Military increases and the draft

In recent days, the Bush administration has put forward two ideas.

The first idea is to surge troop strength in Iraq by 20,000 to 30,000 troops, a full division, in order to stabilize the region and help train the Iraqi forces & police to take over the security of the country.

This plan is really frightening. He is clinging to his original vision of the Iraq conflict like a drowning rat, even against the advice of all but his inner circle of advisors. Secretary Condoleeza Rice said on Friday, December 22nd 2006, about Iraq that "once it emerges as a country that is a stabilising factor, you will have a very different kind of Middle East." I find it personally incredible that the Secretary of State of the United States is still singing this tired neo-con theme song.

The fact is that we can't continue to support the war with our current force strength in Iraq, and nobody, including the former Secretary of State, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell seems to understand how we would be able to credibly increase our force strength there without breaking the back of the army.

The fact is that increasing our current force would do nothing to stabilize the region, and would only escalate the conflict to a level of violence, and American casualties, which the American people have not seen since the Vietnam War.

Even Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, initially made a statement supporting the increase. Fortunately, largely due to backlash from people across the U.S., including some peace activists locally, he has backed off that statement.

The morale of both the Army and the Marine Corps is plummeting, because many of them either have realized, or are beginning to, that they are being asked to die for a lie. Bush's incapacity to recognize reality, even now, still stuns me.

It's clear that the man just won't give up, and is so committed to his original vision, that nothing, not even the abandonment of his most ardent supporters, will change his mind.
(thanks to Jon for the video link)

The second proposal that Bush is putting forward, is to increase the overall size of both the Army and the Marine Corps. How he is intending to do this, with the recruitment trouble that the military has had recently, I don't know. Maybe he will start loosening up enlistment standards, or just have military recruiters start lying to potential recruits. Oh wait, that's right. Never mind.
(thanks to Dave for the lying recruiter link)

Or they could bring back the draft. Also on Friday, the U.S. Selective Service announced a comprehensive test of the military draft systems, starting in 2009.

Now, recently, there's been quite a bit of controversy about the draft. People talk about it, they get pissed off about it, they support it for political reasons, they oppose it for political reasons. Some people are in support of it based on their principles, others oppose it based on their principles. Many times this comes about for different reasons.

Newt Gingrich has recently implied he supports bringing back the draft. (see below) Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel supports bringing back the draft. Pelosi says she doesn't support it. The Bush administration is against it:
"The president's position has not changed," said Trey Bohn, a spokesman for the White House. "He supports an all-volunteer military, and the administration is not considering reinstating the draft."

There are several arguments here, and there is no consensus whatsoever. Conservatives tend to be in support of the draft, if they are, because they feel we need it to fight the Global War on Terror. Mr. Gingrich, for example, has called it "World War III", and has implied that a war economy and reinstating the draft would be a part of his vision for the future.

Gingrich's ideas about the use of American military force are as dangerous as his ideas about the suppression of free speech.

On the other side of the aisle, Charlie Rangel believes that there is already an implicit draft in this country. By that he means that for a large segment of our population, the opportunities to improve yourself are limited. Many people in our country come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and have very few choices after high school, sometimes coming down to choosing between the Army and WalMart.

I agree with his point, that a formal draft, without deferments, would level the playing field. This might force people who have more economic opportunity to see the war in a different light. What if young people from middle-class backgrounds had to face the possiblity of compulsory service, war, and death? Would they, or their parents, be so quick to support the idea of a war?

I also feel that the idea of some sort of compulsory service, regardless of the nature of that service, is a good idea. There is a difference between involuntary servitude, as some have termed it, and the idea of compulsory service.

Many nations have mandatory military service, or other civil service, as a required part of adult life. Switzerland, for example, requires two years of service of every adult. Service to one's community, state, or nation is a valuable experience that unites people from different backgrounds, in a common cause. Compulsory service need not be military in nature, a draft such as Congressman Rangel suggests could include the option to work in the Peace Corps, or do work in the community. His proposal includes those ideas, and those who object to war, if his ideas are adopted in toto, would have the opportunity to choose from several options.

"Having our young people commit themselves to a couple years in service of this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals -- and, at the end of that, to provide some educational benefits -- it's the best thing for our young people and the best thing for our country."

Congressman Charles Rangel on Face the Nation, November 19, 2006




Jim Nicholson, the current Secretary for Veteran's Affairs, recently said that "society would benefit" if the draft was reinstituted, but then quickly backed off his statement. Interestingly, Secretary Nicholson's original position seems not too far from Congressman Rangel's.

In my own experience, I spent two years in the California Conservation Corps as a young man(hard work, low pay, miserable conditions!). That experience of service is something that I will value for my entire life. Following that, I enlisted in the military, and my experiences there also shaped my attitudes, my work ethic, and my ideas about the world and the people in it. Of course, in my case, I volunteered both times, even though at least in part that was due to no money, no job, and no prospects.

Some of the statements made from the left in recent months have been clumsy attempts to capture some of the reality about military life in a soundbite. Kerry's botched joke, for example, was true, but does not (and was not intended to) completely describe reality. In addition to those that are in the military due to economic disadvantages, are those that have volunteered because of their personal ideals. My own military service was a combination of the two sides of this coin.

All that said, the draft today is not politically feasible. The emotional content, pro and con, of the idea of the draft is so overwhelming that most people can't keep their minds on what might really happen if it were brought back.

The military is a mixed bag of people. It already is a cross-section of our society, and it is wrong to attempt to label people, or indulge stereotypes. That said, today's circumstances are different from the time when I was active duty. I am a peace-time veteran, and my experiences in the military are different from those of combat veterans.

To say I am proud of the quality job that our young men and women are doing overall, in Iraq, would be an understatement. To say I am ashamed and disappointed with the quality of the job that the military and civilian leadership is doing overall, especially with regards to the Iraq war, would be equally understated.

The ideas of some members of the officer corps are quite good, and the fearlessness of many of them in stating those ideas is heartening. Most often in retirement is when general officers become the most outspoken, but sometimes active duty generals are not afraid to speak out, or to do their duty and tell the truth, as in the case of General John Abizaid.

The level of dissent is historical in scope, and is most often in direct contradiction of the civilian leadership. The fact that Bush is now disregarding the advice of his "Commanders on the ground" publicly, is a sign of how far the deterioration has come.

The number of conscientious objectors has been increasing steadily since early in the war. I have no doubt it will continue to rise.

The discontent with the course of the Iraq War will continue to grow. The disillusionment of the American people with the Bush Administration, over the repeated lies, scandals, cronyism and opportunistic greed will spread. We will take our country back, peacefully, within the rule of law. The tide has turned in public opinion, but how many of our men and women in uniform will have to die first, is the question in my mind.

2,964 so far.

Peace