The Draft: Should it be brought back?

There was the admission by Army's number 2 this week that the Army is stretched thin.

Does this change things at all?

 

Not at all. Forcing people into national service, particularly dangerous military service, is tyrannical, and something that can never occur in a free society. It is utterly injust, and I would rather see wars be lost than people forced into military service.

-Paul

 

Forcing people into national service, particularly dangerous military service, is tyrannical, and something that can never occur in a free society.

Untrue.

In extreme national peril, where the fate of the nation is in balance, the draft is warranted. The draft has been a part of US history since the foundation of the Republic.

I'm saying this as a veteran myself.

Now, ONLY in times of extreme national peril - such as a World War situation, e.g., WW II, or other such extreme situation - should the draft be reinstituted.

Otherwise, our volunteer force is sufficient, and I oppose any measure to institute a draft at this time.

 

DM - Just to clarify, my "something that can never occur in a free society" was meant to imply that any society in which the draft is employed is not, in fact, free.

Could you justify the draft's having been a part of the U.S. since our start? I'm not questioning your statement; I'd just like to know. Most of the drafting that I'm aware of took place in the twentieth centutry. I believe I have encountered some information in the past regarding conscription during the Civil War. But I'm just not familiar with uses of the draft before that, and I'd love some info.

And I still stand by what I said. A nation that must force people to protect it probably should not be protected. Even if the very fate of the nation depends upon it, forcing people into service and to risk their lives is never acceptable or justified.

-Paul

 

Conscription has been a part of American history since the Revolutionary War.

Your statment here, with all due respect, is also inaccurate:

forcing people into service and to risk their lives is never acceptable or justified.

When the fate of the nation is at stake and many more lives will be lost, forced conscription (the draft) is essential and completely justified. You have the obligation to defend your nation in a time where freedom is on the line and the very existence of your nation and the lives of your families are at stake. We're talking about conscription within this Democratic Republic, which is the United States, not dictatorial conscription in totalitarian regimes.


Conscription is certainly justified in events like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II.

A nation that must force people to protect it probably should not be protected.

I quote Dwight D. Eisenhower:

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.

 

I do think the draft goes back as far as the american revolution, but the earliest i know of is during the american civil war. Lincoln at first drafted 500,000 men for the union army, and i think later another 500,000 more. but i do know for sure that a draft was used in the civil war.

edit: DM beat me

 

Your statment here, with all due respect, is also inaccurate:

Likewise, with all due respect, there is nothing inaccurate about my statement. I may be picking a bone here, but my statement, which expresses my political opinion, is not something you or anyone else may claim to be inaccurate. It is not a fact; it is an idea. You may think it is a poor idea. Obviously it is not a philosophy you agree with. I welcome your right to disagree with it, but ask that you please not treat my opinion as a fact I've somehow gotten wrong. I understand that I tend to assert many of my opinions without saying "I think" or "I believe," and I don't expect you to have to do that. It's simply your branding my statement with the very fact-oriented term "inaccurate" with which I disagree. That little semantic point aside, I'm eager to discuss this with you.

When the fate of the nation is at stake and many more lives will be lost, forced conscription (the draft) is essential and completely justified.

If when you say there are times when forced conscription is "essential," you mean that it may be necessary for the survival of the nation, that's difficult to dispute, for certainly such circumstances might arise.

Part of the way you pitch this argument seriously concerns me. You say that the draft may be essential when "many more lives will be lost." I absolutely disagree with the sentiment that a threat to many lives entitles the government to claim and spend the life of any single person. Mind you, I don't even believe that the government ought to be able to claim the wealth of the rich and give it to the starving, so you'd be fighting an uphill battle on this point. Suffice it to say, while "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a wonderful guiding philosophy for a person to choose, I do not think the government has a right to impose that choice on someone, depriving him of his ability to choose whether or not to sacrifice his life for his countrymen.

A slightly better argument would be that conscripting people into military service may be necessary to preserve freedom -- but to me, this is a failed argument, because the conscription has already represented an utter failure of freedom.

You have the obligation to defend your nation in a time where freedom is on the line and the very existence of your nation and the lives of your families are at stake.

Oh, I definitely agree with that sentiment. Then again, while I am a staunch believer in the concept of noblesse oblige, I am totally opposed to unfair taxation schemes and other laws which require the rich to behave nobly and generously. I simply don't think the government is ever entitled to claim my body without my consent, whatever duty I may have to defend freedom.

We're talking about conscription within this Democratic Republic, which is the United States, not dictatorial conscription in totalitarian regimes.

To be totally frank: I don't believe it makes a difference.


Edit: I'd also add that to me, all the arguments you've offered in favor of conscription only begin to resonate in a totally defensive war. Not offensive, not pre-emptory, but solely defensive. Would you agree with that, or no?

-Paul

 

Simply stated, you are the beneficiary of the freedom this nation provides you. If freedom is at stake - the survival of this nation - and your country requires your service, then you are obligated to go.

Freedom isn't free (cliched, I know), and it comes with responsibility. Individual concern for one own's well being is trumped by the greater good required.

There is a substantial difference between totalitarian conscription for aggressive and oppressive purposes and conscription for your nation's defense.

I know Harvard College is quite a liberal institution when it comes to philosophy and political science, but I sincerely hope they're not teaching you that conscription is oppressive and tyrannical to defend the freedom of yourself and your fellow citizenry in times of national peril. However, I wouldn't be surprised as much of the faculty there are the same radicals of the 1960s.

I'd also add that to me, all the arguments you've offered in favor of conscription only begin to resonate in a totally defensive war. Not offensive, not pre-emptory, but solely defensive. Would you agree with that, or no?

Yes, of course.

I only favor conscription in terms of national defense.

 

However, I wouldn't be surprised as much of the faculty there are the same radicals of the 1960s.

Please define what a "radical" is, if you can.

 

I know Harvard College is quite a liberal institution when it comes to philosophy and political science, but I sincerely hope they're not teaching you that conscription is oppressive and tyrannical to defend the freedom of yourself and your fellow citizenry in times of national peril.

No; the issue has not thus far come up in my college education. (I have yet to take any History or Government courses.)

I definitely understand your point about a person's duty to defend the freedom of which he enjoys the benefits; in fact, I agree with you. I just don't think a government can legitimately enforce said duty if it involves forcibly depriving an individual of his freedom and forcing him into service against his will, let alone forcing him to risk his life. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one.

-Paul

 

KW: First, let me say that Vienam was an unjust situation which JFK shouldn't have gotten us involved in, Lyndon Johnson gotten us in deeper in, and Nixon having to exit us in defeat in.

It was unfortunate most of all how our soldiers were treated by these 'radicals' when they got back home.

The 'radicals' I speak of are the rabid anti-war, pacifist crowd that doesn't simply disagree with something and vie for democratic change, but utilize despicable tactics to get their point across. Now, these same individuals of the radicalized left are in institutions of higher learning, passing on this view to the younger generation without any sense of balance whatsoever.

I think darth_paul got my point concerning conscription, though. We will agree to disagree then d_p, but I think personal concern for personal saftey goes out the window when freedom itself is at stake in a time of extreme national peril where conscription would be required (e.g., WW II, Civil War, et cetera). Like I previously stated, I do not support a draft whatsoever unless absolutely required for the defense of our nation and our freedoms.

 

I think any attempt to educate without proper balance is a disaster. When you're debating something as we are here, sticking to one's own side of the story is perfectly fine, so long as you're willing to entertain the opposition's views and not dismiss them out of hand. But educators are not merely around to impart opinions. Opposing viewpoints should be given a fair presentation, for this allows students to learn about all sides of an issue and draw their own conclusions. This must be a challenge for any educator, as it is nearly impossible to discuss any issue without bias, and presenting every possible viewpoint on any given issue would take more time than there is. It's a fine and difficult-to-maintain balance. But certainly, teaching any one opinion on an issue like a political stance or historical event as "fact" is unfortunate and unfair to the students.

Agreed, then, DM. You'll not find me very much in disagreement with your ideals, as I've said; it's simply your politics which I can't accept.

-Paul

 

We're having a rather good discussion, d_p, even though we disagree.

However, I can say with certainty and as historical fact that America would have lost the Civil War and World War II without conscription. So, sometimes, it is an unfortunate necessity.

 

my 2 cents
NO, do not bring back the draft!!!
We already have enough people in the Military who don't want to be in, and enough people who don't want to be here! (in the middle east at the moment)

The draft should only be brought back in rare cases, like if our borders were to be directly attacked by a large military.

 

"Unfortunately, this will not change until we can get more freedom-minded individuals who respect the Constitution (read: Libertarians) into office."

 

For some light hearted news about the draft, how about this story from the Chicago Tribune?

HERE

Air Force Seeks to Draft Accordion Player

There's a great job out there awaiting an accordion player. The catch: Six weeks in boot camp.

Bockenek is looking to recruit at the 66th annual American Accordionists Association festival, which is happening this week in and around Boston. She interviewed a half-dozen people Sunday and was scheduled to hear auditions on Monday.

"They have to be under age 35, they have to fit our weight and fitness requirements, and they have to be able to get a security clearance," she said. "We are looking for someone who's not just qualified to do the job, but who fits the parameters of the United States Air Force."

A case in point is Sgt. Maj. Manuel Bobenreith, the accordion player in the U.S. Army's band and the military's only official accordion player for now.

"I consider myself lucky that I am the only accordion player out of more than 490,000 active-duty soldiers," said Bobenreith, who has been the Army's accordionist for 18 years.

Heh.. That must be the key to National Security, to find the right accordion player.

Of course, for perspective, the accordion player in the Army would be paid about $63,000 a year, plus benefits..

 

Something funny, Emperor_Joe?

 

...the accordion player in the Army would be paid about $63,000 a year, plus benefits..

$63,000 PLUS benefits!!

What pay grade is that accordion player? Are you sure they were not factoring in medical, dental, and the housing allowance with that? Or maybe an enlistment bonus?

If that is just basic pay that accordian player would have to be an E-9 with 26 years of service or a W-4 with over 20 years in (according to the proposed 2005 Basic Pay Chart). That is if there is not some type of special pay for band members like doctors have (I cannot imagine why there would be).

Hey, if that is true, I bet there is going to be a bunch of people running out for accordion lessons.

 

Also in this weeks Army Times there was a discussion of the 5,674 former military personnel who are going to be involuntarily called back to active duty. The article showed a break down of the jobs needed. There were the expected specialties: Field Artillery, Infantry, Engineers, MPs, EOD, and maintenance technicians. But I was surprised to see the Army is going to involuntarily recall 2 trumpet players, 2 French Horn Players, a percussion player, 3 saxophone players and 4 clarinet players, to name a few.

Does the Army really need to involuntarily recall band members? It is not like we use bugle players to signal movements on the battlefield any more. They will probably only be used for Dog and Pony shows for the Brass. Do we really need to disrupt the lives of these civilians? I don't know, I think the call up of the IRR should only be the very essential personnel, IMO.

And it turns out, having 8 years active/reserve military service does not automatically exempt you from an IRR recall (as I once believed).

In the same issue of the Army Times there is a story about a civilian (A former Army Reserve Officer)who is now suing the Army in Federal Court contesting his recall to Active duty. The former soldier in question serve 4 years active duty and 4 years in the reserves. He then got out of the reserves, married, bought a house and began preparing for a career as a civil engineer. Since he completed 8 years of service he was certain he no longer had an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) commitment.

Surprise! According to the Army, while enlisted soldier's service automatically ends after eight years, an officer is subject to recall indefinitely unless he resigns his commission. So if you a former military Officer you can be recalled to service at anytime if you did not resign your commission!

 

Pacifists should not have to serve if they object.

 

The US selective service administration has had that covered for quite a while now..

HERE

conscientious objectors are normally filled into non-combat positions within the military that support the overall mission.

Medics, chaplain assistants, etc.. are some duties which "pacifists" normally have served in.

A person who completely objects would be assigned an alternative service that runs parallel to the military. (serving in a VA hospital, working for the conservation corps, etc..)

 

Good.

 

up for more discussion.

 

I just met my RA (resident assistant) here at school, and it turns out he was in Iraq for a while. I'm going to speak with him and ask his opinion on the entire war, and if he thinks that a draft will eventually be required.

 

I would not like a draft but if drafted I'd do what I had to do. This country has been defended time and time again by people that were drafted