I've been traveling to Seattle
frequently over the past couple of years for family reasons. I made a
trip for U.S. Thanksgiving, and as usual, once I get as far as
Ferndale, WA, my car radio stays mostly on AM
1090, Air America Radio's
Seattle affiliate.
On this Thursday morning, the program
was Thom Hartmann, and the
subject was a bill that will be coming up in the next U.S. Congress
to bring back the draft.
It's being promoted by Rep. Charles
Rangell (D-NY), and Rangell will be the chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee. His point of view on this is pretty
straightforward; he believes that white people should fight wars,
too. His proposal is specifically for a year of universal military
service.
Hartmann was editorializing in favour
of this. He believes that if a larger area of the socioeconomic
spectrum was in uniform, U.S. military actions like the one in Iraq
would be less likely. Hartmann also likes the idea that Rangell's
proposal differs from the last draft (discontinued in January, 1973)
in allowing “alternative service” for conscientious objectors to
military service.
Hartmann and Rangell make a pretty good
case for this, but, having spent a good part of my life thinking
about the draft (and sometimes even doing something about it), I
disagree with them. Here are my reasons:
Civil liberty – I never got
drafted, owing primarily to a student deferment that kept me out
until 1972. I got close enough, however, to be called into the
pre-induction physical. I say that any government that can herd you
into a room full of people that you don't know, have you strip to
your underwear, then make you bend over so that a doctor can stick
his finger up your ass, is a very powerful government. If you believe
that governments should generally be less powerful, bringing back the
draft is an obvious step in the wrong direction.
Ways and means – People in
uniform cost the government money. It isn't just the uniforms, the
barracks, the food, and wages. You're also taking millions of people
off the tax rolls for a year and making them postpone higher
education.
You can certainly
argue that there are benefits to this. I think that society could
benefit from instilling the idea in young people that there's more to
citizenship than going to the mall and buying stuff.
Governments have
to set spending priorities, however, and the financial recklessness
of the Bush administration has put the U.S. in a deep hole. It looks
like there's an opportunity now for the U.S. to finally get universal
health care, something that's very important, but also very
expensive. I would like to put the question to Rangell himself, as the
chairman of Ways and Means: can the U.S. afford both universal
military service and universal health care, along with some other
obvious priorities like fossil fuel alternatives? No, I don't think
so. Would you really choose universal military service over universal
health care?
There are
additional costs for the alternative service. People doing
alternative service would still have to be fed, clothed, and housed.
There would also have to be a large bureaucracy to locate alternative
service opportunities, and to monitor the people doing alternative
service to make sure the alternative service requirement is actually
met.
The Draft and armed conflict –
Thom Hartmann argued that
having children of the well-to-do (and specifically of members of
Congress) doing military service would make adventures like the one
in Iraq less likely; these people would be less likely to support
wars if it meant that their own children might get killed or
seriously injured. Maybe, but I argue that the opposite is the case.
I think that the lesson of history is that having a large standing
army increases the temptation for politicians to use it. Did the
presence of draftees in the U.S. military in 1964 give Lyndon Johnson
pause to consider the political cost of sending these draftees to
Vietnam? I don't think so, although it certainly played a role in his
loss of his job four years later.
And look at the
present situation; if the U.S. had a significantly larger number of
people in uniform, wouldn't that increase the likelihood of these
people being sent to Iran or Venezuela? I think that in this day and
age, having fewer people in uniform would make the world a
safer place.