In recent years, some Americans have begun rethinking the need to institute a draft. After reading the three articles, answer the following questions: Do you favor or oppose instituting a draft? Does a draft offer any benefits to the country? If a draft was created, what would this new draft look like? Who would be included/ not included? After reading and considering the two articles on the draft, answer these questions in the Discussion Board. Explain your answer fully. Feel free to bring in outside research.
art1_lets_draft_our_kids.pdf
art2_rangels_folly.pdf
ewth_returning_soldiers__1_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Article: Let’s Draft Our Kids
Let’s Draft Our Kids
by Thomas E. Ricks, New York Times, July 9, 2012
IN late June, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former commander of international forces
in Afghanistan, called for reinstating the draft. “I think if a nation goes to war, every
town, every city needs to be at risk,” he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “You make that
decision and everybody has skin in the game.”
This was the first time in recent years that a high-profile officer has broken ranks to
argue that the all-volunteer force is not necessarily good for the country or the military.
Unlike Europeans, Americans still seem determined to maintain a serious military force,
so we need to think about how to pay for it and staff it by creating a draft that is better
and more equitable than the Vietnam-era conscription system.
A revived draft, including both males and females, should include three options for new
conscripts coming out of high school. Some could choose 18 months of military service
with low pay but excellent post-service benefits, including free college tuition. These
conscripts would not be deployed but could perform tasks currently outsourced at great
cost to the Pentagon: paperwork, painting barracks, mowing lawns, driving generals
around, and generally doing lower-skills tasks so professional soldiers don’t have to. If
they want to stay, they could move into the professional force and receive weapons
training, higher pay and better benefits.
Those who don’t want to serve in the army could perform civilian national service for a
slightly longer period and equally low pay — teaching in low-income areas, cleaning
parks, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, or aiding the elderly. After two years, they
would receive similar benefits like tuition aid.
And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle
Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized
college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can
have it.
Critics will argue that this is a political non-starter. It may be now. But America has
already witnessed far less benign forms of conscription. A new draft that maintains the
size and the quality of the current all-volunteer force, saves the government money
through civilian national service and frees professional soldiers from performing menial
tasks would appeal to many constituencies.
Others argue that the numbers don’t add up. With an average cohort of about four
million 18-year-olds annually, they say, there is simply no place to put all these people.
But the government could use this cheap labor in new ways, doing jobs that
governments do in other countries but which have been deemed too expensive in this
one, like providing universal free day care or delivering meals to elderly shut-ins. And if
too many people applied for the 18-month military program, then a lottery system could
be devised — the opposite of the 1970s-era system where being selected was hardly
desirable. The rest could perform nonmilitary national service.
A final objection is the price tag; this program would cost billions of dollars. But it also
would save billions, especially if implemented broadly and imaginatively. One reason
our relatively small military is hugely expensive is that all of today’s volunteer soldiers
Article: Let’s Draft Our Kids
are paid well; they often have spouses and children who require housing and medical
care.
Unmarried conscripts don’t need such a safety net. And much of the labor currently
contracted out to the private sector could be performed by 18-year-olds for much less.
And we could raise the retirement age for the professional force from 20 to 30 years of
service. There is no reason to kick healthy 40-year-olds out of the military and then give
them full retirement pay for 40 years. These reforms would greatly reduce both
recruiting and pension costs.
Similarly, some of the civilian service programs would help save the government money:
Taking food to an elderly shut-in might keep that person from having to move into a
nursing home. It would be fairly cheap to house conscript soldiers on closed military
bases. Housing civilian service members would be more expensive, but imaginative use
of existing assets could save money. For example, V.A. hospitals might have space.
The pool of cheap labor available to the federal government would broadly lower its
current personnel costs and its pension obligations — especially if the law told federal
managers to use the civilian service as much as possible, and wherever plausible. The
government could also make this cheap labor available to states and cities. Imagine how
many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New
York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and
board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public
school custodians, before overtime.
The savings actually might be a way of bringing around the unions representing federal,
state and municipal workers, because they understand that there is a huge budget
crunch that is going to hit the federal government in a few years. Setting up a new noncareer tier of cheap, young labor might be a way of preserving existing jobs for older,
more skilled, less mobile union workers.
But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think
more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national
treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.
Thomas E. Ricks, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, is the author of the
forthcoming book “The Generals: American Military Command From World War II to
Today.”
Article: Rangel’s Folly
Rangel’s Folly: Reinstating the Draft
by Camillo Mac Bica, Truthout | Op-Ed, 23 April 2013
After numerous failed attempts, New York Congressman Charles Rangel has again
introduced legislation to reinstate the draft, or more specifically, to require “all persons
in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform national service either as
a member of the uniformed services or civilian service.”
Interestingly, support for the draft has come from both sides of the political spectrum,
from such diverse individuals as former US commander in Afghanistan, Stanley
McChrystal, and the Daily Show’s host Jon Stewart. Liberal commentator Thom
Hartmann has argued that military service will provide American youth with much
needed discipline, structure, and responsibility in their lives, as well as an opportunity
for young Americans to recommit to their country. Further, Hartmann theorizes,
coerced national service would create jobs, rebuild this nation’s infrastructure and
provide an important rite of passage, a clear transition from youth to adulthood.
Congressman Rangel’s Intent
Since the economic crisis of 2008, due to what may be termed “economic conscription,”
that is, the military being the only viable means of employment to stave off foreclosure
and obtain access to health care, higher education, etc, there has been no shortage of
recruits into the All Volunteer Force (AVF). Consequently, Congressman Rangel’s
motivation in introducing The National Universal Service Act” (H.R. 747), is clearly not
national security concerns. Rather, Congressman Rangel has made clear on numerous
occasions, as illustrated in the title of Hartmann’s recent article, “The Draft: A War
Killer,” the motivation for reinstating and supporting the draft is first and foremost
antiwar. That is, by ensuring that every American “has some skin in the game,” the
intention is to end the apathy of the American public toward our political leaders’
propensity for perpetual war and to incite the sort of self-interested opposition and
protest that some believe contributed significantly to ending the Vietnam War.
According to Congressman Rangel, “A renewed draft will help bring a greater
appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.” Also motivating the
Congressman is his concern for fairness in the distribution of sacrifice; the fact that less
than one percent of America’s population serves in the military and, as such, unfairly
shoulders the burden of war.
Who Serves in the Military?
Despite the deep recession, not all segments of American society are suffering equally.
Banking and corporate executives, for example, continue to enjoy lucrative salaries and
bonuses. Under the war economy, Main Street struggles, Wall Street thrives, and
America suffers the largest income gap between its richest and poorest citizens in
recorded history. Consequently, the children of the privileged and the wealthy,
uncoerced by economic need, feel no compunction to enlist in the military, with the
burden of fighting and dying in America’s seemingly endless wars falling upon the poor
and the working class.
According to The Heritage Foundation’s Study, Who Serves in the Military? The
Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers, more than three-quarters (75.03
Article: Rangel’s Folly
percent) of recruits into the AVF come from neighborhoods with incomes of less than
$65,000, and only 6.15 percent come from neighborhoods with an income of over
$90,000, with not one individual from a household with an income exceeding
$246,333.
What is problematic about the AVF, therefore, is not the oft-cited statistic that less than
one percent of the American public shares the sacrifice of military service or that too few
poor and middle-class Americans enlist. That is after all, an inevitable consequence of
an All Volunteer Force. What is deplorable about the current arrangement is that the
AVF smacks of classism and is unrepresentative of American society.
One final point, given war’s extreme profitability for the privileged and the wealthy (the
corporatists, bankers, politicians – the military-industrial-Congressional complex) and
the fact that with the AVF, they and/or their children will never step onto the battlefield
and suffer war’s deleterious effects, it is not surprising, therefore, that our nation is
embroiled in perpetual foreign military misadventures, wars and entanglements.
The Illusion of Alternative Service
Since the primary intent of Congressman Rangel, Hartmann and others in reinstating
or supporting the draft is antiwar, portraying this legislation as a national service
program offering a choice of a nonmilitary alternative -conscription into the civil service
– is disingenuous and a distraction from its true purpose and goal. What possible
relevancy does forced service in the Peace Corps, for example, have to ending
unnecessary war and American apathy? Further, should Congressman Rangel’s Bills
become law, as endless and futile wars for profit, greed and power continue and
escalate, is it realistic to assume that draftees will choose military service in adequate
numbers to restore the ranks of injured and killed combatants? Or, as is more likely,
wouldn’t “national security” considerations require an abrogation of choice and
individuals to be conscripted into the military regardless of their preference? In reality,
then, these bills are not about creating jobs and rebuilding this nation’s infrastructure.
Nor is their purpose to provide American youth with much needed discipline, structure,
responsibility and an opportunity to recommit to their country. Nor will they
accomplish these goals should they be enacted. Though misleadingly titled a National
Service Bill, what is being proposed here is clear and simply nothing other than the
reinstatement of a military draft.
The Moral and Legal Argument against Conscription
While I share Congressman Rangel’s and Thom Hartmann’s goal of ending illegal and
immoral war and their disappointment with the American public’s apathy about these
wars and fairness in distribution of sacrifice, I remain opposed to the draft for a number
of reasons. First, it is clear that any form of involuntary conscription by the state is a
violation of human rights, forced servitude, and as such, immoral and illegal. Though I
don’t often find myself in agreement with Ayn Rand, I think her analysis of the effects of
the military draft on human rights in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is correct.
“It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s (and now woman’s since the draft is no
longer restricted to men) fundamental right – the right to life – and establishes the
fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state
may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. If the state may force a man to
Article: Rangel’s Folly
risk death or hideous maiming and crippling in a war declared at the state’s discretion,
for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required
to send him into unspeakable martyrdom, then, in principle, all rights are negated in
that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What is there left to
protect?”
Besides the moral objections, there are the pragmatic concerns that reinstating the draft
will do more harm than good; that it will worsen rather than assuage the injustices
Congressman Rangel hoped it would resolve.
The Pragmatic Argument
Since there is no reason to believe that things will be different in this incarnation of the
draft, the privileged and the wealthy will, as has always been the case, escape unscathed
by exempting themselves and their children from military service and sacrifice in war.
Wealth and privilege does have its advantages after all. Consequently, reinstating the
draft will fail to remedy the problem of classism in the AFV.
Further, it will increase the victim pool of the children of the poor and middle class, the
cannon fodder, who will inevitably be the ones conscripted and have no effect upon the
cost benefit analysis for those who make war. The privileged and the rich will continue
to profit from war’s occurrence at no personal cost to themselves or their families.
Consequently, reinstating the draft will augment – not lessen – the likelihood of war.
Finally, while I also find the American public’s apathy disappointing, even frustrating, I
do not believe that nonactivism, a lack of concern and interest in speaking out against
unjust war, to be a capital offense, punishable by death or hideous maiming and
crippling that is inevitable during military service in war.
Conclusions
Reinstating the draft is unnecessary, unproductive and ineffective in resolving the issues
that plague the AFV and this country, that is, unless and until legislation is introduced
establishing what I have termed elsewhere as a “Fairness Draft,” a mandatory
conscription only of young men and women from households earning more than
$250,000 in annual income. While I realize that any conscription contradicts my moral
and legal argument, I offer the Fairness Draft as a drastic temporary remedial measure
that will address the critical concerns expressed in this discussion. First, it will eliminate
classism in the AVF and satisfy the principle of distributive justice by ensuring that the
burden of military service is shared equally by all segments of the population regardless
of economic status. Secondly, and perhaps, most important, should the lives and wellbeing of the children of the privileged and the wealthy – the progeny of bankers,
corporate executives, politicians, etc. – be placed at risk, the antiwar goal of the draft
would be achieved as the frequency and number of wars will decrease significantly.
Short-term remedial measures aside, however; if Rangel, Hartmann and others are truly
interested in ending unnecessary war and with a just apportionment of privileges, duties
and goods, rather than feeding the military machine with the bodies and minds of the
poor and middle class by reinstating the draft, wouldn’t it make better sense to address
the extreme economic inequality in this country? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to
discourage anyone from enlisting into the military to participate in illegal and immoral
Article: Rangel’s Folly
wars? Wouldn’t it be more effective to ban recruiters from our schools preying upon our
children? It is time, long past time, to stop blaming and punishing the victims for the
crimes of our political leaders who care only for wealth, profit and power. It is time, long
past time, to hold the war makers and their benefactors responsible and accountable for
their crimes against humanity.
Eye Witness to History: Returning Soldiers
Returning Soldiers
by W.E.B Du Bois, “Returning Soldiers,” The Crisis, XVIII (May, 1919), p. 13.
We are returning from war! The Crisis and tens of thousands of black men were drafted into a
great struggle. For bleeding France and what she means and has meant and will mean to us and
humanity and against the threat of German race arrogance, we fought gladly and to the last drop
of blood; for America and her highest ideals, we fought in far-off hope; for the dominant
southern oligarchy entrenched in Washington, we fought in bitter resignation. For the America
that represents and gloats in lynching, disfranchisement, caste, brutality and devilish insult—for
this, in the hateful upturning and mixing of things, we were forced by vindictive fate to fight
also.
But today we return! We return from the slavery of uniform which the world’s madness
demanded us to don to the freedom of civil garb. We stand again to look America squarely in the
face and call a spade a spade. We sing: This country of ours, despite all its better souls have done
and dreamed, is yet a shameful land.
It lynches.
And lynching is barbarism of a degree of contemptible nastiness unparalleled in human history.
Yet for fifty years we have lynched two Negroes a week, and we have kept this up right through
the war.
It disfranchises its own citizens.
Disfranchisement is the deliberate theft and robbery of the only protection of poor against rich
and black against white. The land that disfranchises its citizens and calls itself a democracy lies
and knows it lies.
It encourages ignorance.
It has never really tried to educate the Negro. A dominant minority does not want Negroes
educated. It wants servants, dogs, whores and monkeys. And when this land allows a reactionary
group by its stolen political power to force as many black folk into these categories as it possibly
can, it cries in contemptible hypocrisy: “They threaten us with degeneracy; they cannot be
educated.”
It steals from us.
It organizes industry to cheat us. It cheats us out of our land; it cheats us out of our labor. It
confiscates our savings. It reduces our wages. It raises our rent. It steals our profit. It taxes us
without representation. It keeps us consistently and universally poor, and then feeds us on charity
and derides our poverty.
It insults us.
It has organized a nation-wide and latterly a world-wide propaganda of deliberate and continuous
insult and defamation of black blood wherever found. It decrees that it shall not be possible in
travel nor residence, work nor play, education nor instruction for a black man to exist without
tacit or open acknowledgment of his inferiority to the dirtiest white dog. And it looks upon any
attempt to question or even discuss this dogma as arrogance, unwarranted assumption and
treason.
Eye Witness to History: Returning Soldiers
This is the country to which we Soldiers of Democracy return. This is the fatherland for which
we fought! But it is our fatherland. It was right for us to fight. The faults of our country are our
faults. Under similar circumstances, we would fight again. But by the God of Heaven, we are
cowards and jackasses if now that that war is over, we do not marshal every ounce of our brain
and brawn to fight a sterner, longer, more unbending battle against the forces of hell in o …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments