There was a 27 page long discussion of this subject back in Jan/Feb of 2003. At the time Democratic leaders were arguing for reinstatement of the draft. They argued that the mega-deaths anticipated in Iraq would fall inequitably on minorities and the poor. It was, in my opinion, an initiative more intended to obstruct and delay the impending Iraq operation than to address what was regarded as a serious flaw in how our military is structured. Democrats knew that reinstatement of a draft would help fuel opposition to Iraq, so they made the inequity argument. They intended to prevent the removal of Saddam, and didn't at the time argue that the draft was necessary to provided enough troops to insure the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Those interested in the topic might like to visit that old thread.
2003 Should the Draft Be Reinstated Thread
Here are my remarks from that time:
03JAN03
Would the nation benefit by re-establishment of compulsory military service? That depends a lot on what purpose the restored draft system would be expected to serve.
Are draftees required to insure our military superiority?
Probably not. Current military personnel are very well trained and disciplined. They are skilled at utilizing extremely sophisticated fighting systems that would baffle most draftees. The number of regular full-time volunteer military personnel is somewhat less than optimal. Some military specialties are decidedly understaffed, and others have difficulty in retaining highly specialized personnel. However, the human resources problems would be better solved by increasing the number of regular soldiers than in trying to fill the gaps with draftees. As hostilities grow more probable, Reserves are called up. Reserves bring with them the fundamental training, skill, and experience to bring our forces to a better state of preparedness. Draftees are useful as basic riflemen in the straight-leg infantry, but that isn't where the most pressing needs are. The existing volunteer force doesn't need a bunch of amateurs' under-foot when preparing to fight a modern battle. Should the army be larger? Probably. Should they receive better benefits and pay? Certainly.
Draftees might, on the other hand, serve to relieve military assets stationed within CONUS, for duty within one of the overseas commands preparing for hostilities. Draftees might provide some additional security around infrastructure targets within the United States. On balance, I don't think that a renewed draft would enhance our military capabilities much.
The Draft as a policy counter-weight.
I think this is what Senator Rangle was getting at. BTW, don't "dis" the man, he earned his real military honors fighting in Korea and deserves the respect of his countrymen.
Let's first get rid of a myth. The existing professional army isn't made up of the "lower classes" who had no other alternative. It's become hard to get into the military, and the various services are very selective. Only the best and brightest are truly sought after. Our military spends a lot of money and time in training it's soldiers to be the very best in highly technical fields. Even the average infantry grunt is brighter and better educated than soldiers ever were in our history. These are really first rate people.
Now, are the Executive and Congress more likely to send a wholly volunteer professional army off to fight, than it would if the military was primarily made up of draftees? The volunteers now serving come from every congressional district in the nation, and are the sons and daughters of folks who elect legislators. To they count less because they chose to serve their nation in uniform? I don't think many legislators would behave any differently if the military were conscript rather than volunteer. The Executive branch, I hope, will use the army responsibly no matter who is in uniform. Military involvement is a two edged sword. A quick and bloodless victory over undeniably bad guys is a political plus, for about three months. A bloody war that drags on endlessly when the People don't clearly understand and approve, is a prescription for political loss. All war is something of a gamble, and in the United States domestic policies tend to carry most weight. Win a war, but experience economic difficulties, and you might as well retire from the public arena.
I don't think that a renewed draft would effectively constrain military adventurism. I do think that the Democratic Party would like to obstruct and delay decisions related to military action by the United States. That's some of the value in having a two party system, it provides a counterweight by its very existence.
Other public policy benefits might accrue from reinstatement of the draft system.
Military service has, in this country, frequently served useful public policy purposes. Military service teaches young people the value of discipline, teamwork, and shows them that they can prosper by contributing to the larger group. The stories of successful men who were rescued from a life of idleness and crime by military service are legion. There were Draftees in WWI and WWII who wore shoes for the first time, and who learned to read as a result of being drafted into the US Army. The military has been a bootstrap upward on the socioeconomic scale for many. Integration's first great victory was Truman's directive integrating the military services of the U.S., and the military remains one of the best opportunities for minority advancement. By renewing the draft, many more young people who are just rattling around in the world might be given a chance to put their lives in order.
By exposing more people to military service, we might improve public education about military matters. I'm afraid that most people today get what passes for military knowledge from action movies. Most have no realistic idea of what is involved in waging war. Film soldiers never seem to get tired, or cold, or bitten by bugs, or have to march for twenty miles carrying significant weight. Film soldiers are heroes, villains, or cowards - in real life they may be any or all of those things, but usually are just the kid next door trying to survive. Those who have served in the military have a better understanding of what goes into a military operation. Those who have served, may in extreme circumstances provide the last line of resistance. By improving public understanding of military matters, the People will have a better basis on which to judge the policy actions of our sitting government.
What does it mean to be a citizen? The citizen receives the benefits of his State, while normally those who aren't citizens do not. What does the person have to do to qualify for the benefits of citizenship? Historically, and I expect Setanta to elaborate on this, there were three qualifications: 1) Be born within the State; 2) Obey the laws and pay taxes, and; 3) serve the State in a military capacity. A renewed draft would renew and reintroduce many citizens to their fundamental responsibility, especially in this nation founded on the idea that it is the People who make up the State, and not the other way around. I think we have lost some of that since the draft ended. Familiarization with military subjects is an important part of preparing citizens for governing themselves. People unfamiliar with war, may find it difficult to make rational policy choices. The media doesn't prepare people to know how hard and terrible war is. On the other hand, naiveté founded upon a lack of knowledge makes all war seem an evil to be avoided at any cost. War is sometimes necessary. Death and destruction can be far worse if the danger and risk of war is delayed. An informed public whose understanding of war and the military arts is better able to judge which policies should be adopted.
I don't think we should become a militaristic society, but it seems to me that the realities of war and the military has fallen far below what is necessary if we are to remain strong over the long haul.
Finally, The Founding Fathers were terribly suspicious of standing armies. They felt that professional soldiers might owe more to the State, than to the citizens who in our system the State is supposed to serve. Within the United States there are strong prohibitions against military intervention in public affairs. Our fathers recognized that the strength of the State had to be restrained for the sake of individual liberty. Americans went unprepared into every war prior to 1960. Historically, at the conclusion of each conflict, we deactivate our armies, and maintain only a skeleton force. We have relied on saltwater walls to provide the nation time for a call to arms to be effective. After 1945, the time between the commencement of hostilities and our need to respond has steadily shrunk. During the Cold War, from missile launch off of Soviet Boomers to impact was as little as half an hour. There would be no time for volunteers to rush down to sign up.
The all-volunteer professional army IS without a doubt better than if we had continued the policy of conscripting a fair percentage of young men. Are we in danger of losing control over that force? Personally, I don't think so. Others might differ, and I'm sure that the Anti-Federalists would be horrified at the military we have today.
09FEB03
A Brief History of the Military Draft in the United States
Americans first instituted a draft during the Civil War. The ranks had to be continually replenished because of the extremely high casualty rates. Some units suffered as high as 80% losses in a single campaign. Disease rather than bullets was the leading cause of loss, and desertion/AOL rates were also high. Both Union and confederate Forces resorted to the draft.
When the Union instituted the draft, massive civil riots broke out in various places in the North. The most serious rioting was in New York where predominately Irishmen burned and lynched blacks. I believe the New York riot may have been the foundation for the recent film "Gangs of New YorK", but I know little about the film and can't be sure. In the South even Blacks were encouraged to serve in the combat arms when the supply of whites began to diminish.
After the Civil War, the United States abandoned the draft and reduced the military to almost nothing. It was a volunteer army that won the West. During the period between the Civil War and WWI, all Negro regiments made up a substantial part of the U.S. Army, and they served with distinction. During those years the principle U.S. military campaigns were the Indian Wars, The Spanish American War (1898), philippine insurrection, and chased Pancho Villa around Mexico. The "Volunteer System" was shown to be very inadequate in many cases, though the smallness of our forces was usually blamed.
American entrance into WWI was late, and young men rushing to glory swelled the ranks. However, trench warfare and the machine gun had already demonstrated that the approx. 200,000 Americans would be insufficient. The first draft called for a total of around 500,000 men, but Pershing almost immediately upped that number to over 1,210,000. American unprepared-ness was soon evident. Logistically there wasn't enough to supply the expanded military. Draftees were housed in tents because there weren't sufficient training camps with facilities large enough. Training was often done with broomsticks and men carrying signs designating them as "tanks". No thought-out training doctrine existed, so the cadre invented one. The officer corps was too small and so just about any upper class, college-educated young man could get a commission. It was a mess. The arrival of the Americans was greeted with enthusiasm and, though some have argued the tide of battle had already shifted toward an Allied victory, the Americans did place an important part in the war. After the war, the American military shrank back to little more than a palace guard.
The mobilization of the American Arms was slightly in WWII than in WWI, but it was still far from adequate during the first six months of the war. America did have a secret weapon. It had George C. Marshall as Chief of Staff. General Marshall had in his mind the design for mobilization, the skill to implement his plans, and the trust of FDR. Marshall's little black book became the springboard to higher command for men who had spent a decades as Captains. Marshall had prepared training facilities and begun a massive logistical buildup in the years prior to Pearl. Even with the Marshall at the helm, it took far too long to bring the full force of American arms up to that needed for victory against the Axis powers.
WWII segued into the Cold War before the United States could fully disarm itself. The Atomic Age caused policy makers a lot of anguish. One one side there were those who said that with the Atomic Bomb, we need nothing but a few long-range bombers. Wiser heads knew better, while the debate went on the draft continued. When the Soviet Union demonstrated that they also possessed atomic weaponry, the Cold War was on with a vengence, and the draft became a permanent fixture in America. The DPRK, with the blessings of Uncle Joe and the material support of the PRC invaded and murdered tens of thousands of South Koreans. The small and poorly equipped American occupation forces were pushed down to the pusan Perimeter and it looked like a big, big win for Communism. Suddenly a large military that was ready to fight at an instant's notice was evident. The Communists were beaten back to the Yallu River and China entered the war with the PLA, and army of many millions. The Korean War went into an armistice that has continued to this day.
The next challenge was when the Communists of North Vietnam, again with the blessings and support of Stalin and Mao, tried to completely dominate Vietnam. The French were defeated, and no one was left to deter the Communist advance but the United States. The United States could not have defended Vietnam as long as it did without the draft. However, it was Vietnam that persuaded the American People to abandon the draft. The United States was forced to return to the use of an all volunteer military. The new volunteer army would be different than those most common in American history. The new military would be large, well equipped, well trained and possessing the finest weapons available. At first it was hard going, but over time we have developed the most powerful, effective fighting force in the history of the world.
A return to the draft would seriously degrade the fighting capablilty of American Arms. However, I believe that some form of military training for all American youth should be instituted.
haven't got a plan for introducing Americans to military fundamentals. Steissd suggested that basic military training be within the curriculum in high schools and college. Something along that line might work. Improving the physical condition of our youth, and an introducing them to military style discipline might do many a world of good. Learning basic tactics and strategy will be useful in many lines of endeavor. Military history should be emphasized more than it has been over the last twenty years or so. Firearms training would probably appeal to many.
NOV04
The shortcomings of relying upon the Reserves are more evident now than it was a couple of years ago. Neither their training nor their equipment has been as good as expected. They have performed exceptionally well in spite of those obstacles. More at issue today, I think is the long deployments to combat areas overseas. Back in JAN/FEB03 the Democrats were insisting upon reinstating the military draft, now it seems that they have totally changed their position
I have not. I still do not believe that reinstatement of a Draft is required to ameliorate the apparent shortage of the nation's military forces. Reassignments from garrisons no longer requiring large RA contingents should help. We need to increase efforts to enlist and train volunteers. Additional funding to compensate veteran troops, and career enhancing policies would reduce the retirement rate. Part of the problem is that many of our best trained soldiers have already served for 20+ years, and they need to be replaced ASAP, that probably means a flock of promotions in both officer and enlisted ratings. It would certainly be helpful to have greater participation by some of the other fine military professionals of our allies. Both German and Russian military forces are very capable, though the willingness of their governments to commit them is still weak. After all, why put your own forces in harm's way since the4 Americans will bleed for you? We, of course, fervently hope that the numbers required by the middle of 2005 will be reduced, as greater stability is evident in the hot spots.
