Does anyone else share my sentiment that compulsory service in the military (or even civil service) should be required of all young Americans? I do. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506080018jun08,1,2095830.story Feel that draft? By Charles Moskos Published June 8, 2005 Recruitment for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is on the brink of disaster. Indeed, along with combat, recruiting duty is now considered the worst mission in the military. Although we are in a global war against terrorism, the American citizenry is not being asked for any sacrifice. In the last election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) were united in their refusal to consider a return to conscription. "Patriotism-lite" is the order of the day. But truth to tell, a draft for the 21st Century is the only answer to our national security needs. Such a draft would have three tiers of youth service, with 18-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 25. The first tier would be modeled after a standard military draft. The second tier would be for homeland security, such as guarding our borders, ports, nuclear installations and chemical plants. Included in this category would be police officers, firefighters, air marshals and disaster medical technicians. The third tier would be for civilian national service, such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, assistance for the elderly and infirm, environmental work and the like. Women should be draft-eligible for the latter two categories and, of course, can volunteer for military service as now. In return, all draftees, as well as voluntary servers, would receive generous financial aid for college and graduate school modeled after the GI Bill of World War II. Non-servers would be ineligible for federal student aid. Today more than $20 billion annually in federal funds is given to students who do not serve their country. We have created a GI Bill of Rights without the "GI." Any conscription system must start at the top of the social ladder to have widespread public acceptance. During World War II and the Cold War, privileged youths were conscripted at a higher rate than youths from the lower socio-economic levels. (My draftee contemporary was Elvis Presley!) This was not true in the Vietnam War draft or in today's all-volunteer force. That only a handful of those in Congress have children in the military speaks directly to the inequity of military service today. Three major arguments are raised against conscription. These are given below with rejoinders. 1. Short enlistments would increase demands on the training base. Let us remember that almost one-third of our service entrants now fail to complete their initial enlistments. This contrasts with a 10 percent dropout rate for draftees in the Cold War. Completion of an enlistment term is strongly correlated with higher education. It's much better to have a soldier serve a short draft tour honorably than be prematurely discharged. Conscription would both reduce personnel turnover and counter shortfalls in end strength. 2. The modern military requires highly technical skills that cannot be met by short-termers. Precisely. Higher compensation should be aimed at those whose skills require extended training and experience. In the draft era, the pay ratio between a senior non-commissioned officer and a private was six to one; today it is three to one. We now have overpaid recruits and underpaid sergeants. 3. Volunteers make better soldiers than those who are conscripted to serve. Item: in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, draftees had lower desertion and AWOL rates than volunteers. Item: Surveys of veterans find that draftees have a more favorable opinion of their military experience than do volunteers. In brief, draftees could readily fill the multitude of jobs that require only a short formal training period or even just on-the-job training. It is well documented that higher-quality recruits have the skills and motivation to learn quickly a wide variety of military jobs. Draftees would be ideally suited for duties on peacekeeping missions such as in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai. Better educated and more mature draftees would also be ideal for guard duty in military prisons. Without conscription, what will happen? We will see, as is already happening, a lowering of military entrance standards. And, as is already occurring, there will be an exponential increase in enlistment bonuses. And we can expect new policies to recruit non-Americans into our armed forces, though we will probably call such a force a Freedom Legion rather than a Foreign Legion. There is also a financial argument for conscription. Recruits in the all-volunteer force are three times more costly--in constant dollars--than draftees. The erosion of the citizen soldier has made for a career force that's top-heavy. The Pentagon now owes its soldiers $654 billion in future retirement benefits that it cannot pay. Above all, a compulsory national service program would give our youth--and future leaders--a shaping civic experience. The revival of the citizen soldier can only be to the advantage of the armed services and the nation. ---------- Charles Moskos, a former draftee, is professor emeritus at Northwestern University. He is the author of "A Call to Civic Service" and "The Military: More Than Just a Job." Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
The White House and Congress do not want conscription again because then they would once again be held accountable by the people for sending American soldiers into harms way. With a volunteer force, I believe the powers in Washington face less criticism from the American people over troop deployments. Bring back the draft and watch us pull out of Iraq. I know that if I was a parent with high school age children and the draft was reinstituted, my voice of opposition to the war in Iraq would become much more vocal. I am personally against GWB's crusade in Iraq and have been since the beginning. I voted against him in 2000 and 2004, but I am willing to go with the "will" of the people for now. If the draft comes back, then I am all for mass demonstrations, civil disobedience and out right revolution to bring down the corrupt powers that now rule Washington, whether Democrat or Republican. I would rather spend the money we are spending on the war on revamping our economy to be less dependent on Middle East oil. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to go off fighting the oil crusades.
I like the idea of compulsory military service for all young Americans. Instilling a little discipline in people would probably reduce the crime rate and lead to better employees, etc.. However, I don't think it will happen.
As I've said before, a draft would be a disaster for our professional military and the country. I am completely against it. That it is even being discussed points to just how mad Bush was to go to war without the country in clear and present danger, and how lied to and deluded by the leadership of the Republican Party, and their fellow extremist friends, the voters were who kept their country on the path that continued the madness of the Bush Presidency last November. I protested against the war and the draft in the 60's, and I will not see my children exposed to it... not by a government run by the fools currently in power, and not for a war that should never have occured when it did. I have trouble sleeping at night all too often, but it's not because of how I voted in the last Presidential election. Frankly, I don't know how some of you sleep at night, knowing that you helped maintain the grip Bush's cabal has on your country, your United States of America. Keep D&D Civil!!
The good things about the draft is that it would not allow our country to get involved in wars like this one, where from day one a near majority of people have realized that it was unnecessary. That is the way it should be. This is a war that has basically been supported by only a majority of Republicans, the Bush faithful. As we see now roughy 80% of Republicans support it; 80% of Democrats and 62% of independent oppose it. Except for the first few months or so when there was a general hope for the best, it has been this way since the beginning. 2,000 Americans, including contractors approximately have lost their lives and roughly 100,000 Iraqis due to the present system of sending the politically powerless who have "volunteered" to go. No price to pay for the elite war makers and their children leads to this. It is a great evil that this country can go to war and kill tens of thousands of people in foreign countries with virtually no disruption of our daily lives for most Americans. A draft would provide some protection against the type of atrocity exemplified by the Iraq War. Even with all the lies and spin and the loyalty to Bush and the GOP of many , you could not get draftees to go to fight for this stupidity. Deckard, you and I and a now majority are against this war. If they were drafting our kids, we would be out in the streets again and would put a stop to this nonsense pretty quick. As it is now, it could drag out for years with Iraqis and our poor working class "volunteers" giving their life for Bush's boondoggle.
I like how none of the arguments against the draft address the moral issue. The draft is involuntary servitude. It is slavery. Don't know how I can make it much clearer than that. To have a draft is to establish once and for all the supremacy of the government over the individual, and that the most sacred individual right, the right to your own life, is merely a means to the end of the majority (or the people in power claiming a majority), whenever their little foreign adventures become too inconvenient or inefficient.
A draft to protect the country is a necessary device. Being a citizen of a country is a dual relationship. The country provides an ideal, while the citizen provides the structure. If war was brought to the American soil, citizens have the responsibility to defend their country. It's not slavery. It's part of being a citizen. Of course, in this case, the draft wouldn't be to protect America. It would be to further the cause of the Bush Administration. That, of course, is morally reprehensible.
That is certainly arguable. If you believe some wars are moral, you could make the argument that to wage just wars against countries that have a draft, you need to do so, too. Of course this does not include recent US wars in Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. Talking about morality, it is immoral for the world's only superpower, (which will soon spend more on the military than the rest of the world put together --47% of worldwide spending now, with projected increases to go over the 50%) to go and atack other countries with no appreciable cost to it's decision makers or their children.
OMG! The comments in this thread are amazing to me. I would hope any citizen regardless of political affiliation share the same thought pattern as what I am reading in this thread. I never looked at a draft as a tool to keep OUR government from going to war with out JUST cause. It makes plenty of sense though. A true citizen of the United States would give his blood to protect his country. However it is unfortunate that at the present moment I will not recommend or let my son enroll in our armed forces. For the simple fact that I do not have the confidence in our Government to make moral decisions on how to use such a powerful beast. And what is most disturbing, not held accountable by 50 percent of our public. Because of political affiliation. Maybe a draft is a neccessary evil at this point. Either that or make it a rule that if you want to serve in public office, you must have a child in active Military. I am sure the decision makers will then make sure we go to wars that are justified and backed by the majority of the public. And when going to war I am sure they will send our forces out there with the best equiptment possible. Donald Rumsfeld would then probably think twice about going to war with the army and equiptment he doesnt have.
Honestly I think the solution would be every time the U.S. would go to an arms conflict, we will take a vote from those that support it, and those that don't. The force to fight that war will be drafted (if neccessary) from those that suppor it. That will ensure that we will get into conflicts that people feel is a real neccessity for this country. Iraq, maybe not. If some one invades the U.S. and we might lose all our property, people, even you ones might just decide to fight.
I'm still amused about the poster that said that Al Queda was going to topple Iraq first, so that's why we had to go in there. A draft would only make this more of a tragedy. My buddy came back from Iraq last week and after talking to him, what little support I had for this campaign is gone. I just want our Boys back.
It's ironic how the people on this board who actually lived through the draft era are the ones who protest it the most. I certainly share your sentiment. I would protest this war much more than Vietnam in the 1960's. The reason being was that Communism was a real threat to us then and there was no doubt that Ho Chi Minh was a Red. Communism in Vietnam was not a threat, but Communism as a whole was.
50,000 Americans died in Viet Nam,and Viet Nam was no threat. It was a civil war adopted as a proxy by the opposing super powers of the day since direct confrontation was suicide. Communism was never the threat we were indoctrinated to believe. The clashwas more about of the egos and paranoia of the totalitarian leaders and the same nationalism that has always started wars. If your war is just and supported by the people you will not need a draft. Drafts produce reluctant soldiers with low morale. They are only useful as cannon fodder. Luckily technology is reducing the requirements for cannon fodder.
Reinstating the draft is political suicide. Karl Rove will not allow Dubya to commit political suicide.
