It's Drafty in Here
George Bush and John Kerry cheerfully lied during the recent debates. When asked, both men took the opportunity to categorically deny they had plans to reinstate the draft. This stance is understandable for a candidate. It's hard to win a mother's vote by admitting you're planning to send her child off to war. Much less the child's. George Bush takes pride in his all volunteer army, despite the fact that many of his soldiers volunteered merely to play weekend warrior, rather than to be shipped off to fight a real (if undeclared) war. When he praises the professionalism of the actual recruits, I think, "These are guys who couldn't get another job." Odds are good these volunteers - both willing and un - will be joined in the not too distant future by bands of draftees. The reason is simple: we're running out of bodies.
One of the many, many (many many many) reasons I would never be elected to office, is that if asked if I would reinstate the draft, I would reply, "Hell, yeah." And not just because of our current commitment in Iraq. To echo our President, "Bring it on!"
This stance may come as a surprise to people who know me. I never served in the military, and was happy not to. I was one of those lucky American boys who fell through the cracks, born too late to register for Vietnam, yet too early to register with Selective Service when it was reinstated in 1980.
And yet, looking back from the safety of the present, I can't help but wonder if a stint in the service wouldn't have been good for me. At 18, I was a smart kid with some vague ideas about what he wanted to do with his life, but neither the discipline nor drive to make those things happen. Some years later, much of that description still applies. I'm currently teaching college classes, and many of my students would benefit from a couple of years of having their asses kicked.
So here it is. I believe in compulsory military service for every young man and woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 21.
Really.
Most military experts say the optimal size of US forces should be 2 million. Under our current system, and including the reserves, we are at just under 1.5 million. Things are so bad in Iraq right now that volunteers in the National Guard are being forced to reenlist when their tours are up, and discharged soldiers are being called back into duty.
According to the 2000 census, there are just over 12 million men and woman between the ages of 18 and 21 in the US. Even if half of those are unable to serve - because they are physically, mentally or emotionally "other abled," or because they are incarcerated - that still leaves a pool of 6 million. Assume they are fairly evenly distributed along the age range, and that gives you 2 million 18 year olds right off the bat. More than enough.
And yes, I said men and women. I'm not talking about a draft for young men. I'm talking everyone.
Not that I'm looking to ship these kids off to Iraq. I'd be happy if we could pull all our forces out of Iraq tomorrow. But that's not gonna happen. As we all know, we will always maintain a presence in Iraq. (We have always been at war with Eurasia.) Just as we maintain a presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany, not to mention throughout the Middle East and across the globe with NATO. It does give me pause that if tempers should suddenly flare in Iran or North Korea, or any of a dozen hot spots in the world, we are simply understaffed to respond. But my reasons for wanting to draft everybody have to do with national security in a greater sense than fighting wars overseas.
It's good for them and it's good for us.
The three greatest problems facing our nation today are education, jobs and security. I know this because I've had it shoved down my throat daily for the past year. Universal military service could go some way to addressing all these issues.
Most high school graduates (or dropouts) today face one of two options: go to college or take a low paying job. At the same time, most college freshmen are woefully unprepared for college. This may not be the case in some of the larger and more expensive universities, but I doubt it. (Nor do I believe that this is a new problem. I observed many of the same problems when I was in grad school in 1983.) First, they don't have the discipline for college. This is not unusual in an 18 year old, who rarely has the discipline for anything. And since they are products of our crumbling educational system, they have not been taught how to learn, either because nobody expected it of them, or because it was easy enough to circumvent the system.
Military service isn't going to create a race of Einsteins. But living in a world in which there are consequences for not carrying out tasks would surely have a positive effect on some of these slackers. In addition, the military could essentially be a place where kids who leave school early are literally forced to get their GEDs. Hey, it's better than facing active duty! One of the main reasons kids don't learn or leave school early is that there's nothing there that catches their attention. Trapped in the service for a few years, and surrounded by opportunities, there's at least a potential for growth. A kid may discover an interest in computers he never knew he had, because he was never exposed to it in a practical manner. Or electronics. Or language. Or cooking, for god's sake. They'll have to do something while they're serving, and an interest in anything is better than an interest in nothing. As the job market continues to change, here's an opportunity to teach our kids useful skills that they may actually be able to use once they're out of the service and on their own. If nothing else, they'll have the experience of going through some sort of job training, which will make the next experience that much easier to benefit from.
Our youth are not only alienated, they are isolated. Kids (and adults for that matter) spend their days surrounded by people who are just like them. Xenohobia and ethnocentrism are natural human conditions. We are wary of people who are not like us, and we believe that all right minded people think just like us. If you grow up on the plains of Wyoming, or a small town in Alabama, or the South Side of Chicago, that's understandable. So why not pluck kids out of their safe environments and toss them in with a bunch of strangers miles from home? Kids who leave home for college experience the benefit of meeting people who come from backgrounds different from theirs, sometimes radically. Let's offer that experience to kids who can't afford, or don't choose, to go off to school. I'm not suggesting that everyone comes out of the service as a multiculturalist. But I do suggest that most people in this country live in a very small world, and allowing them to meet people from other backgrounds, not to mention other nations, might actually open their eyes to the possibility that life is more complex than they think.
There's a practical sense to all this military training as well. Expanding the armed forces to this degree provides us with more than enough service personnel for our needs across the globe. What do we do with the rest? Hello, homeland security. The biggest problem with having the National Guard overseas is that we don't have them here. Rather than invading Iraq, I would have been much happier to see the Guard called up to handle security at airports. Right now, we still have Lakeisha going through our bags while trying not to chip her French manicure. Why not have real security at airports, with staff who have been professionally trained for this sort of work? Despite what George Bush believes, reports state that our borders are more porous than ever. Border patrol, here we come! Everyone but the President is concerned about the lack of security at our chemical and nuclear plants. Not to mention nucuclar facilities. Rather than depending on Rent-a-Cops, let's get some soldiers around those terror traps. We need to examine incoming cargo containers? Hell, we've got a couple million freshly trained recruits on the job!
Then there's the guns. Since we're such a gun crazy society to begin with, let's teach kids how to use their weapons. Maybe giving them some actual lessons, and making them responsible for the proper care and maintenance of their weapon, will instill some degree of respect for firearms, as well as actual knowledge to how they work. Gun rights activists point to the Second Amendment to support their right to bear arms. They skip the first part of the Amendment, which says the people are allowed to keep and bear arms because, "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." I've long said that gun owners should, therefore, be trained as part of "a well-regulated Militia." They should have been the ones called up and sent overseas, since they are self admitted members of the Militia. By training our youth to properly use arms, we will have a Militia at the ready. And maybe a few less accidental shootings.
The final benefit is a bit less concrete. George Bush speaks of an "ownership society." By that, he means people who own stuff. Protecting your stuff being the root of Republican beliefs. When I think of an ownership society, I think of people believing they have a stake in the society, and a responsibility for it. It's no surprise to me that veterans' groups are so strong. These are men and women who made a commitment to their country. Forcing people to serve their nation may not seem to be the best way to invest them in their nation's future. Almost everyone will go in kicking and screaming. But once they're in, and actually doing something worthwhile, and working together as a group, some sense of pride is bound to develop. And after a couple of years, they may actually feel they've done something of value. Which, for most kids in this country, is a big deal.
There is, of course, only one way this works. No deferments. I would be willing to make exceptions for anyone who is a family's primary wage earner, and possibly for children of farmers whose presence at home was required. But that's it. College can wait. This being America, strings would still be pulled to get the scions of wealthy clans plum assignments. But no one gets out.
The idea is flawed. One need only point to George Bush, who served in the Air Guard. Despite this, whenever the opportunity has arisen, he has made a commitment to himself rather than to his country. But his service was one of convenience, which he carried out where and when he chose, and from which he resigned early, having had enough. (None of this is disputed by the White House.) I don't expect such cases to disappear overnight. But after some years of universal conscription, Americans will begin to take pride in their service. And at that time, even wealthy and powerful families will find it a matter of pride to have their children serve. As it has been in other nations at other times.
And the pigs will fly freely through the skies...
One of the many, many (many many many) reasons I would never be elected to office, is that if asked if I would reinstate the draft, I would reply, "Hell, yeah." And not just because of our current commitment in Iraq. To echo our President, "Bring it on!"
This stance may come as a surprise to people who know me. I never served in the military, and was happy not to. I was one of those lucky American boys who fell through the cracks, born too late to register for Vietnam, yet too early to register with Selective Service when it was reinstated in 1980.
And yet, looking back from the safety of the present, I can't help but wonder if a stint in the service wouldn't have been good for me. At 18, I was a smart kid with some vague ideas about what he wanted to do with his life, but neither the discipline nor drive to make those things happen. Some years later, much of that description still applies. I'm currently teaching college classes, and many of my students would benefit from a couple of years of having their asses kicked.
So here it is. I believe in compulsory military service for every young man and woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 21.
Really.
Most military experts say the optimal size of US forces should be 2 million. Under our current system, and including the reserves, we are at just under 1.5 million. Things are so bad in Iraq right now that volunteers in the National Guard are being forced to reenlist when their tours are up, and discharged soldiers are being called back into duty.
According to the 2000 census, there are just over 12 million men and woman between the ages of 18 and 21 in the US. Even if half of those are unable to serve - because they are physically, mentally or emotionally "other abled," or because they are incarcerated - that still leaves a pool of 6 million. Assume they are fairly evenly distributed along the age range, and that gives you 2 million 18 year olds right off the bat. More than enough.
And yes, I said men and women. I'm not talking about a draft for young men. I'm talking everyone.
Not that I'm looking to ship these kids off to Iraq. I'd be happy if we could pull all our forces out of Iraq tomorrow. But that's not gonna happen. As we all know, we will always maintain a presence in Iraq. (We have always been at war with Eurasia.) Just as we maintain a presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany, not to mention throughout the Middle East and across the globe with NATO. It does give me pause that if tempers should suddenly flare in Iran or North Korea, or any of a dozen hot spots in the world, we are simply understaffed to respond. But my reasons for wanting to draft everybody have to do with national security in a greater sense than fighting wars overseas.
It's good for them and it's good for us.
The three greatest problems facing our nation today are education, jobs and security. I know this because I've had it shoved down my throat daily for the past year. Universal military service could go some way to addressing all these issues.
Most high school graduates (or dropouts) today face one of two options: go to college or take a low paying job. At the same time, most college freshmen are woefully unprepared for college. This may not be the case in some of the larger and more expensive universities, but I doubt it. (Nor do I believe that this is a new problem. I observed many of the same problems when I was in grad school in 1983.) First, they don't have the discipline for college. This is not unusual in an 18 year old, who rarely has the discipline for anything. And since they are products of our crumbling educational system, they have not been taught how to learn, either because nobody expected it of them, or because it was easy enough to circumvent the system.
Military service isn't going to create a race of Einsteins. But living in a world in which there are consequences for not carrying out tasks would surely have a positive effect on some of these slackers. In addition, the military could essentially be a place where kids who leave school early are literally forced to get their GEDs. Hey, it's better than facing active duty! One of the main reasons kids don't learn or leave school early is that there's nothing there that catches their attention. Trapped in the service for a few years, and surrounded by opportunities, there's at least a potential for growth. A kid may discover an interest in computers he never knew he had, because he was never exposed to it in a practical manner. Or electronics. Or language. Or cooking, for god's sake. They'll have to do something while they're serving, and an interest in anything is better than an interest in nothing. As the job market continues to change, here's an opportunity to teach our kids useful skills that they may actually be able to use once they're out of the service and on their own. If nothing else, they'll have the experience of going through some sort of job training, which will make the next experience that much easier to benefit from.
Our youth are not only alienated, they are isolated. Kids (and adults for that matter) spend their days surrounded by people who are just like them. Xenohobia and ethnocentrism are natural human conditions. We are wary of people who are not like us, and we believe that all right minded people think just like us. If you grow up on the plains of Wyoming, or a small town in Alabama, or the South Side of Chicago, that's understandable. So why not pluck kids out of their safe environments and toss them in with a bunch of strangers miles from home? Kids who leave home for college experience the benefit of meeting people who come from backgrounds different from theirs, sometimes radically. Let's offer that experience to kids who can't afford, or don't choose, to go off to school. I'm not suggesting that everyone comes out of the service as a multiculturalist. But I do suggest that most people in this country live in a very small world, and allowing them to meet people from other backgrounds, not to mention other nations, might actually open their eyes to the possibility that life is more complex than they think.
There's a practical sense to all this military training as well. Expanding the armed forces to this degree provides us with more than enough service personnel for our needs across the globe. What do we do with the rest? Hello, homeland security. The biggest problem with having the National Guard overseas is that we don't have them here. Rather than invading Iraq, I would have been much happier to see the Guard called up to handle security at airports. Right now, we still have Lakeisha going through our bags while trying not to chip her French manicure. Why not have real security at airports, with staff who have been professionally trained for this sort of work? Despite what George Bush believes, reports state that our borders are more porous than ever. Border patrol, here we come! Everyone but the President is concerned about the lack of security at our chemical and nuclear plants. Not to mention nucuclar facilities. Rather than depending on Rent-a-Cops, let's get some soldiers around those terror traps. We need to examine incoming cargo containers? Hell, we've got a couple million freshly trained recruits on the job!
Then there's the guns. Since we're such a gun crazy society to begin with, let's teach kids how to use their weapons. Maybe giving them some actual lessons, and making them responsible for the proper care and maintenance of their weapon, will instill some degree of respect for firearms, as well as actual knowledge to how they work. Gun rights activists point to the Second Amendment to support their right to bear arms. They skip the first part of the Amendment, which says the people are allowed to keep and bear arms because, "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." I've long said that gun owners should, therefore, be trained as part of "a well-regulated Militia." They should have been the ones called up and sent overseas, since they are self admitted members of the Militia. By training our youth to properly use arms, we will have a Militia at the ready. And maybe a few less accidental shootings.
The final benefit is a bit less concrete. George Bush speaks of an "ownership society." By that, he means people who own stuff. Protecting your stuff being the root of Republican beliefs. When I think of an ownership society, I think of people believing they have a stake in the society, and a responsibility for it. It's no surprise to me that veterans' groups are so strong. These are men and women who made a commitment to their country. Forcing people to serve their nation may not seem to be the best way to invest them in their nation's future. Almost everyone will go in kicking and screaming. But once they're in, and actually doing something worthwhile, and working together as a group, some sense of pride is bound to develop. And after a couple of years, they may actually feel they've done something of value. Which, for most kids in this country, is a big deal.
There is, of course, only one way this works. No deferments. I would be willing to make exceptions for anyone who is a family's primary wage earner, and possibly for children of farmers whose presence at home was required. But that's it. College can wait. This being America, strings would still be pulled to get the scions of wealthy clans plum assignments. But no one gets out.
The idea is flawed. One need only point to George Bush, who served in the Air Guard. Despite this, whenever the opportunity has arisen, he has made a commitment to himself rather than to his country. But his service was one of convenience, which he carried out where and when he chose, and from which he resigned early, having had enough. (None of this is disputed by the White House.) I don't expect such cases to disappear overnight. But after some years of universal conscription, Americans will begin to take pride in their service. And at that time, even wealthy and powerful families will find it a matter of pride to have their children serve. As it has been in other nations at other times.
And the pigs will fly freely through the skies...
posted by John Bliss at
11:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home