Introduction
The draft system of military recruitment is that which all citizens of a certain age bracket (usually between 18 and late twenties) are all eligible for service in the armed forces, and are selected based on a lottery like system. It is meant to ensure the military apparatus of a country is always at full capacity in that there are always soldiers ready to engage in active duty if the president deems it necessary. Amongst the nations that are currently employing this system of military recruitment are about 27 nations examples of which include Israel and Russia (about.com, 2005).
Thesis statement
Should the draft system of military recruitment be re-introduced in the United States?
In the United States, the system begun as early as 1917, with the creation of the Selective Service System, which is an independent branch of the executive arm of the government which was responsible for matters pertaining to the recruitment of armed forces personnel, including the assigning of alternative programs for those people who were referred to as conscientious objectors. The agency was formed by an act of parliament that was signed by President Woodrow Wilson. The draft has been a controversial subject in the United States to say the least. After passing of the enrolment act in 1963, many issues come to the fore concerning the state of the armed forces, a large proportion of which was immigrant and African American. There were also issues of inequalities, in which the rich could pay their way out of active duty. The situation finally disintegrated with the attack and burning of the New York City draft office which started a five day riot that was directed towards the city African American and wealthy population. The draft was however abolished in 1973 by President Nixon after the end of the Vietnam War.
Arguments for the draft
The most popular argument as to why the draft should be reinstated in based on the failure of its alternative, the all volunteer army (AVA). Start with, the Nixon administration was merely formalizing the sentiment of the public which wanted to remove the authority of the government to decide who served and where, after all the mistakes it had made in Vietnam. It was therefore extremely difficult convince young men to join the armed forces on their own accord wince the sense of patriotic duty that had existed earlier had all but disappeared. The youth now sought self advancement first the duty to the nation later. The very tenets of democracy were collapsing, the idea that in return for protection of self and property by the nation, citizens were expected to defend it as their moral duty was losing its relevance.
Other areas of attack against the AVA was on the basis of such issues as its inflexibility, in that since the government had no control on who enlisted for service, there was a grave danger of running short of armed personnel, especially during a time of conflict in which volunteers would be in very short supply whereas the forces would be diminishing as casualties are sustained (Karsten, 1998). The situation is worsened by what has been described as backdoor drafting, which is the extending of the time of service of the existing troops. This not only reduces chances of re-enlisting when the service contract expires but also discourages new recruitments because it appears to the youth of the nation as being held in active duty against one’s wish, that is the all voluntary army in no longer all voluntary.
On the flipside, during peacetimes, the military apparatus found itself with many soldiers who had nothing else to do rather than wait for their pay check. Of course, laying off these soldiers is suicidal to the country, given the difficulty of getting new recruits. Therefore the country found itself with the problem of either being over or understaffed. The only apparent solution to this problem is drafting, since because there is a specific period for which the service lasts, coupled with the governments discretion on how many soldiers to call up to active duty, the size of the force can be effectively managed.
The voluntary army also had more soldiers with extra responsibilities such as marriage and families than the draftees, since most of the were picked from a specific age group that was less likely to have these responsibilities. For this reason, the pentagon in an attempt to keep moral boosted had to rotate the soldiers in active duty, an exercise which not only limited the number of troops that could be deployed to whichever campaign that the country was engaged in at any particular time, but came with it increased administrative and logistics costs and difficulties that inevitable led to inefficiencies which worsened an already damaged image of the appeal of service in the armed forces.
A draft is also viewed as a way of increasing the equitable distribution of the civil burden of national defence amongst all citizens, because the under the AVA, most of the people that actually signup are inevitably those poorer backgrounds who have fewer opportunities in the civilian world, mostly African Americans, Latin Americans amongst other minority groups. Of course it would have to be adjusted to prevent a repeat of the riot in New York City, but since all citizens are eligible for the draft, it would effectively address the issue of racial and social inequality during war times (Facts on file news services, 2009).
Also raised in the argument about draft recruitment was the question of the quality of the soldiers that each mode of recruitment produces. Under the AVA, in connection with what was mentioned above, most of the recruited soldiers are invariably with lower qualifications, which is connected with their inability to find employment in the civilian world. Consequently, the level of delivery during active duty will decline, which can potentially reduce the prestige associated with the armed forces as a professional career, which in turn complicates the already problem ridden voluntary recruitment efforts.
Professionalizing service in the military would diminish patriotism as a major motivator for service and in its place is the desire for monetary rewards, which means that the actions of the soldiers on the ground may not always be in the interests of the nation. Put blankly, an all voluntary army runs the risk of being composed of money hungry mercenaries who have been provided with the latest in military technology and weaponry, which has a potential counter effect of their turning on their own country and engaging in terrorist activities if they feel undercompensated for their service (Sarkesian and Connor, 2006). Draftees on the other hand have patriotism as one of their primary reasons for being in the force, and although they may not be there voluntarily, at least the reason why they fight is ingrained in them as the love of their nation, thus the need to protect it.
Finally, it can also be argued that a draft force would attract more responsible political actions and policies from the government, since it has to be careful to maintain the faith of the troops in the cause, in their country and in the reason why they are risking their lives. Consequently, the country’s foreign policy especially in relation to military action will be much more conservative.
Consider the alternative, in the voluntary army, the politician would make their decisions on the premise that the soldiers are paid professionals whose work is to fight, and thus there should never arise a question as t why they were told to fight this country or that, it suffices that they have been paid in time. Thus the government may get foolhardy in dealing with overseas military issues.
Arguments against the draft
Ironically, the biggest opposing argument for the reintroduction of the draft system of military recruitment is on the same moral basis as its best supporting notion. It is thought that under a draft system, there would arise opposition from the public, as was witnessed in New York, which has only detrimental effects to the security of the nation, as it is better to have soldiers that are working for money, rather than soldiers that do not want to work regardless of the pay. There are also multiple problems in the form of the logistics that are required to run an efficient draft program, which criteria to use to decide who are or are not eligible for conscription amongst other considerations all work in the favor of the all voluntary army system of armed forces recruitment.
For example, when draft was used in the Vietnam War, college students were exempted from the draft, which meant that the middle class and the affluent had an advantage over the less economically able, and therefore the draft also failed in its purpose of ensuring equality in the service. During the Vietnam War, the opposition towards the draft system escalated, probably on account of the rising number of casualties that were being sustained in the war. Since the Selective Service System allowed for draftees to be excused on account of conscientious objections, on reasons such as religion, the number of objectors increased much more during this period. There were a greater number of absentees when reporting for duty, not to mention an unprecedented number of deserters. The draft system that was supposedly more effective in maintaining a larger armed force was failing, in that even if one got drafted they did not necessarily have to follow through with the job.
Another popular argument against the draft system is that the war situation has changed dramatically over the years. In the olden times, the side with the largest number of soldiers was most probably to win, regardless of how many of them died in the process. In the modern world, numbers as a function of probability of winning a war have been substituted by strategy and technology. The United States, being the only remaining world power, has the most advanced military technology in the world. Thus expansion of the military is better accomplished by activating reserve troops as opposed to instituting a draft (Crary, 2003).
There are also strategic considerations, in that the draftees that are pulled into the army are more or less fresh trainees that have little or no combat experience, which combined with a feeling of being forced and resentment results in a rather ineffective military. On the other hand, the troops that are activated from the reserves are more conversant with the operations of the armed forces not to mention are better motivated to carry out their assignments. The reasons that had led to the 1963 New York riots cannot effectively be dealt with. For instance, statistics show that although many African Americans are enlisted in the army, most of them are in administrative and support assignments. In addition, the rich college students also manage to avoid combat positions either on account of their college expertise or even avoiding the draft completely.
Historically, the all volunteer army has been much more successful compared to its draft predecessors. This is true even when the distortion that is caused by advancements in military technology both in terms of combat as well as intelligence. Reinstating the draft therefore appears to be downgrading, resorting to a war relic, an outdated method of solving military conflict problems, which cannot be justified on account of efficacy of the army. There is also a large controversy concerning the position of the constitution on the draft, with some quarters arguing that he freedom of choice that is guaranteed by the constitution is curtailed when men and women are drafted into the armed forces against their will, potential exposing them to mortal danger. The counter for this argument is based on the foundation upon which the constitution is built, the philosophy of democracy, where each citizen is required to be loyal to state, in return for which the country guarantees the safety of the person and his property. This loyalty is then extended in the draft argument to include being ready to defend the nation if called upon to do so. The debate was however settled by the Supreme Court in 1918.
The draft also elicits some strong emotive responses from the public, which alienates the government from the governed. The media coverage has also led to large distortions in the philosophy behind the draft, creating a ripe ground for propagandists to spread their lies about it, to the effect that drafting is a way of ensuring that the political class is able to have a continual supply soldiers even when they make mistakes in conflict, after all it is not their children who are dying on the front line. This conditions threaten to destabilize the rapport the government strives too create with its citizens, which when extended can lead to a great many social problems such civil disobedience and increase in crime rates as a way of fighting back against an oppressive administration.
Conclusion
The decision on whether or not to reinstate the draft is therefore quite complicated as many stakeholders must be taken into account, as we have seen from the above discussion of the pros and cons of such a decision. Whereas there are legitimate arguments in support for the use of a draft system, I fell that there is more to lose if it were to be effected than there is to gain. To mention the least, it is not the policy makers who have to risk their live in the face of the enemies of the nation and therefore they may not understand the position in which they put their citizens when they ask them to defend their country. This is made worse in that as explained earlier it is men from lower class families that invariably end up being drafted, especially since the more economically able are either able to ‘buy’ their way out of active service or defer service on account of college. The men going into war on the auspices of defending their nation have actually much less to lose if the country was to fall. The public resistance has gone as far as leading to prosecution for resisting registration by the SSS, let alone drafting (resistance.info, 2005 ). Thus the AVA seems to be the best alternative, especially since its shortfalls such as a lean military will force the policy makers in congress to be much more responsible in their foreign policies.
References
About.com, (2005) ‘The draft system in the US’, Web.
Crary, David. (2003) “Opinions Change over a Military Draft.” Web.
Facts On File News Services. (2009) ‘Issues & Controversies’ Web.
Peter Karsten, ed. Recruiting, Drafting, and Enlisting: Two Sides of the Raising of Military Forces. 5 vols. London: Routledge, 1998.
Recruiter.info (2008) ‘Draft Registration, Draft Resistance, the Military Draft, and the Medical Draft’, Web.
Sam C. Sarkesian and Robert E. Connor Jr. The U.S. Military Profession into the Twenty-First Century: War, Peace, and Politics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2006.