Getting Drafty

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel floated renewal of a military draft in today’s Senate hearings on the war in Iraq:

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

Whether you are for or against the war, isn’t Hagel basically right? Is there any better way to democratize the debate on war and peace than democratizing the burden of military service?

With what arguments do we on the Left defend the notion that only the disproportionately less better-off be forced to volunteer in the service while the rest of us comfortably debate their fate?

In the fall of 2001 as the war in Afghanistan was getting underway I wrote a column proposing we reconsider a draft – but this time with NO deferments or exemptions. Some friends thought I was being ironic. I wasn’t:

"For three years, in the late ’60s, I actively and successfully resisted the draft without ever securing a student deferment. I spent two summers working as a volunteer "counselor," advising my peers how to similarly dodge the call-up for Vietnam. But as I — and millions of others — resisted, our call was clear: Stop the draft. Stop the war. I can’t recall anyone demanding the draft be ended but the war continued.

The draft became the ultimate, popular and democratic governor on the war policies of the state. When a consensus among the American people prevailed that the Vietnam War was a noble and honorable endeavor, the draft functioned without a glitch. When that consensus collapsed, so did the system of military call-up. And with American youth in rebellion, inside and outside the armed forces, the butchery in Vietnam was called to a halt."

By the way, New York's liberal Democrat congressman Charlie Rangel proposed a draft back at the beginning of last year for many of the same reasons.

Comments

[StickMan]

Mark.. this is a real curveball. I really hate this war in iraq and I hate the idea of drafting anybody more to go fight in it. but I can'treally dispute your argument about equity/democracy. Thinking about this whole mess gives me a headache.

[steve]

I have a 17 month old boy, I would gladly do anything possible to help him avoid the draft and/or have to go and fight in a war like Iraq.

On the positive side, a draft right now would be the BEST thing possible for the antiwar movement, it would make the antiwar movement during the Vietnam Era look like a Sunday picnic...

[James]

The problem with your position is that a fair debate in a democracy assumes, at some level, honesty -- at a level above ideology, otherwise its just autocracy (did i spell that right?).

at no point has this administration been honest. it has lied about its reasons, was mendacious in its funding (it now turns out - stealing money from afghan funds) and prevaricates as policy. it has only been allowed to proceed because of the natural tendency of a democracy to trust its leaders. eventually, the truth will out -- execpt in this case there is a worry about the absolutism of its right to do anything, anywhere, anytime. It is a style of revisionism that any dictatorial government would be proud (changing public record AFTER the fact, restating PAST dialogue, and on an on)

AND if all should share -- who in this administration shared when it was their chance?

Really, try something new to enliven your day -- try thinking.

at no point has this administration been honest. it has lied about its reasons, was mendacious in its funding (it now turns out - stealing money from afghan funds) and prevaricates as policy.

--speaking of which:

here's something ya don't hear much about from the 'we're doing it for good reasons' lobby...

http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108252768270288601

[Bob]

I got a draft notice in 1966, after dropping out in my second year at Berkeley. To avoid being drafted, and thus almost certainly sent to Vietnam, I enlisted in the Army for a 4-year commitment so that I could have some measure of choice in what I'd be trained to do -- and thus, eventually, in where I'd be stationed. Luckily for me it all worked out: I was trained as a German linguist and ended up spending 34 months in what used to be called West Berlin, coming out as an E-6 with GI Bill benefits that financed my last two years at Berkeley and a considerable chunk of law school.

I say all this not because I want to brag about avoiding Vietnam, or about being a veteran, but because as I look back on those four years I recognize that the time I spent in the Army was GOOD for me: I went in a 19-year-old kid, and came out a 23-year-old man, having learned the invaluable lesson that I could get ahead in a system in which I not only didn't make the rules, but where the rules were pretty much stacked against me. In short, my Army time helped me achieve a self-discipline that I certainly hadn't had before.

That experience informs my favoring a 2-year term of public service for all kids when they graduate from high school or turn 18 -- ALL kids, no exceptions, no exemptions, no deferments. I'm not talking about universal military service (although that should be one of the options), but some sort of service that benefits the nation in one way or another -- Peace Corps, Americorps, conservation stuff, whatever.

No matter how you feel about the people who run the country, or about the system that supports them, there's no doubt that it's a great place and that we're lucky to be here. People who are that lucky should give something back. It's that simple.

[John P]

The draft serves no purpose other than to radicalize the youth against military intervention. It is impracticle to today's war fighting needs. I have yet to see a General or objective defense analyst insisting on the reintroduction of the draft. It would be incredibly expensive, and ultimately dangerous to those highly trained officers and non-coms who were volunteers. There is no way conscripts could develop the skills today's armed forces requires in time to get them usefully in theater in a timely manner.
On top of that, force doctrine for the use of conscripts is very different from what the military uses now. With a draft you can look forward to Tens of Thousands of killed in action, as numbers serve to compensate for training.
I doubt readers of this blog are curious about why the draft is impractical to successful warefare in the 21st century, but before you start advocating such a plan, get some background on the subject.
It seems to me that it is more just to have the warrior caste define itself through voluntary action, than to render America's youth cannon fodder; while alienating the very caste we depend on to defend our nation.
Conscription should be among the last resorts of a state at war. It is not egalitarian, it is totalitarian. And it weakens our military. Many nations in Europe have a draft, and the best those armies appear able to produce are competant marching bands. Somehow, I don't think AQ, the Pasdaran or the Mhadi Militia will dance to that tune.
-JP

[joseph]

I keep telling my Republican friends in the suburbs that supporting Bush is supporting their kids getting drafted. They don't pay enough attention to believe it; they think that the service is just fine, that the wars will always be fought by someone else. The people who supported the war never imagined that we'd have to pay for it in some way.

Many nations in Europe have a draft, and the best those armies appear able to produce are competant marching bands.

--well, yeah, but they also don't go invading countries because they dislike the leaders...so they don't really need a bloated military budget...
they also spend more $ on unimportant things like education , health care, daycare, parks, transportation.... it's hard to be a machoman nation unless you make cuts on such luxuries...

[rosedog]

Theoretically I think this is probably a brilliant idea. On a practical and personal level, I have an 18 year old son, and any attempt to institute such a plan would have to come through me (and mothers like me), and we’ll come out shooting.

Of course, I suppose, what I've just said pretty much proves your premise.

It all reminds me of an admittedly mediocre poem I wrote in February of 2003 for Poets Against the War, the end of which goes like this:

“So are you going to march for peace?”
my own boy wants to know.
Well, right now I’m going to write a poem.
“I don’t think that’s enough,” he says.
Depends on the poem, I answer.
Depends on the number of poets.

I am a poet, and I would die to keep my son out of this war.
I am a mother, and I would die to keep my son out of this war.
I am a defender of free speech, and I would die to keep my son out of this war.
I am an American, and I would die to keep my son out of this war.
I am a patriot, and I would die to keep my son out of this war.

And with every passing day there are more mothers,
fathers, sisters, brothers, patriots, poets
out here
just like me.

[Marc Cooper]

Rosedog: A totally understandable thought. What would u do to keep other people's kids out of the war? It seems to me that if one is Quaker or Pacifist and objects to the existence of a military than one should be opposed to a draft. Just as clearly it seems that once you have recognized the need for a national military ou have no moral way out of not supporting a draft--unless you are real comfortable with injustice.

[steve]

Just as clearly it seems that once you have recognized the need for a national military ou have no moral way out of not supporting a draft--unless you are real comfortable with injustice.

--if unnecessary adventures weren't part of the project...would there really be a 'need' for a draft? just how many nuclear bombs and starwars defense systems to we need to protect ourselves anyhow?...oops, i just stepped on the toes of the 'we send our boys n'girls [I'm so PC!!!] out on humanitarian missions...that's why we need *more* troops in Iraq" lobby...

[rosedog]

Well, unlike the Quakers, I’m not against all wars. But I am very much against this one, and have been from the beginning. (All you other contributors to Marc’s BLOG who disagree on this particular point, lets just respectfully leave it at that. No need to start whacking any previously deceased equines.) And so I’ve worked, and continue to work, as a grassroots activist to put my metaphorical money where my mouth is. All that said, I am still, as you point out, in a bit of a moral pickle, because now that we’re stuck in the quicksand in Iraq with no clear solution in sight, what to do? Do I feel comfortable, then, offering up my son, for the sake of equality and justice, to help get us out of the morass that the arrogant S.O.B.s in the White House have gotten us into? No, I don’t. I don’t have it in me. Maybe I should, but I don’t.

As for…“What would u do to keep other people's kids out of the war?” Both in the specific, and in the general---if we expand “wars” to also mean the cultural, class, race, economic, and criminal justice wars that continue to go on in our fair country---the answer to that question is: everything I possibly can, every day, both vocationally and avocationally. Yet I grow more aware all the time, how very little that is.

(As I reread this, the above sounds self-righteous, and I realize how much more I could/should do. But I'm middle-aged, often tired, and have come to like some of my creature comforts.)

Great topic, Marc. These are the kinds of questions with which we all need to challenge ourselves over and over. Thanks.

[steve]

Maybe I should, but I don’t.

--you shouldn't and you don't have to. this is not a problem that sending more troops to iraq can solve.

[steve]

(As I reread this, the above sounds self-righteous, and I realize how much more I could/should do.

--don't sound that much different from rosa parks anyways...don't buy the hype about lefties/progressives being 'arrogant'...just the standard smear made by right wingers or liberals trying to show the right, 'hey, i'm normal, ya see, i'm just like you guys...i hate the lefties too...now, please listen to my liberal point of view...'...

[John P]

This is where the left-wing attitude becomes self-destructive and solipsistic. The draft is not some symbolic act of solidarity, neither is it an act of human sacrifice to the god of equality.

The draft is a means by which nations populate their armed forces! There must be a USEFULL reason to draft an army. There must be a NEED, a military need to draft an army.

Not one of these posters, or Marc, has predicated a draft on its benefits toward accomplishing victory; or at least the defense of the United States against aggression.

To propose a draft only to make you feel better and allay your liberal guilt is PRETENTIOUS. A more compelling question to ask yourselves, since many of you are projecting yourselves as parents, is: What if my son/daughter comes home and tells me he/she joined the Marines? Why is that possibility so fancifull? What is it about the political identity he/she was brought up with which precludes such an event?

So there.:)

This is where the left-wing attitude becomes self-destructive and solipsistic

--I love these references to the 'left'. Chuck hagel and Marc support a draft and all of a sudden we're talking about the 'left's support for the draft'....what a joke

[Marc Cooper]

John P.. I dont project myself as a parent. I am one. I don' imagine my daughter would join the Armed Forces because she can probably think of no atractive reason to do so. Nor has she been offered one. (she's a union organizer by the way!) Why should she when there's plenty of less advantaged kids willing to volunteer in her place? If we are, however, engaged in the battle for preservation of our civilzation as many in the administration argue then I think: 1) that argument ought to be made very forcefully to the citizenry b) the citizeny should be convinced enough to pay in blood and treasure and that would mean consequently c) we reverse the tax breaks for the elites and demand this admninistration at least have the common decency to include the costs of the war in its current budget (which as you know it does not) along with a plant for how we pay for it and finally e) the entire citizenry including the dental students at UCLA and USC be required to share in the sacrifice. If indeed, there are military arguments to be made against a draft army (I can see that) then let's at least have a universal call-up for national service. You obviously agree that there are many ways to serve one's country other than being a SEAL.
I will tell you straight out and not with a scintilla of "liberal guilt" as you put it-- I dont trust the admin even as worthy hawks. They are too feckless, poll-driven short-sighted and incestuous with their campaign contributions and they dont believe half of their own propaganda. I am much more in favor than they are in instilling a national ethic of service and collective responsibility-- they pay lip service to that and then go golfing.

[steve]

If we are, however, engaged in the battle for preservation of our civilzation as many in the administration argue then I think: 1) that argument ought to be made very forcefully to the citizenry

--although there is much hyperbole in the administration's claim, even if we were in such a battle, our approach to this battle only creates larger enemies...an even stronger argument against the reimposition of a draft--even though it would be a Godsend for the antiwar movement...especially with the Iraq fiasco getting blooder everyday...

[eb]

>> Chuck hagel and Marc support a draft and all of a sudden we're talking about the 'left's support for the draft'....what a joke <<

The only person who has actually proposed a draft in a meaningful way, and by that I am very much excepting Marc Cooper, is of the left: Cong. Rangel.

I don't agree with a draft, and neither do a majority of the currently serving military. Proposing a draft as a tactic to generate opposition to the war is massively dishonest; oppose it period or don't. Shit or get off the pot, Marc Cooper.

[steve]

The only person who has actually proposed a draft in a meaningful way, and by that I am very much excepting Marc Cooper, is of the left: Cong. Rangel.

--sorry to disappoint, rangel is a classic cold war (now post-cold war) liberal, hardly a 'man of the left'. marc says he supports the idea and mentions that hagel thinks it is a good idea maybe...well...that's not a whole lot of the left really...i don't recall, say, The Nation, or In These Times, or Monthly Review, the evil folks at ZNET,...advocating a return to the draft...yet, somehow, in john's eyes the 'left' is pushing for a return to the draft...bizarre to put it mildly...

boy, this whacko-far-left crazy sure doesn't sound like she's any too wild about the draft...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0421-05.htm

[steve]

the canadian solution to the evildoer terrorists who are really evil and evildoers...in need of nuking....and a draft...

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000346.html

[John P]

"1)that argument ought to be made very forcefully to the citizenry "

I think it has been, though diluted by a distracting array of criticisms both relevant and opportunistic.

"b) the citizeny should be convinced enough to pay in blood and treasure and that would mean consequently "

Again, this is a call for some kind of symbolic public act of sacrifice. If we need to pay in blood and treasure as-you say it-in order to win, then I presume we will be asked to do so. At the moment, it appears we don’t.

"c)we reverse the tax breaks..."

Did you hear or read Greenspan yesterday? The economy is on the upswing, tax cuts and FED suppression of interest rates are largely why. I’m sure you have an alternate theory. US GDP grew at 4.6%, up over 3.9%. It appears that we drove the Global GDP up as well. There are more constructive ways to raise revenue than increased taxation. If we had to fully mobilize, then a short term tax hike would be required. Right now, we don’t. Look, if the administration was legally bound to release a projected budget for “the war,” then your point would be relevant. It seems they are not bound in that way. I would add that this is probably a good thing, if only because when you let Congress have at any budget, they plunder it. The result would be less resources for the fighting, and a higher cost to the taxpayer. Full mobilization would, I imagine, require such oversight. The economies of scale involved would mean greater resources for war fighting, but at a truly destructive cost to the country’s economic vitality. We’d end up like England after WWII, and with no one to bail us out with a Marshall Plan.

e)"...You obviously agree that there are many ways to serve one's country other than being a SEAL. "

Yes I agree, I just don’t think we need to shanghai young people into some “Young Pioneers” program. Also, there still has to be some connection made between the act of this sort of conscription and its usefulness towards victory. Creating a new state run institution, which claims imminent domain over the free will of US citizens between the ages of 18 and 33 is not my idea of a constructive use of tax revenue.

"I will tell you straight out and not with a scintilla of "liberal guilt" as you put it..."

Well Marc, I’m out of the loop there. I don’t see a whole lot of double talk, if anything Bush appears too upfront for his own good. He’s been pretty clear about his goals regarding Iraq and the War on Terror. It seems that most of his administration’s problems stem from being too true to their purpose as opposed to being feckless. (Yes, I had to look that one up:()

Finally, I am surprised at all of the reaction to my assertion that this is a “left-wing” view. Chuck Hagel is a strange bedfellow, though he’s no true, blue ally of Bush. Rangle may have been a “Cold War” liberal, but that was a long time ago. Since 9/11, he’s never ceased to promote some self serving pork-full idea in spite of its danger to the lives and security of his fellow New Yorkers.
I think both of these men are positioning themselves as the power players they are, as opposed to taking an ideological stance.

The ideological postulation of a “draft for the sake of a draft” is driven by left-wing ideas concerning the state’s role in enforcing service to it, as well as a more Marxist hope that such action will radicalize the youth class to revolutionary action. Amazingly, these contradictory ideas come from the same place. Neither one seems to care about winning the war we are engaged in. That observation is what provoked me to turn up the heat of my rhetoric.

Why doesn’t someone try to describe how a draft, or “conscripted service” will hasten success in Iraq and the greater War on Terror?

Whatever Rosa Parks and I disagree on, she’s still better than me; God bless that woman and all she cares for. However this is my seat, and it’ll take a little more that what I’ve read so far for me to give it up.

[Marc]

John.. I love ur arguments even if I disagree with most of them. I suspect, however, we might share motivation. Anyway, this isn't about "sharing" our feelings for heaven's sake. Keep posting. Bring it on!

[steve]

Did you hear or read Greenspan yesterday?

--i prefer doug henwood actually...