Anti-Conscription Arguments and Developments

Why has the nation not employed its traditional method of manpower procurement in the current situation now that there is CHANGE in administrations (no pun intended). Dr. Adrian Lewis told the Army Combat Studies Institute that he considers a number of politi­cal arguments and military explanations, and others points touch on social, cultural, and economic explanations against the draft.

Of note, these same arguments if proven accurate can also be used to call for the abolition of the Selective Service System and Selective Service Agency. Much as there was a call to abolish slavery in the 19th century. VT.Ed.

The following presents some of the major arguments against the draft:

1. The belief that science and technology are the panacea to all human problems

2. The belief that military service should not interrupt the unrelenting pursuit of wealth and ever-greater consumption.

3. The fragmentation of the Nation into small, “tribal nations,” each with its own set of values, ethics, and beliefs.

4. The belief that limited, asymmetric warfare, which is not in accord with the American vision of war, is not a threat that requires the attention and participation of the American people.

5. The presumed inability of drafted Soldiers to master the technologies and doctrines required to fight on the modern battlefield with sophisticated weapon systems during a single, short term of service.

6. A widespread preference for professional Sol­diers who are more consistent and reliable, who do not restrict their leader’s range of action, and who minimize the public’s involvement in the fighting.

To be sure, this list of arguments is incomplete, and these arguments are not mutually exclusive, but it is important to understand them.

[Rest assured that many more arguments can and should be made in the comments section, I know that my associates left of center can add their take in an intelligent argument and debate that does not lean on the passionate and emotional argument that military service (voluntary or not) is slavery and servitude. Note also that the arguments addressed by Dr. Lewis are intended for a military audience, so he brings up hardly none of the concerns of people left of center. Vt.Ed]

Science and technology

After World War II and the development of the heavy bomber and strategic bomb­ing doctrine, airpower became a panacea, the answer to avoid the carnage that occurs when two great armies clash in ground warfare. During World War II, some argued that air power was a war-winning technology. In 1948, after witnessing two atomic bombs bring the war against Japan to an end, Eisenhower articulated the new American vision of war:

In an instant, many of the old concepts of war were swept away. Henceforth, it would seem, the purpose of an aggressor nation would be to stock atom bombs . . . Even the bombed ruins of Germany [and Japan] . . . provide but faint warning of what future war could mean to the people of the earth. [Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday, 1948), 456].

This focus on air power was evident [as recent as] 2003 in the “shock and awe” doctrine that was supposed to win the war in Iraq without the involvement of significant numbers of U.S. ground forces. The invasion was supposed to demonstrate the most recent so-called “revolution in military affairs.” The development of information technologies, stealth bombers, and precision weapons produced the stra­tegic doctrine known as “network-centric warfare” and the operational doctrine of “shock and awe” to eliminate or minimize the employment of [ground troops].

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was wrong, again. It is hard to see a revolution in military affairs in current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. [The arrogant belief in America's technological superiority even with unmanned drones that kill innocent as well as the enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a throwback to our arrogant technological superiority over the Vietnamese. Vt. Ed] The prophets of airpower and [technological superiority] have again contributed to a disaster that ground combat forces had to fix [or clean up].

Editor’s Note: And still we observe both the Air Force and Navy come back to Congress and the President year after year with palms out for increase defense funding for just such airpower and technology that our ground forces continue to have to come behind and make up for when technological superiority is neither appropriate to the low intensity war being fought or over kill. If nothing else the bulk of any defense increase must only go to the Army and Marines until they are back on their feet. The lame argument that all the services can be funded as the nation faces the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression and one political party or another jockeys for position to lower the national debt while intentionally ignoring the fiscal costs of war(s) with raising taxes to pay for them is a pipe dream, more so a FANTASY. VT.Ed.]

Wealth and consumption.

As we are in the midst of the Christmas shopping season, we are reminded of the words of Andrew Bacevich: For the United States the pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence-on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people, whether they admit it or not, is that nothing should disrupt their access to those goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part through the distribution of pork at home (with Congress taking the leading role) and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad (largely the business of the execu­tive branch).

Regardless who wants to blame our nation for being in debt, the Republicans are trying to make hay of it now despite the last administration running up the national debt while not paying for war(s), the truth is as U.S. News & World Report recently reported, “America is incredibly indebted. The debt in the financial world went from 21 percent of a $3 trillion gross domestic product in 1980 to 120 percent of a $13 trillion GDP in 2007, reflecting an astonish­ing accumulation of as much as $30 of debt for every $1 of equity in many firms.” [Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News & World Report, 27 October 2008, 92].

The evidence is overwhelming that the pursuit of wealth and greater levels of consumption dominate American thinking and actions more than any other endeavors. Con­sumption influences every aspect of American life, including the Nation’s ability to produce combat Soldiers. [The focus of President Obama on the economy from the time he took office to his decision to escalate his Afghanistan War blatantly shows where his and America's focus and attention really is AND IT IS NOT AFGHANISTAN FOR NOW. Not until the media shifts from selling the war to reporting negatively on it, and they will. VT.Ed.]

UNFIT FOR DUTY

With each subsequent decade of the latter half of the twentieth-century, the American people became physically and psychologi­cally less capable of fighting wars. In the 1990s, ROTC departments around the coun­try complained that new recruits couldn’t run a half-mile. New physical training programs were initiated to get potential cadets up to the minimal physical condition required for service, a standard that was far below that required in U.S. Army infantry units. Recruiters had the same problem. This is an issue of national security that has only grown worse since the end of the Cold War. The problem, although identified during the Korean War, plagued the services throughout the Vietnam War.

In 1957, Robert Osgood wrote: Quite aside from the moral odium of war, the fear of violence and the revulsion from war­fare are bound to be strong among a people who have grown as fond of social order and material well-being as Americans. War upsets the whole scale of social priorities of an individualistic and materialistic scheme of life, so that the daily round of getting and spending is subordinate to the collective welfare of the nation in a hundred grievous ways-from taxation to death. This accounts for an emotional aversion to war, springing from essentially self-interest motives. [Robert Osgood, Limited War (IL: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 33.]

“Getting and spending” are no longer subordinate to war; they, in fact, govern the American conduct of war. The absence of a national discussion on conscription clearly indicates that national security is subordinate to the major American endeavor, the pursuit of wealth and consumption.

Fragmentation.

Some argue that the United States is no longer a cohesive cultural entity. Evi­dence of the Nation’s fragmentation: “According to the geodemographers at Claritas, American society today is composed of 62 distinct lifestyle types-a 55 percent increase over the 40 segments that defined the U.S. populace during the 1970s and 1980s.” [Michael J. Weiss, The Clustered World (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 10].

Patriotism is more rhetoric than reality.

By Patriotism Is More Rhetoric Than Reality. on 2009-12-20 15:36:59
Some believe that people would ignore any law that required national military service. Patriotism is thus more rhetoric than reality.

Evidence of fragmentation is visible in the recent American conduct of war. Private military firms have taken over many of the responsibilities that once belonged exclusively to the military. [See Peter W. Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003); and Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman, Betraying our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War (New York: Palgrave, 2007)].

War in America has become a lucrative business, which, arguably, further diminishes the need for Americans to participate in it. The responsibilities that once belonged to the American people now belong to private military firms loyal to the dollar [MERCENARIES], not the people, the government, or the Army.

The strategic culture of limited and asym­metric war

While the Nation has fought many limited wars, the paradigm for war that occupies the thinking of most Americans is that of the Civil War and World War II, both of which required total mobilization.

President Harry Truman remarked on the American desire for peace: “Americans hate war . . . No people in history has been known to disengage themselves so quickly from the ways of war. This impatience is the expression of a deeply rooted national ideal to want to live at peace.” [Harry Truman, Memoirs of Harry S. Truman 1945, vol. 1 (New York: Da Capo, 1986), 506].

Americans have traditionally believed that:

- The United States is a unique nation-state, unbound by the rules that govern other nations.

- War is serious business, and the U.S. ought not to enter into it lightly.

- Major wars are a national endeavor involving the resources of the nation.

- We ought to conduct wars in a professional, expeditious, and unrelenting manner and bring them to a quick, decisive, and successful end.

- A war should be strategically and doctrinally offensive-and short.

- Its aim should be the destruction of the enemy’s main army followed by the occupation of its country, and its political, economic, social, and cultural transformation.

- The postwar objective is to change the defeated state to one that more closely resembles the United States-a capitalist democracy.

- War is fighting; that fighting ought to com­mence as soon as possible, and proceed continuously and aggressively until America achieves victory.

- There is nothing Americans cannot achieve when fully mobilized.

- The enemy’s identity should be unambiguous, his location certain, and his forces visible and will­ing to accept battle.

- Fighting ought to produce demonstrable prog­ress and decisive results.

- Compromise solutions are un-American and do not justify the human cost of war or achieve the Nation’s political objectives, which are absolute.

- The exigencies of battle ought to dictate the course and conduct of war and minimize the loss of life; political matters should not impede the efficient use of force and the expeditious prosecution of war.

Americans [once] believe in equality of sacrifice-the fair distribution of the war’s burdens among the adult population. They believe that the Nation’s human capital is its most precious resource, and that while Americans are fighting and dying, no other resource should be spared to bring the war to a rapid, successful conclusion. Americans like to fight highly organized, systematic, materiel- and technology-based wars. Americans believe that war is an aberration that upsets the American tenet that man is not a means to an end, and that his “pursuit of happiness” is the end.

Americans believe in acting unilaterally and aggressively and that sustained warfare is un-American and potentially damaging to American democracy. Americans do not accept defeat. They increa

Read the rest of this comment…

[ Reply to This ]

By Devil’s Advocate! on 2009-12-20 15:57:00
There are those who passionately feel that military service is slavery and servitude (despite the illusion that this is a left-wing monopoly, most Libertarians feel that involuntary military service is slavery starting with Ron Paul). There are also those who strongly feel that the same people volunteering (the lower classes as in class warfare) would be the same people unfairly drafted ala Vietnam, but the right-wing claims that the Vietnam draft was not as unfair as liberals would make it appear just as they also deny there is not socio-economic draft today as if every military recruit was the son or daughter of a lifer (careerist like me).

The only valid arguments are if our over-stretched Armed Forces needs the draft or we need to stop the wars, the survival of our All Volunteer Force can be assured once the war end. However, there needs to be a serious public debate on this issue outside of mainstream media and politicians. Like that would take a miracle, but it is Christmas time. Debate over conscription needs to be retained as strongly as troops re-enlist, and that national public debate needs to be as never ending and ongoing as the never ending deployments our gallant troops well VOLUNTEER for.

To allow our politicians, anti-war, and anti-military activists to continuously sweep the debate of who fights and dies in America’s 21st century wars under the carpet is doing a disservice to those who do volunteer and feel the rest of you are either unfit or plane unsuited for military service. I respectfully view this as a cop out to allow the children of the privileged a get out of war free card endorsed by both the right and left wing. If the son of some Senator, Congressman, or President is cut out for one day deciding to send other people’s children to war the way our politicians spend other people’s money, then they sure as hell are cut out to SERVE. The simple solution from the left of center (and moderate military families) is to END THE WARS AND BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, but frankly despite a reenergizing of the pro-Peace movement every few months, minus the draft I don’t see that happening during anyone from the Vietnam generations shorter lifetime.

Readers may note that the arguments presented by Dr. Lewis attempt not to politically exploit the issue of conscription or the draft, but to ignite intelligent debate over it within the Armed Forces.

Any Google search will show how both the Democrats and Republicans have manipulated and used the threat of the draft during both the Bush and Obama administrations. Those opposed to President Bush’s foreign policy decisions used the threat of the draft [never taken seriously by anyone] beginning with Congressman Charles Rangel’s unsuccessful attempt to ignite debate that got bogged down in scare tactics from all sides of the political spectrum, and today the pendulum has swung to the right-wing using the threat of the draft [still not taken serious by anyone] to undermine President Obama’s SURGE in Afghanistan. This also reflects splits in both the Democratic and Republican parties given that fiscal conservatives are going to increasingly turn independents as well as once hard core liberal Democrats who oppose the war(s) sitting home come election day(s).

One would be a fool to not note that there are strong arguments against the draft from both the left of center, and right of center.

Governments of both the Republican and Democrat vintage can easily get us into war(s), can even maintain a stay the course position, and the American people frankly can do nothing about it THUS FAR.

Read the rest of this comment…

[ Reply to This ]

*
By Barrie W. on 2009-12-22 22:25:14
some serious rationale here, along with a dollup of bs, but i could be onboard with this entire diatribe. too long, though. and who is VT.Ed.? i read just last night from tom barnes, that we use real names here or he will spank you.

By Nick Velvet/ Mutt on 2009-12-20 18:27:51
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I went looking for Col. David Hackworth’s articles on the societal need for a draft.
As an aside, I enlisted in ’67. My time in Viet Nam convinced me the US was out of control, and that having a lot of people in the military who didnt want to be there kept it honest- or more honest than it would have been, by far.
We need to massivly scale back the fraud that is the National Security State, in order to do that, whats left of the Middle Class has to act responsibly, in order for THAT to happen, their children must be made hostage to US war policy.

The following article says it better, and in greater detail.

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_draft.htm

[ Reply to This ]

*
By Radical Middle Class What A Concept! on 2009-12-20 19:27:51
Nick (Mutt),

I need to take a closer look at that site, but suffice it to say Bro that it is friggin RADICAL. http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_draft.htm [www.radicalmiddle.com]

In fact the whole concept of a radical middle class is intreging.

You also mention some of the work and writings of Colonel Hackworth, I’d like to also take a closer look at that.

What really caught my attention big time is how this guy who was so anti-war, so anti-draft to include running operations in Canada that would ALMOST be impossible today did a 180 calling for the draft.

At a glance, I can see some of his rationale jives with the reasons that I said ROTC was conceived as a concept during WWII (not talkng JROTC here). ROTC was intended initially as military officer assession from Liberal Arts Colleges to balance out the officers coming in from the Military Academies.

That said, the number of strictly Liberal Arts Colleges in the United States that have ROTC units have decreased dramatically since Vietnam. Meaning colleges that entertain ROTC units today are Engineering and Science in focus not Liberal Arts.

Mind you I’m also not trying to infer that Liberal Arts colleges are the sanctuary of LIBERALS or LIBERAL thought by a long shot.

One of the points Dr. Lewis brings out is that Senior officers and DOD civilians prefer a ground force that does not question. What they fear in regards to discipline problems is getting draftees, especially intelligent draftees who will go along with the program up to the point that blatant wrong doing is being done then blow the whistle.

I found another site advocating the draft that is not right-wing also.

I’ll have to dig it out.

Bobby Hanafin
The Mustang Major

*
By Didn’t The Draft End After Vietnam? on 2009-12-26 20:33:46
Most people are under the illusiion that the draft ended in the mid-1970s, but in reality the apparatus that is responsible for implementing conscription went into what is called deep standby (minimum manning, and the Selective Service Agency stopped collecting personal data on young Americans). That I believe was between 1973 and sometime in 1980.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (what irony), President Carter signed an executive order that beefed up the Selective Service Agency by increased manning to include military reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentees from the Reserves of each military service, and increased budget that has been stable ever since at around 20 to 25 million.

The 21st Century Selective Service System (SSS) and the Agency that runs it is an independent federal agency operating with permanent authorization under the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App.§451 et seq.). It is not part of the Department of Defense, but its mission is to serve the emergency manpower needs of the military by conscripting personnel when directed by Congress and the President.70

[Editor's note: though not part of the Pentagon, the Selective Service System works closely with DOD by providing military recruiters access to the personal data on young American males who register for the draft. This enables military recruiters to contact every young man who registers with military enlistment materials. Of course young men can opt out by simply throwing away the enlistments brochures and such, but the objective of military recruitment is having the largest pool of draft eligible to solitcit. That pool stands at about 12 million youngsers.]

All males’ ages 18 through 25 and living in the United States are required to register with the SSS.

The induction of men into the military via Selective Service (i.e., the draft) terminated in 1972. In January 1980, President Carter asked Congress to authorize standby draft registration of both men and women. Congress approved funds for male-only registration in June 1980.

Another point to ponder is that even if a President should call for implementing conscription, he/she does not have induction authority unless granted by Congress. Since 1972, Congress has not renewed any President’s authority to begin inducting (i.e., drafting) anyone into the armed services. Recent efforts to provide President Bush with induction authority have been rejected. See H.R. 163, October 5, 2004, failed by Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 2 – 402 (Roll no. 494).

Convincing arguments against the draft have encouraged a growing number of anti-draft activists, including the Libertarian Party to call for cutting funding to the Selective Service Agency or outright abolishing the agency in order to no shit END THE DRAFT – PERMANENTLY.

Ironically, those who make the most convincing arguments that we do not need the draft, volunteers make better troops than draftees, and so on the Department of the Defense is also the first to oppose any effort to abolish the apparatus to do just that END THE DRAFT!

Funding of Selective Service has remained relatively stable over the last decade. It also remains so low compared to other defense related programs that it under the radar of budget cutters, and garners no public or media attention as a waste of taxpayer dollars. For FY2008, the President [Obama] requested, and the House approved, $22 million, which is $3 million less than the FY2007 appropriation.

That $22 million could have been better spent on Obama’s national healthcare initiatives or better yet spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs to take care of our current and returning Veterans much better that it has done.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired

ABOLISH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM AND AGENGY!!!

By Alton on 2009-12-20 23:32:35
I would bet my life that if (like in World War 2) America is attacked and in peril of being destroyed, we would not have enough space all for the volunteers. That said, when it was finally discovered that Iraq could not and did NOT have plans to attack us (WMDs) and in 8 years we STILL don’t have a strategy to do anything worthwhile in Afghanistan, then the cost of American lives is too much. Maybe I’m getting old but I see this as a crime against America’s value system. Think I’ll go have another Beer.
I have also noticed that the Army has taken people from the other services (called Augmentees) to help them fight. They are not hurting for people like they are making out. And if I had a son now that was thinking about joining, I would do everything in my power to change his mind until this war is over. I would not want him to give his life and me have to bury him. This ‘bit of dirt’ is not worth dieing for. They did not attack us, it has no strategic value and in the final analysis, we will be using close to 300,000 combatants from around the world to find maybe 1,000. In the meantime we are the invaders, some of us act like it and we are treated accordingly.
By VT Editorial Comment on 2009-12-21 13:02:16
“I would bet my life that if (like in World War 2) America is attacked and in peril of being destroyed, we would not have enough space all for the volunteers.”

Thank you Alton that response ALMOST fits quite well with Dr. Lewis’ typical arguments against the draft number 4.

4. The belief that limited, asymmetric warfare, which is not in accord with the American vision of war, is not a threat that requires the attention and participation of the American people.

Assuming you mean that if the Continental United States including Hawaii and our territorial possessions (Guam and Puerto Rico) were attacked by a conventional force and the American people had to fight for our very survial (sort of like Israel), young men (and women if the case maybe) would come out of the woodwork to enlist or even accept conscription.

I personally believe that is a convenient cop out that was also used quite effectively by the right-wing and stil is FOR NOW. I can provide you a link to where the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) briefly, and I mean briefly entertained the idea of the draft to deal with dwell time and our overstretched force, but settled for the position that since the U.S. in not in a war for our very survival it was OK to expect less that 1% to carry the burdens of war for the rest of us. Of course their position was just as politically motivated as any shift to supporting the draft would be today. They gave a thumbs down because it was Bush’s War and the Republicans still controlled Congress pre-2006 as if that really makes a difference today.

Unfortunately, few wars look like this in the 21st Century.

Dr. Lewis puts it in more academic terms that go over the heads of most of us with a High School GED, but simply put though there may quite possibly be conventional war threats to the United States, he even makes that argument for the draft, there will most likely not be another conventional attack on the US, American people, or U.S. Forces of the seriousness of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

That is not to say it is impossible, for it we continue to flounder our ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even with an economic draft that meets our forces needs for those limited wars, the longer we are bogged down fighting guerrilla wars (insurgents, terrorists, whatever the term for the month is) there is more change that a numerically superior ground force like the Chinese could potentially challenge us for control of the seaways, territorial expansion, alliance with North Korea, attack on Taiwan to force unification, and the list goes on. But frankly, I believe that our nuclear detterent is still effective against such a possiblity.

Put another way if we can find those fanatics in our government, political parties, and even within our military smacking there lips for never ending REVENGE for September 11th regardless we view the exploitation of 911 as a fantasy or not, can you imagine what the same fanatics would do given a no shit scenario like you paint. They would push for REVENGE using Nukes.

The atomic bomb created modern, limited war. Nuclear weapons destroyed the tenet that war is a continuation of politics by other means. There is nothing of political consequence to discuss after a nuclear exchange between the great powers. American dominance in conventional forces has ended conventional warfare, at least for the near future. Thus, the American strategic war culture does not apply to the current environment.

Your argument Alton also verges on the notion that if Americans cannot fight the type of war they want to fight, they will not fight at all. That hasn’t stopped the economic draft or the one percent burdened by the war from volunteering to go back into combat over and over and over again regardless what YOU think.
“In 8 years we STILL don’t have a strategy to do anything worthwhile in Afghanistan, then the cost of American lives is too much.”

Very good point, and in 8 years the so-called Peace movement has not been able to come up with an effective strategy to end the war(s), and I frankly don’t see anyone who questions the wars or opposes them coming up with anything that works in our (Vietnam generations) lifetime.

“I have also noticed that the Army has taken people from the other services (called Augmentees) to help them fight. They are not hurting for people like they are making out.”

Another good point, and the Army has done something that it was impossible to do during Vietnam, today the Army is able to tap into the Reserves and Army Natonal Guard to also augment. In fact, without the overuse of the National Guard the ops tempo and endless deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan would also be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain minus the draft. (wink)

However, I must disagree with the effectiveness of tapping into the Air Force and Navy for ground force augmentees. Yes, there are certain Air Force AFSCs and Navy billets that fit snugly into being Soldiers and Marines, such a Medical and Security Police units, however I’m certain that both the Navy (Sailors) and Air Force (Airmen) are only on six month rotations plus get more than adequate rest time between deployments. I also believe that there are enough Airmen and Sailors to almost ensure each only one tour in combat, maybe two.

However, the overall attitude of Air Force (can’t speak to Navy) leadership has been reluctant to provide such augmentation in significant numbers that would either negatively impact the Air Force mission(s). Put another way folks do not go into the Air Force or Navy to become ground force Grunts – PERIOD.

Secretary of Defense Gates in fact fired both the Air Force Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force a while back for just such a WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS attitude.

Lastly, you sound like the vast majority of Americans so no debate here on having your child serve. I would not either quite frankly, but I have no other children to sacrifice to any piece of dirt.

But if our ground forces have as much augmentation as you believe they do how come they are on their fourth or fifth deployments?

Bobby Hanafin

By Scott Kohlhaas on 2009-12-21 03:12:49
By NEVER CAN TELL! on 2009-12-24 15:02:05
Scott,

Though I seriously do not believe there will be conscription in my lifetime (Vietnam Vet), never can tell, so let me enliven your dead link.

Thank You,

ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired

By Marc Killam on 2009-12-21 14:32:57
Sent to Veterans Today via email:

Bobby [Hanafin] If you want one more anti-conscription arguement I’ve got one hellova big one for you. And it concerns morale and the poisonous effect, that’s inevitably inflicted upon those who have Voluntarily CHOSEN to Serve [by those who are forced to serve].

Ever since I was ten or eleven years old, being bored in public school after attending a parochial school, and as I lost interest in school, my desire and lone objective was to join and serve in the U.S. Navy as soon as I was legally able to do so.

So at sixteen I’d already signed my enlistment papers, had had my physical and secured my mother’s parental consent, and on 01 June 1973 four days after I’d turned seventeen I was in Great Lakes Naval Recruit Training Ceneter and followed by Boiler Technician A-School, at GLakes NTC Mainside.

Everything was great! UNTIL I had to spend 2 months awaiting my assigned Duty Station, the USS McCandless DE-1084, to return to the Destroyer & Submarine Piers in Norfolk, from an extended Mid-East Deployment. And then again aboard my new home and work place, I kept finding myself surrounded by a whole shit-load of those who only joined the Navy to avoid the draft and Vietnam.

Their “I Don’t want to be here and I don’t Give a Shit attitudes,” ruined the morale of everyone around them, it poisoned my own desires to make the Navy a career, and made our difficult times even more so. Ever since I still keep thinking “WHAT IF,” “What If” I’d have been surrounded by shipmates who actually WANTED TO BE THERE. Where would I be today? Would I have made the Navy a career, IF ONLY I hadn’t been surrounded by these malcontents?

One historical point: I was part of the very first wave of an all volunteer military, whose service was negatively impacted, by those who felt they’d been forced into their present situation. How many others like me were similarly affected?

Marc K.
Englewood, FL.

Mark is a long time friend of mine in the Veterans’ Activist movement since at least 2004. I promised to post even those comments that do not agree with my views on conscription. This is to say many whom I respect and work with, especially moderates to left of center do not want the draft anymore than most politicians and Generals. That said, note that Mark mentions that he was surrounded not by draftees but people who joined the Navy in order to avoid the draft, but really did not want to endure military service regardless. It should also be mentioned that just being in the Navy in no way ensured a Sailor would not be exposed to the impact of combat or war same goes for the Air Force flying out of Thailand for example. Agent Orange for example shows no discrimination between service members off shore Vietnam, stationed in nations bordering Vietnam, or flying over Vietnam. Though I disagree with the short ops tempo expected of the Air Force and Navy on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan rest assured that being in the Air Force or Navy is no guarantee one will not see combat, or not be exposed to the impact of combat.

Bobby Hanafin
The Mustang Major

By C.V. Compton Shaw on 2009-12-22 07:27:02
Our domestic and international political,cultural, economic, and social policies, since the War in Vietnam, have clearly resulted in the fact that there are fewer men willing and able to serve in the US Military, especially the combat arms.
There is no legal relationship in the USA between electoral representation (the right to vote) and mandatory military service such that the electoral majority consists of individuals who are unable and/or unwilling to serve in the US military, especially the combat arms.
The danger of the same is that this electoral majority will use their electoral power to exploit, discriminate against, and DESTROY those who do and/or are capable of serving in the military while granting themselves social, economic, and political privilege.
Until this profound injustice is addressed, I am opposed to a military draft as the same exposes veterans, especially combat veterans, to the aforementioned exploitation and injustices.
The following is the URL of a Web Site on an article by Congressman Ron Paul in which he makes a very well thought out argument against the draft.

• Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. James Madison, President of the United States
o Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788-10-17)
By REPUBLICAN Ron Paul on 2009-12-22 09:55:11

“Until this profound injustice is addressed, I am opposed to a military draft as the same exposes veterans, especially combat veterans, to the aforementioned exploitation and injustices. The following is the URL of a Web Site on an article by Congressman Ron Paul in which he makes a very well thought out argument against the draft.” http://www.debate-central.org/2006/research/a-draft-violates-individual-liberty [www.debate-central.org]

Congressman Paul’s well thought out arguments against the draft are frankly well established views of the Libertarian Party as evidenced by their party platform on National Defense, Internal Security and Individual Rights, and ban of all foreign intervention. In fact, Ron Paul’s views are in keeping with the libertarian stand on no foreign aid what so ever.

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
Unfortunately, Congressman Paul is not a Libertarian but a Republican. He was offered the nomination of the Libertarian Party and turned it down thinking he stood a better chance running as a Republican in a primary against John McCain. WRONG!

Frankly, I tend to lean left of center of the Libertarian Party, and endorse many or their platforms except where smaller government would mean not taking of America’s Veterans.

In fact, we require a socialized medical system for both the Department of Veterans Affairs and Military Medical system unless moderate to right of center Libertarians get their way about privatization of the VA or doing away with the VA as just another government hand out.

That said. Congressman Paul has introduced some very valuable legislation since he’s been in Congress that goes far beyond anything anyone in the anti-war (Pro-Peace) has managed. In this respect he put action behind rhetoric. I admire Ron Paul for going beyond opposing conscription to actually doing something about it though unsuccessful THUS FAR.

He has been the only politician in Congress to introduce legislation to abolish the Selective Service Agency (SSA) and the Selective Service System, and he did this long before running for President.

Frankly, given the strong arguments against conscription, and the strong belief even within our government and population that should American no shit be attack (ala WWII) there would be more volunteers than our government would know what to do with thus why continue wasting taxpayer dollars on a system that continues to collect personal data on American youth, invades their privacy rights, and no one seriously intends using the personal information gathered.

In fact, some states have taken moves to separate applications for higher education from signing up for Selective Service. However, at the federal level that would mean seperating the Department of Education from the Department of Defense. The Education Department collects personal data on young American men of draft age and passes it to DOD. This needs to stop if conscription will never be needed again.

However, reality is that Libertarians or Independents if I may, do not run many state governments let alone the federal central government. It would take a lot more Ron Pauls running not as Republicans (or Democrats) but as Libertarians or an Independent Party to totally abolish conscription. As long as the Selctive Service Agency remains viable, and continues to collect date on young American men (for now), the possibility of the draft has NEVER ended.

Lastly, for all the rhetoric about no foreign intervention, no draft, and a smaller defensive military, the Libertarian Party has not been known for hitting the streets in active, and aggressive protest over the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq or the escalation of Obama’s SURGE in Afghanistan.

This to me is something that any true Libertarians should be giving as much consideration and action to as second amendment rights or anti-illegal immigration.

Just my humble views, that if the Selective Service System were abolished the issue of the draft would finally be NULL and VOID.

Bobby Hanafin
The Mustang Major

Related posts:

1. U.S. Helping Anti-Taliban Militias in Afghanistan
2. US ‘supplying anti-Taliban tribal militias with ammunition’
3. Anti-Taliban Militias awakened In Afghanistan
4. Military life gives teen a new sense of direction
5. US pours millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan

Tagged with: Add new tag • Great Depression • History • Iraq • Iraq War • Korean War • United States • United States armed forces • United States Army

Filed under: Afghanistan War

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!