Seems to me the founding fathers had a definite opinion of this subject, which I was willing to ignore. I recall when, on July 1, 1973, the US Army was made into a voluntary institution. At the time, with Vietnam in mind, I thought is was a good idea. I've changed my mind, for a lot of reasons. The volunteer military was championed by Milton Friedman, which should have given me pause. A drafted army of "citizen soldiers" puts real constraints on the government's war powers. A conscripted army does not see military life as "real". The soldier's real life is the one he or she left behind to which the soldier will be anxious to return. If a large force is to be conscripted, there will need to be some pressing justification for the action, otherwise resistance will form. As the Vietnam war dragged on, draft age men, their families and their friends became increasingly alarmed, conderned and angered over the war. Opposition grew until it became politically necessary for the US to leave the conflict. By the end of the war, US involvement had largely vanished behind a program of "Vietnamization" wherein the fighting was largely turned over to US equipped and advised Vietnamese army troops. Because Americans had a stake in this war, opposition grew. With Iraq and Afghanistan, opposition is growing, but most Americans don't see these wars at an immediate theat to them selves or their loved ones. Because all the troops are volunteers (save, in a sense, the National Guard), they chose to go. It's their job.
If the current administration had to conscript the forces for Iraq and Afghanistan, there would have been for more hostile discussion of the policies. Congressmen and Senators would have heard more protest and concern from constituents than they did, and possibly, these tragic, pointless and illegal conflicts would have been avoided. As it happened, Bush and co. had the troops and equipment (well the equipment's iffy) to proceed using men and women who had volunteered, and whose profession was to fight. Its just the thing you need if you're going into "The War Business". It's what we do, but more on that later.
2 comments:
What happened to my comment?
OK, here is my comment again, or most of it: I agree that a professional army is a problem and for many years I felt that the reaction to conscription impacted the Vietnam War. But over time I have begun to doubt that or at least to doubt that the reaction was decisive. By 1968 thousands of people were in the streets and a sitting president was driven from office. Yet, the actual conduct of the war went on undisturbed for years until the people elected Democrats that cut off funding. The draft added campus passion and young bodies to the marches, but I remember being amazed at the time how little impact millions of nationwide marchers had. The existence of the draft may have made things easier for the warlords since when they needed additional bodies they just turned up the draft spigot. Now, reintroducing the draft would cause real trouble. But as far as ending the war, I think ultimately the years of failure and the terrible casualties were the major factors. That said, the professional army is a bad and undemocratic idea. I have read several articles about the growing culture gap between the professional soldiers and the civilians. Add the usual military contempt for civilians, let it simmer in volunteer-only isolation for 20 years or so and we have a group of armed men that think they know better than the corrupt politicians. Welcome to Argentina.
Post a Comment