Issue #50
Last Update March 24, 2007
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
National The Draft by Gerry Krownstein July 12, 2006 There has been a lot of discussion lately about reinstituting the draft. The strains on our military, especially the Reserves and National Guard, that the Iraq War has created, have led proponents of the war to call for a draft to increase our military manpower, and opponents of the war to call for a draft to increase the vulnerability of the middle and upper classes to the consequences of the war, thus increasing opposition. Proponents of the war are right, and opponents wrong, in their evaluation of the effects of the draft. Contrast the effects of the war on the current volunteer army, navy and air force with the effects under a draft to see why.
In the long run, with a volunteer military, a war viewed as necessary to the survival of the nation does not encounter manpower shortages; against a foe the size of Iraq, enough men and women would enlist to fill the requirements. In contrast, a war widely viewed as unnecessary, unwise or immoral causes the potential manpower pool to shun service – after all, no one wants to die in a bad cause. Enlistment rates thus become an accurate measure of the popularity of the war. With falling enlistment rates, the burden on those already in the military increases visibly, and the American public can see exactly how the war is impacting our national defense, no matter how the Administration tries to obfuscate the situation. Multiple tours of duty breed resentment and resistance in the ranks. Siphoning off National Guard troops makes them less available to state governors to use in the event of a natural catastrophe, such as Hurricane Katrina. Transferring troops from other theaters makes these other potential crisis areas more vulnerable, and emboldens potential enemies. Lowering enlistment standards results in loss of efficiency and discipline, and incidents of violence against those we are supposedly there to save generate resentment against us rather than gratitude. All of these effects are out there for all to see.
With the draft, however, the manpower pool is essentially unlimited. The illusion is maintained that the war is popular, and that we are invulnerable on all fronts. Unless the number of draftees becomes enormous, as happened in the Viet Nam war, the draft doesn't spread the burden to those now exempt; it merely increases the burden on those least able to object. Our President is the perfect example of the ability of the well-connected to dodge any meaningful service, even in a war requiring many times the manpower of Iraq. A draft would make it harder for the public to actually see what is going on, and to vote with their feet at the earliest possible moment. It took close to a decade for the unrest of the draftees and their families to have a political impact during the Viet Nam war. After three years, the problems of our volunteer military have brought us to the same political place as twice as many years of protests and demonstrations did in the sixties and seventies.
A draft is appropriate in a World War II situation. We were attacked, the enemy was clear, and a huge effort was required to win, an effort that took place both on the home front and on the battlefield. A draft is counterproductive when the need for military action is uncertain or wrong, the effort is small compared to our resources, and the burden falls unequally at home and at the front.
To be notified of New York Stringer updates and new issues, click here.
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.com
All content copyright 2007 by nystringer.com