The recent suggestion by Sen. Chuck Hagel that compulsory military service is needed has once again brought the issue of the draft to the fore. I’ve expressed before the pragmatic reasons why I think it’s an abhorrent idea, but I’ve been intrigued with some of the 'moral" arguments being presented by both liberals and libertarians on the issue. On post in particular that caught my attention was one presented by Ezra Klein (via Matt Yglesias):
Now, I don't want a draft. Being a healthy 19-year old, the prospect is pretty scary to me. But I must express puzzlement over Oliver Willis's assertion that one would be immoral. As long as there's a serious CO program contained within, think a draft would be significantly more moral than our current way of staffing our military.
Our Constitution requires Congress to 'raise and support Armies" in order to 'provide for the common defense." What it doesn’t specify, however, is how the military should be 'raised." There are, in fact, only three options available: all-volunteer, forced conscription, or some combination of the two. Currently, our military is an all-volunteer force which, according to Mr. Klein, is significantly less moral than instituting some level of conscription.
What is peculiar is that Klein believes that it would be more 'moral" for the government to force him to do something he's unwilling to do voluntarily. While conservatives are often the one’s to take a pessimistic view of the inherent goodness of humans, liberals are the often the first to use the power of the government to force them to do what they would not do on their own (i.e., paying a higher rate on state income taxes). Instead of addressing this curious phenomenon, though, I want to look at the underlying assumption behind Klein’s view, which I believe is shared by many people whether they are conservative, liberal, or libertarian.
Though Klein leaves the reason unstated, I assume that he thinks that an all-volunteer force is less moral than conscription because people on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder are more likely to be attracted to military service. The upper classes, on the other hand, will have more options available to them and would therefore have less incentive to join. We can call this the 'burden model" since it implies that the burden of military service is disproportionately shared by the lower economic groups.
I don’t want to be too hard on Mr. Klein’s analysis or opinion. I applaud his willingness to stand by the doctrine of fairness even when it would result in an outcome that he would not welcome. And while I haven’t examined the data, I believe his unstated contention is rooted in empirical fact. I too think the poor and lower middle class make up the bulk of the military. What I don’t agree with, though, is the idea that the unequal representation of the socio-economic classes is inherently immoral.
There are two problems I have with this 'burden model" of military service. The first is the way it reduces service to one’s country to a matter of economics. Those with fewer choices for jobs or education are more likely to enlist while those who have money have more options to choose from. Under this view, the military is attractive to those with limited opportunities but those with a broader range of selections will find it rather unalluring. Again, I don’t dispute that this is reality. My disagreement is in claiming that the system is immoral when it is the people making the choice who are morally flawed.
This brings me to the second problem with the model. It concludes that since military service is a burden, moral considerations require that the load be shared as equally as possible. Again, I must point out that this view is not inherently wrong. But where I think the flaw in reasoning lies is that it puts the focus on the ethical choice rather the ethical chooser.
The 'burden" of military service is akin to that of a person who chooses to adopt a child. While choosing to become a mother or father has obvious economic consequences, few people see that as the sole reason for adopting an unwanted or abandoned child. Before they are adopted, orphans are cared for by the state and are, therefore, the collective responsibility of all citizens. But when someone steps forward and agrees to take the child into their home, the burden of responsibility shifts mainly onto the shoulders of the new parent. Although the state may still have some obligations, the parent assumes the primary childcare duties.
We do not, however, consider the system to be immoral because the state does not force people to take in orphans. Instead, we allow people with the requisite virtues (love, compassion, self-sacrifice) to freely and willingly choose to take this 'burden" upon themselves.
The same holds true for those who serve in the military. Our nation doesn’t and shouldn’t force the obligation of national defense on those who do not willing choose to take it upon themselves. Instead, we allow those who possess certain moral virtues (courage, honor, commitment) to heed the call of duty.
Not all who serve, of course, do so for the purest of motives. There is no shortage of 'scholarship mercenaries" who joined only to gain money for college or as a means of improving their lot in life. But these people, no matter how large their number, are not the heart and center of our military. The core is comprised of men and women who truly love their country -- love the people and the ideals for which our nation stands -- so much that they are willing to sacrifice and bear any burden in order to ensure its survival.
As a Christian I believe that since no one meets the standards of goodness set by God, no one should be excessively proud of their virtue. Compared to the ultimate standard, even the greatest of saints falls short. But this view should not be mistaken as an endorsement of moral egalitarianism. All men are created equal and should be afforded the same human rights, but not all men are equally virtuous. The cost of liberty is not paid by everyone equally; it is a debt assumed by a select few. As I’ve written before,
If Americans truly value freedom as much as they claim, then the military should be more difficult to get into than any Ivy-league school. The 'elite" would be lined up around the block, letters of recommendation in hand, hoping to enlist and serve in the greatest military in the history of the world.
But in our nation, the 'elite" is based not on virtues such as courage, duty, and self-sacrifice, but rather on money, power, and education. That is why the draft is neither necessary nor desirable. For while it might force the wealthy and privileged to share the 'burden" of duty, conscription has never been needed to attract the virtuous. Every young citizen must examine their own hearts and decide why they choose to put their own self interest before that of their nation, its people, and its ideals. However they justify their choices, they should ask what keeps them from taking their place amongst our nation’s virtuous elite.
A very well-reasoned post. I also oppose the draft. I don't consider the military to be the "virtuous elite", but I do see the defense of one's nation as a noble undertaking. I'm sure that many in the military are quite virtuous, but, as you point out, people serve for different reasons. I never served in the military for several reasons:
I knew I would chafe under the discipline.
I didn't want to place my fate into the hands of people I didn't trust.
I abhor violence even as I see its necessity.
I didn't want to be separated from my family.
I had other plans.
Selfish reasons, to be sure. But what is the good of freedom if one doesn't use it? I am supportive of our military, and I recognize the debt we all owe them. I choose to serve in a different capacity, as a public school teacher. The physical risk is practically nonexistent. The schedule is family-friendly, but the educational requirements are quite high when weighed against the monetary compensation. No job is perfect, but mine comes close for me, as I gather yours does for you. I wish you every success in your endeavors on your nation's behalf.
I was under the impression that originally, and perhaps still today, the Constitutional permission to the federal government is that it may ask (require) of the several States that they levy troops from the unorganized militia (US Code article 10 makes this all able-bodied non-felon males between the ages of something like 15 and 55). The language of the 2nd Ammendment indicates that this section of the citizenry is required to own and train with military firearms.
So, sure, the President could ask each of the 50 States to supply one regiment, or division or platoon or whatever, to form an army in case of declared war.
I served nine years, active duty Army, and I also oppose the draft. The US Armed Forces are the most thoroughly professional in the world, in large part BECAUSE we were all volunteers. There was simply not a lot of dead wood sitting around, resentful that they had to wear the uniform, just marking time until their ETS date.
i hope they re-instate the draft. when people's kids start jumping like lemmings froma cliff to serve the state, then real change will begin. otherwise, armegedon is inevitable.
but, wait christains, think it IS inevitable because it is the bible. so, we may as well send our sons, and now daughters, to fight for oil and big business. it is going to happen anyway, and it will make Jesus come sooner.
so, in the words of our esteeemd commander in cheif, bring it on!
I just have to believe that the little dick poster above has been playing devil's advocate for all this time. Nobody can be that consistently stupid, unless it's deliberate.
Either way, some time ago he must've spilled some Dr. Pepper or taffy onto his keyboard. What else besides sticky keys can explain all his mis-spellings? Unless, that's deliberate too.
i am not stupid, now that we are using playground-level insults. just trying to take things to their logical conclusion. if christians really think armegedon is inevitable, then let's get it going. we'll need thousands more troops, willing or unwilling to make it happen. the thousand years of peace following sounds like a good idea to me.
I agree with Brad at Inifinite Monkeys that foster care is a better example than adoption. Beyond that nitpick, I think your post is exactly on point.
The death of Pat Tillman examplifies your point. He was someone who exhibited the virtue that we all should have. As John McCain says in his comment on the tragedy:
"While conservatives are often the one’s to take a pessimistic view of the inherent goodness of humans,"
This is not true. Could one not just as easily argue that it is "liberals" who take a pessimistic view of the "inherent goodness of humans," which is why they advocate (allegedly) more governement "control" over our lives?
"liberals are the often the first to use the power of the government to force them to do what they would not do on their own (i.e., paying a higher rate on state income taxes)."
Are liberals advocating those laws to force *liberals* to do what *liberals* would not do? Or do they advocate those laws to force conservatives to do what they would not do? Or do they advocate those laws merely to force those who take from the government, but do not give anything back, to give something back, *regardless* of political persuasion. I think the latter.
I think the best argument for the draft is grounded in fairness (a concern shared equally by conservatives and liberals) but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that a volunteer army is "inherently amoral" because, as Joe has pointed out, a volunteer army has some unique benefits of its own.
However, I believe that a draft would help to equalize the stake that people have in any wars that are fought, e.g., the possibility of having immediate relatives or close acquaintances lost in conflicts could be spread among all the economic classes instead of being born primarily by the lower classes. Moreover, a draft would help to decrease the gulf in understanding which I believe now exists between the military and society as a whole.
"All men are created equal and should be afforded the same human rights, but not all men are equally virtuous. The cost of liberty is not paid by everyone equally; it is a debt assumed by a select few."
As bitter a pill as it might be for some people who read this blog to swallow, you've got to give some credit to Senator Kerry here. He stepped up to the plate when he was called upon to do so and he batted like a champion.
My death is inevitable, but it doesn't mean I'm going to blow my brains out today. It is inevitable that, in the year 2012, I will owe income taxes, but I'm not going to send on a big check this afternoon. Eventually, I will need a new car because my present one will no longer run properly, but I'm not going to rush out and buy a new one until it is necessary. These, obviously, are not the "logical" conclusions you have drawn.
Armageddon will happen at the appropriate time in history. We can't make it come any faster by forcing events, nor would we want to.
A draft won't be necessary, anyhow:
By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. - Despite the shrapnel wounds Staff Sgt. William Pinkley suffered during his tour in Iraq (news - web sites), the 26-year-old is joining other soldiers who are re-enlisting at rates that exceed the retention goals set by the Pentagon (news - web sites).
AP Photo
As of March 31 — halfway through the Army's fiscal year — 28,406 soldiers had signed on for another tour of duty, topping the six-month goal of 28,377. The Army's goal is to re-enlist 56,100 soldiers by the end of September.
Pinkley re-enlisted for three more years, citing the camaraderie and the challenge of a new assignment.
"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.
"It's a very positive retention picture at this point," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army public affairs officer. The Army had nearly a half-million active-duty soldiers.
However, Childress cautioned that factors such as an improved economy and the Pentagon's decision to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq for longer than a year to help quell the violence could change the picture.
Some contend a poor job market and re-enlistment bonuses worth thousands of dollars are keeping soldiers in the Army. Col. Joseph Anderson, commander of the 101st's 2nd Brigade, said it is more about camaraderie, patriotism and duty.
"They've had a personally rewarding and professionally developing experience," Anderson said. "I think they've formed some bonds that are going to last a lifetime. It tends to make them want to stay."
The only Army division to not meet its goal in the six-month period was the 82nd Airborne Division, whose members have been sent to fight in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq since the Sept. 11 attacks. The division wanted to re-enlist 1,221 soldiers, but got only 1,136.
At Fort Campbell, soldiers from the 101st spent seven months in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. The entire division of about 20,000 soldiers was sent to Iraq last year for major combat, and the last planeload returned home in March. A grueling year in Iraq claimed the lives of 61 Fort Campbell soldiers, and hundreds more were wounded.
In the six-month period ending March 31, the 101st topped its goal of re-enlisting 1,591. It got 1,737 to sign up for another tour of duty.
Fort Campbell leaders said their numbers debunk the theory that yearlong combat-zone assignments — not typically used since Vietnam — and the casualties in Iraq would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting.
Shelley MacDermid, co-director of the Military Family Research Institute at Purdue University, said it is too early to know what effect the war in Iraq will have long-term on recruitment and retention.
"If the war were to end tomorrow, the impact on re-enlistments likely would be very different than three years from now," MacDermid said.
Some soldiers, of course, are getting out, for themselves or for their families. ("There's a saying in the Army — `You enlist a soldier, but you re-enlist a family' — and that's true," said Command Sgt. Maj. James Plemons, who oversees retention for the 101st.)
Staff Sgt. Bobby Miller, 31, has spent more than 10 years in the Army said he is getting out when his term ends in less than a year. The 101st soldier has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and said he has barely seen his wife and two children in the past few years.
"It's not that we don't want to deploy; I'd like a little more stabilization," Miller said.
Pinkley was riding in a Humvee the day after Thanksgiving when it was rocked by a bomb. He suffered internal injuries and is still healing from the shrapnel wounds. He said he and his wife discussed for more than a year whether he should re-enlist.
In the end, despite his pain and his wife's fear for his life, they decided it was best for both of them, she said. His next position will be as a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, Ga.
"I'm excited about it," his wife said. "It's something he wanted to do. We told him we'd be supportive of him whatever he wanted." As for the possibility of her husband being sent off to a combat zone again, she said: "We would definitely do it again if we had to."
___
Kevin
"Armageddon will happen at the appropriate time in history. We can't make it come any faster by forcing events, nor would we want to."
I certainly don't want to give the impression I support dicknbush's sentiment.
On the other hand, when you say "nor would we want to", it begs the question of who you mean when you say "we". There are certainly *some* self-proclaimed evangelical Christians whose words and behavior are entirely consistent with the dubious goals dicknbush referred to. The infamous (former) USA Today reporter Jack Kelly comes to mind as one possible example.
And of course, to paraphrase Prez Bush, there is always the argument that if you are not opposed to steps which accelerate the arrival of Armageddon, then you are in favor of accelerating the arrival of Armageddon. I think this is terrible logic, but the masses eat it up.
Did I miss something or weren't many "children of privilege" still able to avoid serious service when there last was a draft?
We have the greatest military in the world. Yet we have some who think Bush sends them to battle without serious consideration aforehand. THAT is what this draft nonsense is all about now. The idea that "if the politician's kids and the pro-military kids had to send THEIR children to battle, they would vote differently".
Maybe not everyone who supports reinstating the draft has this ulterior motive..but many sure do that I have been seeing on TV lately.
"Maybe not everyone who supports reinstating the draft has this ulterior motive..but many sure do that I have been seeing on TV lately."
I think an ulterior motive is typically an unstated motive. In contrast, the people I've seen arguing for the draft on TV aren't hiding any of the balls we've discussing, as far as I can tell.
It is an interesting question whether, in fact, those who currently support the war would support the war to the same extent if there child was going to be sent overseas to fight in the war. I suspect that a poll asking the hypothetical question of war supporters would show an insignificant change in support under those circumstances. But I wonder what would happen if the draft actually returned.
"Did I miss something or weren't many "children of privilege" still able to avoid serious service when there last was a draft?"
You didn't miss anything -- a certain George Bush was in the news quite a bit earlier this year defending his military (or more accurately, his secretarial) service. I doubt there's a whole lot that can be done to prevent the inequity of which you speak. But remember that a whole lot of "children of privilege" who were drafted volunteered to go overseas and fight. Some died. Some fought bravely. As I noted above, John Kerry was one such individual.
There is a word for forcing someone to do something that they wouldn't want to do for the benefit of others. It's "slavery". Conscription is institutionalized slavery, pure and simple. The question we should be asking is "Is slavery immoral under all circumstances?"
Personally, I would not be unhappy with a new constitutional amendment that only allowed those who risk life and limb in the service of the state (defense) to vote. If you are not willing to risk your life for the preservation of the state, then you have no say in how it is run. Sorta like Heinlein's model in "Starship Troopers". It sure would weed out a lot of crap that goes on in government if we don't have to depend on votes from the dregs that don't stand for anything but self.
Constitutionally, we shouldn't have a standing army, only a standing navy. The army should be raised from the states during times of need.
Pat Tillman's salary was 18,000 dollars a year. Military pay should be a lot higher than that. No draft would be needed. We could dispense with all the tortured logic in this blog. The same patriotic Americans would still enlist. The money would still be a token of the respect they deserve. Miltary families deserve at least that.
Hudson,
I agree. Do you also agree that the money for paying the soldiers should be paid with taxes and that, for the same reasons it is unfair for the burden of soldiering to be carried by the lower and middle economic classes, that it would also be unfair for the middle and lower classes to carry most of that tax burden as well?
Just curious.
Stan the Man
I'm for a flat tax.
Hudson,
A flat *income* tax? In that case it seems to me that the lower classes would be carrying proportionally more of the total tax burden than they are now!
Yikes.
Where would you set the rate anyway?
Just what "burden" are you talking about? Over 90% of the income taxes are paid by the richest 10%. This doesn't include other benefits the lower classes get, as well: federally subsidized student loans, subsidized housing, food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid.
It only makes sense that those who benefit most from our system contribute the most to its maintenance. I certainly wouldn't mind their tax burden if I had their income. I'm not saying soak the rich; that would undermine incentive. I'm just saying the country needs money to defend itself and maintain its infrastructure, and the money has to come from somewhere. Success and responsibility have been linked in society since feudal times.
The money does come from somewhere. It comes from taxes, primarily, on rich people and companies.
Here's my flat tax idea: AGI under $45,000 pays no income tax at all. Every dollar over $45,000 is taxed at a flat 15% federal rate. Fair enough?
I read somewhere (sorry guys, I don't have the source handy) that somewhere around 50% of the US tax return-filing population has no net federal income (e.g. taxes on wages, interest income, and capital gains) tax burden, and that a significant segment of the population actually receives a subsidy drawn from other people's income taxes.
Like Hudson, I'm for a flat tax (or a switch to a pure consumption tax, like a VAT) as well, but would take it further than he and allow for no income floor. Every person should at least feel the sting of the cost of civilization in their wallet.
Our steeply progressive income tax code is troublesome to me, for several reasons:
1) "Soaking the rich" is a product of envy, a sin,
2) It legitimizes the behavior of the "have nots", who vote themselves chunks of the "haves' " paychecks through the legislative process (see reason #4 below),
3) It disincentivizes increased earnings, results in lower total income, and therefore in lower tax receipts than that foreseeable if the financial disincentives were not present, and
4) It results in a large segment of the population who feels a reduced responsibility for the decisions of their representatives in government. Since the they (the constituents) don't feel the bite, they may press their representaties to vote for legislation they (the reps) otherwise wouldn't.
*As an aside, #4 kinda drives toward an argument already stated about the morality of universal service. If everyone--women included--isn't subject to the threat of a draft, then the people or the reps may be inclined to press for military action in some far-flung locale when they know it won't be their hiney on the line. Note that I don't support a draft...far from it...but I am saying that I think our country would benefit from a sense of service and responsibility for the common good.
Note that I purposefully left out FICA out of my argument, as private citizens would be thrown in jail for promulgating a Ponzi scheme such as Social Security. Besides, SS is steeply regressive in its effects on certain populations, such as the poor and certain minority groups with earlier morbidity and therefore aren't able to collect on this "retirement plan".
As for the supposed regressiveness of a flat tax or VAT on the lower income strata based on "effective rates of taxation", I'm not very responsive to this line of reasoning. The incentive must be present for people to lift themselves up. Subsidizing a person's bad decision-making through forced redistribution of other's property just encourages that person to keep on making poor choices. This from someone who spent two years on public assistance as a 'tween and through His Grace bootstrapped myself into a commission in the military as an officer (14 years and counting).
Cheers,
EW
Kevin: I am not opposed to a flat tax if, as you suggest, the lower income families are excepted. If the 15% rate raises sufficient revenue for the government to adequately serve its constituency, I am all for it. I think your approach is sound.
Wow. Talk about a sense of duty. Read this incredibly sad story about a soldier from Pennsylvania. This guy is a real hero. I hope his family makes out ok.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/042804_nw_localdeath.html
His family sounds a little bitter, to me. Flaky too. But my prayers are with his children.
yo Kevin
in my last post in the Tillman thread I thought i was acknowledging your points re Reagan and your investment plans. sorry if it came off differently.
(had to respond her because the plug was pulled on that one)
Ouch. This is another bad example of Bush's poor planning. Where did the Army dig these losers up and who put them on prison duty?
http://thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
TO: Joe
RE: No Draft!
Instead, Universal Governmental Service (UGS).
We argued this back in the late 60s in high school debate and it's always seemed to me to be an excellent idea. Even before I read Starship Troopers.
Each of us have an obligation to do something, other than give mere money via taxes, to support this country. Few people seem to realize this. Instead, they become complacent and over indulgent. They never realize just how good they have it. I never did, until, in the Army I visited countries outside of this one. IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD OUT THERE. AND YOU DON"T WANT IT TO BE LIKE THAT HERE! Therfore, you'd better do something about it....other than loaf around watching television all day.
I suspect that this is a recurring problem with great nations in history. They're sitting on top of the world, until someone more energetic and determined comes along and grabs it out from under them.
I've more over at my own blog....
http://www.comensa.info/index.php/weblog/caught_in_a_draft/
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Kevin Walmsley
RE: Don't Feed the Trolls
"I just have to believe that the little dick poster above has been playing devil's advocate for all this time." -- Kevin Walmsley
I mean....look at his childish nom des blogs. Not to mention is stupid follow-on comment.
Nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don't know something. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.]