future foreign adventures, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a remake of "Seven Days in May" that isn't produced by a movie studio.

Maybe that would restore a modicum of sanity to our foreign policy.