The "D" Word

Over at Opinio Juris, Peter Spiro has some interesting observations about the reaction to Representative Rangel's recent proposal to resurrect the draft.  What I find most interesting about this subject is how aberrational the idea of using a draft to fill military ranks has become.  This is a subject I have struggled with since I first studied National Security Law with Professor Raven-Hansen at George Washington.  As a career officer who "came up" in the all-volunteer force, I appreciated the benefit of being surrounded by fellow soldiers who chose to be in uniform.  However, the more I learned about the balance of war-making powers between the two political branches, the more I wondered whether reliance on a large and standing all-volunteer force served the interests of Executive power by disconnecting "the people" from the human costs of war.

As I have recently noted elsewhere, there seems to be virtually no meaningful discussion on the relative pros and cons of a draft.  I think much of this is the result of military aversion to the idea.  Military leaders routinely point out that the all-volunteer force is the "best" force in our Nation's history.  They rarely, however, provide empirical support for this assertion.  Even Peter Spiro offers his opinion that "technological developments that undermine the need for [a draft]" because "mass manpower just isn’t that important anymore."  I think many military professionals might disagree with this conclusion, and certainly would have disagreed back in the Spring of 2003 when the U.S. occupied Iraq.  The availability of more active component forces might have actually enabled proponents of a more robust occupation force to prevail in the policy debate.

It is hard to estimate the true impact of the cyclic rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan on personnel and equipment, but there is no question that spreading that impact among a wider force would be a mitigating factor.  And this does not even take into consideration the challenge our armed forces would confront if they suddenly found themselves involved in two simultaneous major theater wars.  As for the argument that the technological sophistication of the armed forces renders use of conscripts impracticable, the truth is that most infantry soldiers (the guys who actually close with and destroy enemy forces) are trained and integrated into their units in about a year.  Considering the fact that these units then perform one year rotations in combat theaters, a twenty-four month term of service seems to be far from "impracticable."  As Iraq and Afghanistan have both reminded us, technological sophistication only gets you so far; in the final analysis defeating an enemy (particularly in this era of asymmetrical warfare) will often require "boots on the ground" to close with and destroy an opponent.

But beyond the question of the impact on military effectiveness, there seem to be other aspects of reliance on an all-volunteer forces to wage a long-term military campaign that receive little meaningful consideration.  These include, among others, creating a stronger national "stake in the venture" of war-making; enhancing the sense of connection between the military and civilian cultures; and creating a wider pool of civic and political leaders with a first hand appreciation of military service.  Whether a return to a draft would be a good or bad thing for the military and for the Nation is certainly subject to debate.  However, one has to wonder why there seems to be so little willingness to engage in such a debate. 

Comments

[John Lopresti]

I agree with the opinio juris site's author that it is somewhat peculiar to discover neoLiberalCentrists lamenting loss of societal feedback loops by retaining the Nixonian volunteer military. Part of the incongruity of the partisan affiliation of the Rangel-centric faction's espousal of the merits of universal conscription signifies, in my view, only how far 'right' the congressional 'center' has shifted in our times. I read your remarks here on this, as well as your brief citations in a column on opinioJ regarding the Hamdan opinion at Scotus this year, and sense our views are more aligned than they would be divergent. I am sure the public discussion Rangel's proposition will evoke will include commentary on the interbranch dynamics in our government; but I believe this, too, to be relevant to the suggestion of reinstituting universal conscription. Perhaps one has to have lived through the Vietnam era to understand the conscriptive influence on executive branch politics, though it is possible to glean in history of other eras. I find much of the AUMF, DTA and MTA verbiage obfuscatory with respect to A-1 reach of the president. Compounding this neoSycophanticSemanticism in congressional law writing is the veritable whirlpool of presidential signing statements in modern times, the current executive branch having authored more putative revocations of laws than the entire preceding two centuries of presidents; even president Clinton, under duress to function during his diremost final two years in office, inclined more to signing statements than any prior president. And as we know, during Bush-I's term, given a play-actor president at the helm of the executive, it is understandable that the attorney general began to wax creative with the executive's structure by pushing Reagan into exercise of signing statements. Indeed, many of the defects in executive function clearly becoming more visible since the Reagan years also relate to how we should configure the military. I would imagine an enterprising recruitment plan within the military itself could target desirables to fill in all portions under the bellcurves of character, physical strength, and other attributes, templating these against recruitment target populations; and certainly this is occurring; certainly, part of the FAIR case argued in 2006 covered this profiling issue as well. The GI bill for education also has enticed many bright people into the military, and afforded them a way to plan for intellectual and career oriented self improvements after exiting their military work. It is worthwhile to reflect a moment as well upon the mechanisms of the Reagan presidency with respect to the Nicaraguan arms supply which the US conducted via blackBudget of the intelligence service, enhanced by illicit sales of US armaments arsenal components warehoused but fictitiously inventoried only to support the coverup in Iran Contra, Reagan's secret war, and an illicit one in its entirety.

Also illuminating are George Washington's remarks, and those of other early leaders in the US, concerned with the effects of German mercenaries upon international war operations. I note the codeWords in modern Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, prisoner abuse scandals also often include 'contractor' nomenclature applied to some of the personnel.

To conclude by casting a forward glance here, I think it patently obvious that the current president is a neophyte in foreign relations. He may be possessed of presidential quality insight in summit meetings, but ineluctably must rely extraordinarily extensively upon expertise of his coterie rather than exercising his own leadership. Consequently, to consider universal conscription in the Bush-Cheney context means to supply a quarter million armed personnel to an administration whose concept of foreign policy is to use typically chauvanistic thirdworldish lexicons like axis of evil when speaking of three sovereign states; given the conscripts, these ideologues in this administration would have ground wars in all three "evil" countries as soon as boot camp is complete. What might appear to be partial martial law now, or, at best, a nascent surveillance state burgeoning under the husbandry of the neoRight in the US, quickly might revert to more like the industrial equivalent of the enterprise which occupied twelve-hour days for the likes of Rosie the Riveter; i.e., easily I could see a government which fosters a dilatory surveillance state's prolongation also converting private industry to supplying three new armies in three axixOfEvil countries.
These remarks are framed conversationally, but I believe they represent fair projections of the impacts Rangel's Law would generate.
Then there is the matter of the peculiar fate of the gentleman whose life is honored with the January 19 holiday in modern times in the US; much of the grief in the streets in those years pertained to the waning of racism; however, a considerable measure of the unrest related to universal conscription and more than Vietnam, the undeclared war in neighboring Laos which predated the full theater Vietnam phase. Sometimes it is wise to give your government superb instruments, and provide close watchdog oversight; that way, power remains checked and balanced; and the nation and world are safer for the presence of this kind of 'conservatism'. Labels political left and right change definitions. Indeed, in our times, conservatives often are the antienvironmentalists, and liberals the anticlearcut part of the spectrum.
There is a lot more to discuss on this. Indeed, noting your lengthy service in the adjudicatory section of the military, as well as the recent expressions of concern by military leadership when the president pushed to strip Geneva Convention protections from detainees, I would expect a lively discussion will occur if Rangel's hearings are open to listening to those of us who have viewed both sorts of armies and favor the smaller volunteer force rather than the societal tensions induced with universal conscription. Apart from exceptional moments, usually Senator Graham seems to favor the most hawkish part of the military philosophy of inherent civilian freedoms both in the US and in other nations, and certainly his views of stateless persons' rights are unduly extreme. We need more contributions like yours here and at opinioJuris, to offset the politicking from the 'right' of folks like Sen. Graham on these matters. Hopefully, Rangel will invite you to participate when the time for hearings arrives; his is a foolhardy venture. Sometimes I even imagine his motives include making a stir purposefully designed to discomfit the intramilitary factions like those who push the envelopes to 'Gitmo-ize' places like Abu Ghraib; but I think his idea is begging for more horror in our dangerous times and with our very loose leadership than he possibly conceives.

[Nonzenze]

Debating the military consequences of the draft is like debating the economic consequences of bringing back indentured servitude. It's either completely academic or it actually believes that military will kidnap free men.