Conscription, the Republic, and America's Future

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

Before responding to the post, please read the article, which is from Military Review, the Professional Journal of the U.S. Army. It's ten pages, but well worth the read.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Dr. Adrian Lewis, professor at the University of Kansas and former Army Ranger, provides some sobering and astute analysis of our nation and the need to re-institute conscription.

I think Dr. Lewis is spot-on with his analysis, although conscription a touchy subject with citizens and politicians.

Some Excerpts:

CONSCRIPTION, THE REPUBLIC, AND AMERICA'S FUTURE
ADRIAN LEWIS, PhD

THE U.S. ARMY AND MARINE CORPS are too small to do all that we ask and require of them, and the American people live comfortably with a lie. The lie is that the U.S. armed forces have sufficient men and women to do their job, that morale is high, and burdens and pains are negligible. But the American people are absent from the battlefields, and Soldiers and Marines are angry. They are angry that they have had to serve extended tours in Iraq, that stop-loss policies have prevented some of them from pursuing their dreams, that there were too few of them to correctly implement counterinsurgency doctrine, that their families have had to sacrifice much because of their repeated deployments, and that—while many of them have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan—many Americans of the same age have contributed nothing to the war effort.

This is because of one fact:
American political leaders made an expedient decision to place the entire burden of the War on Terrorism on a small, professional force. This breeds anger, pain, and contempt. However, these are all out of sight and therefore out of mind. The distance between the American people and their armed forces has grown considerably since the Vietnam War, facilitating the comfortable façade that the American people have only one part to play in the Nation’s wars—that of spectator. The American people must acknowledge the need to reinstitute conscription.

Some argue that this is not possible, primarily because the United States is no longer a cohesive, unified nation, and because Americans are too culturally damaged, too focused on consumption. According to this school of thought, consumer culture has produced selfish people incapable of sacrificing for the greater good. Others argue that conscription is not possible because political and military leaders fear the public might restrict their freedom of action. They also fear the people’s will is as weak as it was when it failed the military in Vietnam.

Consider the words of Andrew Bacevich in his recent book, The Limits of Power: “As for the hope that reinstituting conscription might reenergize politics, it’s akin to the notion that putting Christ back in Christmas will reawaken American spirituality. A pleasant enough fantasy, it overlooks the forces that transformed a religious holiday into an orgy of consumption in the first place.”

This statement reveals the zeitgeist of the American public in the 21st century.

The U.S. Army and Marine Corps are both overcommitted, stretched beyond their capacity to succeed in their missions. Constant deployments are wearing out Soldiers, Marines, and their families physically, psychologically, and emotionally. The United States lacks the strategic reserve to respond immediately to serious threats. As a matter of national security, the country needs to significantly expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps. The only way to do this in the current political, social, and economic environment is to reinstitute the draft.

While there is ample evidence to support Bacevich’s conclusion, we must not lose sight of one fact: the American people have not yet been asked to serve. There has been no national debate on the subject. Political leaders have lacked the courage to initiate one, and military leaders are too uncertain of the American people and too comfortable with professional forces to challenge the status quo.

After the horrendous 9/11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration declared a “War on Terrorism;” promulgated a new, aggressive strategic doctrine of “preemptive war” (really preventive war); and committed the Nation to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also deployed U.S. forces in other parts of the world such as the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. The Bush administration relied on forces already in existence to fight this extended war. It did not mobilize the American people for “a long, difficult struggle,” though it persisted in a propaganda campaign of demagoguery through fear by naming it such. With its Manichean, black-and-white world view and bellicose rhetoric, it effectively alienated allies and told them they were not needed.

Thus, almost the entire burden of the so-called War on Terrorism fell on the regular, professional Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force and the National Guard and Reserves. The burden rested on less than 1 percent of 300 million Americans. Moreover, with the American people removed from the equation, it was easier to go to war. There was no fear of an antiwar movement such as that experienced by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

The Bush wars are not national efforts in a way that would rouse the ire of large numbers of people. In fact, it is wrong to say, “The United States is at war.” It is more accurate to say that the military of the United States is at war and the American people are either spectators or disinterested bystanders. They have no duties, no responsibilities, and no commitments. Indeed, after declaring war, the Bush administration instituted tax cuts and told the American people to go shopping. Bush never asked the American people to make even small sacrifices, nor did he appeal to their better nature. He appealed to greed and self-interest. This was not the traditional American response to a war, and this was not the traditional role of American presidents in war.

Conscription is necessary at this time because we have too few Soldiers and Marines doing too much. However, this is only a partial explanation. The threats facing the United States are real, substantial, and growing. Part of the reason for these threats is ineptitude in managing foreign affairs and military policies. The presence of American forces in various parts of the world in the past 60 years has created stability and prosperity, making it possible for people to grow their economies without fear of invasion from their neighbors. From Korea to Europe, U.S. forces have maintained the status quo. The unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces by the Rumsfeld Pentagon, while necessary to meet the growing demands for U.S. forces in the Middle East, created new opportunities for aggression. The strategic reserve of the United States now consists primarily of air and adequately respond to new or old threats.

U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine required four to five hundred thousand Soldiers in a country the size and population of Iraq, yet the United States was incapable of deploying and sustaining two hundred thousand troops. The stability achieved in recent years in Iraq is fragile, and the country will likely require the presence of substantial American forces for many years to come.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are recovering in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and NATO allies have failed to provide the forces or leadership necessary to prevent this resurgence.

The stability of the government of North Korea is uncertain. A change in leadership seems to be in progress. This always creates uncertainty in oligarchies, because they lack the institutional and constitutional systems for an orderly transition of leadership; and war sometimes appears to be a viable option for consolidating political power. Yet, the United States has withdrawn most of the 2d Infantry Division from South Korea.

The absence of a draft gives leaders greater freedom of action. Using regular forces eliminates the American people from war, and it greatly diminishes the role of the American people in the political decision to go to war and in military decisions concerning its conduct. Without a draft, political and military leaders can be less responsive to the American people. Uninvolved, disengaged, and in many cases disinterested, the American people have no say in the decisions made by political and military leaders. They are not part of the fight. With an all-volunteer force, political and military leaders are not as accountable to the American people as they were during previous wars.

As Bacevich puts it, “The truth is that the four-star generals and admirals view citizen-Soldiers as more trouble than they’re worth.” Since the end of the draft, the Army has grown to look more like the Marine Corps, a small, highly trained, elite fighting force, and at the same time, less representative of the American people.

Many believe it was not the Armed Forces, but the will of the American people, that failed during the Vietnam War. The specter of Vietnam still influences decisions in Washington. The will of the people was eliminated from Operation Desert Storm, and it is, arguably, no longer a factor in America’s wars. In the view of the White House and the Pentagon, this is the ideal. However, political and military leaders are shortsighted. They focus on the operational level of war too closely to see the larger strategic environment.

As Bacevich argues, does being an American simply mean that we get to consume more than any other people on Earth, drive bigger gas-guzzling cars, live in bigger houses, use more credit, amass more debt, and eat more than other people? Is this what American uniqueness means? The lesson of Republican Rome looms for us now.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Dec 21, 2009

I'm not going to read such a long article. There's absolutely no need for conscription. The US is over extended because of its interventionist foreign policy. Adopt a non-interventionist one and the "need" for conscription disappears.

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I'm not going to read such a long article.

Too many big words?

There's absolutely no need for conscription.

Right now? You follow the news?

The US is over extended because of its interventionist foreign policy. Adopt a non-interventionist one and the "need" for conscription disappears.

Too late for that. Our commitments are already too deep. Your goal is something that is possible for the U.S. in the future, but is many, many decades away at this juncture in history.

Zinc Route · Dec 21, 2009

****** One of the biggest mistakes ever made was in 1973 as the Draft formally ended courtesy of a then belegured Nixon Administration. Though reregistration came back in a few years later the estimates of compliance by eligible Males has always been doubtful AND the Political will to ever reinstate Conscription under almost any circumstances has evaporated. It is all politics and both sides of the Political divide are at fault . I readily admit Conservative hypocrisy here on this matter. It is the new Third Rail of US politics.

***** After 9/11 GWB & Co could have really asked for National sacrifice or committment but he (mainly Rove) knew it just might finish off his chances in 2004 and with the American public as fickle as it is they were probably correct.

**** Also the Draft (when really in place) (50's , 60's) did in a backhanded way kind of have a cohesive National effect. Young MEN from varying backgrounds living together for 2 years was a plus for the Country. I firmly believe that one of the Big reasons we are So divided, so polarized, not even on the same page AND with this Red & Blue State dilemma is because there is no Draft.

***** Vietnam and the 2S exemptions for then then multilayered Upper Middle Class increased this situation to where many more than ever saw economic disparity and influence constantly.

**** Now we have to a large extent added to the pool of Poor or lower Middle Class Young Males - a supply of Females from the same composite groups. Working Class or even lower Females have replaced numerous Middle Class Males in Uniform. This factor alone has brought on other side issues.

***** Just out of curiosity among the heavy posters here I wonder how many have served ???

rathi · Dec 21, 2009

Although I agree that conscription would be quite useful from a political standpoint to make the public understand the cost of war, the damage to our economy and military wouldn't be worth it. Frankly, counter-insurgencies are just stupid to fight under pretty much any circumstance, and we shouldn't be spending even more to equip conscripts to fight them. The volunteer professional army is much better equipped to fight the wars we should be fighting. Asking for sacrifice on the part of the American people should only be done when such a sacrifice is absolutely required.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Dec 21, 2009

kansaswhig said:
Too many big words?

Right now? You follow the news?

Too late for that. Our commitments are already too deep. Your goal is something that is possible for the U.S. in the future, but is many, many decades away at this juncture in history.

1- xxx

2- I do follow the news ..I even read it, big words and all :mrgreen:

3- It's not too late and our commitments aren't too deep. We're not the guardians of this planet and we have no business throwing our weight around to secure our selfish needs at the expense of other nations. It's time to reign in our troops and quit using them in acts of aggression that aren't justified. We're over extended because we've bitten off more than we can chew.

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It's not too late and our commitments aren't too deep. We're not the guardians of this planet and we have no business throwing our weight around to secure our selfish needs at the expense of other nations. It's time to reign in our troops and quit using them in acts of aggression that aren't justified. We're over extended because we've bitten off more than we can chew.

I'll even agree to this somewhat...if it were a perfect world.

But you are an idealist. I'm a realist. The difference is folks like you say:

*we shouldn't do this or that because it's bad or good...and should plan for an ideal situation.*

**People like me say, we did this and that, and will most likely do this, so let's prepare for it the right way.**

We committed to Iraq and AFG. Maybe good, maybe bad. I don't know. But what's done is done. Regardless of the administration (as we've seen) we will stay and avoid another Vietnam. Let's do what we need to.

Would conscripting 100K really be that hard? Bush had his chance on 9/12, he blew it. That doesn't mean it's not needed.

This economy has done wonders for recruiting, though.

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

Zinc Route said:
One of the biggest mistakes ever made was in 1973 as the Draft formally ended courtesy of a then belegured Nixon Administration.

Agreed.

Though reregistration came back in a few years later the estimates of compliance by eligible Males has always been doubtful AND the Political will to ever reinstate Conscription under almost any circumstances has evaporated. It is all politics and both sides of the Political divide are at fault . I readily admit Conservative hypocrisy here on this matter. It is the new Third Rail of US politics.

Jingoists on both sides of the aisle are wrong on the issue. If the matter is critical for national security, then it is critical to the country, thus the nation needs to support the decision with it's blood and treasure. That point is made in the article.

After 9/11 GWB & Co could have really asked for National sacrifice or committment but he (mainly Rove) knew it just might finish off his chances in 2004 and with the American public as fickle as it is they were probably correct.

A terrible mistake by Bush and proof that the "War on Terror" wasn't really that important to him. The military went to war...the rest of the nation went shopping. Bush's fault.

Also the Draft (when really in place) (50's , 60's) did in a backhanded way kind of have a cohesive National effect. Young MEN from varying backgrounds living together for 2 years was a plus for the Country. I firmly believe that one of the Big reasons we are So divided, so polarized, not even on the same page AND with this Red & Blue State dilemma is because there is no Draft.

Agreed. There is no other organization in the world where a multitude of American tribes and races co-exist than the U.S. military. Not the ACLU, not the Peace Corps, not Ivy League schools. Not anywhere. The military is America's melting pot, effectively operating with very little problems, daily.

Vietnam and the 2S exemptions for then then multilayered Upper Middle Class increased this situation to where many more than ever saw economic disparity and influence constantly.

The "rich boy" clause in the Draft laws is one of the ugliest and darkest moments in the history of this country and those who enacted it, tolerated it, and benefited from it should be ashamed.

Now we have to a large extent added to the pool of Poor or lower Middle Class Young Males - a supply of Females from the same composite groups. Working Class or even lower Females have replaced numerous Middle Class Males in Uniform. This factor alone has brought on other side issues.

Don't totally believe the "only the poor join the Army" hype. There is some truth to it, but not as severe as some would like to believe.

Just out of curiosity among the heavy posters here I wonder how many have served ???

Probably about the national average, if I had to bet.

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

rathi said:
Although I agree that conscription would be quite useful from a political standpoint to make the public understand the cost of war, the damage to our economy and military wouldn't be worth it.

I don't know about that. Up until Vietnam it wasn't a problem.

Frankly, counter-insurgencies are just stupid to fight under pretty much any circumstance, and we shouldn't be spending even more to equip conscripts to fight them.

Somewhat of a convenient view of history. Some COIN operations were certaily necessary.

The volunteer professional army is much better equipped to fight the wars we should be fighting. Asking for sacrifice on the part of the American people should only be done when such a sacrifice is absolutely required.

Agreed. But the professional force doesn't choose what wars to fight. We can only do with what we have.

Zinc Route · Dec 21, 2009

***** That "Rich Boy Clause" was not necessarily done for selfish reasons, or to allow certain stratas of society to skate by. The long term Selective Service Chairman Lewis B.Hershey saw the breakdowns of those in college like the late 30's and thought it would stay that way:shock:By the early 60's the Middle Class and Upper Middle Class had expanded and more and more got by with the 2S route to where there was zero stigma involved in it.

**** Hershey thought the new Educated Class would maintain the same outlooks and values of their Fathers in WWII & Korea even By the time he died he knew he was wrong , but even at the height of the Vietnam War you could easily see those who would never go in, and more and more urged them to somehow/anyhow avoid service. The Nation had changed.

**** The late Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss) urged in the 70's to get the Draft going again with no exceptions for College . No exceptions other than Physical or Mental - for Men. Only real exception was some genuine ROTC program with a binding later service committment.

Morality Games · Dec 21, 2009

Conscription during the Cold War and conscription during the 21st century are two distinct things.

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

Morality Games said:
Conscription during the Cold War and conscription during the 21st century are two distinct things.

Please continue...

kansaswhig · Dec 21, 2009

Zinc Route said:
That "Rich Boy Clause" was not necessarily done for selfish reasons, or to allow certain stratas of society to skate by. The long term Selective Service Chairman Lewis B.Hershey saw the breakdowns of those in college like the late 30's and thought it would stay that way:shock:By the early 60's the Middle Class and Upper Middle Class had expanded and more and more got by with the 2S route to where there was zero stigma involved in it.

Well, he was outdated and the poor went to war and rich kids did nothing, except run the government thirty years later.

The late Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss) urged in the 70's to get the Draft going again with no exceptions for College . No exceptions other than Physical or Mental - for Men. Only real exception was some genuine ROTC program with a binding later service committment.

Yeah, but these days between obesity and drug use, it might be slim(mer) pickens' at the old draft board, unfortunately.

My parents have actually had people come up and say to them:

"How could you let you child go to war?"

They reply:

"He's a grown man. He can do what he wants."

Regicollis · Dec 21, 2009

A state can only force its citizen to perform labour for it when it is absolutely necessary, more so if the work the state demands done is dirty and dangerous. Noone would disagree that being a soldier is dangerous, also I would think the job of killing people who did you no harm for the sole reason that you have orders to do so is one of the dirtyest jobs on the planet.

I thus think the only justifiable use of a draft is when a country is being invaded or in danger og being invaded. And even then a draft is only justifiable if there are not enough volunteers.

Drafting people to fight wars of aggression in order to get permanent military bases and control resources around the world is not justifiable at all.

I also think chickenhawks in the political system that wants to wage wars need to be cautious about re-imposing the draft on the American people. If large groups of the people are in danger of being drafted or having their children drafted, especially when it is not for the defense of their homes and families, they are not going to be very fond of the war. A wartime draft might easily end in a resurrection of the Vietnam peace movement.

Regicollis · Dec 21, 2009

Here is a thought I just had.

Wouldn't it be most fair if the president and the legislators who voted in favour of the war had to resign from public office and join the army themselves if they wanted to send conscripts to war?

I think politicians would take war more seriously if they themselves risked getting killed.

Zinc Route · Dec 21, 2009

***** That Chicken Hawk label gets tossed round by assorted Leftists and various disgruntled types many of whom are old generational Blue Collar progeny who might have served themselves, but look back on it as having been used. The Leftists especially the Wine & Cheese types think those serving ar either Chumps or psycho's.

****** With a population now of a good 305 Million we should have no real difficulty in getting an Army of well over a Million or 2 Million and a bolstering of the other branchs because of it. All it takes is the will. It won't be fair and prosecuting anyone is pointless - but it's possible.

****** Those seeing the US Armed Forces as primarily a force to be on the "Majority World's" neck need a weekend in Mogadiscu to resort their priorities.

WI Crippler · Dec 21, 2009

Thanks for that article.

I'm kind of torn on the issue. I think our society has become so self centered that an attempt at conscription for anything other than direct national security(i.e. the chinese are going to invade). We already have someone in this thread prove the point by noting that its our involvement overseas is too great. That is part of the self-serving attitude of our country.

My personal belief is that it is very important that we be involved in many areas of the world economically, industrially, and militarily when needed. Isolationism or non-interventionalism only serves as an invitation for other countries to grow and expand their power. The worlds problems are our problems, because they are human problems. Believing we can just sit things out is myopic and more dangerous than being involved.

rathi · Dec 22, 2009

I don't know about that. Up until Vietnam it wasn't a problem.

We only used conscription when fighting wars of the greatest geopolitical importance. The victories we had in the Civil War, WW1 and WW2 changed the course of history for the entire world.

Somewhat of a convenient view of history. Some COIN operations were certaily necessary.

Like what? COIN operations negate many of strengths, and give endless advantages to the enemy. Furthermore, we are more than capable of neutralizing nearly any conceivable threat without occupying territory with hostile locals. The shear destructive capability of a military is unmatched, and we should approach conflicts in a manner that plays to our strength. Our overall strategy should beto fight short intense conflicts, and than leave. Even coming back multiple times is better than getting bogged down.
That is of course assuming you should get involved in the first place, which often isn't the case.

Agreed. But the professional force doesn't choose what wars to fight. We can only do with what we have.

True, but we can leave the draft for when we really need it. Using it in Vietnam for such a pointless task has essentially killed it for a generation.

Wiseone · Dec 23, 2009

Regicollis said:
Here is a thought I just had.

Wouldn't it be most fair if the president and the legislators who voted in favour of the war had to resign from public office and join the army themselves if they wanted to send conscripts to war?

I think politicians would take war more seriously if they themselves risked getting killed.

The President and the Representatives in Congress were elected by the voters to serve in the position they are currently in right now, not to be a private in the Army. Plus they are pretty old to be enlisting, don't you think?

I know I'm trying to respond rationally to what is (hopefully) mindless venting, and I'm not criticizing you for that we all do it. I just feel silly when I catch myself doing it, and I hope you do to.

kansaswhig · Dec 23, 2009

Wiseone said:
The President and the Representatives in Congress were elected by the voters to serve in the position they are currently in right now, not to be a private in the Army. Plus they are pretty old to be enlisting, don't you think?

I know I'm trying to respond rationally to what is (hopefully) mindless venting, and I'm not criticizing you for that we all do it. I just feel silly when I catch myself doing it, and I hope you do to.

I think he was venting, however, the lack of military service among our "ruling class" (that's what I call them) is staggering.

The book "AWOL" really opened my eyes. There are some in Congress with an impeccable service record, namely McCain, Webb, Sestak, etc.

samsmart · Dec 23, 2009

Before we talk about reinstituting the draft, why don't we try letting gays volunteer to serve first?

kansaswhig · Dec 23, 2009

samsmart said:
Before we talk about reinstituting the draft, why don't we try letting gays volunteer to serve first?

I agree. And if there is a draft, they should not be excluded.

Zinc Route · Dec 23, 2009

**** Gays consistently make the point that there are numerous Gays already quietly in service. While it isn't the inflated numbers they present I agree that some are there. Current rules of course will be enacted if someone is revealed either thru some specific obvious act or they state so openly.

**** There are valid cultural reasons why this policy has to be. I admit it is often unfair, but an Army needs cohesion. I suspect some of the Progressive's who want Open Gays in the Military kind of know (or hope) that it will just be another factor in further reducing what was once a very substantial institution that sttod for things many Liberals openly despise.

rathi · Dec 23, 2009

There are valid cultural reasons why this policy has to be. I admit it is often unfair, but an Army needs cohesion.

Strange, I seem to remember hearing the same argument when the military did racial integration. I wonder how that turned out...

I suspect some of the Progressive's who want Open Gays in the Military kind of know (or hope) that it will just be another factor in further reducing what was once a very substantial institution that sttod for things many Liberals openly despise.

Yeah, Israel was totally trying to destroy its own military when they allowed gays to openly serve. :roll:

Zinc Route · Dec 23, 2009

**** No , I don't think Israel forsaw that , and it's situation is quite different as YOU well know. Also the comparison between the decision to desegregate the US Armed Forces in the late 40's and the full usage of Gays today is not valid because one reversed a long pattern of gross unfairness while the current consideration just foisters an aberration onto the vast majority of those serving.

Conscription, the Republic, and America's Future

kansaswhig

CrusaderRabbit08

kansaswhig

Zinc Route

rathi

Count Smackula

CrusaderRabbit08

kansaswhig

kansaswhig

kansaswhig

Zinc Route

Morality Games

kansaswhig

kansaswhig

Regicollis

Active member

Regicollis

Active member

Zinc Route

WI Crippler

rathi

Count Smackula

Wiseone

kansaswhig

samsmart

kansaswhig

Zinc Route

rathi

Count Smackula

Zinc Route

Conscription, the Republic, and America's Future

Count Smackula

Active member

Active member

Count Smackula

Count Smackula

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency