A draft into national service
It wasn't until three years and two months after it began that I finally met someone whose son was a casualty of George Bush's war in Iraq. I didn't come by this information on the job. This was not someone I met on assignment at a funeral, or at a military hospital. The man who reported his son's wounding lives in Virginia; he's a Vietnam veteran. He happened to be someone I've known for a few years through shared interest in a certain youth sport. His son, platoon leader of an engineers unit, was wounded in Iraq in the spring of 2006. A homemade bomb blew up under his vehicle; two of his men were killed.
I marked this as a personal first -- since the war started in March 2003, someone I know, even in a limited way, had been touched by the violence of the Iraq war.
No surprise that the war took so long to reach me, and even then in a real stretch.
Most Americans have experienced this war vicariously, through several degrees of separation, if at all. Like vast numbers of comfortable, middle-class people, I have no friends or relatives serving in the military. The strapping young men in my extended family work in various white- and blue-collar fields. They enjoy scuba diving, skiing, playing the guitar, going to concerts and NFL games. They take vacations to the islands with their young wives or girlfriends. A nephew considered joining the Navy after high school a few years ago but changed his mind.
The young women in my family are on career tracks, and none, as far as I can tell, will lead to a military installation.
In this regard, my life has been no different from that of millions of Americans for whom the war is not only geographically distant but spiritually and emotionally abstract. We've become intellectually detached, letting the war and all of its collateral controversies slide by on the evening news. For most of the last five years, more Americans seemed to care more about the outcome of American Idol than about the outcome of this war.
"The main reason that the war remains so remote from the lives of middle-class Americans is the absence of a military draft," wrote Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, in an online essay three years ago. "This is a subject that no one seems to want to talk about. Supporters of the war definitely do not want to talk about it. President Bush and Vice President Cheney react angrily to any suggestion that a draft might be needed, because they know that the prospect of conscription would make their decision to invade Iraq even more unpopular. Having lived through Vietnam and shirked the draft themselves, they understand that if people anywhere near their own station in life were forced to fight, any remaining support for wars of arguable necessity would dry up and blow away."
Military commanders say they prefer the all-volunteer military. They get a more motivated, patriotic, professional grade of soldier that way and reduce the social and cultural problems associated with conscription. But no one I know, with the necessity for multiple tours in Iraq among the enlisted and reserve military, trusts that the United States has the manpower necessary to carry out and maintain the kind of missions we undertake. No one I know is rushing off to enlist, either.
Numbers are just one part of this. There are larger problems for the nation -- the inequity of a system that does not demand equal sacrifice from all Americans for a war, or wars, that might last years, and the diminished vigilance of a people who are not invested in the decisions or the outcomes. A draft would wake everyone up. A draft would have ended George Bush's war several thousand casualties ago, or it would have prevented the invasion altogether.
"The real `two Americas,'" wrote Weisberg in Slate, "are not rich versus poor or religious versus secular but military versus civilian. ... Once again, young people without good opportunities in life are handling the fighting and dying for those with better things to do - only this time, there is not even a pretense of shared responsibility for defending the country. Such injustice is hard to face up to in a country where social equality remains the civic religion."
I have suggested this before, and suggest it again in today's column --- a draft to two-year public service for all Americans once they reach the age of 18, with deferment optional until the age of 21, when service becomes mandatory.
There should be three paths: the armed forces, AmeriCorps-style domestic service, and a revitalized and expanded Peace Corps. Barack Obama is proposing at least two of those. The federal government would stage a daily national drawing to decide what path each citizen takes. Those assigned to the military would have a choice in branch, and they would receive pay and benefits comparable to what is offered today.
Those who go into AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps would receive limited pay and living expenses, but would get grants for higher education and special financing for the purchase of their first homes.
Because a young American's public service path would be decided by lottery, anyone can end up doing anything anywhere - Andre from West Baltimore might end up building a library in Guatemala, Meredith from Brooklandville could end up working in a homeless shelter in Baltimore, and Brad from Cockeysville might end up with an armored unit in Afghanistan.
Across these varied lines of public service, a new generation of Americans will become bonded in the cause of a better community, better state, better nation, better world. And we might close the cultural divide between those who do the giving (and the dying) and the rest of us.
Comments
NO! I agree with the duty to serve country for all young people but I do not agree with war on a draw.
I have 12 grandchildren. Two would have eagerly served and did until damaged knees and emotional problems dumped them out without payment for the damage done. But there are at least another two of the group who are consciencious objectors and two more who would get there fast in battle. Their lives would be ruined with permanent PTSD were they forced into military service, unless they could be support staff.
There are young people who WANT to fight and kill. Let them do so. As for my family we have evolved toward peace and negociation. I live for the day when anything but a reasonable defense force is laughable.
We have enough military weapons to kill the entire world several times over yet the pentigon wants more, more, more to the detriment of our domestic survival.
They must GET OVER this or be the cause of our demise as a nation.
Posted by: Sandy F | January 25, 2009 11:29 AM
excellent article on draft of 18 yrs to 21..not only would this be fair for all but it would make men/women out of these young people who dont even think of the meaning of life and freedom for our country. pres. obama should make this mandatory within the next year..
Posted by: jimmy | January 25, 2009 12:01 PM
this article should be e-mailed to the senate and congress everyday all dall long. The only problem is that it just makes to much sense and we know that they can't deal with that.
Posted by: Carey Von Urquidy | January 25, 2009 12:02 PM
I agree. But how do you deal with the draft dodgers like bush and cheney and millions of others like them who over the years have used their ability to avoid service for whatever reason, to advance their careers and lifestyles at the expense of those of us who were drafted and then came home to find out that the draft dodgers were all at the front of the line. And what about those who never came back because they took the place of the draft dodgers?
Posted by: Thomas J. Smith | January 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Thank you for expressing in words what I was trying to formulate in my mind. Although I may not agree with all your suggestions, I think this is an excellent way to improve our economy, give young people training and get our infrastructure back in shape. Can you tell me where I can find the similar ideas that President Obama is considering?
Posted by: Christine Calvo | January 25, 2009 12:16 PM
Allow me to make an alternative suggestion: Stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and concentrate on fixing what's broken inside the United States. Develop energy self-sufficiency, ensure an endless supply of fresh potable water and get serious about re-cycling the extraordinary amount of waste and trash that Americans generate. Those are three efforts that I can suggest off the top of my head that, along with other self-improvement measures could employ the American labor force well into the foreseeable future. If Americans were occupied with fixing their own "house" so to speak it would reduce their compulsion to interfere in the politics of other countries. That in turn would reduce the animosity toward America and Americans across much of the planet. If that were the case a modestly sized American army made up of volunteers would be quite sufficient to defend the United States. There would be no need for an overseas legion and conscription into national service would not be necessary except in a dire emergency.
Sincerely,
D. Dimitrijevic
Posted by: Dimitrijevic | January 25, 2009 12:17 PM
Dan,
There is the concept of self ownership which means we all own ourselves.
You as a journalist may volunteer two years of your life in Guatemala but you have no right to force someone else to give up two years of their life for your purpose or the purpose of politicians.
Presently,we have left Trillions in debt for our young people.They did not ask for this millstone. Consigning our young to two years of forced labor in addition to paying off our debt is unconscionable.
Please let me know when you will start your Government Labor.
Posted by: Tony | January 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Compulsory service is a violation of personal freedom because it forces people to actively support policies they may not agree with. Military service entails supporting the current foreign policy and civil service entails supporting current social policies.
Posted by: Bill | January 25, 2009 4:08 PM
As the parent of three young children with strong futures ahead of them, I strongly disagree with such a mandatory service in the armed forces. If my children are lead in that path, then so be it. We will both be prepared for the possibilities. It should be an individual's choice whether or not to serve. Military, college, or the McDonalds down the road, it is not yours, mine, or the government's decision. It belongs to the individual.
Posted by: layla | January 25, 2009 8:44 PM
As an AmeriCorps program director, I appreciate your call to service for America's young people--and do agree that AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and military service offer important resources for our country and transformational opportunities for those who join. My program, Volunteer Maryland, brings together dedicated and talented AmeriCorps members and communities who need help meeting human and environmental needs across the state.
However, it is simply wrong-headed to propose a lottery to determine how and where an individual will serve her or his country. All research and practice of effective volunteerism and service point to the absolute necessity to match peoples' motivations for serving with their assignments (work to be done as well as location and duration of service). A lottery-style enrollment/enlistment would lead, inevitably, to spreading dissatisfaction, ineffective service, and attrition.
Keep the call to service. But meet people where they are--they'll stay involved for a year or two...and possibly forever.
Posted by: Barbara Ellen Reynolds at Volunteer Maryland | January 26, 2009 9:25 AM
As a college student who if of draft age I find the suggestion for conscription to be completely repugnent especially since I have opposed the war from the start and despise all wars.
A draft would make social inequity worse because as it is now while recruiters undoubtably do target the poor nobody is forced to serve against there will. I cannot tell you how many kids I talked out of joining the military. You would force them and the wealthy would still find a way out.
Ultimately conscription is slavery and it is a tool of tyrants and it is simply immoral to ask someone like me who hates war to die for a political point. You are no better then the republican chickenhawkes.
Posted by: Joey | February 19, 2009 12:09 AM