The Rumors of a Military Draft Have Not Been Greatly Exaggerated
Young Americans beware, Uncle Sam may ask you to join him soon on a worldwide adventure to exotic places to see fascinating sights and to meet interesting people and kill them or be killed by them. by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Young Americans beware, Uncle Sam may ask you to join him soon on a worldwide adventure to exotic places to see fascinating sights and to meet interesting people and kill them or be killed by them. This week as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen were testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, its chairman, Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), asked the question he said no one wants to ask: "Is the cost of maintaining an all-volunteer force becoming unsustainable and, secondly, do we need to consider reinstituting the draft." As a stunned audience gasped for air, Gates indicated that the escalating costs of maintaining an all volunteer armed forces were worth it. Mullen was not so hopeful. The exchange brought out in the open an issue that has been ignored by politicians this election year - military conscription.
Why would politicians want to discuss an issue in public as controversial and loathsome as the draft in any year let alone one in which a new congress and president will be chosen? Inouye's reference that no one wants to ask about the draft on Capital Hill can be construed as an admission that he has had discussions in private with other members of Congress to reinstitute the draft. In public, the two major presidential contenders, Barack Obama and John McCain, have also steered clear of this political hot potato in their speeches and pronouncements. However, verbiage on both men's official campaign websites raises troubling questions about their position on converting the all volunteer military into a conscripted one.
While both men never mention the word draft or anything related to it, they both directly state that the U.S. military must be enlarged. Obama's site states, "We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." These are strange words from a candidate that has repeatedly pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. If under Obama, we would withdraw troops from Iraq, why do we need more? Additionally, how is the increase going to be achieved? The site does not specify. Will Congress and President Obama provide more inducements by way of higher pay and better benefits for troops to reenlist and potential recruits to sign-up? Or are we looking at a draft?
John McCain's site, while also avoiding the use of the word draft or anything close to it, is much more vociferous about the need to "enlarge" our military force. The national security section of his site states: "The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops". Does proper compensation, training, and equipping our troops apply to those few that we have asked so much of or does McCain want to use these benefits to induce new recruits to sign up? The statement is not totally clear.
The section goes on to address how our overseas security interests need to be handled, "John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today". Again, it is stressed that the U.S. military must be enlarged, but no specifics on how to accomplish that are given.
Rest assured that politicians of both major parties have been talking about the draft in private given their thirst for worldwide military adventure and a declining recruitment and retention rate of our voluntary force. Call me cynical or even paranoid, but the draft is a big enough issue to demand straight answers from our leaders. With a draft, Washington would not be limited by personnel concerns when considering military adventures around the globe. The military would be expanded, thus increasing federal outlays for defense and further exasperating the national debt. Most importantly, the draft would be a violation of the Constitutional rights of those drafted. Specifically, the draft violates the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude and the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of life and liberty without due process of law.
Senator Inouye's question should incite the electorate, especially those members between the ages of 18 and 25, to question the political establishment on their individual positions on the draft. It is one thing to have been denied a debate this presidential campaign season on whether the U.S. should or even can continue to support a worldwide empire? It is another thing to be denied a debate on who will shoulder the burden of that worldwide empire?
Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia. Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The 13th amendment didn't stop the government from using the draft in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. In my opinion it should have stopped the draft, but it didn't, largely because the government doesn't give a damn about the constitution.
But there may be a more nefarious goal associated with reinstating the draft. Democrats seem to think that requiring everyone to perform mandatory service is a good idea. That was part of Kerry's campaign and Charlie Rangel has introduced the Universal National Service Act in congress several times. That act would draft everyone between the ages of 18 and 42, male and female. That's about 1/3 of the US population. Of course the military doesn't need that many so the rest would be put into some form of civilian service. The term of service would be 2 years. That would mark the first time in our history that the American people were made to be servants of the state. This bill would actually reinstate involuntary servitude and make the government the slave-master, and the people the slaves. We should never ever allow this to happen.
Posted By: Carl De Haven
Date: 2008-05-27 20:42:56
With all due respect one point. The 13th and 14th amendments do not come into play in this case because of U.S. Code Title 10, Chapter 13 Section 311...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And even in this it must also be understood that the National Guard, since the Militia Act of 1903, with the creation of the National Guard Bureau, and later with the 1916 the National Guard has been less of a state governor's on hand military force and more of the reserve component of the regular force. This was finalized with the "total force" concept at the end of the Cold War.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ordinary law cannot alter or supersede the constitution. If you want to change the constitution you need a constitutional amendment. There is no amendment which supersedes the 13th amendment. Government is only able to use the draft because they don't give a rat's a__ about the constitution.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
