The usual debate you hear these days on a return to the draft is between conservatives who think it would be a good idea because it would be a unifying force in the country and liberals who don't particularly like the military culture. This, from Thomas Sowell, is a viewpoint I haven't heard before. He's a conservative against the draft because he thinks it would pollute the military, the last instituion left willing to sacrifice for a higher cause, with a bunch of spoiled brats who have been educated to hate the country:
Just getting such people used to the idea of duty and discipline could be a major drain on the military, not to mention a plague of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union if the little darlings were not handled with kid gloves.
I don't know if I agree with that point or not. I was in the Army when there was a vigorous mix of enlistees and draftees, and the military's chain-of-command procedures seemed to sort it all out and meld us into cohesive units. But perhaps he's right that today's civilian population has changed too much to be forced into the military life. I do know that the way my drill instructor talked and behaved would get him hauled before a court martial these days.
Sowell makes one point that rings true with me. Today's politicians and journalists, unlike those of the recent past, have mostly no military experience, and it shows in the discussions and debates about our foregin policy options. The amount of sheer ignorance about the military life is nothing less than appalling.
Comments
I am against the draft unless we are involved in a war declared by Congress against a specific threat.
I served in our volunteer military for six years and I am a better person for that service.
Mike Sylvester
I don't know that a military draft is necessarily a good idea, but if you want to instill in young folk that they have a stake in society what's wrong with a year or two of compulsory service to country of other sorts as well? Joining the military might be but one of several options for conscription.
Instead of throwing tax money at bureaucrats to do their typically lousy job on things that need to get done, why not have enlistees perform such functions as social work, land conservation, serving as teachers' assistants in public schools, maintaining public parks, policing dangerous neighborhoods or even patrolling our borders?
Our supposedly spoiled younger generation might not be so averse to mandatory public service if there were alternatives to serving as cannon fodder in conflicts such as the current one overseas, and our nation and its people could be a lot better for it.
I expect it will be the libertarians who will say "keep your laws off my body," and not the body politic.
I don't think I'd make it compulsory, but I think it would be a good idea to broaden voluntary service to include much more than the military, providing some of the same incentives, such as the GI Bill has offered for education. My dad was in the Civilian Conservation Corps, and it seemed to have been the transforming event of his life. It was the first time he was out of his isolated rural environment, he met the kinds of people he never would have, was ORDERED to write and send money home. Could that kind of experience benefit urban kids today the way the CCC did rural kids?
Today's Navy is far from the Navy I enlisted into in 1977. They spoke of reinstating the draft then as well.
I have always thought the draft to be a bit unfair. A fraction of the population serves at low pay, terrible conditions and high risk while the lucky ones go to college, get jobs and prosper. Maybe what we need is a two-year service to our country (females and males) where we attempt to lesson the impact between those drafted and those that are not. I certainly cannot see training everyone, but I do believe that those not destined for the military serve and live under similar conditions during that two years.
Those not serving as one suggested could perform relief efforts, help clean up waterways, streets, etc. With a bit more thought and discussion, I would think a very workable structure could be created.
I don't think the draft is the answer, either. It should be a last resort, and I don't think we've exhausted other incentives to get people to serve. For example, you want federal college benefits? No problem, but it will cost you four years of active duty or eight years of reserve duty. There are plenty of people suckling merrily at the teat of Uncle Sam who never give back and have no intention of ever doing so. Americans should understand that federal benefits should be mutual -- the government helps you, you should help your country. Randomly selecting people for a draft only provides the armed forces with a steady stream of people with widely varying skills. Today's military is a high-tech one and some specialities require a year or two of traning. A two-year draft enlistment doesn't do the services much good.