I have been arguing for a reinstatement of the draft, without exceptions, for a very long time. Through the years my main argument for universal military service has focused on a simple equation that might reduce the likelihood of war.
The idea is that when the entire population (including the sons and daughters of lawyers, doctors, legislators and captains of industry) of a certain age is required to serve at least two years in the military, the political class will have a strong disinclination to pursue policies leading to wars of convenience. That their children and grandchildren could (would) be in the line of fire might focus their minds on the human consequences of their decision.
A similar notion has been behind legislation advanced by Congressman Charles Rangel over the years.
I still believe this to be a strong reason for the draft, but in an article in today's NYTs, a rationale was proposed that at least equals the one I've been advocating.
Follow me over the fold for more discussion on this critical issue.
The McChrystal affair has once again brought to the fore the inhernet tension between American military and civilian leadership when it comes to issues of policy and practice. In a 2000 interview with the Times Charles Moskos, a sociologist who studied the military spoke of a potentially troubling divide between civilian and military culture ...
But this incident brings to mind the fact that a decade ago, one expert on the culture of America’s military tried to sound an alarm bell about the possibility that an all-volunteer military was opening up a potentially problematic cultural divide between soldiers and civilians.
In an interview with The Times in 2000, after President Bill Clinton tried and failed to rescind the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the United States military, Charles Moskos, a sociologist who studied the military — and first suggested the "don’t ask, don’t tell" compromise — said that he was concerned about the way American’s military and its civilian population had drifted apart in the years after the draft was abolished. Discussing the phenomenon of hazing in the ranks, Mr. Moskos said:
To use sociological jargon, the latent function of hazing is that it differentiates and separates one from, and at the same time makes one feel superior to, whatever mainstream you’re defining yourself against. Now my own specialty happens to be the military, and I think it’s significant that there was little if any hazing in the armed forces in World War II. It seems like a post-Vietnam-era phenomenon, as the military got separated from the mainstream of society.
In a later interview Mr. Moskos spoke of a futher divide ...
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, Mr. Moskos argued in Washington Monthly that America should reinstitute the draft, both to solve a military recruitment problem and to prevent the gap between the country’s soldiers and its civilians from widening.
Mr. Moskos, who advised policy makers on military matters until his death in 2008, suggested that relying on an all-volunteer military to fight America’s wars could eventually lead to a schism in the society between warriors and non-warriors.
In the absence of a draft or universal service, it is already the case that many of the nation’s current political leaders have no personal experience of military service. The nightmare scenario, Mr. Moskos told The Times in 2000, is that this sort of cultural separation would be allowed to grow unchecked for generations, to the point where the officers who command the military might no longer have enough respect for the nation’s civilian political leaders to continue obeying their orders.
In his argument I find a convincing case for a growing divide between two cultures that could ultimately lead to a point where the military no longer accepted the authority of civilian leadership, and civilian elites no longer had a clear sense of what military service meant for the small percentage of "warriors" and their families.
My grandfather (WWI), father (WWII), uncles (WWII) and brother (Iraq) have all served in the US armed forces. And though we don't consider ourselves to be a military family there is a sense of duty that comes with service. My sons (both of age) have not expressed an interest in serving, and though I can not compell them to volunteer, I've spoken to them about my support for a draft. They agree with the concept and have both said they would serve if drafted.
Since the draft was suspended in 1973 I suspect the percentage of Americans with family members in the military has been reduced by 75% or more.
In the long run I don't see how this imbalance is sustainable in a democracy. We need to reinstitute the draft to save our democracy AND bring a sense of personal consequence to those that would make policy and take this nation to war.