No Military Draft Equals Full Time War

By TRB

Have you ever wondered how the U.S. could be involved in three wars at that same time, and people out there would seem just fine with it? It doesn't make sense when you consider how meaningless these wars are in light of domestic economic problems. And all three are wars of choice, wars we don't have to fight. Not one of them is existential in the least, say, like WWII, where if we hadn't fought our continued existence as a nation would have been in serious question.

These are all wars that fall into that ever-increasing category of "diplomacy by other means." In other words, if you don't do as we ask, we will invade your country and cause havoc, maybe for as long as the entire next decade.

The U.S. has done it before, of course. In Vietnam, for example. But Vietnam was a full-fledged war for only 6 years or so; the rest of the time spent there consisted of CIA and DIA guys sitting around in Saigon drinking until they got headaches Now, almost a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, and this new adventure in Libya.

After only five years of all-out war in Vietnam, and people numbered in the hundreds of thousands were marching on Washington D.C. and cities all across the nation. War veterans were throwing their decorations for bravery at the White House. A President refused to run for a second term over the ruckus raised about it.The Republican candidate (Nixon) ran on the promise that he would stop the war. He just failed to mention that he would widen it into other nations first and spend three more years over there.

People in the U.S., especially young people, but a growing number of older ones too, hated that war in Vietnam. They hated it because it made no sense in any way whatsoever, tens of thousands of their sons and daughters were coming home in metal coffins. But mostly they hated it because they had to go there and fight it. The other alternatives were to leave the country or to be imprisoned. Vietnam was a draft war, a war of conscription. And frankly it didn't matter if you liked it or not.

Now comes Charles Rangel, a Congressman from New York and he wants a new military draft. It is H.R. 5741, The Universal National Service Act. Rangel, a highly decorated veteran, has been observing these historically long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and he has been wondering. He wonders, for example, if the Bush and Obama administrations would be able to get away with seemingly endless wars if "Americans had a stake in it," i.e., a son or a daughter.

And like many he believes the Pentagon prefers not having a draft. Too much trouble. Conscientious objectors and all that. Anti-military demonstrations, too. And the news media would be relentless in seeking the truth, as they eventually were in Vietnam.

They felt an obligation to get to the bottom of nearly every controversy arising out of the war because afterall, these were conscripted U.S. citizens. They, for the most part, were not in Vietnam because they wanted to be there.

The military switched to an all-volunteer force in 1974. The government still requires men and women to register for a draft in the advent of a "national emergency," but people in uniform today are there, for the most part, voluntarily. I say, for the most part, because under the regime of Bush II the National Guard and the Reserves, which had been one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer service organizations became full time armies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of these soldiers do 18 month tours or longer, and more than one. It is not what they signed up for.

So who are these people who fight our non-existential wars, who die on a regualar basis for some inexplicable reason or cause that the Commander in Chief himself can't even explain? According to Rep. Charles Rangel, they are young people from the inner city, unemployed people from small towns and poor people. And that, according to Rangel, also explains the almost total lack of anti-war protests and also explains why leaders at the Pentagon don't want another draft.

Frankly, they fear their various wars might come under intense scrutiny if broad cross-sections of youth were stationed in battle zones in the Middle East.

There has been a draft in every war since the Revolution. The draft stopped after the Vietnam War in 1974, and even though the U.S. has fought many wars since, it never started back up. Was this because U.S. officials suddenly became less war-like in their foreign policy, and therefore no longer in need of conscripted soldiers? No it wasn't. In fact, U.S. foreign policy is more apt to break down into military action than it has ever been.

The conclusion is unavoidable. The Defense Department decided to do away with the draft for good because it would mean less Congressional oversight, less public protest, less scrutiny by the news media, and no chance that their or their friend's children would be drafted.

And to think, with the full time use of the part time National Guard and Reserves you could have a "draft" without even having to call it one.

So, in a large sense, Rangel is correct, a mandatory military draft would make the Pentagon and the White House think twice before involving the U.S. in military adventurism and would probably also cut the Pentagon's budget by as much as 25 percent - at this time some of our volunteer soldiers are given $40,000 bonuses just to extend their terms in service. Sounds almost mercenary, doesn't it?

Still I believe Rangel's attempts to reinstate the draft, which go all the way back to 2003, will probably not even make it out of committee. Those in the U.S. who are against these wars shouldn't have to rely on a military draft for U.S. leaders to wake up, withdraw more troops, dial back on the defense dollars. And, by all means, allow the "weekend warriors" (the National Guard and the Reserves) to go back to being "weekend warriors."

We will continue to have wars like Afghanistan, Iraq and this thing which just began brewing in Libya, until Americans realize how foolish it is to fight meaningless wars, spending hundreds of billions when you don't even have enough money to repair the bridges in your own nation.