Nathan Cooley
J. Johnston
English 1A
31 October 2005
Conscription Controversy
We live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. As United States citizens, we are lucky enough to enjoy the rights and the freedoms our country has come to symbolize. We did not achieve these liberties without sacrifice. We had to pay for them with blood- our enemy’s, and our own. The U.S. Military has defended our borders, our allies, and our interests abroad with such effectiveness that it is unparalleled by any other military. This unmatched effectiveness is now being threatened by the way our government is managing the military. The government denies it, but some people see a dark, ominous cloud looming on the horizon. The name of this cloud is Conscription, more commonly referred to as the military draft. If it makes landfall it will wash away our youngest and strongest, and expose a fissure, which will divide our nation’s foundation in two. Conscription has helped us win many of our past battles, but in this modern time with high unemployment rates and an even higher population, there is no reason why a draft should be reinstituted when it can be easily avoided.
The first American draft was introduced by the Confederate Government in 1862, which led to rioting during the Civil War by anti-conscription protesters. Military recruitment was very low during this time because citizens were understandably reluctant to join a fight against their brothers and fellow countrymen. Historian Jeffery Rogers Hummel called this draft “a system of war socialism” because it used conscripts for not only the military, but for economic and industrial purposes as well (Grigg). When the U.S. declared war on Germany in April of 1917, the Wilson Administration instituted another similar draft. Several men challenged the constitutionality of this draft in the 1918 Supreme Court Selective Draft Law cases. The men claimed that the draft violated their rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. The case was quickly dismissed (Grigg). The draft was cancelled at the end of World War I, only to be brought back by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, who anticipated the U.S.’s involvement in WW II. Millions of men were drafted to fight in WW II, and hundreds of thousands more were conscripted to fight in Korea and Vietnam.
The Vietnam conflict demonstrated the hazards associated with a conscripted army, both at home and abroad. The nation protested when their sons, brothers, and husbands, were snatched away by the government sworn to protect them and given the ultimatum to kill or be killed. Most of these draftees were poorly educated teens from low income households who had little chance of finding gainful employment in the civilian sector, while many draftees from the upper classes could afford to go to college as a means to avoid the draft. The conscripted Vietnam force had major problems with low morale and motivation, insubordination, and dereliction of duties caused by the low quality of soldiers arriving in Vietnam against their will. The high number of casualties and long occupation of Vietnam should have indicated to the nation that a conscripted army lacks the effectiveness of a professional volunteer force. Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C., summarized these sentiments with a question: “Think about it,” he said, “is a military healthier if it relies on those who desire to serve and succeed or if it is forced to include those who desire to escape at any price.” Conscription was scraped in 1973, but some are starting to speculate whether a new draft is on its way. “America has a choice,” write Carter and Glastris. “It can be the world’s superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can’t do both.”
The United States now sets the example for other countrys’ militaries. For example, when situations in Bosnia and Kosovo warranted the need for international involvement, NATO allies contributed troops only after the U.S. donated a significant number of soldiers. And when the United States chose not to send troops to Rwanda, the rest of the world followed suit (Carter/Glastris). For conscription too, we now also set the example. France and Spain have abolished their conscription policies and China is attempting to cut troop numbers by improving the quality of their troops (a strategy developed by the U.S. after Vietnam). Germany is also debating dropping conscription, although their health care industry strongly relies on the labor of conscientious objectors (Bandow). If we return to conscription to reinforce our army, other nations will too. Russia claims to be professionalizing its military but in Jan. 2005, agents from the Office of Registration and Enlistment led an early morning raid into Moscow College dorms, looking for conscription candidates after deferments from mandatory service were canceled. Even those students in the university’s military program were taken which, by law, entitled them to deferment (MacWilliams). If conscription were resurrected, then we could expect to hear about raids like this into the dorms of Harvard, Stanford, or even Humboldt State.
Much of the strength of our military comes from the fact that it is an all volunteer force, but since the occupation of Iraq the number of quality recruits has declined significantly. The Army reported that it was 7,200 recruits short of their goal of 80,000 enlistees as of June 31st, 2005 (Carter/Glastris). President John F. Kennedy described our current situation perfectly, over forty years ago, when he said, “When there is a visible enemy to fight in open combat, many serve, all applaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long, slow struggle, with no immediate visible foe, your choice will seem hard indeed.”(qtd. in Collins). The youth of America is understandably reluctant to volunteer for a “long, slow struggle” (like the Iraq War), and recruiters are doing all they can to fill their quotas. Military recruiters are trying to maintain our volunteer force, but they are having a difficult time selling their product. Better incentives and benefits would attract potential recruits, who otherwise would have found less meaningful and rewarding employment. One recruiter told the New York Times that, “No one wants to join,” so recruiters sometimes “have to play fast and loose with the rules” to meet their quotas (Draft Debates). Recruiter’s ethics are now being questioned because some of the methods being used borderline on illegal. Some recruiters have helped prospects hide or alter their police and/or medical records, helped drug users beat mandatory drug tests, distributed “cheat sheets” to recruits before aptitude tests and in one case, two Army recruiters enlisted a man shortly after his release from a mental hospital, knowing that his bipolar disorder disqualified him from service (Draft Debates). These are the kinds of low quality, unscreened, undesirable recruits that are common in a conscripted military. But, unlike conscripts, these recruits do have one of the most important traits for a soldier to have: a desire to serve. Better management of our troops would free up thousands of professional and provide us with a reliable first-response force, lessening our dependency on a draft in the event of an emergency.
With the decline in enlistment and re-enlistment rates, the government has also gotten creative at filling the voids. Reserve and National Guard units are being used where normally they would not, as combat units (most have little or no combat experience or training), and other hazardous duties instead of the logistical and support functions they were trained for. Most of those serving in the reserves have civilian jobs and families, which get put on hold when Uncle Sam calls. And as Major General Maxwell Thurman said, “If soldiers are torn between the Army and their families, the Army usually loses.” (qtd. in Collins). The reserves should only be called upon in dire circumstances and the National Guard should only be used to guard the nation, hence the name. As of Dec.31, 2004, the Army Reserve retained only 37,515 deployable troops out of the total of 200,366 equipped soldiers (Carter/Glastris). If we continue to abuse the reserve option, then those forces will undoubtedly face the same recruiting problems the Army now has. That’s what is happening with today’s active-duty troops because of the government’s “stop-loss” policy. What senator John Kerry calls a “back-door draft”, because it prevents volunteer soldiers from separating from the military after they have completed their pre-determined tour of duty, until the government says they are done. Many recruits are discouraged by the “stop-loss” policy, fearing similar entrapment after completion of their contracts (Collins).
More Americans should help earn and defend their freedom, no more free rides. Oregon’s Governor Kulongoski, a Marine Corps veteran, says, “Probably less than one percent of [Americans] are bearing the burden” (Debating the Draft). National defense should be a responsibility of every American citizen. One proposed plan to avoid a draft is referred to as the Carter-Glastris Proposal. This idea suggests that every American man and woman be required to complete a one to two year tour of “National Service” before being accepted into any four-year college (Carter/Glastris). This service could be completed in one of three ways: homeland security assignments (guarding ports, borders, and other potential targets like nuclear power plants), they could join programs like AmeriCorps (tutoring disadvantaged children), or in the military as military police officers, truck drivers, or other non-combat specialists who would require minimal training. Regardless of which option they choose, all would receive benefits and G.I. Bill-type college funding, while those who sign up for lengthier, riskier duty would receive higher pay and larger college grants. Those who are willing to pay a higher price should, indeed, receive higher pay. The armed forces would receive 100,000 fresh, motivated, college-grade recruits every year if only ten percent of the one million students who start college every year, chose the military option (Carter/Glastris). Students who chose the other options would make a draft less necessary by relieving the professional soldiers, who are now filling those positions, allowing them to do what they were trained to do.
Another tactic to avoid a draft would be to increase benefits and bonuses for new recruits and candidates for re-enlistment. The Army recently asked Congress to raise its enlistment bonuses from twenty thousand to thirty thousand dollars, and to offer certain reservists up to ten thousand dollars in re-enlistment bonuses (Grigg). In June they asked Congress to double the cash bonus to forty thousand, and to provide recruits with eight-year contracts up to fifty thousand dollars in home mortgage assistance (Draft Debates). These incentives should be thought of as an investment in our nation’s future, not as a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Another (less appealing) tactic is to modify, or “relax”, entrance requirements, which could seriously compromise our combatative advantage. The current standards demand that two-thirds of recruits are in the top half of the AFQT scores (Armed Forces Qualification Test, which measures trainability rather than intellect), that 90% must posses high school diplomas, and that recruits from Category IV (the lowest Congress allows to enlist) cannot exceed two percent, and that those accepted must be high school graduates (Collins). The “relaxed standards” suggest that one-half, rather than two-thirds, occupy the top half of the AFQT scores, and eighty-five rather than ninety percent would be high school graduates. The Category IV recruits would also be increased from two to five percent (Collins). These low quality recruits could perform low level tasks requiring minimal training and skill, allowing more qualified personnel to perform important operations. The right tool for the right job, so to say. A draft does not take into consideration personal skills and talents, or strengths and weaknesses. These small changes could have some negative effects within the ranks, but it would help avoid the negative sociological effects of a draft like disruptive protests, and rioting.
There are other options we could choose. We could try to convince other countries to share our peacekeeping duties or face losing U.S. aid. We could increase the size of our active-duty force and/or the reserves, which is a costly alternative considering the expense of bonuses, benefits, training, family benefits and base expansions. Some have suggested completely transforming the military by downsizing the Navy and reducing the Army’s mechanized divisions. Further transformations would include retraining and reequipping some Army and Air defense units, into military police units (Carter/Glastris). This idea has been compared to playing a “shell game” with our troops, and with good reason. This would not fortify or capabilities, it would only rearrange our troops and cause confusion. Another option is privatization of the military, or using private contractors for certain tasks in military engagements. Private contractors are already relieving some of the burden from our troops in Iraq by working as security guards, interrogators, and in the reconstruction efforts (Carter/Glastris). While this could be helpful to an extent, this option creates its own unique problems. The operations of private contractors are hardly scrutinized in war zones, private contractors are often more expensive than the military, and private contractors compete with the military for personnel, with higher pay and better benefits.
America’s military is composed primarily of men and women from the middle and lower socioeconomic classes because few options are available to them after high school, while the privileged usually proceed straight to college. America’s decision makers occupy those higher classes, which contribute very few volunteer enlistees. A draft would randomly select people from all social classes indiscriminately, regardless of wealth, race, sex (equality means equal treatment, ladies), or desire to serve. Having their own children in harms way would definitely put things into perspective for our politicians and those who pull their strings, and for this reason alone, I doubt politicians will vote for a draft. Most politicians, and seven out of ten Americans, say they oppose a draft and that they doubt it will come to that (Draft Debates). Senator John Kerry has said that there is “great potential” that a reelected Bush could restart the draft, but President Bush insists that it will not happen (Ricks). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has assured the public numerous times by saying, “There isn’t a chance in the world that the draft would be brought back.” (Draft Debates). Later he said, “The truth is, we do not need a draft. We’re not going to have a draft.” (Ricks).
The reality of the situation is this: Conscription undermines the very ideals it was designed to support and protect. There is no freedom or liberty in conscription. There could be however, if immigrants were allowed to serve in the military in exchange for U.S. citizenship. Desirable incentives seem to be the most logical, socially beneficial way to increase the size of our Armed Forces, both active-duty and reserve, in order to avoid a nation-wide draft. If worse comes to worse, I can think of two million likely conscriptees in our nation’s overflowing prison system. They already owe society a great debt (some more than others, depending on their crimes), they would be cheap labor, and some could possibly earn parole with good military conduct.
Our professional military is being stretched ever-thinner and our Reserve and Guard units are filling the voids. So with our current engagements, frequent natural disasters requiring manpower and resources, and with the increasing likeliness of another simultaneous conflict, our government is faced with a difficult choice. Either draft the masses, reinforce the present Armed Forces in other ways, or risk losing our title as the World’s Superpower. Today’s volunteer military is the strongest, smartest, and most professional the world has ever seen and we should not contaminate this exceptional force with misfits and malcontents. That would be counterproductive.
Works Cited
Bandow, Doug. “Responding to Terrorism: Conscription is Not the Answer”. USA Today Magazine, Jan 2003. EBSCOhost. http://web16.epnet.com/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&ug=sid+E3A051DF-19ED-4291-8...
Collins, John M.. “Army Recruiting Crisis: Problems, Responses and Prognosis”. Army. Arlington Aug 2005. PROQUEST. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=4&s...
“Draft Debates: Current Situation”. CQ Researcher 19 Aug 2005. http://library2.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2005081905
Grigg, William. “Get Ready for the Draft”. The New American 30 May 2005 http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1730.shtml
Kiger, Patrick J. “Manpower Mission.” Workforce Management Oct. 25 2005. Proquest. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=920577661&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientld=14510&RQT=309&VNam
Kilian, Michael and Deborah Horan. “Enlistment Drought Spurs New Strategies: Possible Recruits Wary of Being Sent to War.” Chicago Tribune 31 Mar, 2005:1. Newsbank. http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iwsearch/we/InfoWeb/?p_action=print&p_docid+1092F6D...
Perry, Raymond. “Why Are They ‘Just Saying No’ to Recruiters?” DefenseWatch April 7, 2005. Military.com. http://www.military.com/newcontent/0,13190,DefenseWatch_040705_Perry,00.html
Powers, Rod. “What The Recruiter Never Told You—Part 1.” About.com. 23 Nov. 2005. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter1_p.html
Wides, Laura. “Non-Citizen Soldiers’ Signups Deline-Military: Rules Easing Soldiers’ Path to Citizenship Fail to Stem Decline.” Long Beach Press-Telegram April 15, 2005. NewsBank. http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iwsearch/we/InfoWeb/?p_action=print&p_docid=109B833...
Yates, Jon. “Interest High, But Recruitment Slow: Military Gets Calls, But Few Sign Up.” Chicago Tribune 01 Oct. 2001:4. Newsbank http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb/?p_action=print&p_docid=OEEE113