Does lack of a draft make war too easy?

[Aegis]

THE United States now has a mercenary army.

Well, right off the bat, this article is wrong. A mercenary is a freelance individual who fights for whichever army will pay him/her. Basically, a mercenary is one who fights only for money.

Those within the US armed forces, however, fight for their country, their family and their loved ones. That's a big difference. The piddly pay that they receive can hardly be used as an example of why they joined. Simply because they are paid does not mean that they are mercenaries. By that rationale, every single army of every single nation that ever fought a war was comprised of mercenaries.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Scary quote, but so true.

 

[farting bob]

I personally am saddened by this situation, as I think the military should be a reflection of the citizenry. It just tells me that "the Left" believes that either they are *above* serving, or no longer believe the country is worth putting their lives on the line.

Or maybe they feel like fighting a war they disagree with is pointless, while the gun slinging republicans beleive all the stuff that iraq was a major threat etc.

 

[nonconformist]

I wouldn't serve in an active role in the army currently because:

a)I have no faith in my government
b)I don't particularly want the deaths of civilians on my self
c)What is there left to fight for?

 

[MarineCorps]

I would say the opposite is true, that lack of a draft makes it harder to fight wars.

Look at Vietnam and Iraq. We have a bunch of trust-fund liberals on the sidelines
aiding the enemies of the US.

Soory to burst your bubble, but the draft ended in '73. Nam started in '64.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25kennedy.html

I've always thought that when one is deciding whether they support military action by their nation they should ask whether they would be willing to serve themselves in the war or have one of their close family members serve. If the answer is no then I don't see how you can in good conscience support the military action. In the past with a draft this was a real question, now is simply a philosophical question that is too easy to sidestep in the rush to war. The military recruiting difficulties in the U.S. suggest that the 70 or 80 percent of people that said they support the Iraq war at the outset would not be willing to have their families serve. There really needs to be some link between personal sacrifice and political support for war. If you don't like the draft then I suggest that all wars be linked to an immediate surcharge of 3 percent of your yearly income to help fund the war and provide greater benefits to those in the combat zone. Or at least something so that people have to feel and reflect on the sacrifices that they are voting for others to make.

Seems the article complains that our modern military can wage better and more efficient war with only a fraction of the manpower required from the WW2 generation. I might remind you that the reason that a WW2 GI was drawn from all levels of society was because there was a draft. As the article points out, we were fighting a total war, and had to mobilize every inch of American manpower, economy, and industry to outpace our enemies. We're not faced with that threat now. Our enemies are disorganized rabble that kill schoolchildren with improvised car bombs. Despite the casualties of Iraq, they are nothing compared to WW2, where 100's of people died a day, on average. We simply don't need to recruit as much as we did before, and so the army is left with only people who volunteer. If they happen to be interested in using the military as a career advance, I fail to see what's wrong with that. Would you prefer that they remain in poverty instead?

As far as the expense of war goes, one doesn't need to volunteer any contributions. At the end of the day, war will cost extra, and you will be taxed... eventually.

 

[Mark1031]

Seems the article complains that our modern military can wage better and more efficient war with only a fraction of the manpower required from the WW2 generation. I might remind you that the reason that a WW2 GI was drawn from all levels of society was because there was a draft. As the article points out, we were fighting a total war, and had to mobilize every inch of American manpower, economy, and industry to outpace our enemies.

It is not a question of having a better military. No one wants a WW. it is the same reasoning as any sort of economic calculation, if it costs you nothing you are happy to have more of it. Since war now costs most people in the country nothing other than some increase in the huge national debt that will in theory have to be paid at some unknown time in the distant future it is much easier to get support than if there was fear of a draft or some immediate financial consequence. The article below says it better.

By Uwe E. Reinhardt
Monday, August 1, 2005; A17



President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.

Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95 percent of the American people?

At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.

The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.

The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard" in the context of health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?

A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs -- in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!

Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by "supporting our troops"?

When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.

Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?

The writer is James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101080_pf.html

 

[10Seven]

MERCENARY ARMY
While there seem to be a number of major demographics present in the military – namely those ‘red states’ and lower socio-economic – enlistment seems to be motivated primarily by three factors – being, a) financial, b) patriotic, c) big guns! Hooya! Thus, while mercenary army may not be entirely fair, to a degree, it certainly is – given that efforts toward increasing retention and recruitment tend to revolve around increasing benefits – and the education aspect being most notable – there is an obvious official recognition of the ‘mercenary’ aspect as fact the recognition that, as a tendency, the more well off are less interested in enlisting.

CONNECTION TO THE PEOPLE
As soon as the military begins to show tendencies in it’s retention and recruitment of particular demographics, it is certainly becoming less connected to it’s funding population – if, for instance, the military is predominantly made up of lower socio-economic, patriotic, and ‘big guns! Hooya!’ then it inevitably is influenced by the particular tendencies inherent to those demographics – as well as, in the nature of family bonds, affecting the population in a more restricted way.

I’ve read a few studies asserting the theory that a small/professional military force is less representative, as the articles quoted suggests.

Given the nature of the beast that is democracy, it seems both logical and inevitable that a small/professional force is not representative.

In that regard, too, I would also suggest that by the nature of that small/professional force, even despite the good intentions of many of it’s members, it’s tendency is against the interest of the democracy as it is more easily driven by the ruling class, as the USA experiences – though, obviously, there remain limited checks.

I tend to the opinion that in the event that a national military force is maintained – whilst I prefer something closer to a system of militias – it should be through a system of ‘draft’ thereby ensuring a representative cross section of the society it derives from and is, thus, more responsive to the democracy as opposed to the ruling class.

The impact of the draft on the responsiveness of the military might be seen in that of the US experience of the Vietnam war, and affecting other nations too - though I don't know realitvely little, the conflict in Chechenya may also be indicative. If the people don't think the war fighting, and if the military is representative, it simply won't perform to the best of it's ability, or, in some cases, will actively resist.

I see no reason why service, of a range of type, should not be considered a duty in our society, especially when we make such a big issue of our ‘rights’.

The problem may be, rather, that more people do not see military service as an actual ‘service’ to the nation – certainly, recent events would suggest a considerable belief that it is more service to a particular portion of the ruling class.

TENDENCY TOWARD USE
I think the arguments advanced toward the tendency in use very pertinent – I also recall some recent video from Iraq showing the shooting of people by US soldiers – the gun camera and recorded voice communication highlighted one aspect of the current high technology armed force that is both extremely dehumanizing and seeming a major goal of military and political planning.

The further we move from the more personal, knife in the guts, gleam in the eye, to push button atomics, the further removed the combatant is from the imperative for moral question.

That seems to me just one major issue, in addition to that of the armed forces more easily supported financially, and the popular disassociation which leads to their more ready use.

Why should I be particularly concerned about voting to send the military off to war? I’m not in it, I don’t know anyone in it – the only thing that annoys me is the tax I pay for it, and then, I want my money’s worth!

 

[Sims2789]

I don't see how it can be discussed *without* getting political. I know the bill was introduced by a Democrat, who by his own admission was simply looking to put pressure on Republicans, and admits the bill would never pass. And I admit that "New-England-style Liberals" is a stereotype, but it so aptly describes a still-existent mindset.

As for people of all political stripes having served with honor, I must heartily agree. However, since the All-Volunteer Army started in the '70s, one group of people has been conspicuously absent from the rolls of enlistees: the "New-England-style Liberals". () The Armed Forces, which back in the '60s were roughly 50/50 when it came to party affiliation (and many, particularly senior officers, disavowed *any* party affiliation), is now heavily Republican, as much as 80/20 or more, and a larger percentage are publicly identifying themselves as belonging to a party.

I personally am saddened by this situation, as I think the military should be a reflection of the citizenry. It just tells me that "the Left" believes that either they are *above* serving, or no longer believe the country is worth putting their lives on the line.

Maybe, in addition to many poor people joining the Army, and the South, where support for the ancien régime is high, and also poorer and more poorly educated than rest of the US (and therefore see the Army as an opportunity for advancement), the Left also doesn't believe in what the Army currently fights for. Many liberals still believe in the United States, but increasingly we are abandoning nationalism due to actions by the United States which make people no longer proud to be American.

 

[BasketCase]

But the modern military's disjunction from American society is even more disturbing. Since the time of the ancient Greeks through the American Revolutionary War and well into the 20th century, the obligation to bear arms and the privileges of citizenship have been intimately linked. It was for the sake of that link between service and a full place in society that the founders were so invested in militias and so worried about standing armies, which Samuel Adams warned were "always dangerous to the liberties of the people."

In many nations (mostly Third World ones), we can see one of the hazards inherent in a societally-integrated military--errr....

Omigod, that sounded so artificial and contrived. Lemme try again:

In many nations (mostly Third World ones), we can see what goes wrong when the troops are a big part of society.

There, MUCH better. Okay, continuing:

The problem is that the military arm becomes an independent entity, one of the big decision-makers, sometimes THE big decision maker. Take a look at the number of nations where a military coup was staged because the troops wanted to keep their jobs. The military becomes a faction among the various other factions competing for government power. And in a competition for government power, the faction with the guns has an edge.

In the U.S. it is made abundantly clear (through popular culture more than anything else) that the military is a servant of the citizens, the government, and the nation. NOT the other way around.


And, to actually answer the thread question: The lack of a draft makes it politicially easier to wage war, but limits the maximum size of the war that can be waged. However, modern technology makes those fewer troops a LOT more effective.....

 

[10Seven]

The problem is that the military arm becomes an independent entity, one of the big decision-makers, sometimes THE big decision maker. Take a look at the number of nations where a military coup was staged because the troops wanted to keep their jobs. The military becomes a faction among the various other factions competing for government power. And in a competition for government power, the faction with the guns has an edge.

In the U.S. it is made abundantly clear (through popular culture more than anything else) that the military is a servant of the citizens, the government, and the nation. NOT the other way around.

1.
A drafted armed force doesn't have to be large at all, and neither does it have to be so powerful as to dominate the society.

The goal, in a draft, that I would advocate, would be a representative cross-section of the society.

2.
I would suggest that, while agreeing to a point with your assesment as to the USA, that it does not acknowledge the very strong position the military has in the USA - potentially as influential as in those places which have experienced military coup.

3.
Elaborating a little on my impressions as to 'war too easy' - by it's nature, a 'thing' must be used - in this way, a standing army pressures to be used.

For what is more useless than a soldier without a war to fight?

 

[Winner]

I think it is quite clear that going to war with proffesional army is easier from the political poin of view. People don't fear they will be needed to go into some foreign land and fight a war you don't like and possibly die in-process. They may be against the war itself, but they won't oppose it too hard if they aren't required to fight in it themselves.

Still, I think the proffesional army is much better than the conscript army.

 

[10Seven]

Still, I think the proffesional army is much better than the conscript army.

It seems agreeable that it is likely very much more effective in capability, but in what other ways do you think?

 

[The Yankee]

All volunteer makes it easier for a country to do numerous smaller operations. But obviously it's a lot harder if you wanted (or needed) to fight a war on the grand scale. The problem comes when the public at large says enough is enough, as what seems to be happening now in the US with the declining amount of new recruits.

 

[Sims2789]

The institution of a draft makes war too hard. It may not have in earlier times but now it definitely does. Although not having it makes war easier than it should be, at least for the United States, it is still better than not being able to go to war when you actually need to.

 

[BasketCase]

A drafted armed force doesn't have to be large at all, and neither does it have to be so powerful as to dominate the society.

The U.S. has a very effective military with no draft at all.

I would suggest that, while agreeing to a point with your assesment as to the USA, that it does not acknowledge the very strong position the military has in the USA - potentially as influential as in those places which have experienced military coup.

In my view, the U.S. military actually has a pretty weak position.

Elaborating a little on my impressions as to 'war too easy' - by it's nature, a 'thing' must be used - in this way, a standing army pressures to be used.

For what is more useless than a soldier without a war to fight?

A nuclear weapon that isn't used, is still very useful as a deterrent. That's the entire argument behind MAD, and also the reason several CFC'ers have pointed out as being the reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons--not to actually use them, but to prevent others from using theirs.

I personally have a reservation about MAD: for MAD to work, all involved leaders have to be sane. This is not the case with all nations on Earth.

 

[plustaticman]

Funny,those who are risking their lives in the war often support war,and those who never involve in the military end up defending soldiers' life.

It is ironic isn't it. I'll be going back for my second tour in a few months. For alot of soldiers, hearing people who have never been there weighing in on the topic like experts is kinda akin to asking my mailman for advice on my retirement investments.

The gap grows between those who have served and those who have not in a way so profound that I don't think people can truly understand the reprucussions. Biggest reason we don't want a draft is because we don't want to deal with people who don't want to be there. We are too busy as it is to deal with folks like that.

My opinion: If you don't want to serve don't. I don't want you to be there because you may not fight when you need to, and good men who are charged to my safekeeping might die because of it. That said, if you want to be there, then come on in, we could sure use your help.

I heard a quote the other day from an old commander of mine, not sure where he heard it. It goes, "In the end, you fight for those on your left and your right."

Never heard a statement more true.

 

[plustaticman]

In my view, the U.S. military actually has a pretty weak position.

Just another comment referencing the idea of a military coup. When I took my oath of office, I swore loyalty to the constitution. We are the ONLY country in the world whose officers swear loyalty to an idea, not a state or person. Quite frankly, the idea of a coup is so absurd that it doesn't even bear discussion regardless of whether the army could or couldn't succeed at it. It simply isn't something that enters our minds.

 

[10Seven]

1. The U.S. has a very effective military with no draft at all.

2. A nuclear weapon that isn't used, is still very useful as a deterrent. That's the entire argument behind MAD, and also the reason several CFC'ers have pointed out as being the reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons--not to actually use them, but to prevent others from using theirs.

1. I'm not at all arguing as to the effectiveness of the military draft/professional - my argument has been to representation of society, and responsiveness to.

I tend to think a professional force will be more effective, at least by current standards and systems - though, potentially, and referring to such as guerilla warfare/popular resistence, this will not always be the case.

2. While nuclear weapons can neither be professional nor drafted, that would appear an aside. However, it may simply be a question of values and acceptance - we've been sending soldiers off to die for various reasons for thousands of years - whilst nuclear weapons, presenting an overwhelmingly larger psychological pressure, are, back to MAD, quite probably more powerful now as they have only briefly been used. We've had a taste of terror, so to speak, and fear it unleashed. Unleash it, as personal war has been for long enough to become normalised, and it would be quite another matter.

Thus, I think this is like comparing apples and oranges.

I would continue to assert the concept that 'things' must be used - and a military with no enemy is a pointless excercise - it is an institution, actually, like all institutions, which naturally seek to justify their existence.

Likewise, as self aware individuals, we all must.

 

[BasketCase]

Most living things don't bother to justify their existence. They try to survive no matter what. A cruel wolf who bosses everybody around (or kills his or her fellows now and then) is actually more likely to survive than a friendly wolf. That the second critter has more right to live than the first one is an argument that the first critter would ignore if he could understand English.

Military force is, in the end, the physical representation of a nation's desire to survive.