It is time to consider reinstituting the military draft in the United States. Despite the brilliance of the American volunteer and therefore very professional army, clearly our troops have been exhausted with multiple tours of duty. The National Guard, which is just that, has been called up into active duty, and that has put a tremendous burden on the Guard itself as well as their families.
The levels of emotional and financial drain have been reported by key military personnel for the past number of years. It has been reported we have drained the resources of our military personnel by committing them to protracted wars. We have overburdened their equipment and have depleted our physical resources. Because of the financial outlay and our need to borrow money to fight this war from nations like China, different military weapons projects have been cut out or reduced substantially. None of this is any good.
We have had the military draft, or conscription, with us in different occasions. Initially, during the colonial days, we relied on militias. Militias were too small and inconsequential to be utilized for the larger and more deadly wars that would follow with the modernization and growth of American into an industrial nation. Enter the draft so that Armies of both the Confederacy and the Union could furnish enough troops for the now legendary battlefields where between one and two million Americans would die. Later came conscription for the First World War and then again in the Second World War.
But we were a different nation then. If we went to war then we called up our forces and manufactured mass weaponry to meet the challenges. Come peacetime we would reduce our forces substantially and not really modernize our weaponry until the next crisis came upon us. We did so during the First World War and then again in World War Two. In World War Two, where the threat to the nation was hardly and abstract we built a military and produced weapons with speed and efficiency that surpassed most imaginations, certainly those of our enemies.
We had become the “Arsenal of Democracy.” This is no small title and assuredly no small task. Come the end of the Second World War we realized the world had changed. We could no longer stand down our military and allow that military to rely on weapons systems that would soon be obsolete. We had to not only develop new weaponry but to continue to do this so we would not only have parity against any nation’s military but we would in fact be the dominate force. We learned that in the new world to protect our interests on a global level we had to project our military on a global level. This meant the continued development of the military and the weapons it would use.
By 1948, just a few years after the end of World War Two, it was evident to protect our interests through military force, when necessary, we would have to establish a peacetime draft. Essentially, the draft was continued through most of the Vietnam War until 1968 when then President Richard Nixon opted for an all volunteer army. This was part of the new concept, a military built around technology and professionalism. This all volunteer army would relieve the burden of public service.
The volunteer military can be problematic on several levels. As I mentioned before the all volunteer military is smaller and in theory more professional. As a smaller force it doesn’t require the funding of a larger army. This has allowed us to shut down military bases around the country and in parts of the world. All good, so far. In theory. Reality is a bit different.
But now we are faced with a military force near exhaustion. Whether you believe either the Iraqi War or the War in Afghanistan is justified or not there is no denying that are troops have been stretched thin and worn out over time. Repeated tours have proved hazardous and overwhelming. Equipment has been overused and spare parts are at a minimum. Should the United States get into a truly serious conflict, meaning that where the enemy is in possession of advanced weaponry and is consequently much more formidable than Iraq or Afghanistan, we may be confronting some very serious problems. We may lack the resources that would assure victory.
Couple this with the growing trend toward the infusion of fundamental religion in the military. There are reports about evangelical proselytizing in the Army, Navy, and at places like the Air Force Academy. Evangelicals have brought pressure to bear on the less religious members of the military or those of a different faith. They have invoked methods and practices that could be considered coercion. They have brought to our military an element infused with the Christian Crusade, which is hardly in keeping with the standards and traditions of our military. This is neither the precepts found in the militia or our civvilian armies of our past.
With regard to history, there are repeated examples where the volunteer army becomes a mercenary army and follows those who either pay it or give it orders. Mind you, I am not saying this is the looming case with our all volunteer military, but the historic examples are enough to take measure. Consider also, that the shortage of troops has initiated the expanded use of mercenaries in groups like Blackwater, where the rank and file is loyal to its leadership and carries with it the inherent evangelical element of religious fundamentalists.
Blackwater is a private army. And because it is a private army we pay its troops a lot more salary, nearly four times the salary, in fact, of our regular forces. This creates resentment within our regular forces who have to risk their necks for a quarter the money. This also raises questions of loyalty and issues of oversight, where the private army does not necessarily subscribe to normal military standards of conduct. There are numerous reports that such mercenary groups as Blackwater do not adhere to the established rules of engagement. This is already proving worrisome to American citizens and to not only members of this government but to members of governments where this private army is engaged.
This tablet is manufactured by an Indian based pharmaceutical, known as cialis purchase online Ajanta Pharmacy. Also, viagra prices australia is approved by FDA (Food and Drug Administration), it has proved to be one of the best ways of getting reliable sources for curing erectile dysfunctions. The main function of pfizer viagra this vital ingredient involves blood stimulation, vessels dilatation, muscle relaxation and proper blood supply towards the penile organ. Sex after 60 is a bit difficult- Can you maintain the newness of a cloth for ten years which is worn regularly? You answer will absolutely be no. viagra store usa
Clearly, the American all volunteer military is no longer able to function alone, but must be supplemented with a private mercenary force. In our democracy, this is hardly the precedent we want to establish.
If we are going to continue to serve our national interests by projecting military force then we need to reinstitute the civilian army. A civilian army will augment the professionals within the service and will help dilute the religious fervor and proselytizing that has proven controversial and disturbing. There will be less of a crusade mentality as a civilian army will be more eager to get the job done than endure a protracted crusade. The lack of this religious fervor will enable conscripted members of other religions and ethnicity to participate without encumbrances. The civilian army will better understand that its loyalty remains first and always with the American people.
While there may be some difficulty in maintaining the streamlined professionalism of our current forces, this will be augmented by talented civilians who ordinarily would not have served. These recruits can possess insight and skill sets in psychology and technology that may not be as prominent in a smaller force. They can bring a better cultural understand of our enemies, speak their languages and interpret for forces on the group. There is in the end a lot to be said for greater numbers.
I believe we would be a lot less prone to commit ourselves to questionable wars if we had a civilian army. Surely, we did just that during the Vietnam conflict. We drafted tens of thousands of kids and sent them off to yet one more questionable war that four decades later has produced little but the revelation of our own foolishness. It is no small irony that in modern times we are expanding trade and partnership with the same government we battled for close to a decade.
But we have learned from that mistake. We have learned because the parents of kids are more willing to question the validity of a war when their kids are involved. Even the chicken hawks, those that are all for war as long as it doesn’t involve their own children, may reconsider before throwing their support toward conflict. Simply put, more would be at stake with a civilian army. We wouldn’t be only sending someone else’s kids to war, we would also be sending our own.
If this were a civilian army, certain things would have happened by now. Our National Guard and volunteer force would not be overburdened with repeated tours. They wouldn’t have financial problems, psychological problems, difficulty finding jobs again upon their return from a war they were sent to under specious circumstances. It is questionable if fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is truly the role of a National Guard.
We who were once the recruits for Vietnam are now the parents and grandparents of young people who would be going off to war, if we still had a civilian army. With our own kids invested and our own blood on the line, and not just that of someone else’s kid we would reconsider committing our troops and national economy to this type of battle. We would wonder a lot more about what the hell we were doing and why. We would think rather than take refuge in the fact that our lethargy and inability to question resides in some form of patriotism. In short, this war would have been over long ago. If it ever got started to begin with.
If we do institute another round of conscription, should everyone go? No. Everyone would not have to go into the military, anyway. Those who were uncomfortable could commit to other forms of public service without the deliberations of being conscientious objectors. They could work in nation building, our nation instead of someone else’s. They could work on rebuilding the infrastructure or working for a two year commitment in some form of public service. They could use their education and skill sets for rebuilding this nation. They would get to know in their work in recreating the infrastructure or teaching or working in underclass neighborhoods how rest of the country lives. Nothing wrong with that exposure.
Yes, we would have a larger army, which would incur to some degree a greater expense. But that expense would be mitigated by public discretion. A public with their own kids at stake will not be as willing to spend either the money or the lives of its citizens for any war that is not clearly defined as in our national interest. All around, it would be a bargain.
