Outgoing Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, says he’s concerned about retaining qualified U.S. military service members amid the “stress and strain” of more than 13 years of continuous warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In one of his last interviews in the job he’s held since February 2013, Hagel refers to the “hidden consequences” of “nonstop war” faced by American combat forces since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. He calls the situation “unprecedented in the history of this country. Such a protracted combat role means that the same people keep rotating back to the front lines: “four, five, six combat tours — [the] same people.”
Hagel says that when spoke with a group of six promising young U.S. military officers in a recent meeting, “five out of the six said they were uncertain over whether they were going to stay in the service and most likely would get out. “And why? Because of family issues, because of stress and strain,” he said. (NPR Morning Edition)
If Americans really want this continuous war – and are prepared to pay taxes to pay for it (hah!) – then the draft should be reinstituted so that the burden is shared. Having done my own two years in the army, I am a firm believer in the discipline it instills, in the way it grows you up, and the benefit of learning new skills. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
But the greatest benefit of compulsory service is to make you very anti-war and cynical about the military. Were I President I would float the idea of the draft, stand back until the rage died down, and then tell the public they should either pay higher taxes to pay for the endless war they pay little attention to, or, if they don’t want to pay up and send their kids to fight as conscripts, to keep their noses out of other people’s wars and the politics and cultures they don’t understand. Put up or shut up.
Sometimes, in the not so distant past, it has been the very people who resisted the Vietnam draft ( and found ways of avoiding it) who are seen thanking military personnel for the service they wouldn’t undertake themselves. And the people who are shown on TV demanding that the military should be sent into this country or that, turn round the next day and demand tax reductions.
I will come to tax tomorrow, but the fact is that the US Congress has not funded 13 years of war (it seems like 30 years of war) with a War Tax, which would have been the proper thing to do. War has been funded by borrowing. Now they whine on about the deficit. Well, yes!
” You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake”. ( Jeanette Rankin)
The fact it that most people believe that the wars in Afganistan and Iraq were a mistake, which means that US involvement overseas is likely to be reduced. This will make high taxes and the draft unnecessary, but even as an Epicurean, I can understand the drawbacks. Non-intervention will empower people like ISIS, as there will be less resistance to them
There are no calls to disband the American military even after forces are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Two military needs will remain: (1) the need for a realistic grasp of what constitutes “security;”
(2) the need for all the able-bodied young to serve, regardless of income, in order to democratize responsibility.
“Intervention” in other political units with U.S. military force, when no question of U.S. security is involved, sooner or later begets blowback–more death and destruction. However nobly phrased–e.g., “the responsibility to protect”–applying force in other societies begets the type of blowbacks the West now endures.
Taxation–using private resources for public purposes–is a prerequisite for any civilized life. At least, history provides no examples of such a situation. Of course, rates, burdens, and uses of public funds are another question entirely.
That fractured penultimate sentence above should be corrected. I meant to convey that history provides no example of a civilization which came into being much less survived without mobilizing private resources for public purposes. The motivation might be religious, such as in early Mesopotamia and Egypt where state taxation financed the irrigation systems or “patriotism” as in Classical civilization of Greece and Rome.
I am not convinced that the amount of military spending will decrease. The military industrial complex is huge and thousands of jobs depend on it. The Pentagon put bases in every single State to ensure adequate pressure on Congressmen to maintain the military budget. There may be little interest among the citizenry in another Middle East war, but you can be sure that the lobbyists are busy pumping up the threat of Iran, ISIS, Al Queda etc. Terrorism is indeed a very unpleasant threat, but in reality small beer in the scale of things. ISIS thrives, not because of huge military and political power, but, on the contrary, because many moslems of helpless and frustrated. The level of judgement and understanding in Washington is such that we are likely to increase that feeling, not reduce it. Money will be the driver, as usual (until it finally runs out. See Roman Empire).
How was the military industrial complex able to develop in America, to a far greater extent than in Europe?
The United States is far bigger than any nation in Europe, that’s why.
Conscription feeds right-wing militarist aims, not anti-war ones, so no…
I agree that conscription serves the interests of the militarists. The point I was making was that we only hear from the people for whom conscription was a personal disaster. At 19 I commanded 45 men under active service, with bombs going off. In the big picture you might say, so what? My learning curve was extraordinary, and my men, like me grew up and ended up more responsible adults quicker. Nobody tells you that! We who did it are now old and there are few people left to give a more nuanced picture. I wouldn’t have missed it, scary though it was.
So you wouldn’t consider the Vietnam War a total disaster?
Yes, it was a disaster, but the disaster was caused by the politicians, top generals and the military- industrial complex, not by the draftees. Actually, there is an argument for having the draft now, because no politician is nowadays going to start a war and have to answer to the mothers and fathers of conscriptees. They got away with Iraq and Afghanistan because the soldiers etc were professionals. Moreover, they tend to be poor as well and probably not well connected with the establishment.
But the Vietnam War would not have been possible without the draft, and even then it was barely possible. The Vietnam War makes Iraq and Afghanistan look like perfectly sane and reasonable ventures btw. So this fairy tale narrative of the draft preventing war obviously doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
“because no politician is nowadays going to start a war and have to answer to the mothers and fathers of conscriptees.”
Which is why we never went into Vietnam..oh wait…
Also since I’m 25, I take any such proposal personally.
If I were your age I would probably agree with you.
And if you were an historian like me, which I assume you’re not given your misconceptions, no offense.
I’m not sure why you removed my comment on you not being an historian, because it wasn’t meant as an insult, I was just observing the fact you’re making an ahistorical argument. I, on the other hand, have made history my main profession, so I can’t so easily make such arguments, as long as I want a career…
Because, in my opinion, you were not addressing what I actually said. I was not justifying war, especially not Vietnam. I was pointing out that blanket denunciation of the draft lacks a sense of subtlty and nuance that an historian should relish. Teaching history is surely not a matter of delivering a form of official propaganda, which, if you stray from, gets you sacked? God help us if it has come to that! I was offering you a very personal point of view – I went into the army ( very reluctantly) as an immature teenager, and came out more savvy and grown up. National Sevice made all of us loathe the army and realize how incompetent and badly run it was. May I also say that it helps in a debate to be friendly and try not to sound angry, when all I was doing was sharing a personal experience. The internet is full of ad hominem attacks. Not on this blog!
The problem is nothing you say is actually backed up by historical fact. Your personal experience aside, I don’t see anything you’ve said actually being backed up by facts, for example the idea that a draft makes people and leaders more weary to wage war and more cynical. Certainly the evidence actually doesn’t show that, and it’s a popular fairy tale of people who grew up in the 60s, not an accepted historical fact, no matter your politics. No offense was intended, I’m just disagreeing with what you said.
I don’t think me being personally against the concept means I lack subtlety. It means I have a personal opinion that differs from yours. I also think it’s an informed opinion, given the vidence. We haven’t waged a war like Vietnam or WW2 since the end of the draft, in fact. What does that tell you?
You’re the one who said:
“Having done my own two years in the army, I am a firm believer in the discipline it instills, in the way it grows you up, and the benefit of learning new skills. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!”
So clearly you’re of the mindset that mandatory service has some benefits.
“Teaching history is surely not a matter of delivering a form of official propaganda, which, if you stray from, gets you sacked?”
No, but straying away from facts gets you sacked, at least it should.
I respect your opinion. Let’s leave it at that. Come back and discuss something else. I don’t like being at odds with anyone.
Fair enough. Though reading a bit through your blog, I doubt you and I would have much agreement on anything.