A debate worth having- only for real


Ollie North is against the draft.

He makes a powerful case, not only that bringing back selective service would be a bad idea, but that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is proposing that it be revived chiefly in an effort to score partisan political points. He also points out that Rangel's theory- that the volunteer army is composed of members of the lower economic classes and the less educated members of our society (a theory to which John Kerry apparently also subscribes) is, in fact, sheer bunk. Those serving in the military are, on the average, better educated than their civilian contemporaries, and Rangel's notions about the racial and economic makeup of our armed forces simply aren't supported by the data.

Now, I was not drafted during the Vietnam era due to a combination of a student deferment, medical problems, and a lottery number high enough that during the period in which I was 1-A (draft bait), I wasn't called. I well remember how much I- along with the rest of my generation- resented the draft as a kind of almost totalitarian intrusion upon our lives. Perhaps we were a bit self-indulgent in that regard; if other forms of national service were allowed as alternatives to military service, it might go a long way toward making the forgotten point that we- who take from this nation- also have an obligation to give something back. A reasonable and morally healthy notion, that.

But there was another reason why my initial reaction to the Rangel proposal was favorable, and I'd like to hear what Col. North has to say to it. He makes the point that he has never spoken to a military leader who favors the revival of the draft, and that in fact today's volunteer military is better because it is composed of volunteers.

Fair enough. But the question remains: if we don't re-institute the draft, where are we going to get the numbers of troops we are realistically going to need to fight the war on terror? We are in trouble both in Iraq and Afghanistan at least in part because we couldn't muster the numbers of troops needed to do the job right. We are paralyzed in our ability to deal with North Korea and Iran for the same reason.

Not fighting the war on terror isn't an option; the enemy certainly isn't going to stop fighting. Not protecting our national interests and the interests of democracy and civilization around the world also isn't an option; nobody else is going to do either one.

But if we don't bring back the draft, where are we going to get the troops?

The debate about bringing back the draft- as unpopular as the idea might be- is a debate worth having. Only let it be a serious debate about a serious matter of public policy, and not merely an occasion for the playing of silly partisan games.

Cartoon: Cox and Forkum

Comments

Dear Pr. Waters:

Sir, of all the military branches the Air Force is the pickiest - it has higher requirements than the other major three: the grunts, the jarheads, and those that wear the faggoty white uniforms.

I didn't reenlist because I could make alot more money in the civilian world doing the same job!

The USAF has though some really cool commerials now: the one with the screaming jet engine in the "hush house" - nice. Maybe that will help, I don't know, but pay was a problem for my retention.
Anonymous said…
While I grasp your argument, I can't help the certain feeling that there will be no 'serious debate'--that we're so incapable of serious debate, or of having the ones seriously debating getting their arguments heard.
The right has become as reactionary and as defensive as it was ever accused of being; no one breathes deeply anymore, when he can go on Fox News or talk radio and spout sound bites and mix it up with some equally reactionary liberal. Before they go off for cocktails together, after the show.
I think the right has started hardening its position that talk of the draft is, 1) an insult to the volunteer forces we now have, 2) an attempt by the left to weaken the military, 3) more of the Iraq/Vietnam distraction.
And, frankly, as one who spends a lot of time with 20-somethings and younger, I don't see that generation willing to go anywhere and fight, with the images of 60s protesters and draft dodgers so available. You don't think the nightly news programs won't recycle all that footage--they never knew how valuable it might one day become! Films of protesters being sprayed and clubbed, draft cards being burned, the Canadian border lit up with neon?
Four Dead in Ohio will be heard once again, across the land, and not the Battle Hymn or The Caissons Go Rolling.
Gloomy, ain't I?
Anonymous said…
I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a debate on the news. Did they ever? It's time for all of us to grow up and realize that all news outlets sell cars, not the news. They have no moral obligation to any entity beyond their shareholders and advertising clients. They gave up long ago trying to attract viewers with actual facts on current affairs. Now they bait us with bomb throwers - they WANT an argument, preferably with a pretty face. There is no subject so serious that it can't be used to sell a six pack of Bud Light. Get the partisan right winger in a small enclosed space with a partisan left winger, and let the (hopefully verbal) swinging begin!
When I want to hear a debate, I go to c-span. When I want to participate casually, I blog. Along those lines, visit the site of "Iraqi Freedom" veteran Irritated Vet. He agrees that the draft should not get such short shrift.