With the election of the Democrats to (slight) majorities in both houses of Congress this November, Congressman Charles Rangel of New York's 15th District has once again submitted a bill (as he did in 2003) for re-instatement of the military draft.
Congressman Rangel states among his reasons two points that are particularly interesting in how they appear to triangulate a Viet-Nam era mentality into their construction. This goes for many who share Rangel's view. Ironically, in the first case, despite media pre-occupation with that war, there is a clear ignoring of its lessons:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,"
The irony of this statement is that Viet Nam showed, as the political polemics in the 2004 election demonstrated, is that the political favored are able to avoid such a draft by a number of means, or can manipulate the form of service if they do go. Most can wearily recall the debate over the exact form of President Bush's national guard service, or the fact that despite having served, Senator John Kerry's swift-boat stint was also remarkable for its brevity. Rangel's proposal would do nothing to deter warmaking by the elite, for they are not impacted by it until such actions go extremely awry or costly.
His intention is sound, but a military draft would do nothing to deter aggressive foreign policy or war-making of the character Congressman Rangel rightly fears. Arguably it would lessen the quality and committed morale of the present force, comprised in large part by men and women who believe in their cause and have chosen to so serve. But more important, in my opinion, Rangel misses the point. It is the "undeclared war" the so-called "police action" or "intervention" that poses the greatest threat of the kind of wars Rangel wants to deter. Restoration of the demand for a formally declared war, and fully moblized effort, would do far more to deter such conflicts, by making it necessary to believe in them first enough to do so. It also would carry with it the abolition of an excessively `peace-time' mentality of concern with courts, civil offense, and "business as usual" among corporations "bidding" in the war zone that confuse and demoralize the national morale and public commitment to the war.
It goes without saying that if an administration cannot muster the support to get a declaration of war, then we should probably not be engaging in it, that it likely is indeed, the kind of war Congressman Rangel and others want to avoid and think they can by re-instating a draft. Threats that fall short of earning a declaration of war should fall under a category of special covert handling (theft, bribes, assassination, etc) or when appropriate, international coordinated efforts. The case of the first UN Gulf War of 1991 and NATO's intervention in Bosnia would be examples of the latter. But even these as the current war in Iraq shows, must be pursued cautiously in their launch. In any case, they certainly are out of line if you do not have a professional volunteer military, and are using conscripts. Consider the current call for intervention to stop genocid in Darfur;this too,can go disastrously awry or become `endless' if not defined, or engaged in by unwilling conscripts.
Congressman Rangel's other point reflects a vexing and persistent urban myth. This myth is even more disconcerting than the belief that a draft would deter elite politicians from poorly planned decisions:
"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."
However, this is not borne out by the facts brought to life in various studies, or even the most casual canvassing of college discussion boards, and simple hearsay of who knows who that is serving kind of talk. There is a marked difference from Viet Nam, which seems to be the only war that the mainstream media and most politicians (because of their age range, their generation) seem able to relate to or know about. In other words, they keep forgetting that it is a voluntary military, and very educated and articulate one at that, in many ways far more so than the general population.
A useful study helps point out some of this, which is otherwise apparent just in the character of the reports and witnesses we have from military persons serving overseas:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm#_ftn1
Quote:
"However, our research shows that the volunteer force is already equitable. That is, it is highly likely that reinstating the draft would erode military effectiveness, increase American fatalities, destroy personal freedom, and even produce a less socioÂeconomically "privileged" military in the process.
In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivÂalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
Unquote.
Instead, arguably the "most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent" that Congressman Rangel should have in mind are those of the poliical elite and the policy-makers of both parties. However, on reflection, it seems the real point is that the vision Rangel has in mind is a past-tense one, and like so much of the media and politics today, one that sees the present only through the lens of Viet Nam and the 1960's. Even the composition of the military in Viet Nam was not as underclass as the myths portray, but it is certainly true that the political elite were able to engage in far more obvious evasion than say in World War II. Where he may have a point of similarity is a similar evasion of accountability among leadership, but there is no need to change anything regarding the troops except increasing the speed by which their equipment needs are met by mobilization.
If Congressman Rangel and those of like mind want to deter or otherwise limit the scope of possibly misconceived wars like the current one in Iraq, they should look instead to restore the need for a formal declaration of war and put severe constraints and limits on the amount of military action that can be ordered without a national mobilization. If a "draft" is needed, it is really for new generation and voices in D.C. that are not enamored with or marinated in the views of the 1960's and stuck in the lens of the Viet Nam era kind of war.
By the way, this goes equally true for the administration and the recently toppled Republican majority --- they did indeed fight this war something like Viet Nam, complete with excessive unrebutted press influence on policy, and concern with appearances and domestic partisan vote politics rather than decisive victory. Likewise to President Johnson's time, a similar mulish insistence on not recasting plans and failure to feel free to press home the defeat of the enemy while presenting an obtuse face to the public and failure to counter-act ill-informed and even stupid media characterizations, or own up to error where the press was correct, has prevailed. In this sense, the critics of the war, such as Rangel, that make comparisons to Viet Nam are unfortunately not far from the mark.
Let's not compound the mistakes by repeating one of Viet Nam's greatest ones: a national conscription in service of an unaccountable and politicized government. Especially with a fairly illiterate-with-history band of bureaucrats that are more politicians and lawyers than statesmen.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment