Why We Need Conscription

[ludwigb]

**I posted this recently in a friend's blog--I'd love to hear what you all think**

Although I sympathize with your feelings on the draft, I'm going to have to disagree.

For me it comes down to the following... In the US, we find that the army is becoming increasingly culturally homogeneous, increasingly allied with certain political and economic sectors in the nation. Naturally, this can change with the advent of a full scale war. But as it is, I don't know anyone who is currently serving in Iraq, although I imagine some of my less privileged buddies from high school are there. But I've lost touch, primarily because I went to college and surround myself with like-minded liberal upper-middle class types, etc. I imagine most middle-class GOP types are in the same boat.

If we have a draft or some other form of compulsory national service that includes the possibility of military service, then suddenly war becomes an issue affecting every single one of us. Ultimately, it is fundamentally undemocratic and unjust when wars are carried out on the behalf of impassioned minorities, like the current Iraq debacle, while the majority is largely indifferent, easily manipulated, and without a visible stake in demanding truth or accountability from politicians or the media. The tentative alliance between the leaders of the professional military and the current crop of war-mongers makes this a hell of a lot easier to pull off.

Historically, professional militaries are generally either a symptom or cause of imperialism, militarism, war profiteering, tyranny, and continued wars. It goes without saying that the history of American imperialism is directly linked to the rise of the professional army. I wonder if any US Senator has a relative currently serving in the military and I think it's even less likely that they have relatives serving in Iraq.

Conscription radically alters the situation. IMO the possibility of conscription should be the price to pay for citizenship in any democracy. And I would point out that the most pacific democracies in the modern world all feature compulsory military conscription in one way or another. Indeed, the most reasonable objection to conscription is IMO that it will make our military weaker and less likely to wage just wars. However, I think this risk is decisively outweighed by the dangers of imperialism and simple fact that the result of war is usually more militarism and more war.

As citizens, we need to commit to wars on a collective basis, meaning that the burden falls on each of us more or less equally. But as it is, the American middle class is unknowingly sponging off of the imperialistic labors of a largely separate military class. I will never forget how an acquaintance once remarked to me “I’m getting tired of all this lolly-gagging around . I hope they just decide on something, so the oil prices can finally come down.” Lately, war has become something of a spectator sport, with no effect on our daily lives outside the thrill or agony of defeat.

Conscription means that every single citizen has to take an active interest in foreign policy. In such a case, the media will endeavor to serve the citizens, rather than entertain them.

[Renew Deal]

1. I agree overall.

I don't have time to respond, but I think the draft should be brought back too. We will see how hawkish people are after that.

[IrateCitizen]

4. The draft didn't prevent Vietnam...

Nor did it do much to equalize social inequities.

The funny thing is that, prior to WWII, the US had always maintained a relatively small peacetime armed force. Even in the immediate aftermath of WWII, I believe we seriously scaled it back. It wasn't until the Korean War and the years after that we became committed to maintaining a large, "peacetime" military.

I'd rather see us strive to return to a small military devoted to defending the nation's borders (like another country is really going to attack us anyway) and specialize forces to be committed to international uses, with the ultimate goal being a world in which militaries aren't really needed.

[ludwigb]

7. Well

I'm arguing that universal conscription tends to go together with pacifism in the modern world. The citizenry would be motivated to scale back the military in order to scale back the threat of war and their own conscription.

[IrateCitizen]

11. History would teach us otherwise

Societies that practiced conscription tended to see militarism creep into their other societal institutions, rather than see pacifism be embraced by increasing numbers.

Now, I'm certainly not against some kind of mandatory service program, with the full option of either military or other forms of service (like Americorps) for the benefits of bringing people together from vastly different cultures and classes within the US -- but I have to cringe any time I hear this reliance upon purely military means in order to educate the public about the horrors of war.

[ludwigb]

27. Well

the model I am most familiar with is the German model, which already has the mandatory service program you bring up. One reason it would be a big improvement is that in order to avoid military service, young men must write a letter explaining why they could not fire a gun in anger and why they are pacifist. Consequently, a large part of civics and government classes in high school are devoted to this question.

Of course, I am critical of the way upper-class kids tend to opt out of the military, which simply preserves class differences. But this system is a huge improvement, and requireing mandatory service from young people may be a drag to some, but it helps establish a spirit of public service and a way to foster commmunities.

If I had my way, every young person entering national service would by required to attend a month-long *boot camp* about being a US citizen and the US's role in the world, possibly including basic military drills. Afterwards, they would either go on to some sort of community service or military service for about a year. This way, every citizen in America is physically confronted with the reality of citizenship and the role of guns behind their daily lives as well as the fact that any one of them could be fodder in the next war.

[IrateCitizen]

28. Have you ever served yourself, ludwigb?

I think it's a valid question given your committment to this cause.

[ludwigb]

31. No

And I probably wouldn't enjoy serving either, even if it was mere community service. I don't think any iconoclastic person would enjoy it. However, want we want to do and what we should do are often entirely different things.... And I'm only talking about a year of service, except in the event of actual war.

Another thing I wanted to get to was your point about conscription and history.... I wonder, has conscription ever caused a legitimately democratic nation to become more militaristic? Certainly, if conscription is handed down as a fiat, as a means to brainwash the masses, then it serves the ends of militarism. But what I am trying to advocate is democratizing the military process, in the view that a professional and burocratic military is actually counterproductive to the goal of peace and progress, as counter-intuitive as that may seem at first.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Then you're advocating things of which you have no real clue

If you've never been through military training, you are unable to understand just how manipulative it can be. You also don't understand the way in which it teaches acquiescence to authority and squashing of dissent. You don't understand the way in which it discourages independent thought and preaches conformity at every turn. Sure, it does good things like teach responsibility and a sense of duty -- but what good are those things if they destroy critical thought or the willingness to question in the process?

The military is a classic authoritarian structure, the exact antithesis of democracy.

I DO understand these things, because I AM in the military -- even as I have come to utterly reject every premise that compelled me to sign up in the first place. For that reason, knowing the system as I do, I cannot endorse in any way, shape or form your call for conscription.

I wonder, has conscription ever caused a legitimately democratic nation to become more militaristic?

Easy -- the United States. Read Fortress America by William Greider and The Sorrows of Empire and Blowback by Chalmers Johnson for a detailed explanation of why and how.

[ludwigb]

38. In response to your first point

Since upper and middle class kids would have to take part in the training, the citizenry would (at least in theory) be motivated reform the training to bring it more in line with contemporary democratic values. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe progressive reforms along these lines have been introduced in Europe. Besides, I'm not talking a brainwashing, but something more like a citizenship building course--a kind of crash course in civics, with special emphasis on foreign policy. Of course, my dream world and the actual military reality have little to do with each other, but I think that if the US electorate became aware of these issues they would be more inclined to push for such reforms. Debates on conscription are, if nothing else, a way to push that debate forward.

Thanks for the book reccomendations, btw.

[Kanary]

39. I'm completely with you on "alternative service"

required for *EVERYONE*, no exceptions.

I see it as a perfect fit with Kucinich's Dept of Peace. :)

As for your assertion that "Societies that practiced conscription tended to see militarism creep into their other societal institutions", I will have to disagree. Switzerland *still* requires military service, including 20 years in the reserves, and it would be hard to imagine a society more disinclined towards war.

Mestronglythinks it has more to do with the psyche of the society.

Kanary

[ParanoidPat]

19. One word.....

.....Isrial! :evilfrown:

[freetobegay]

2. Conscription undemocratic

eom

[betty_booop]

36. couldn't be more correct

unless in times of dire emergency...like if we get invaded by a foreign power.(which won't happen anytime soon)

[Warpy]

3. Conscription is slavery

...and should be resorted to only when the country is under attack from a huge force and our backs are to the wall.

The rich never face conscription, and the middle class can usually manage to avoid it. Wars are always fought for the owning class by the working class.

Peacetime conscription, or conscription to save the vanity of a stupid man who says god told him to fight the wrong war is unconscionable.

[ludwigb]

5. That's not what I'm advocating....

I am advocating conscription (or at least the possibility of conscription) for all, as part of a new definition of citizenship on a truely equal basis.

Granted, the upper classes have historically avoided it in some countries. But crucially, the most pacific democratic countries are overwelmingly those where conscription has become established as the practice for everyone.

In any case, with conscription at least parts of the middle and upper class are forced to go. As it is, enlisted men are almost all from the poorer classes. Sticking with what we have means sticking with your statement that "Wars are always fought for the owning class by the working class". That is exactly what is going on right now, and no one cares, because war only affects a relatively tiny minority here.

[FeebMaster]

8. How exactly does that make it not slavery? (nt)

[ludwigb]

13. Because universal conscription is based upon true equality

In any case, it is obviously a legitimate point that consciption impairs "liberty", or the freedom to do what we want. By what I'm saying is that as a citizen of this country, I am responsible for what's going on in Iraq. We are all responsible. Yet we all deny responsibility, and allow a small minority to dictate the course of events, while the rest of us remain indifferent and enjoy whatever economic benefits come out of imperialism.

I say the only way we are going to reduce war is if all of us take responsibility for war, equally. That means that the collective decision is binding upon us all, including the necessity of going to war. This way, war is far less likely, and the actual amount of money we spend on defense is likely to go down considerably. Ultimately, conscription would largely amount to public works, although the possibility of military service MUST be implicit.

[FeebMaster]

14. Whether or not rich people and politicians' kids

have to serve isn't what makes forcing people to serve slavery. True equality? Great. We can all equally be slaves. I'll pass.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

22. It's also based on threat of imprisonment.

Five years max, if the old law still applies.

[rinsd]

9. Which countries are you referring to here?

"But crucially, the most pacific democratic countries are overwelmingly those where conscription has become established as the practice for everyone."

[rinsd]

6. This Conscript stuff is the Nader principle in action....

Let things become so fucked up in the hopes people will come around to your point of view.

Do you really think conscription will stop war?

Has it ever? Even Vietnam, while a contributing factor to ending it, it certainly didn't prevent the war itself.

War will still remain a "spectator's sport" for the vast majority and while there may be some perverse satisfaction in seeing a few upper-middle to upper class people drafted, the vast majority drafted will still be from the lower classes.

"Historically, professional militaries are generally either a symptom or cause of imperialism, militarism, war profiteering, tyranny, and continued wars."

Huh?

"It goes without saying that the history of American imperialism is directly linked to the rise of the professional army"

Which time? Manifest Destiny? The Imperialist fervor of the late 1800's? Or now?

[ugarte]

10. We do NOT need a bigger army

Anyone who believes that a Bush government/Republican Congress will create an equitable draft is living in fantasy land.

[ludwigb]

16. Well...

I'm speaking theoretically here, obviously. The sort of consciption I'm advocating could only be realistically advanced by a progressive political party, in a time of peace.

The current situation is, of course, beneficial to the GOP. They have no reason to change it, unless the situation slips beyond their control.

[Sorwen]

12. No way

That's a terrible infringement on our freedoms. There's no way someone should be forced to serve in the military and possibly in a war against his/her will. You've got a nice theory, but I'd prefer that we keep our freedoms.

[Columbia]

15. The only way I *might* support conscription

Is if it was Swiss style and not a huge standing army sent off to fight for every political whim.

[ludwigb]

17. The Swiss model

is pretty much what I'm advocating. I also like the German model, although too many upper-class Germans are able to escape the possibility of military service by declaring themselves pacifists and doing civilian service instead. Of course, I wouldn't want to force pacifists to fight, but it isn't good if the system remains divided along class lines.

All that said, both models are still an improvement on what we have and it goes without saying that pacifism is widespread in both Switzerland and Germany.

[Columbia]

20. I would still prefer

A small, well paid, and very well-trained and equipped all-volunteer force, however.

[charlie]

23. The Swiss are pacifists

because their army's mission is to defend borders, not to go tearassing around the world with delusions of exceptionalism and historical destiny. Their neutrality is rooted, it's been a state principle for centuries. They only have conscription because they're a small country, with a small population, and a small budget. (And what passes for compulsory service there is weekend warrior stuff, lasting less than a year)

Our massive Vietnam-era draft did not reduce our huge military footprint around the globe. Nor did it constrain our heavy-handed interference in South and Central American affairs. It didn't change our philosophy of active engagement with elements we deemed Communist proxies. And less than a decade after our pullout, we were nearly ecstatic welcoming an administration that promised we would "stand tall" again, reassert our might, and forever banish the taint of military failure.

We don't need a draft, it won't help. We need to muzzle the reactionaries run amok in our country.

[ludwigb]

24. First of all,

the draft did contribute to the end of the war. Had we merely called for more money, and bribed more poor people and mercenaries to serve, the war would have lasted longer. And the outcome of Vietnam did have a significant impact on foreign policy thinking, at least on the left. And naturally, the college deferment had a huge effect--without it the war would have ended much sooner.

But I'm talking about something completely different. I'm talking about compulsory national service in peacetime conditions (maybe 1-2 months training, and then some sort of public works or military assigniment for about a year). But the crucial element is that every citizen should face the possiblity of being called up to war.

[IrateCitizen]

25. The Swiss are NOT pacifists, they're neutral

If they were pacifists, they would not still maintain a standing army with mandatory service requirements.

There's a big difference between pacifism and neutrality.

[ludwigb]

29. What is the difference between neutrality and pacifism?

If pacifism require abandoning the idea of having an army altogether, I'm certainly not advocating pacifism. I just think conscription leads a democratic state to think twice about aggression.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Do you seriously not realize the difference?

Pacifism is the belief in solving problems by non-violent methods, an individual belief. Neutrality is a national attitude/policy to remain out of foreign entanglements, and to only commit your own military personnel when directly attacked.

I just think conscription leads a democratic state to think twice about aggression.

See my comments re: Vietnam, above. The only thing that conscription would do in American society is to help further solidify the takeover of our institutions by militarism. It went a large way toward perpetuating the state in which we now find ourselves.

[ludwigb]

37. Point taken

Many ostensibly neutral nations like Sweden (which has conscription) are active in solving problems on the world stage, primarily through non-violent means. That's what I was thinking of. On the other hand, the democratic nation with the largest and arguably the most imperialistically oriented army is still the US, with its professional force.

[rinsd]

26. Great Examples....

"All that said, both models are still an improvement on what we have and it goes without saying that pacifism is widespread in both Switzerland and Germany"

One has been neutral(except for war profiteering) and the other was occupied for 40 years.

[ludwigb]

33. That's a valid point on Switzerland

I hadn't thought of the war profiteering aspect... As for Germany, that is true as well, but I think the pacific spirit that has emerged there is something the world could learn from.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Their "pacific spirit" has nothing to do with their current service req.

Perhaps it has a little bit to do with the horrors perpetrated by their leaders and populace in the first half of the 20th century, and the realization that such pursuit is destructive and futile.

Perhaps that helps explain why all of Europe is much more anti-war than the US -- because their people actually lived through two of them in the early part of the 20th century. America hasn't seen war up close since the Civil War.

[ugarte]

18. Hear, hear!

A defensive army for a change. I like that.

[bloom]

21. I should probably just move to a country that isn't into the big military

mind-set, but I'm here for now.

I DO know several people who are in Iraq or have been or whose children have signed up.

These are middle class families. It was their choice. They see it as a good thing. The ones I know are rah, rah in favor of what is going on.

One went to Westpoint. You never saw such a proud family.
Many are in the National Guard. It is considered a great way to make some extra bucks on the weekend. Could these people have lived without these bucks. Absolutely.

I think there is a different values sort of thing at play. I do live in the Midwest and many have the idea of the military that is probably closer to the 1950's WWII effect than some other areas where people were influenced by the anti-war post Vietnam era mentality.


I suppose there would be more of an outcry if the draft was started up (where you live).

But unlike those here who advocate for the draft, I have NO faith that our foreign policy would improve. I see only more death and destruction. More reasons for more Patriot Act kinds of legislation. Fewer liberties than we have at this point. (At least the people aroung here would react that way).

It is really hard for me to understand why any liberal would advocate for the draft. I know why you say you do. I just don't agree that it would help.

[KamaAina]

30. Senator Tim Johnson's son is in the Army and has served in Iraq

I wonder if any US Senator has a relative currently serving in the military and I think it's even less likely that they have relatives serving in Iraq.

http://johnson.senate.gov/biohome_files/biohome.htm

Their oldest son, Brooks, is on active duty in the U.S. Army having served in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Attention repuke chickenhawks: Sen. Johnson is a South Dakota Democrat.