An interesting bit of writing on the subject.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/9822/
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/9822/
Kim du Toit
October 9, 2006
8:24 AM
Very few institutions arouse such passion as military conscription, otherwise known as “the draft”. To a freedom-loving people, most government coercion is an anathema, and is exacerbated by an institution in which our young sons (and even more regrettably nowadays, our daughters too) may face death, often for a cause which may seem questionable.
In case there’s anyone who still doesn’t know this, let me give you a little background. I was a conscript into the South African Army, serving my major portion from 1977-1979, with a couple of “camps” (reserve call-ups) spread out over the next few years. Happily, most of my army time was spent playing my guitar (managed through some adroit finagling before my call-up), but later on my duties were a lot more deadly. So I’ve been a conscript, and served in an army which propped up one of the most repressive regimes ever to hold power in modern times. Indeed, one of the reasons I emigrated to the United States was the prospect of having my errrr special talents being used not against foreign Communist terrorists, but against our own people, in what was delicately termed “coin-ops”—counter-insurgency operations. And that’s all I want to say about that.
So I’ve seen conscription from the sharp end, and I don’t want to hear from people who think that we shouldn’t fight “questionable” wars, because I’ve been there, done that, took no photos.
But here’s where I part company with the anti-draft people. As I said, my conscription was in support of a brutal regime, which cloaked its oppression under a mantle of fighting Communism (which it did, but that Communism was a reaction against its racist policies).
When we talk about the United States, however, we are talking about a different entity altogether. Here, we are talking about a country which has, at its root, the most benevolent and benign governmental structure of any nation yet to grace this Earth. We are talking about a country which has managed that most difficult of political maneuvers: devolving power down to its people, rather than concentrating political power permanently in the hands of a ruling class or individual. We are also talking about a country which has lived in peace, except where we cleaned up our own house to redress grievous wrongs, or helped other nations with foreign invasions.
In short, this country is not so much a nation, as it is a self-governing set of ideals. Generally speaking, we undertake warfare only as a final resort; or, as in the case of the last fifty-odd years, when we employ our vast military might to help other people breathe the same air of freedom which we, as Americans, are so fortunate to breathe every single day of our lives.
In fact, as our military power has grown and grown, and the difference between ourselves and any other nation’s power widened to an unimaginable degree, we have perversely become more and more reluctant to use it. Despite claims to the contrary, we do not engage in foreign “adventures”—in fact, our use of military force can best be characterized as reactionary. Can anyone believe that we would have ever invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without the events of 9/11/2001?
But I don’t want to get into specifics over this war and that war, because that’s not the point of this essay.
This is.
At some point in the future of this nation, there will come a time when we, as citizens of this wonderful nation, may be forced to send our sons and daughters to fight against implacable foes, to preserve what we have.
The clear evidence of this statement is so obvious as to border on being a truism. Nothing lasts forever, and the volunteer status of our armed forces is no exception. There will come a time when the effort required to preserve our nation will go beyond the capabilities of an all-volunteer army. What will we do then?
Let’s examine the possible situations under which an “all-out war” may occur, because that’s almost as important.
Understand something clearly: when we go to war to this degree, it is not going to be against a country like Great Britain, or France, or Switzerland, or any of the other Western democracies. Even against erstwhile enemies like Germany and Japan, such a war is unlikely, unless of course their governments transform into something more malignant.
Blessedly too, we are separated from most aggressors by oceans on both sides, so even an “invasion” scenario is unlikely enough to be relevant. So what’s left?
When such a war becomes necessary, it will come after a cataclysm.
What kind of cataclysm?
One of the reasons that we spend as much on our military, and the attendant technology, is precisely because we know, have always known, that sophisticated technology lessens the danger to the lives of our soldiers. What used to require squadrons of bombers, and their precious crews, can now be achieved by two pilot-less drone aircraft and a couple of stand-off missiles. We do not spend countless billions of dollars on rifles, bayonets and bullets; we buy instead machinery and technology. This, and this alone, is what has caused the power gap between ourselves and any potential foes. Even a massive nation-state like the Soviet Union was forced to submit when it became clear that within a few years, we would not only win any conflict, but would win it going away, by inflicting horrendous, nation-ending casualties on an aggressor, while being protected against the same fate by our technology.
Under this set of circumstances, there is little or no need for a conscript army, with masses of riflemen. That’s so 1916.
So this discussion might really seem irrelevant, one of those “angels-on-a-pinhead” arguments which I detest so much; but it isn’t, and here’s why.
There are malignant forces out there who already have, or will soon have, the power to inflict a cataclysm upon us—whether on our nation as a whole, or against our armed forces or civilian population centers in particular. Whether it comes in the form of massive bio-warfare or nuclear detonation is beside the point. (And those are just the most immediate concerns: there will be others.) Cataclysm could also come in the form of a nation weakened by natural disaster—an earthquake measuring 8.5 occurring along the New Madrid fault line would destroy most of this country’s refining and export capabilities, leaving us in so weakened a state that we would be vulnerable to just about any form of aggression.
When we reach circumstances such as those, we will be faced with a need greater than that which can be addressed by simple volunteerism.
Let me switch gears a little, and talk a little about why conscription may be necessary.
At its most basic foundation, conscription addresses an unpleasant little fact: most people are cowards. They might be cowards on their own behalf, or because they want to protect their children from dying, but they are cowards nevertheless.
We can dress this up with all the fine rhetoric, slogans and philosophy we choose: conscription is slavery; conscription is discriminatory; conscription is un-Constitutional, whatever.
It’s all camouflage to hide the uncomfortable fact that many people consider their own lives to be more valuable than any ideal, or the needs of the community. (I don’t have a problem with people feeling that way: I just want people to be honest about it.)
The most pernicious statement against conscription, however, is the famous one uttered by Robert Heinlein: “Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.” It is depressing to think that a man who got so much right could utter such complete nonsense.
The reason it’s nonsense, of course, is that (like many similar arguments) it ignores this basic facet of human nature: that many people value their own lives more than the existence of their country. (In the case of France, it’s a great many people, but then again, France lost an entire generation to a war of conscription, so their nervousness is perhaps understandable.)
Yes, if a cause is just, there should be no shortage of volunteers to defend it. That’s a fine theory, but it’s not the way the world works. In real life, there will be any number of shirkers, malcontents and cowards for whom nothing is worth the untimate sacrifice. Well, I take exception to that. If the cause is just, I don’t see why only the brave should be sacrificed to preserve it.
Once again, let me remind everyone of who we’re talking about here, when we talk about who would impose conscription: we would. We The People, through our elected Congressional representatives and our elected President, would impose conscription. Can anyone even remotely believe that this nation would re-introduce conscription, except under the direst of circumstances? If any good at all came from the Vietnam War, it’s that we saw that conscription is a last resort, not a first.
And the topic of the Vietnam War introduces the next line of discussion: selective acquiescence, summed up by the sentiment: “I’d fight for this reason, but not for that reason”, or “in this war, not that war”.
Sorry, but you don’t get to make that choice. The nation, We The People, through our elected government, gets to make that choice, and that’s the beginning and the end of it.
If we’re going to talk in principles, though, let’s consider this one: With freedom, comes responsibility and obligation. Freedom is not something which just is: it’s something which needs constant nurturing, constant vigilance, and constant commitment. If we are to survive as a free nation, it may be necessary for some people to die, so that others may continue to live free. As much as people may cherish individual freedom, it is an inescapable fact that individual freedom requires, in the last resort, a collective protection against its infringement, especially against an organized and powerful enemy.
Finally, I want to touch on this. Here’s U.S. Code Title 10, Chapter 13, § 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.
For the purposes of argument, that’s pretty much all men (except willing volunteers over the age of 45, such as myself… bah).
Let me also remind you of another, much smaller institution:
The Nation of Riflemen—turning America back into a nation of riflemen… one citizen at a time.
The purpose of the Nation of Riflemen is not to provide the nation with a bunch of hunters, or target shooters, or tin-can plinkers. The purpose is to create a nation of people who are able to protect themselves, their families and their community against enemies foreign or domestic.
We can debate the worth or otherwise of the principle of conscription till the cows come home. I’m not interested in that. What interests me is this: We are not likely to see an American conscript army fight in the likes of Vietnam ever again. Such “foreign adventures” belong, and rightly so, to a foreign policy which depends on a volunteer, not a conscript force. We know that in these United States, conscription is likely to be imposed only in circumstances of the direst extreme, when our nation, and the principles for which it stands, are in the gravest danger.
When those circumstances come, we won’t need to have the need thereof spelled out.
Actually, we will. Because among us are those querulous cowards, appeasers and traitors who will advance all sorts of ivory-tower, high-principled arguments about why they should not have to die so that others should live free.
To those people who feel this way, even now, I have no sympathy, and I will have no truck with them. I’m not going to say that “if you don’t like it, leave” or other such inflammatory statements, although I do agree with the sentiment that those who are not prepared to shed blood to fertilize the Tree of Liberty are not entitled to live under its shade.
What I will say is this: if a cataclysm occurs, if this nation faces the direst extreme, and We The People decide, after much agonized and bitter debate, that we have to invoke USC 10.13.311; that, in other words, I or my sons will have to serve: then so will you and yours.
And I’ll volunteer to serve in the firing squad if you refuse. I’m not too old or feeble for that duty.
