From his captivity inside the Beltway, Tom calls for end to All-Volunteer Force
I had an article in yesterday’s Washington Post that said that. Basically, I argued that the AVF has made it too easy to go to war and that we should re-connect the U.S. military to the American people by having a draft. (See Adrian Lewis for more on this.) —Bill Arkin says I am ...
I had an article in yesterday’s Washington Post that said that. Basically, I argued that the AVF has made it too easy to go to war and that we should re-connect the U.S. military to the American people by having a draft. (See Adrian Lewis for more on this.)
—Bill Arkin says I am "dead wrong." He says I think this way because I am being held "captive inside the Beltway."
–Some rightists saw my pro-draft argument as leftist.
But I think Rubber Ducky is right.
Lots of old guys like generals think that a resumption of the draft is a non-starter. I am not sure that is a view held by the younger set. Here is a note I got from a smart observer of the military:
I have a bunch of Facebook friends who are majors and lieutenant colonels. It has been fascinating to me that about 75 percent of folks at that rank agreed with your op/ed on abolishing the AVF. Among the Army GOs I think you would be hard pressed to find a single person who would take that position. One of the LTCs made the point that the generals hate the Draft era force because they blame it for Army’s failings in the late 60s and early 70s. The bias is that the AVF never would acted in that manner. The younger guys don’t see it that way.
Anyway, I found my very unscientific survey interesting. It does suggest there might be a pretty big generational gap on a issue where I thought everyone in the Army agreed. I am not FB friends with enough NCOs to know how they view it.
It suggests there might be more maneuver room on this issue in the future.
Tom again: Anyway, here is the complete article that ran in the Post yesterday:
Since the end of the military draft in 1973, every person joining the U.S. armed forces has done so because he or she asked to be there. Over the past decade, this all-volunteer force has been put to the test and has succeeded, fighting two sustained foreign wars with troops standing up to multiple combat deployments and extreme stress.
This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences.
The drawbacks of the all-volunteer force are not military, but political and ethical. One percent of the nation has carried almost all the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of us essentially went shopping. When the wars turned sour, we could turn our backs.
A nation that disregards the consequences of its gravest decisions is operating in morally hazardous territory. We invaded Iraq recklessly. If we had a draft, a retired general said to me recently, we probably would not have invaded at all.
If there had been a draft in 2001, I think we still would have gone to war in Afghanistan, which was the right thing to do. But I don’t think we would have stayed there much past the middle of 2002 or handled the war so negligently for years after that.
We had a draft in the 1960s, of course, and it did not stop President Lyndon Johnson from getting into a ground war in Vietnam. But the draft sure did encourage people to pay attention to the war and decide whether they were willing to support it.
Resuming conscription is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services. Yes, re-establishing a draft, with all its Vietnam-era connotations, would cause problems for the military, but those could never be as painful and expensive as fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq for almost nine years. A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military.