The Draft: Another Political Gimmick By Democrats
By Gary Krasner (06/21/04)
On January 7th, 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced legislation that would re-institute military conscription. He explained that a draft would ensure that sacrifices which military service entails during wartime would be equally shared among the wealthy, and leading members of our society.
The U.S., you’ll recall at the time, was on the verge of war (against Saddam’s regime) that Rangel and many Democrats opposed, and probably felt frustrated that their views hadn’t prevailed. Since no Democrats proposed a draft in response to President Clinton’s military actions, it’s likely that Rangel’s actual intent was ultimately to deter and dissuade this nation from employing force of arms, thereby thwarting the President’s foreign policy objectives. And reviving the draft would ignite such opposition, just as it had during the Vietnam war.
Unfortunately for the President, with continued fighting going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and debates that our forces are being stretched too thin, Rangels ploy has found new legs. The draft is back on the cable news media’s topics of discussion. Lately, even some Republicans, like Senator Chuck Hagel (R- NE), seem receptive to some form of compulsory national service.
Not that it matters to those with an the anti-Bush agenda, reviving the draft would be imprudent, and it’s unlikely we can really go back to it. What we can do, if necessary, is increase the inducements for recruitment. Because the efficacy of converting to an all-volunteer military has proven it’s substantial worth. Consider the following:
— The military is no longer a place for HS dropouts. Most members in Special Forces have some college education. The new weapons technologies requires educated personnel. A random draft would induct too many unqualified personnel, thereby increasing the cost and duration to train them.
— In order to attract qualified personnel, the military had to improve wages, benefits and training to compete with the private sector. With remedial services, it also provided an avenue of opportunity for the poor and minorities as well.
— Effective military strategies now require faster deployment and special skills. It can’t be accomplished with untrained 19 year-olds. Desirable adjuncts are improved force cohesion and fewer casualties, as a result of having professionals working together for longer durations, and by their own choosing (i.e.: not compelled via a draft).
— A volunteer force totally eliminates the unfairness felt by conscientious objectors, whose qualifications for the waiver have always been determined by the military itself—hardly impartial adjudicators on the issue of pacifism. Those who wish to opt out for political reasons (i.e.: opposition to foreign policy), but are compelled to serve would create disharmony and adversely affect unit cohesion.
Perhaps the most fallacious aspect about Rangel’s ploy is the rationale for his legislation: to achieve more equitable sacrifices. Except for the families of the volunteers, there are no hardships, sacrifices, or burdens in the traditional sense that Americans endured in past wars. America has achieved a level of affluence and military power unparalleled in history. We can move 200 thousand soldiers and munitions halfway across the world, defeat a world-class army, and return them home a couple of months later. With a military second to none, there are unprecedented opportunities for America to do good deeds abroad, without expecting that civilians must sacrifice very much in the process.
Also, the burdens that soldiers and their families experience today are not unique to military life, nor are they disproportionately shouldered by the lower-class or minorities. African-Americans make up 12% of the population, and 15% of them comprise that portion of the military that enters harms way. Entering the military is considered a career choice. One way you advance your career is by placing your life at risk in the line of duty—which is similar to a way police and firefighters advance in rank. But compared to firefighters, corrections officers, or policemen, a life in the military today is statistically much safer on average. Where is Congressman Rangel complaining that firefighters, corrections officers (etc.) shoulder a disproportionate amount of burdens and hardships that’s shunned by others?
Congressman Rangel would have had a point 30 years ago. But for him to complain today that too few prominent Americans have sons in the military is like complaining there’s a dearth of millionaire’s kids who are factory workers and supermarket clerks: The only response is “what’s your alternative”?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
