A Modest Proposal — For the Draft
Calls for a draft are being revived. Here’s anti-war author Frank Schaeffer at the Huffington Post. Here’s the Sacramento Bee’s public editor, fielding readers’ calls for a draft. Here’s Aileen Morey at NPR’s “This I Believe.”
The argument can be summed up simply. Only a small percentage of Americans are carrying the burden of the war. This is unfair. More to the point, it has been impossible to get parents and college kids to give more than a passing damn about the war.
The calls for a military draft are in fact calls for forcible enlistment in the anti-war movement, which has suffered greatly from its failure to recruit in the current voluntary political involvement model. The calls for a draft are nothing more than frustrated efforts to bolster the effectively non-existent anti-war movement to Vietnam levels by swelling its ranks with suddenly concerned suburban Americans.
It’s populist anti-war posturing, not based on any kind of political or military reality. One place you’re not hearing much about a draft these days is Congress, which figured out some time ago it was a non-starter, as noted here by Dan K. Thomasson at Scripps Howard. His op-ed underscores the lack of reality, as he rattles on about the unfeasibility of invading Iran, on the erroneous assumption that curtailing the nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism by Iran would entail a massive onslaught of ground forces.
The idea is further detached from reality by the fact that, under Bush or McCain administrations, a draft doesn’t have a prayer. Under an Obama or Clinton administration, presumably it becomes unnecessary as they rapidly pull us out of Iraq and theoretically eliminate the need for a larger military.
But these people take themselves seriously, so it is only right we should consider their proposals with all the seriousness they deserve. There is after all a serious underlying problem, even if it isn’t the problem they are trying to address.
What do we do about an overstressed military? Their rhetoric aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton actually plan to pull out of Iraq with quite the rapidity they’ve suggested. As great a campaign selling point as abrupt abandonment is, they may privately realize how disastrous a pell-mell pulling up of stakes would be. John McCain, more realistically, expects us to be in Iraq for up to a century, much as we’ve been in Germany, Japan and Korea for more than a half century now. All of that means we need troops.
Acting with the usual half-measures, Congress and our wartime administration belatedly decided to add a few tens of thousands of troops to the Army and Marines. As ridiculous an idea as it was to go into land wars with half an army in the first half of this decade, it seems absurd to persist in the same condition.
Meanwhile, our nation has other problems. Rampant, uncontrollable illegal border crossing has created an underclass of millions in which crime and abuse thrives, placing a burden on local taxpayers. Also, there are the problems associated with disaffected youth, detached from reality not just in the traditional self-obsessed ways young people always have been. They are staying home and returning home to reoccupy empty nests more, and spending more and more time staring at screens where their lives are lived. The latter phenomenon alone marks a dramatic uncontrolled social experiment, the consequences of which can only be guessed. Early indicators — weight problems, possible mental health problems, propensities to violence — aren’t very encouraging.
There could be a quick and easy fix to all of that. It does require compromise, a little give and take. Sometimes the best answer is something that gives everyone a little of what they want. The draft could do it.
This would not be your grandfather’s draft, though. We’re talking about a draft that will bring the country together, not rip it apart.
Draft opponents note that we currently have the best military in the world. A highly professional, highly trained, high-tech volunteer force. The world has never seen anything like it. The last thing we want to do is bog it down with a bunch of reluctant whiny short-timers. The draft will have to be engineered to prevent the cure from killing the patient.
So here’s the deal. First off, no exemptions. At 18, it’s off to the draft. If you’re not physically fit for military service, then it’s off to the Work Corps. More on that later. For now, suffice it to say that jobs can be found for all. Those mentally unfit for military service — to include those who don’t want to be in the military — also go to the Work Corps, where appropriate tasks will be found for all.
Military draftees will serve two years. They will be limited to non-combat roles. They could help eliminate a lot of those Halliburton contracts that drive everyone crazy by performing the same cleanup, truck driving, and hash-slinging positions at or below minimum wage.
Those who do want serve their nation in combat may volunteer to do so, which will make them eligible for higher rates of pay, enlistment bonuses, and enhanced GI Bill benefits. They can in fact get the only kind of deferment this system offers, with scholarships in advance, by committing to military service upon completing college. In the case of some selected professions — doctors, nurses, engineers, accountants, various useful specialties — individuals can commit to four years of post-graduate government service and also enjoy government scholarships.
Women, presently barred from combat arms, can also enlist for the full range of opportunities and benefits they now enjoy in the military, some of which of course do include combat. Our military, in its key functions, can remain the highly trained, highly motivated professional force it has become in the 35 years since Vietnam.
While there may be some tensions in a two-tiered military, those professional soldiers can provide an inspiration for the draftees that may in fact encourage many of them to properly enlist and better their lot. With non-combat roles making up the bulk of any military, a draft of this sort could allow vast expansion. It will also restore the common national experience that an older generation remembers fondly, when everyone was a part of the same thing, and everyone did their bit.
Which brings us to the Work Corps.
Note the negative “work” connotation. This name may sound a little harsh and unappealing, particularly to those unacquainted with labor. It is intended to.
The political appeal of this whole program is based largely on its military components, with the potential to both boost and undermine the war effort. But in fact the Work Corps is the heart of the program, and could accomplish several ancillary but important social goals.
First off, it will get whiny American kids out of the house and introduce them to honest, sweat-of-the-brow work. For the benefit of their nation.
Drafted youth who don’t choose the military option will be assigned to Work Corps units dotted across the country, and as far as possible from wherever they are from, with a good geographic, social, and multicultural mix. The units will be sited on military bases or other federal land, convenient for busing to job sites but remote from temptations.
To help the Work Corps draftees bond and give them a running start on cooperation and work skills, their first task will be to build their own low-carbon-footprint plywood barracks. They’ll be heated by “green” woodstoves which will require details to chop and haul sustainable firewood, ultimately from forests planted by earlier Work Corps generations. They’ll have “green” composting outhouses, and also haul their own water, to encourage husbanding of water resources.
If they are ingenious enough to build functioning windmills out of packing crates and baling wire, then they get electricity. They may also have one pay phone per barracks, and free paper and mailing privileges, to encourage contact with family. It might be worth considering movies, projected onto outdoor screens, as a weekly reward for high-performing groups. But Internet, TV, video games, all verboten.
This last will of course be highly unpopular, but it is important for a new generation of Americans to have the opportunity, if only briefly, to exercise their minds independently and learn how to entertain themselves without the crutch of electronics. While military draftees will not have to build their own barracks, and will have benefits such as electricity, they should also be afforded the same opportunity to expand their minds free of electronic hindrances. If they and the Work Corps draftees feel they are unable to do without the Internet, they are always free to enlist. In today’s exciting technological battlefield, that will afford American youth the opportunity to play highly realistic and interactive video games.
About those Work Corps barracks, by the way: So that every incoming class of draftees gets to enjoy the growth experience of building their own domicile, exiting groups will be allowed to burn theirs. The barracks-torching celebration will be their final expression of joy at having served their nation, with the knowledge they are creating an opportunity for those who come after to start from zero just like they did.
Work Corps labor could be applied to all kinds of public works and conservation projects at minimum wage, driving down the cost of civic works and vastly accelerating the rate of maintenance and improvements to existing facilities. Work crews, in their multitudes, could also be made available to private employers as day labor at minimum wage for construction sites, farms, restaurants — any kind of business that requires low-cost, unskilled temporary labor.
As you can see, we are not just addressing military manpower and costs, instilling a sense of social responsibility, providing work experience, and creating the kind of national camaraderie that shared hardship brings as boys and girls from Brooklyn to 90210 sweat and toil alongside each other. We will also cut dramatically into our economy’s demand for illegal aliens. Within a few years of initiating this program, we won’t need a border fence or another amnesty.
Because America is a great land of opportunity, it might be worth offering illegal aliens the opportunity to enlist in the United States military and earn citizenship, or even to participate in a seasonal, as-needed basis to bolster Work Corps ranks. But the demand for their labor will have plummeted, and where there is no demand, the supply should rapidly recede. If it fails to recede quickly enough, then the law might be amended to allow the supply of recidivist illegal-border-crossing labor to be introduced to another part of the draft program.
The Punishment Battalions.
Like the Work Corps, “Punishment Battalion” may sound harsh to some ears, and that is similarly by design. It’s where draftees go if they are insufficiently motivated and insufficiently cheerful in their work or bolt from the program or otherwise try to dodge it. Their term of service gets bumped from two to four years. There is always work no one wants to perform, and they will perform it, for no pay. There is always roadwork in Alabama that needs to be done, rocks that need to be broken, Superfund sites that need to be cleaned up. They will not enjoy the amenities of Work Corps accommodations. They will, however, enjoy the same right at any time to improve their lot by enlisting, providing the military will accept them.
I know some of this may sound extreme. I know it sounds like it might, in places, verge from the New Deal into Stalinism.
But I don’t see why that would be an obstacle to an America hoping for change, concerned as it is in creating a shared burden and social betterment. It does involve a little give and take on various political priorities, but it is hard to imagine the politician who wouldn’t jump at the chance to do so much good. It is also hard to imagine the parents who wouldn’t want to see their child devote the brief span of two years to a great adventure, see them become a man or a woman, by serving their nation and earning some sweat equity in it.
Jules Crittenden, a Boston Herald editor, blogs at Forward Movement.
You walk the line where madness and genius dance.
I don’t know, It is was written for serious or as a joke, but some points are right on target. If someone wants a draft, then logically your proposition is the best. Military service was some time ago percived as a “school of manhood” or just “school of citizenship”.
Don’t like it? So don’t talk about draft, OK?
Haha, Mr. Crittenden, if this is satire it is brilliant, because the whole thing is sounding pretty darn good right about now.
Your template is a little off. Heinlein had it nailed in the book (NOT THAT DRECK OF A film) “Starship Troopers”. No draft, no obligation to serve of any kind . . .pay your taxes, don’t break the law and do as you will with your own life. But vote? The only path to the vote is national service of some kind (and no vote while you are serving). Service (and obligation to something bigger than yourself) is strictly voluntary.
Oh, women in combat arms? The training is intended to prepare soldiers for Combat situations where they are on the “sharp end” of things. So, standards for training are based on what the average soldier is capable of when pushed (not what the exceptional physical specimen is capable of). There are women quite capable of the physical requirements, but they are the exception. You don’t base standards for all on what the exceptional are capable of. Standards set are the same for all, if the Army (and Marines) were to set standards based on what the average troop was capable of (in the case of women in combat arms) it would have to be based on the average female. Result, lowered standards, lowered physical requirements AND capability. The Israelis tried to integrate their forces this way, (in a society of survivors with limited numbers of people), they stopped for many reasons, the above being just one.
Nice ideas, but they are not practical. Combat and hostile fire troops are rotated through non combat positions in safe areas (CONUS, rear areas) for rest and mental health. Creating a minimum wage soldier occupying a safe slot permanantly would keep a combat troop out in the field permanantly. Humans are not designed to do that and remain sane. It degrades the physical and mental health of people, some faster than others.
Don wrote about the Heinlein political theory from his book “Starship Troopers” ; I agree that would be an optimum model of citizenship.
The left only wants a draft so they can re-live their 60′s fantasy of burning draft cards and running to Canada.
I’m trying–not succeeding–to see the downside of this!
Jules, nice “Modest Proposal”…. I’m still laughing, except for the fact all the socialists/communists you link to actually take this seriously.
This kind of compulsory service is nothing more than stealing the time of young people without fair compensation and is the kind of thing I see in countries like Mexico, where you have to do two years of military service to get a passport (unless your family is rich and connected). Would John Kerry’s kids go into this? How about Obama’s? Or would they get a cush “job” hanging around some paradise. If the U.S. really has this kind of problem you describe, declare war, set some realistic goals and have a draft for everyone to go into the military. When the war’s over, everyone goes back to their lives.
This program these socialists you link to takes away the rights and freedoms of a large group of citizens, costs the economy their productive talents (they will be two or four years behind going to college, getting a job, etc.), and may not be constitutional unless it is voluntary in peacetime. No one with a brain would show up for this voluntarily.
As for the illegal aliens, start punishing the employers and the jobs, money and illegals will dry up. Eisenhower did this in the 1950′s and fixed the problem in about six months. No fence required. Just raise the penalty and the
Forcing all 18 year olds to go work in some socialist utopian make-work program sounds romantic, like the old CCC (“look at all the great parks they built”), but the bottom line is this is indentured servitude. Why don’t we make all the people proposing this bad idea put in their two or four years alongside the 18 year olds? It’s easy to spend someone else’s time and money — I don’t see these people volunteering to do it themselves.
Jules, while your proposal for the structure of a draft may look good to many on these pages, it is foolish to assume that elected officials and government functionaries will not distort it in practice to meet their own selfish ends. This is why conservative thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek supported individual freedom and opposed the draft.
If you feel that American children, and America, would benefit from getting American children out of the house to perform honest, sweat-of-the-brow work on behalf of their nation (and I agree), then why not promote social changes to strengthen the filial bonds of the family and encourage parents to instill in their children this sense of civic duty?
To give a personal example, I am a third-generation Eagle scout. Despite some poor publicity in recent years, the Boy Scouts continue, I am told, to teach young boys the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in one’s community, one’s nation, and the world. The support, encouragement, advice, and good example provided by my father helped me to learn, I hope, how to be a good citizen, in partnership with the resources offered by the Boy Scouts. (The citizenship counselor was a former Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.)
A draft, military or otherwise, is forced servitude, known otherwise as slavery. To justify such a travesty on the basis that it may teach the slaves moral virtue is an exact replica of a common argument used some centuries ago to justify black slavery. This is no justification.
Great! First the government steals their income when they’re trying to pay for school, start families, buy a house, etc, under the guise of “forced savings now = social security later”, then they propose to steal their lives through forced labor. What is it with people who want to give orders and tell others how to live?
Far better than a draft would be voluntary incentives in order to obtain future services or access rights. For example: military service guarantees voting rights and eligibility to stand for public office. Same for individuals who do so in a non-government venue for a minimum of two full years total e.g. church work trips to build schools or water purification systems: Peace Corps or Americorps would NOT count. Volunteer service in Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) which provide needed skills and training throughout the 3rd world but especially in war zones (Iraq, Afghanistan).
I still think this is a good idea (save for the Gulag-style work collective), since a country can’t accomplish a multi-front war without some level of sacrifice from ALL of its citizens.
The benefits to our society far outweigh the negatives. Israel has it right when every young man and woman serves 2 years in the service of their country.
The draft is the ultimate violation of man’s freedom. It’s very nature makes men the pawn of the state, thus robbing them of their right to life and liberty. I serve no man and ask no man to serve me.
Before you get carried away by the “spiritual” benefits of a draft, lets cover the practical aspects, starting with some numbers – US population about 300 Million – annual call-up in your hypothetical, no-exemption draft would be what? 1 million, maybe (are you going to include women in your draft) Last I checked, the total number of uniformed personnel in the DOD is less than 2 million (active). Since the introduction of the all volunteer force the DOD has shut down and sold off a large number of the basic training facilities that were used, and would be needed again to support. Gearing up for a draft would take an enormous effort (and budget. The current DOD can’t handle the number of people your draft would force on them.
-You seem to accept the premise that we need a draft to get the numbers of troops that we need. What’s the basis for this? Through the 1980s we supported an all volunteer force of close to 4 million (about twice what we have now). In the 1990s we were forcing people out to ge to the new authorized end strength. We don’t lack troops because we can’t recruit more – the DOD can only recruit to the end strength limits authorized and funded by Congress – The Army would love another few divisions, but they maintain (correctly, I think)that if the President submits, and the Congress passes the necessary appropriations, that those divisions can be manned by motovated, long term volunteers.
I also fundamentally disagree with your premise that a draft will increase civic virtue – I think the effect will be precisely the opposite.
This is perhaps the single stupidest thing Mr. Crittenden has ever written… and there is some pretty stiff competition for that title.
Don’s reference to Starship Troopers is correct, but this goes far beyond that. Heinlien’s idea centered around VOLUNTARY service, and the Government could NOT fire you…if I recall correctly there is a quote about how someone who was blind, deaf, and paraplegic would be put to work counting the hairs on a caterpiller by touch.
This proposal is basicly Fascist. (Have you read Mr. Goldberg’s book? I know it has lots of big words in it, but I think it would be worth your effort.) Compuslory work in the service of the Volk, “honest, sweat-of-the-brow work” (is what you do “dishonest” work Mr. Crittenden because you don’t sweat while doing it?). All of course ” For the benefit of their nation…” pulling all those upper class kids with Wii’s and Gambeboys down to “our level” so they can see how “real people” live. Gee all we need is Leni Riefenstahl to film all those burning dorms and sweaty, toned, bodies.
(This of course leaves aside the fact all of this violates the 13th Amendment, and would be hideously expensive to boot.)
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg is right only the Democrats want a draft. This is because they nailed their political futures to the mast of anti-war movement’s ship, (or 454 foot yacht?) and that ship is starting to take on water pretty fast. The Dems NEED a draft (or at least talk of a draft) to make the war unpopular enough they can pull us out of Iraq before Gen. Petreaus actually wins this thing.
The military, on the other hand, does NOT want a draft. I’m not kidding. This was looked into early in the Iraq War and it was decided that a draft would be bad for the military. The Army doesn’t want the sort of loosers and whiners and whimps that a draft would send them.
According to Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command, only 27 percent of youth between the ages of 17 and 24 are eligible for recruiting. The remaining 73 percent, he said, “are morally, intellectually or physically” unfit for service. “It’s the lowest it’s been in more than 10 years.” If you don’t believe me, click on the link I included.
Yes, almost 3 out of draft age 4 kids are to fat, to out of shape, to stupid, to lazy, to uneducated, or have drug, legal, or medical problems serious enough the Army DOES NOT WANT them. The Army has standards, and those standards are so high enough that almost 3/4 draft age kids simply can’t cut it, and the Army does not want them, even today, in the middle of the war.
A draft would just mean that the Army had to spend a great deal of money on weeding out and training and re-training draftees, most of whom just don’t want to be soldiers and a fair percentage of whom simply do not have what it takes to be a solider. None the less the Army would be required to make an attempt to try to make them marginally competent. Then they would have to send said draftees home after two years when their tour was up. The Army would thusly only get one tour out of them. The Army can, and does, do better using the money to pay bonuses to the REAL soldiers who are allready in (men and women who and are motivated and want to be there) and recruiting the 27% of the kids who DO have what it takes.
History has shown time and again that a professional, well trained, well lead, and well supplied force can defeat a much larger a mass Army of conscripts and draftees. Look at Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, Alesia, Huan Er Tsui, Liegnitz, Crecy, Agingcourt, Omdurman, the Six Day War, Desert Storm, and the inital invasion of Iraq for examples.
A draft would compell the U.S. to move away from the sort of force that WON in Desert Storm and require it to become more and more like the forces it DEFEATED in Desert Storm.
This is a stunningly bad idea on the political, social, legal, fiscal, philosophical, and military level.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive...
Jules, bravo, bravo, bravo!
From your keyboard to the drafters of national laws.
I too see no downside to this except for all the liberals who don’t want their political fantasy turned into reality
I am certain that a lot of people are suffering from lack of
character.I know that putting males and females in the service for at least two yrs this would help them find themselves in a world that generally teaches self centerdness.Team effort comes into play when you are in the service and it helps mold individuals in a correct fashion. In general military folks value God and country and serving.It would be great to put the members of the media in first so they report
the truth after someone
shots at them and kicks
the hell out of them which they deserve.In a time which the public
doesn”t do anything about dishonesty and tolerates the lack of
morals of our leaders
and thinks that children should grow up to be Homosexuals instead of Teachers, firemen etc.God is not
pleased with America over Abortionists. There payment will be Hell.
The only compromise that factors into this is that between politicians. We all know how desperately out of touch today’s politicians are with their constituents, meaning that this agreement would satisfy political maneuvering with little regard for the will of those involved.
A draft isn’t necessary, in my view. If a war is genuinely worth fighting, people will volunteer in droves; if it’s not, why the blazes would we force people to serve in it? We always complain about the other methods by which government takes away our liberties, so what makes this any different? I don’t care how many compromises this idea makes, it’s a very bad one.
Great, so let me get this straight. A fascist military society, where our children are treated as fodder for the war machine, and if they don’t want to do it they are sent to prison work camps. WTF! Are you serious? It has got to be some kind of demented joke. Earning rights? I am not sure that is what the Founding Fathers intended although I know it was discussed it never made it into the Constitution.
I’ve served with the unmotivated and unwilling. So here’s my counterproposal.
We take all the civilians who are already on the government payroll and stick them in the military. They consume our tax monies anyway, so what’s the downside? It’s not like the Department of Education teaches anybody. The State Department seems to think they set policy, the TVA’s mission is complete, and UPS delivers faster and more reliably than the Post Office.
They would scream,”I didn’t volunteer for this.” Well, my kids didn’t volunteer for the military. I did. My son-in-law did. My brother and my nephew did. Most jobs get done best by those who want to do them.
Forget about the war, only a small percentage of Americans are carrying the burden of the social programs.
Why don’t we have calls to enlist the young and impressionable in free enterprise? What advances our principles more – the military or capitalism?
I have advocated exactly this for years. Turn 18? You get 2 years of federal service. If you don’t want to be in the military, you get to plant trees and pick up trash. After two years you can go to college or work or get drunk or whatever.
Some good ideas contained in this article, but I doubt a draft would work. Some of the reasons are noted by Larry Rasczak above, when he writes of our young generation’s appalling moral, physical and mental deficiencies. Is there any doubt as to why? The greatest percentage were raised with no boundaries, moral principles, work ethic or disciplinary consequences. The meager percentage of late-teen and twenty-somethings that did complete public school are products of a dumbed-down, agenda-driven form of indoctrination that was anything but an educational experience. Masses of tattooed, pierced and shaven-headed knuckleheads are locked in county jails and prisons, or roam the streets in gangs, waiting for their multiple arrest warrants to catch up with them. Many, well into their twenties and thirties, hang out in parents’ basements addicted to meth and mindless video games. All the while employers and unions in my state, Washington, scream for willing minds and bodies to fill the demand for construction/industrial trades workers. It makes one wish we’d keep the illegals and ship much our own youth to Mexico.
No, no, Don! Far too much atmospheric pollution would be produced. Instead, they’ll have to eat their barracks, and then remain on base until they’ve excreted the results, which can then, in an entirely green manner, be recycled in the growing of future dinners.
Er, sorry, Jules. Not Don, Jules. Clicked over to you from Surber. Brain glitch.
I’m simply overcome by the idea of a wonderful Spartan-like society where our children — regardless of their career goals, lives, and abilities — are ripped out of our hands at 18 to be forced by the government to do work or fight.
No exceptions? Should be interesting to see kids with MDA, down syndrome, etc. being forced to take part in Work Camps.
Pardon me as I contain my excitement.
The only thing Americans have in common is taxation.
I’m all for manditory national service.
To those with the “Are you serious? ZOMG!!!1!” responses : Of course he isn’t you retards.
Also answers the leftist plea for government job-creation for unskilled urban young people–not only will they learn some skills and make some bucks, shipping them to Kansas or Vermont breaks up the gangs and cuts street crime. I love a plan that kills three birds with one stone.
While I like the Heinlin model it won’t fly and is expensive, though less than Jules version.
I’ll propose a cheaper model. One that ould require a Constitutional Ammendment.
Want to be President? Run for Congress? Serve as a Political appointee at Defense or State?
Those Jobs would be reserved for Veterans of the Mlitary or Peace Corps.
simple
Brilliant, Jules.
You are my new hero for the week.
One thing that has been bothering me is how soft, whiny, lazy, pampered, and FAT Americans are becoming. This would be a great antidote to that.
You know, I’ve never read “A modest proposal” by Jonathon Swift, but at least I have a clue what it’s about – and why anything titled like it is going to be biting satire.
BTW, the idea of inviting illegals to join the military and gain US citizenship was proposed in detail way back in May of 2006. It is just about the best way to separate out those who truly care about the US, vs. those who do not. It will get them into the middle class and help them overcome the language barrier as well.
Kirk, To claim that having a lower tier that performs the Halliburton-esque duties will prevent the rotation of combat troops is absurd. Combat troops rotating out of theater do not take over the duties of non-combat troops. They do not return to “safe” duties, they are still combat troops.
Work Corps. Tell me how that differs from slavery. If it coerced, then it is involuntary servitude. If not coerced, then the whiney brats will not go.
What we need to do is to gradually pull out the government supports for the unproductive and whiney. As that happens, honest people will be able to get work, at least protecting the productive from the unproductive whiners. Eventally the unproductive whiners will at the worst be suddenly and prejudically removed from the gene pool, or, more hopefuly, will learn that a better life is provided by honesty and productiveity.
I suggest you change the name of the Work Corps to ‘Slave Corps’. We can call the substandard housing ‘Slave Cabins’. We can call the military people who patrol to keep the slaves in their place ‘Escaped Slave Patrol’.
Of course only the very best people will be permitted to command the Slave Corps. We will call them ‘Overseers’. The yongest and prettiest of the Slave Corps will be invited to bunk wih the Overseers at the ‘Big House’.
I have just read the ‘Whisperers’, A very thick book about Stalin’s Russia. What you propose here is exactly what they did there.
If the left is honestly concerned about the stress on fellow Americans in the military, then join.
It’s like when I hear the lefties talk about housing. I ask them, are you a carpenter, a plumber? No? Why not?
Same with health care. Real Doctors, nurses, and hospital workers care about health care, because they do it. Politicians just like to get a free do-gooder ride off the work of their betters.
It’s nice to be a lefty. You can REALLY CARE, damn it, with out having to do any off it. You don’t build the houses, grow the food, wipe the wounds..but…but…you just don’t care…you REALLY care.
(Oh…and Tibet. I forgot. Free Tibet!)
Lefties are beside themselves that they can no longer claim that military service is performed disproportionately by the uneducated and the poor. Members of our all-volunteer military have been shown in studies to be not only better educated, but better off economically than their civilian age/peer group.
A draft would thus provide the left with one resource which they lack today, and which they feel they need; a steady supply of “conscientious objectors” for them to promote and exploit.
Wow. So much hyperventilation over this. You mean to tell me that the educated and sensitive people who are gobsmacked by the article never read Swift’s little treatise? You know, solving the problem of the “poor starving Irish” by raising them as food for British palates, thus solving the problems with the Irish population and British food worries. Everyone wins!
Seriously, it’s getting to the point where you can’t tell a Brobdingnagian from a Yahoo.
One change: instead of age 18, why don’t we make it age 60?
It’s not our kids who are lazy, it’s our seniors. And they seriously need to learn a work ethic before they decide to retire at 62…
This is a terrible idea. You’re taking away money from companies that get paid to do superfund cleanup and other unsavory work. Why should the government wreck their industries?
The Draft will be unnecessary under a hypothetical Clinton or Obama administration not because they’ll pull troops from Iraq, but because they’ll be moved from places where there is a US interest to a place where there isn’t one (remember Bosnia and Kosovo?) and the need for a draft to fuel the anti-war movement will disappear because the movement itself will disappear, because it’s not really American troops at war they object, it’s American Troops at war at the behest of an American President to defend Americans that riles them so.
Hello-
Interesting post and reader comments. I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of the draft, except to make a couple of points. The All-volunteer force (AVF), it should be clarified, is not really a force where you serve voluntarily. You join the military on your own volition, but serve thereafter at the pleasure of the government. That is, once you get in, you cannot simply leave when you have served what you feel is a reasonable term of service. Therefore, it is my belief that it is more accurate to call our force vountarily-recruited, and not purely volunteer.
Moreover,stop-lossing and related measures already amount to a backdoor draft as well. So one could argue that we already have a draft, just not an up-front, formalized one but instead an under-the-table one affecting only a small portion of the country, one that has already done its part.
I do not doubt that members of the AVF are among the best soldiers our nation has ever produced. However, no one in the AVF is qualified to make the judgment as to whether or not they were better than their fathers or grandfathers, who were often draftees. As I recall, they fought WW2, Korea and Vietnam quite admirably, and most draftees did their duty. The argument of whether the AVF is ‘better’ or ‘more highly motivated’ than its predeccessors is alot like comparing Ted Williams and Barry Bonds – entertaining and interesting but not really possible. Different eras, different conditions.
Draftees may pose disciplinary and other problems for the services, but they also leaven the ranks with people who are not members of the professional military, folks who are citizen-soldiers. They serve the function of keeping the military honest, keeping it from getting too incestuous and insular as an institution, something any service member – if they are honest – will admit is occasionally a problem. The services are big bureaucracies, and engage in the same CYA behavior other big organzations do – i.e., cost overruns, burying mistakes instead of airing them, careerism over national interest and so on. Draftees are one check against that sort of behavior, because they have nothing to lose by telling it like they see it.
Having said all of the above, there are certainly problems with a draft, I am not denying that. But if the threat against us gets big enough, all this political posturing against the draft will go right out the window and you’ll see young people lining up for their SS registration. The government has done it before and will do it again if need be. The courts have upheld the legality of the draft on many occasions in the past.
One note to consider: Why does the military cling to the antiquated notion that only the very young can serve effectively in the services? I am in my forties, and tried to enlist after 9-11, and could not get in after more than three years of trying. It bothered me immensely to see the quality of some of the young people serving, how slovenly, out-of-shape, etc. a few of them were. The vast majority of the people in the services are squared-away, highly-competent people, but I saw some bottom-feeders, too. Why they get in and guys like me with skills, education, physical conditioning, good character cannot is a mystery. Granted, middle-aged people are most likely never going to comprise the bulk of our military – we will always need young people – but shouldn’t our services make every effort to use qualified people even if they are a few years above the age cutoff? Last I checked, those soldiers out there are on their 2nd, 3rd or even 4th tour. They need help, so let’s give it to them in every way possible. Performance is what counts, at least in my book.
Final point: Although the pay has gotten better, military compensation does not yet match what highly-qualified young folks can make in the civilian sector. I have a buddy who wants to join up, and he is having problems figuring out how to keep things going – pay his bills – while he is at basic training. And if he ends up joining, he’ll take a 50% pay cut over his civilian job to do so. It is preposterous to me that the people we ask to defend our nation make so little money. That’s an outrage, frankly. We ought to be ashamed. We have billions for another sub but not enough to pay our grunts a decent wage. Yeah, I know it gets better when you get promoted, but the E1s, E2s and E3s are doing a lot of the fighting and dying in this war, and they deserve better.
Pete
Don Meaker:
My father was in the ‘Slave Corps”. He was drafted in early 1942 and returned home late in 1945. Much of the time he lived in a foxhole, or if he was fortunate, a tent. The food was very bad, that is, when he and his fellow slaves’ actually had food to eat. He was a lower level ‘Overseerer’, called a sergeant. As such, he not only received and obeyed orders from higher-lever ‘Overseers’, referred to as officers, he also gave orders and was responsible for the lives of his ‘slaves’. Refuse to obey orders and you could be shot. Of course, where he was you could also get shot by the Germans if you stuck your head up at the wrong time. Later in life my dad suffered serious consequences from having his left eardrum blown out by the concussion from an exploding German artillery shell. I don’t recall hearing him complain about his ‘slavery’, or much of anything else, for that matter. Dad passed on more than a decade ago, long after his generation of Americans saved the world. I miss him, as I do all those from that era who have passed.
There is no enumerated power to enslave whole sections of our population found in the Constitution.
1) All able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45 are ALREADY MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA (see 10 USC 311). And MILITIA service may be compulsory.
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
The Congress under Article 1 Section 8 has the constitutional power…
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
The Federal government has no power to draft citizens into the Federal military. It can call up the militia for Federal service. Such service is limited to (under Article 1 Section 8)…
“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”
Yep, drafting Americans into the military during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. was unconstitutional. Of course, that and $3 will buy you a latte when the Federal Judge decides who pays his bills buys his concurrence with fraud. What you are proposing is even worse, both for the military and for the country.
Arbeit Macht Frei
Hier ist die neue Reichsarbeitsdeinst.
OC, Organization Crittenden, a New Dealer’s nocturnal emission.
“You walk the line where madness and genius dance.”
I was thinking more like LSD and Crack Cocaine.
ANY politician speaking up for this will soon be job hunting in the private sector.
Jules doesn’t mention what sort of employment opportunities exist there in LaLa land.
I just wonder what his motivation is. There is nothing broke here, so when a rabid, foaming at the mouth Socialist wants to fix it I have to wonder what the hidden agenda is.
The destruction of the finest military this planet has ever seen? Why would any American want that? I am curious to see if a jury would consider destruction of the US Military as ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’.
Actually, I had this exact idea a few years ago; I wish I’d written it down. There shouldn’t be a draft; that’s absolutely correct. The only draft that a free society should consider is the one above. That only some, randomly selected, should bear the burdens (or privileges) of citizenship is apalling. To be able to get out of the draft by being rich enough to go to college undermines the society, exacerbates class differences, and saddles universities with a lot of useless kids whose parents happen to be rich (I wonder if that’s what happened to American schools; universities got out of the teaching business and into the protection business).
The concern about denying the combat volunteers non-combat positions to cycle into is a problem. I hadn’t considered that.
This is better than the Heinlein model. It is inevitable that the government or at least bureaucrats would start to take bribes to allow people into the the military and then making sure they were in non-combat positions, or denying admission to minorities, or something. Instead of predicating citizenship on military service, keep the same citizenship laws and require (non-combat) military service.
All of this, of course, is because the draft is appalling, terrible, classist, and racist. That this is the only “good” kind of draft is the point.
How about we just give lefties the draft?
Yes! Yes! Yes! What a wonderful idea! We now have two generations which have had absolutely no service requirement – and we wonder why so few young people today feel as if they owe the nation anything at all. An absolute 2-3 year national service requirement, with no student deferment or other easy way out, whether for military service or CCC-style public works, could save this country.
The “Work Corps” idea is certainly interesting and may even be viable. To a certain extent, I hasten to note, this concept resembles the quasi-military “Reichsarbeitsdienst” (RAD – National Labor Service) created during the early 1930′s in *horrors!* Nazi Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsarbeitsdienst
Alas, I suspect the Left, being eternal complainers, would quickly develop objections to any future “Work Corps” on a variety of grounds. Among these complaints would be, of course, the very real possibility that, like the RAD in peacetime, it would be a de facto “farm club for the Armed Forces” or, in wartime, quickly morph into an integral–even weaponized–auxiliary of the Armed Forces.
If this little plot worked and a new draft energized a nationwide “anti-war” movement, their only real priority would be, of course, the END THE DRAFT.
My God!! This is an interesting thread (with real ideas . . .though some a bit looney)! We have in our service-members a rare resource, people willing to sacrifice comfort, safety and time to a greater good. They should be looked at as an inspiration to their peers, but it seems the “Kerry’esq” attitude is more prevalent (if you don’t study hard you’ll end up in Iraq).
The policy should be that the anti-war should be the first to be drafted. Yes, let them have it, since they are clamoring for it.
Wait a second… Which ones are we going to eat? Did I miss that part? 8D
There’s one big problem with this proposal that I see, among the many others.
“First off, it will get whiny American kids out of the house and introduce them to honest, sweat-of-the-brow work. For the benefit of their nation.”
I don’t care how whiny kids are. It’s not the government’s effing job to make sure kids respect their parents and wash behind their ears! The governments only job is to protect the security of the Republic. That’s it! I don’t know where you got the idea that the governments job is to make everyone a good person. Early Socialists?
And no, I’m not just saying this because I’m a lazy-ass teenager. I honestly think that the government has no right making people who are total dicks into good citizens. As long as they aren’t killing anyone.
Very funny.
I will say that my son is a Marine Corps Drill Instructor at Parris Island. Marine DIs have a hard enough time trying to turn recruits into men and Marines. I think that he would jump off a roof if he had to deal with real draftees. It would be ugly.
This is a model–albeit a somewhat more rigorous model–of a national service plan that has been around 50 years or so. perhaps longer.
That said, it would be interesting to restart a draft–my suspicion is that many of today’s young people will not act like their hippy parents acted. What if they gave a draft and everybody came.
The operating assumption is that the war would end with the draft–talk about reliving history.
The folks who continue to try and poke holes in this thing as though it were a serious proposal should be forced to join the “Slack-jawed Booger Eatin’ Moron Corps”.
Don nailed it with one exception-you had to be a full citizen with voting rights to be eligible for public office. Starship Troopers (the book) was an excellent and well thought out view of reforming government.
TO: Jules Crittenden
RE: About Time….
….people caught up.
I argued something like this in high school debate in the late 60s.
Entry was immediately upon leaving the K-12 range of education. No one could leave that until they were 17. If they left before then, they either home-schooled and tested clear or their parents paid merry-hell.
All of the participants would go through 2 months of classic basic training, no matter what branch/department they were opting for. This was to teach them self-confidence and how to live/get-along-with others. Not only that, but it provides for a population that is trained to the point that they could, effectively, resist an effort of any sort to overthrown the Constitution.
As for the Work Corps concept, we were thinking along the lines of already established programs; Peace Corps, VISTA, etc. But not limiting it to those. We’d have included work in other government agencies; GSA, Forest Service, Border Patrol, etc. Real jobs requiring real skills that could be put to real use after they finished their obligation.
At the end of their obligation, a GI Bill akin to what I enjoyed as a Vietnam Era vet. [Note: I got a bachelors and a masters out of it.]
People who dropped or were driven out got no benefits.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The people that trains together, remains together.]
Kevin: I was at UC Berkeley when the Vietnam era draft ended. The catastrophic drop-off in interest in anti-war activities actually came as a surprise to some people. To most, of course, it merely freed up more time to get wasted.
JC:
“Wow. So much hyperventilation over this. You mean to tell me that the educated and sensitive people who are gobsmacked by the article never read Swift’s little treatise?”
I knew I was in for something amusing when I saw the title and I, too, am surprised so few people seem to get the reference.
The left wants the draft back because it was the mass-scale injustice perpetuated by the draft that animated anti-war sentiment in Vietnam. Without a draft to rail against, the only thing the left has left is their anti-Americanism which has proven insufficient to move the masses to cast off their bourgeois chains.
Saltherring:
I’d love a good-paying trades gig, what do they need up in Washington?
The trades in my home state of IL are closed to guys over 35…
I’d be a heavy-equipment operator for free (but don’t tell them that!), just for the chance to drive all that cool equipment…
Anyway, off the topic – sorry.
Jules, great stuff! Punishment Battalians!
((((Muhuhahahahhahaha!))))
You lefties want a draft? Here ya go, have fun with the new improved Jules Crittenden-style draft. A seat for every asshat! Love the horrified and priggish lefty posts above!
You had lunch with Cheney, didn’t you? C’mon, fess up.
The thing that most indicates to me that this is Swiftian proposal is that given the broad structure of what you are ‘drafting’ people into, almost everybody has been drafted. We, mostly, arrived at a point where we weren’t going to school anymore, found somebody who pay us for what they assumed would be services and off we went. Mostly we have found out, somewhat to our surprise, that we weren’t going to be professors or have money like name your entrepeneur; yet we’ve continued to want to sell our services in the best market that we could conveniently find and there we are, in that draft.. So the question for me, though, considering the proposal with some seriousness is: Should people be ‘drafted’ at some age to what you are talking about if there is no evidence of employment, e.g. FICA wages, or a Schedule C with, say $8000 of income, on a 1040? Would that improve citizenship and be aceptable in our society?
TO: greywar
RE: The Only Reason….
“The folks who continue to try and poke holes in this thing as though it were a serious proposal should be forced to join the “Slack-jawed Booger Eatin’ Moron Corps”.” — greywar
…those folks ‘continue to try and poke holes in this thing as though it were a serious proposal’ are so exercised about it is because they see that it could very well work and that it IS a ‘serious’ proposal, contrary to Jeff’s clever approach to presenting it.
Why do I say it is a ‘serious’ proposal?
Because I’ve been arguing for it for 40 years now. Since high school debate, all through my military career (27 years) and now into my retirement.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Everybody MUST GET 'STONED'! -- Bob Dylan]
P.S. By ‘stoned’, I mean rock-hard, solid for this country and the ideals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
P.P.S. That doesn’t mean everybody has to be lock-step Democrat or Republican or Green or Libertarian or whathaveyou….
….but they sure as hades need to be (1) well versed in what the Constitution and Bill of Rights proposes and (2) willing to do their part to defend those ideals.
Against ALL enemies; foreign and domestic.
Some good, some great, some looney, some unworkable ideas written here, both by the author and the commentors.
A story:
Right after my active duty in 69 ended, I came back to West Texas and went to work on a ranch for a friend of my Dad. It was hard, dirty and seemingly unending work, but I was glad for it and used it in part to heal internally and externally.
The rancher was approached by civic and law enforcement to take some kids that had been in trouble most of their lives. He accepted and for a a while was really sorry that he did. But in the end he won and they won too.
There were a few rules. You work and do it well, or you don’t eat. You work and do it well and you get tv from 8PM to 10PM (nobody ever made it past 9PM before going to bed, dead tired.
In two years he turned those punks into young men who wanted to go back to school and move away from their old habits and neighborhoods.
It was hard and there was many a confontation, threats and even one attempted runaway.
But in the end it was 100% conversion, which I wouldn’t have given you a nickle bet would have happened.
Papa Ray
Yes, by all means, have a draft. I propose another battalion: The education battalion.
We currently have a sub-par, union protected educational workforce. With a drafted population we could immediately improve the average intelligence quotient of teachers and bring teacher to student rations down dramatically. The draftee teachers, free of the pedological blinders of the education establishment would have a great positive effect on students.
Inner city schools’ safety would be vastly improved by boots on the ground with the disciplinary heft to stop bullying and assaults. Some of the draftees would find that the teaching profession, in a military environment which encourages meritocracy and measurable goal achievement might find the career attractive.
The downside of this proposal? There is none. Our educational system is so screwed up that nothing we can do to it could possibly make it worse.
I was drafted after one semester of post-grad study and sent to Viet Nam, where I and my fellow draftees tried to win a war that the politicians had neither the resolve nor guts nor intelligence to win. The idea that putting more people under the thumb of the state will have any good results is stupendously stupid. The unique concept of America is freedom. Involuntary servitude was rightly outlawed in the 1860s and again in the 1980s. Bringing it back is the dumbest thought I’ve ever seen expressed on this site.
Instead of setting up the largest new goverment program of the century, how about we just double the salary and benifits of serving in the military and increase the force structure as appropriate for the percieved threat in any given timeframe. The shortest distance between two points is a strait line. If you need more grade A steak, and you want more grade A enough; the most direct method is to just buy the grade A steak you want and need rather than stealing two years from everybody unfortunate enought to be young and having them waste their time producing low quality frozen hamburers nobody wants or needs. Unless of course you have no actual interest in addressing the staffing requirements of the military. I hear Chavez is looking for coordinators with solid socialist credentials. How is your Spanish?
Maybe it’s a sign that I’ve finally crossed over into old-fart-itis but the most bothersome part of this whole scenario was the idea that burning wood for heat is “green.”
TO: Bob
RE: So….
“Bringing it back is the dumbest thought I’ve ever seen expressed on this site.” — Bob
…did you even read the proposal?
Sounds like you didn’t.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Once 'burned', twice—or even thrice—shy.]
TO: Unquiet
RE: Additional Thoughts, Anyone?
“Instead of setting up the largest new goverment program of the century, how about we just double the salary and benifits of serving in the military and increase the force structure as appropriate for the percieved threat in any given timeframe.” — Unquiet
Your proposal is not as comprehensive in scope as this proposal.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.]
P.S. a.k.a., The Six-Ps.
Conscription is a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. However, there are presently grave difficulties in maintaining a middle-size volunteer army.
In true peacetime, only a handful of recruits are needed: no problem. In full-out wartime, everyone is expected to volunteer, and nearly all do: no problem.
In the middle range, where we are now, it gets very awkward: we only want _some_ people to volunteer. And those who do make a sacrifice that we don’t condemn others for not making. Material rewards aren’t the answer: we don’t want mercenaries, and upper class youth can’t be bought for cash.
The Work Corps idea is useful: there are a lot of things that need doing that are unpleasant and psychologically stressful, including but not only war, and those burdens should be shared generally.
Rather than make national service compulsory, I would make it _expected_. Everyone gets a notice to show up. One can blow off the notice – but then one gets the equivalent of a “white feather”. Military service is an option. So is service in other areas – border protection, disaster relief, care for the mentally disabled, public works, the Peace Corps, etc.
Military service would have the most prestige. A lot more people would consider military service if they were going to spend years doing something similar anyway. I would also make it possible for people to do service at various ages – so that people in their late 20s up to their 50s could serve.
Your proposal is too modest, sir!
Why just burn down the barracks? They must be strafed, fragged, bombed and only then napalmed into nonexistence. Punishment battalions will of course be required to use their teeth.
Of course, one key work opportunity will be border patrol…
Pete Farmer:
Seriously, Construction unions in the Seattle area cannot entice folks to take apprenticeships where the starting wage is $25+ per hour. There is considerable highway construction going on in this area and too few equipment operators and truck drivers. TV news and newspapers have also highlighted union-wage opportunities for pipefitter, carpenter, steelworker, and other apprenticeships. I wish these type of jobs had existed in 1970 when I graduated high school. Instead, Boeing had laid off 60,000+ workers and a signboard south of Seattle read “Will the Last Person Leaving Seattle Please Turn Off the Lights”.
Interesting comments one and all, but my scan did not see a comment on the fact that the reason the left wants a draft is not to share the burdens, and not to burn their drafts cards, although many will.
The reason the left wants a draft is to make the US military ineffective, and ultimately make it dispised. That’s the real agenda, troops.
Good post – Funny. Ought to scare the bell bottoms of the Hippies. No draft please, I’ve worked in it both ways and you can’t believe how much better it is without the whiners. Now if you want to tie college money to a Civvie Job Corps, by all means do it.
Dear Pete Farmer,
RE: “Draftees…leaven the ranks with people who are not members of the professional military, folks who are citizen-soldiers. They serve the function of keeping the military honest, keeping it from getting too incestuous and insular as an institution, something any service member – if they are honest – will admit is occasionally a problem. The services are big bureaucracies, and engage in the same CYA behavior other big organzations do – i.e., cost overruns, burying mistakes instead of airing them, careerism over national interest and so on. Draftees are one check against that sort of behavior, because they have nothing to lose by telling it like they see it.”
Aside from being a steaming pile of c***, you DO realize your statement reveals more about YOU than anything else, do you not?
It reveals you have absolutely NO idea of what military standards, service, life, and culture is like. It reveals that you know nothing of how the vast majority of professionals who ARE citizen-soldiers think about their role and place in American life and society. It reveals you know nothing about the character of those who choose to serve: a character that I’ve found to be far higher on average than the draftable society at large. Most deliciously, your post reveals you have an irrational fear of the military that is sworn to uphold the Constitution and lives very much to meet that commitment. Do you fear the military because you fear that which you do not understand? Or perhaps you fear it for what it reminds you about yourself?
Note: This is not to say their aren’t people in the military who do not ‘get it’: there are. But they fairly rare during and are far and few between after the initial term of service and even more rarely are found in positions where they can do harm. No system is perfect, but military life tends to be very ‘self-weeding’.
Slatherring,
Don Meaker probably wouldn’t mention this in response to your recollection of your father, but I think someone should. Don “Very Strange AND Brilliant” Meaker (I’ve introduced him this way so many times it’s now his unofficial title) was commenting on the ‘work corps’ concept and NOT about a drafted military.
You SHOULD know that of all the people on this thread, Don, as a Ranger-tabbed former Commander of mechanized infantry company who STILL bleeds Olive Drab, would understand and respect your father and his service most of all.
– Warmest Regards
We supported all-volunteer forces half again as many from a significantly smaller population before the 90′s drawdown. We don’t need a draft, just the right recruitment incentives. Your plan, with good and bad features leans heavily authoritarian. A hitch in the service would be good for most young adults, but a draft? I dunno.
A draft is a great idea. Here’s another one: Anyone who thinks the occupation of Iraq is vital to America’s security should enlist immediately.
Would “don’t ask, don’t tell” apply to the Work Corps? I can just imagine legions of boys turning 18 and suddenly “discovering” that they’re “gay”. Instead of a nation of young people who appreciate the value of work and service, we could end up instead with a nation of Klingers.
I take Jules’ title to indicate he was being satirical. The US government is not inclined to institute conscription now and won’t be for the foreseeable future. Advocacy of a draft is the dream of anti-war types who fantasizr about the 60s and who want the USA to be defeated in the War Against the Jihadist Terrorists.
I have always been in favor of a voluntary service military. I am still of that opinion in the current War. Libertarians who rant about “slavery” in reference to conscription are deluding themselves, however. In Western civilization it has always been the case that only free men were allowed to be soldiers. Slaves were not. If they were recruited for fighting they were generally freed. The right to fight was the mark of the free man. So being eligible for conscription is the mark of the free man. So get that slavery nonsense out of your head.
There are certain circumstances where conscription is appropriate for a nation like the USA, in the great wars of the 20th Century when very large forces were needed. Those who say that if not enough people enlist for such a war voluntarily it shows that it ought not to be fought, should simply ask themselves if the triumph of Nazi Germany in WWII would have been acceptable if not enough men volunteered to fight them, because so many people take a “Let George do it” attitude (in economics I believe this is called the “free rider effect”). How would that forward a world of liberty, that libertarians supposedly aspire to? Answer: not at all, and don’t delude yourself otherwise.
Meebo, your draft number is 1.
Draft? Here’s how I’d do it:
First, this time, everyone is eligible. Men and women. Rich and poor. Smart and dumb. White and Black. Gay and straight. Metros and Retros. And so on. The only exception would be people who have already served.
Second, the draft would only be instituted when the United States is formally at war. Before anyone can be drafted, Congress will have to pass a formal declaration of war, stating, among other things, the party or parties with whom we are at war. Any conflict short of a formally declared war would have to be fought with volunteers and contractors.
Third, unlike the Cold War draft, which was for two years, the duration of military service for conscripts will be for the duration of the war. This will provide an enormous incentive to win the war, so that everyone can go home and get on with their lives. It will also provide a big disincentive to getting involved in low-intensity, long-duration conflicts. If we have to fight wars that require “nation building,” the volunteer military will fight them. Conscription will be reserved for wars that require nation smashing.
Fourth, the ages of draft eligibility will be 55 to 65.
This last point may seem a bit non-intuitive, but if you stop to think about it, it makes perfect sense.
If the United States has to put its sons and daughters in harm’s way, it should send those who are coming around the final bend in life’s race track rather than those at the starting line. The fact of the matter is that if someone must fall in battle, the country is better off in almost every way if it’s someone my age – I’m 65 – than an 18-year-old who has not yet had a chance to live, produce, and pay taxes. Better to lose the potential recipients of Social Security than those who will have to sustain it.
And isn’t it far fairer to call to the colors those who have enjoyed the blessings of liberty for a lifetime than those who have barely sipped at liberty’s cup (and, in some cases, can’t even legally buy the beer with which Sam Adams filled it). Hey, if I go out on the town, I pay the bill after I’ve eaten dinner, not before.
To be sure, there are some military occupational specialties for which the young, fit, and enthusiastic are better suited than the old, rheumy, and crafty. Most of these are in combat units. But these constitute a small minority of all military jobs, and they could easily be filled by volunteers.
The vast majority of military jobs, while often dangerous, do not require extraordinary physical fitness or stamina. They could be filled by the middle-aged just as easily as by the young. There are millions of Americans who drive trucks, repair planes, and cook meals well into their ‘60s. They could obviously do the same sort of thing in Sam’s Army.
Much of what the modern military does involves command, control, and communications – management, in other words. There are millions of Americans over the age of 55 with decades of management experience. Uncle Sam needs them. Their employers, who are itching to fire them to avoid pension and health care costs, don’t.
Psychologically, the middle-aged are probably better prepared for war than the young. By age 55, you usually begin getting intimations of mortality, a quality that has obvious survival benefits in hazardous situations. Similarly, the experience with treachery that also comes with age can be invaluable in wartime.
And, of course, when it comes to hatred and grudges, the stuff that wars are really made of, the old beat the young hands down. In war, the young enthusiasts can sustain themselves with righteous anger easily enough, but for genuine, industrial strength hate, for grudges that transcend time and space, for the psychic poison that fuels and sustains Thirty Years Wars and World Wars, that is the stuff of old men.
War, like youth, is wasted on the young. Don’t send a boy to do a man’s job.
Basically, I like the idea. Need to work on the details some. Instead of draft, lets call it National Service. You can’t get a job until you have done your service. Would look great on a resume.
JFarr:
The “can’t get a job until you have done your service.” probably wouldn’t pass muster with a significant portion of today’s youth, as they don’t want (or expect) to work anyway.
SMSgt Mac:
I wasn’t certain if Meaker was serious, a hater of the military, or just a nut. Perhaps he was just speaking of the ‘work corps’, as you supposed. In that case, he’s still a bit ‘off’. Warmest regards, in return, to you also.
Paul Danish:
If Obama or Hillary is elected in November, you won’t have to wait long for homosexuals to gain the “right” to serve openly. This will effectively destroy the morale of our military, which is probably what Obama or Hillary have in mind anyway.
TO: Paul Danish
RE: Items
“Much of what the modern military does involves command, control, and communications – management, in other words.” — Paul Danish
But it all boils down to closing with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to kill or capture him. And to repel his attacks by fire and close combat.
And, whereas C3 is part an parcel of that, it doesn’t do much to just stand there and shout orders to “GO AWAY!” in order to get an enemy out of a position or defend a position.
“War, like youth, is wasted on the young. Don’t send a boy to do a man’s job.” — Paul Danish
The idea of Universal National Service is to turn ‘boys’ INTO men. Something the vaunted American public education system has been failing to do for several decades now.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The fastest way to end a war is to surrender.]
TO: SMSgt Mac, Slatherring, & Don Meaker, et al.
RE: Slavery for US
I don’t understand why this concern over ‘slavery’. The US has always believed in slavery. However, not in the form of personally owned slaves.
Rather, all slaves in the US are slaves by dint of due process under law, i.e., inmates in county, state and federal criminal detention facilities.
And maybe that would be a way of dealing with the burgeoning prison population? Put them to work in the ‘work battalions’. Guarded by people who opted for the I-Wanna-Be-A-Prison-Guard branch of UNS. Future employment as deputy county sheriffs upon completion of service obligation.
As for the prisoners….I’d have to think about what they become when they earn their release. Maybe they could volunteer for some particularly hazardous duty in order to gain release and benefits….should they survive.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]
I think this is an idea worth considering; I wrote a similar article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution a few years ago, emphasizing the need to create a “Disaster Assistance Corps” whose mission would be to go help folks (including overseas) struck by natural disasters: tsunami, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. (Remember how much our stock rose in the Muslim world after we sent the Navy to help after the Indonesian tsunami.) So the conscientious objector types could sign up for that (once drafted) and the folks who want to be in the (real) military whose mission is to “kill people and break things.”
And women can go into combat arms when they can do 40 pushups, run two miles in 14 minutes or less and hump an 85-pound rucksack–like we men had to do when I was in th 101st.
One last point: is it just me, or do folks throw the term “Fascist” around on here a lot? Was the draft “fascist” when FDR or JFK or LBJ used it? Somehow I doubt it.
TO: Anonymous
RE: [OT] Women in Combat
“…women can go into combat arms when they can do 40 pushups, run two miles in 14 minutes or less and hump an 85-pound rucksack–like we men had to do when I was in th 101st.” — Anonymous
I’ll have to disagree with you there. Something to do with maintenance of discipline and focus on the mission in the combat zone.
As I recall, Marshall Tito had to employ some rather draconian methods to keep the co-ed partisans focused on the mission instead of on each other while on LP/OP. Something like summary execution in front of the rest of the troops.
Had something to do with their opponents slipping through lines to attack sleeping partisan units while the LP/OP occupants were paying closer attention to each other.
It’s more than just physical, I mean in terms of a complete and effective fighting unit.
This is also why I oppose homosexuals in such units.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Satire? Serious? Practical?
The bottom line for the draft in any of it’s forms is, “involuntary servitude”. I think the military has realized that an army of slaves takes a lot more training, management, and resources than a volunteer army.
At this point only political hustlers and those who find it easer to shuck and jive than solve our society’s problems are in favor of any form of slavery in order to “earn” full citizenship.
It might also be noted that those who are the strongest advocates of a “draft”, are themselves somehow exempt from the burden they would lay on others.
TO: Son
RE: Wrong
“The bottom line for the draft in any of it’s forms is, “involuntary servitude”. I think the military has realized that an army of slaves takes a lot more training, management, and resources than a volunteer army.” — Son
Having enlisted DURING the draft, serving in it, getting out, getting a commission, going back in, and serving in it after the draft was gone….
….you’re wrong.
The drafted men I served with as an enlisted infantryman, were probably smarter, on average, than the regular enlistee. Why? Because a goodly number of them had completed high school or had some college.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.]
TO: Son
RE: P.S.
“…an army of slaves takes a lot more training, management, and resources than a volunteer army.” — Son
When was the last time you studied the Spartans?
More recently, the Swiss? Even MORE recently, the Israelis?
They all had/have universal MILITARY service.
Are they ‘slaves’?
No. Indeed, they have some of the best military and citizens on the face of the planet.
Please explain away their very existence.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don't know something. Stupidity is when you're ignorant and proud of it.]
I had this thought running through my head especially considering the fact that 97 percent of all taxes are paid by half the nation. Granted, as a college student who has yet to find better than a part time job, I fall in the non-taxpaying side. HOWEVER I don’t intend to rely on a welfare state my entire life.
The thought that came to my head was this: an old poster from the WWII era reminiscent of the new deal. That was of uncle sam holding a rifle in one hand and a garden hoe in the other. Up top, a fitting label: “Work, or Fight!”
I’ll say this is very appropos for the anti-war folk. I’ll say no more.
To: Chuck Pelto
Re: items
“But it all boils down to closing with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to kill or capture him. And to repel his attacks by fire and close combat.” –Chuck Pelto
But it is indisputable that not everyone in the armed forces is called on to close with the enemy in ways that require the physical fitness of the young. Many of the jobs in the logistical, intelligence, and maintenance branches can be done by older Americans and may even be done better by older Americans. A mechanic with 30 years experience maintaining commercial jets may well be more useful than a younger conscript or volunteer just out of training. Someone who has run a major company’s distribution network for most of his working life might very well be more valuable in a supply unit than someone recently commissioned.
I also wonder whether older conscripts would get more out of their training than younger ones. Over the course of a lifetime people tend to learn how to learn.
Granted, there will always be a need to close with the enemy, but it is also true that as war becomes more and more automated fewer and fewer people will be put in harm’s way. For example,UAVs are currently providing some close air support, which is a mission that requires pilots, if not to close with the enemy, at least to get in harm’s way. Many of those UAVs are flown by pilots stationed in the United States, on the other side of the world from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no reason these aircraft couldn’t be flown by middle aged conscript pilots, some of whom might well have thousands of hours of flight experience. As ground based remotely operated combat robots reach the battlefield, they could also be operated by older conscripts.
My point is not that there is no need for young soldiers, only that a very large number of military jobs — the 80 percent or so that do not involve combat — can be done by middle aged ones, and that in some cases the armed forces might be better served if they were. I never suggested that a draft of the middle aged would be a substitute for younger volunteers, only that conscription would focus on the middle aged not the young.
I’ll grant you that older Americans would not be as fit as younger ones, but I think it is wrong to assume that they could not perform most support roles and, for that matter, a number of missions at the sharp end involving indirect fire. I think it would also be wrong to assume they wouldn’t perform well under attack. Part of what comes comes with getting old is learning how to perform in a crisis and not crack. Many of the old already have learned it. Many of the young have yet to learn it.
“And, whereas C3 is part an parcel of that, it doesn’t do much to just stand there and shout orders to “GO AWAY!” in order to get an enemy out of a position or defend a position.” –Chuck Pelto
Again, most older conscripts would never get anywhere near a battlefield. But assume for a moment that they did. It would be wrong to assume that the middle aged would be incompetent in combat. They would on average be less fit, but in many ways more experienced. It’s easy to envision scenarios where more fit is critical, but it is also easy to envision situations where more experienced is also critical — particularly situations involving urban counter-insurgency in which insurgents operate in intimate contact with the people.
“The idea of Universal National Service is to turn ‘boys’ INTO men. Something the vaunted American public education system has been failing to do for several decades now.” –Chuck Pelto
The advocates of Universal National Service be selling that, but I’m not buying. I’m not arguing for Universal National Service. I’m arguing that if we are to bring back conscription it should be only as a wartime measure in a time of formally declared war, and that it focus on older men rather than younger ones.
The central mission of the United States Army is not to make boys into men. It is to defeat or destroy the enemies of the United States. The only reason to have conscription is to further that mission.
If the Army can instill character and civic values among its recruits, that’s all to the good, but making boys into men is not the reason we have an army — and it is certainly no reason to have a draft.
Regards,
Paul Danish
The biggest weakness of this proposal is figuring out who would supervise all these draftees. I’m an NCO, and supervising is my bread and butter. Any given NCO can typically supervise 3 to 5 elements. So a 5 men make a team, up to 3 teams make a squad, 3 squads + weapons squad make a platoon, there are 3 platoons + HQ in a company, and there are maybe three companies plus HHC in a battalion. You wind up with about 20% of the enlisted men being NCOs.
The whole point of all these draftees and the work corps and the punishment corps is that none of these guys are suitable leaders. So however big those groups are, figure on finding 20% of that, but they have to be leaders capable of maintaining good order and discipline and training these guys in their jobs.
It’s tough to be an NCO. The only way I can make it through the day is because my soldiers and I share a sense of purpose. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I was stuck in charge of a bunch of dirtbags, never accomplishing anything but digging holes and filling them in again, constantly listening to them count down the days, constantly dealing with malingering and lying. I’ve been stuck supervising our extra-duty guys and it just sucks the life out of you.
I can’t imagine where you would find people who would do that job willingly, and if you drew from the military how it wouldn’t destroy morale and readiness.
TO: Paul Danish
RE: Boys To Men
“The idea of Universal National Service is to turn ‘boys’ INTO men. Something the vaunted American public education system has been failing to do for several decades now.” –Chuck Pelto; to Paul Danish
“The advocates of Universal National Service be selling that, but I’m not buying.” — Paul Danish; in reply
Don’t care if you buy it or not.
“I’m not arguing for Universal National Service.” — Paul Danish
“I’m arguing that if we are to bring back conscription it should be only as a wartime measure in a time of formally declared war, and that it focus on older men rather than younger ones.” — Paul Danish
How old are you Paul?
“The central mission of the United States Army is not to make boys into men. It is to defeat or destroy the enemies of the United States. The only reason to have conscription is to further that mission.” — Paul Danish
And for that you need men. Unfortunately, all the vaunted American public education system is cranking out now is ‘boys’. Heck, I’m in a ‘discussion’ with the president of a local community college over the way he treats his young men and women like they were children in grade school. And he’s a retired Air Force colonel; even was a base commander at one time.
So, we have to work with the materials at hand….young men with the bodies of men and the social acclimatization of boys. Therefore, WHATEVER course of action we take, we’ll be dealing with boys.
As for getting middle-aged men into the military, via a draft or otherwise, I do believe the military has raised the eligibility age to something like 45.
How old are YOU Paul. And what have YOU done for US?
“If the Army can instill character and civic values among its recruits, that’s all to the good, but making boys into men is not the reason we have an army — and it is certainly no reason to have a draft.” — Paul Danish
Well. As I’ve pointed out, the vaunted American public education system isn’t doing a good job of it. So, somebody needs to take up the proverbial slack.
Otherwise, it could well be that we DO end up with a Starship Troopers form of government….when the democracies fail….because they didn’t teach their children well.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Most science fiction is prescient.]
TO: Ben
RE: The Weakness
“The biggest weakness of this proposal is figuring out who would supervise all these draftees.” — Ben
The backbone of any organization, corporal or corporate, has always been the weakest part. Or the strongest. It depends on the component parts.
I was a young sergeant in the early 70s. I was a young lieutenant in the mid-70s. I know what a disaster befell the Army in what it had done to its NCOs during Nam. Later, reading a book recommended by every general officer who came to speak to the assembled classes at Benning School for Boys, a.k.a., the US Army Infantry School, I learned how the long slide into disaster started….the infamous Doolittle Commission after the end of WWII. It emasculated the entire NCO structure, vesting all REAL authority at the level of full colonels. As a result, when Korea occurred, the only place men stood and fought was where the few full colonels were standing too.
The book is titled This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness. Written by a high school history teacher who as called-up during Korea, served through the entire war, was demobilized, went back to school and wrote this book. It’s an EXCELLENT read. Pay particular attention to chapter 25 Proud Legions.
“I’m an NCO, and supervising is my bread and butter. Any given NCO can typically supervise 3 to 5 elements. So a 5 men make a team, up to 3 teams make a squad, 3 squads + weapons squad make a platoon, there are 3 platoons + HQ in a company, and there are maybe three companies plus HHC in a battalion. You wind up with about 20% of the enlisted men being NCOs.” — Ben
True. And the need for them, young corporals through crusty middle-aged first shirts, is all important.
Where do we get them?
At first, in such a program as CNS, in the military options it would no be easy. But, it wasn’t easy rebuilding the NCO corps from the late 70s through the 80s and into the 90s. But it could be done, if the incentives were there to keep the young soldiers after they finished their obligation. And I think we could develop those incentives.
“The whole point of all these draftees and the work corps and the punishment corps is that none of these guys are suitable leaders. So however big those groups are, figure on finding 20% of that, but they have to be leaders capable of maintaining good order and discipline and training these guys in their jobs.” — Ben
For the military options, I agree; as I stated immediately above. However, for the clerical and other such non-military options, I don’t think it would required the ratio of a combat infantry company. Things, I should hope, are not quite so demanding or hectic in the GSA. Maybe the Postal Service when one of their people is having a ‘postal’ sort of day, but hopefully not others.
“It’s tough to be an NCO. The only way I can make it through the day is because my soldiers and I share a sense of purpose. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I was stuck in charge of a bunch of dirtbags, never accomplishing anything but digging holes and filling them in again, constantly listening to them count down the days, constantly dealing with malingering and lying.” — Ben
I think that under the CNS system, you would not have so many of the malingering sort, as most of them would have volunteered, for the adventure. Furthermore, as I expressed earlier, NCOs would have more authority to deal with such. Even to the point of getting such pains-in-the-fourth-point-of-contact shipped off to the proposed ‘punishment’ formations or discharged under less than honorable conditions; no college fund, no benefits.
“I’ve been stuck supervising our extra-duty guys and it just sucks the life out of you.
I can’t imagine where you would find people who would do that job willingly, and if you drew from the military how it wouldn’t destroy morale and readiness.” — Ben
Like I said, the NCO’s would be able to weed the dirt-bags out of the system, more readily.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the good work, Sarge!
Wish I could be there. I’d turn in my commission and take a bust down to staff sergeant, if I could lead a mech infantry squad in Iraq.
I’m sad to say that my educational path (which I always assumed was of high quality) never led me to Swift’s treatise, but after a bit of Googling, I agree with those who say that Jules’ piece here has to be satire (and well-done satire at that). But still, some of this merits discussion:
I’m simply overcome by the idea of a wonderful Spartan-like society where our children — regardless of their career goals, lives, and abilities — are ripped out of our hands at 18 to be forced by the government to do work or fight.
That’s where I have issues with the proposal as well. As a music professor at a two-year college, that hits me in the backyard with both barrels. First, it would force talented musicians (and others in the arts) to abandon their instrument or voice (which they may have been studying since childhood) for two crucial years in their development, and it would also deplete the majority of the traditional students at our schools; how would we fill the classrooms during the first two years of such a project?
And those who say that it’s not the government’s job to turn people into productive citizens pretty much nailed it, IMHO.
What delicious irony; the anti-war mob calling for a draft. These moonbats cannot fathom or tolerate the fact that we have willingly served in harms way, inspite of THEIR support for the enemy. They just want to add another item to their bitch-and-moan list.
TO: Kev
RE: If Not Them….
“And those who say that it’s not the government’s job to turn people into productive citizens pretty much nailed it, IMHO.” — Kev
….then who?
Parents? The majority of them have abrogated their responsibility to the vaunted American public education system.
The Schools? They’re refusing to do the job. I see a lot of that when I judge high school debate tournaments. And I witness it when the local community hammers the rep from the local university on the high non-grad rate they experience. [Note: Oddly enough, they don't hammer the K-12 reps at the same meeting when the university rep explains the students do not have the skills necessary for college-level courses.]
So who do you propose? The Church?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. Make decisions and take responsibility for yourself, or the state most surely will do so for you, which is the first step towards fascism.]
TO: sfcmac
RE: TARGET!
“They just want to add another item to their bitch-and-moan list.” — sfcmac
Cease fire. Shift to moonbat with two-antennas. Load APRES.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Tanks are for crowd control. APRES are for crowd dispersal. -- A Tankers Rules for Civil Disorders]
TO: Mark ‘It’s not all about you’ D
RE: The Best
“Most jobs get done best by those who want to do them.” — MarkD
However, if it were NOT for the ‘draft’, black people would still be slaves amongst US and Hitler would have won.
Something to think about….if you think at all.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you wish to defend a place, you must put your young men in the dirt to do so. -- T.R. Fehrenbach; This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness, © 1963]
P.S. Hey!
Do you think that if I express myself vehemently HERE, they’ll try to ‘kill’ me?
To: Chuck Pelto
Re: My age, etc.
How old are YOU Paul. And what have YOU done for US? — Chuck Pelto
Well, since you asked, I’m 65.
Sixty-five would put me near the edge of the window I proposed for the senior draft, but — if I can anticipate a possible objection you might raise — I originally proposed the idea of a draft that targets older Americans four years ago when I was 61, at which time I would have been eligible.
And yes, as you probably surmised, the idea was put forth somewhat tongue-in-cheek and as a thought experiment, but the more I reflect on the core of it, which is that it is in the cold-eyed interest of the American republic to draw on its older, more experienced citizens for military service in time of war, deserves serious consideration
As for what I’ve done (and not done) for the US — I have not served in the armed forces. The closest I’ve come to the sharp end was three weeks in Tel Aviv as a freelance correspondent during the Gulf War in 1991.
I have served in elective office in local government — six years as a City Councilman and more than nine years as a County Commissioner. That certainly doesn’t involve anywhere near the sort of personal sacrifice or gallantry that military service requires, but I think it does qualify as public service.
As for what I actually DID during that time…well…did my damnedest to uphold the Constitution and the laws, provided a couple hundred thousand people with a reasonably competent, non-corrupt, government based on the rule of law, and generally tried to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Mostly, I just made several thousand samll decisions. none of them are very notable in the grand scheme of things, but if somebody doesn’t tend to them, the wheels can come off civilization in a hurry.
But enough about me. How old are you? And what’s your story?
Regards,
Paul Danish
Raise the recruitment age to 50! I’m 46.