Anti-Conscription Arguments

“THE VIETNAM SYNDROME

by Bob Hanafin, Staff Writer

Many believe it was not the Armed Forces, but the will of the American people, that failed during the Vietnam War. The specter of Vietnam still influences decisions in Washington.

The will of the people was eliminated from Operation Desert Storm, and it is, arguably, no longer a factor in America’s wars. In the view of the White House and the Pentagon, this is the ideal. However, political and military leaders are shortsighted. They focus on the operational level of war too closely to see the larger strategic environment.” Adrian Lewis is a professor of history at the University of Kansas.

This is part two of Dr. Lewis’ article, CONSCRIPTION, the Republic, and America’s Future, that appeared in this month’s edition of Military Review. In this part, he addresses the arguments made against conscription.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Editorial Board Member
VT News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder

Anti-Conscription Arguments and Developments

Why has the nation not employed its traditional method of manpower procurement in the current situation now that there is CHANGE in administrations (no pun intended). Dr. Adrian Lewis told the Army Combat Studies Institute that he considers a number of politi­cal arguments and military explanations, and others points touch on social, cultural, and economic explanations against the draft.

Of note, these same arguments if proven accurate can also be used to call for the abolition of the Selective Service System and Selective Service Agency. Much as there was a call to abolish slavery in the 19th century. VT.Ed.

The following presents some of the major arguments against the draft:

1. The belief that science and technology are the panacea to all human problems

2. The belief that military service should not interrupt the unrelenting pursuit of wealth and ever-greater consumption.

3. The fragmentation of the Nation into small, “tribal nations,” each with its own set of values, ethics, and beliefs.

4. The belief that limited, asymmetric warfare, which is not in accord with the American vision of war, is not a threat that requires the attention and participation of the American people.

5. The presumed inability of drafted Soldiers to master the technologies and doctrines required to fight on the modern battlefield with sophisticated weapon systems during a single, short term of service.

6. A widespread preference for professional Sol­diers who are more consistent and reliable, who do not restrict their leader’s range of action, and who minimize the public’s involvement in the fighting.

To be sure, this list of arguments is incomplete, and these arguments are not mutually exclusive, but it is important to understand them.

[Rest assured that many more arguments can and should be made in the comments section, I know that my associates left of center can add their take in an intelligent argument and debate that does not lean on the passionate and emotional argument that military service (voluntary or not) is slavery and servitude. Note also that the arguments addressed by Dr. Lewis are intended for a military audience, so he brings up hardly none of the concerns of people left of center. – Vt.Ed Note]

Science and technology

After World War II and the development of the heavy bomber and strategic bomb­ing doctrine, air power became a panacea, the answer to avoid the carnage that occurs when two great armies clash in ground warfare. During World War II, some argued that air power was a war-winning technology. In 1948, after witnessing two atomic bombs bring the war against Japan to an end, Eisenhower articulated the new American vision of war:

In an instant, many of the old concepts of war were swept away. Henceforth, it would seem, the purpose of an aggressor nation would be to stock atom bombs . . . Even the bombed ruins of Germany [and Japan] . . . provide but faint warning of what future war could mean to the people of the earth. [Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday, 1948), 456].

This focus on air power was evident [as recent as] 2003 in the “shock and awe” doctrine that was supposed to win the war in Iraq without the involvement of significant numbers of U.S. ground forces. The invasion was supposed to demonstrate the most recent so-called “revolution in military affairs.” The development of information technologies, stealth bombers, and precision weapons produced the stra­tegic doctrine known as “network-centric warfare” and the operational doctrine of “shock and awe” to eliminate or minimize the employment of [ground troops].

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was wrong, again. It is hard to see a revolution in military affairs in current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The prophets of air power and [technological superiority] have again contributed to a disaster that ground combat forces had to fix [or clean up].

[Editor’s Note: The arrogant belief in America’s technological superiority even with unmanned drones that kill innocent as well as the enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a throwback to our arrogant technological superiority over the Vietnamese.  And still we observe both the Air Force and Navy come back to Congress and the President year after year with palms out for increase defense funding for just such air power and technology that our ground forces continue to have to come behind and make up for when technological superiority is neither appropriate to the low intensity war being fought, or over kill. If nothing else the bulk of any defense increase must only go to the Army and Marines until they are back on their feet. The lame argument that all the services can be funded as the nation faces the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression and one political party or another jockeys for position to lower the national debt while intentionally ignoring the fiscal costs of war(s) with raising taxes to pay for them is a pipe dream, more so a FANTASY. VT.Ed.]

Wealth and consumption.

As we are in the midst of the Christmas shopping season, we are reminded of the words of Andrew Bacevich: For the United States the pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence-on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people, whether they admit it or not, is that nothing should disrupt their access to those goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part through the distribution of pork at home (with Congress taking the leading role) and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad (largely the business of the execu­tive branch).

Regardless who wants to blame our nation for being in debt, the Republicans are trying to make hay of it now despite the last administration running up the national debt while not paying for war(s), the truth is as U.S. News & World Report recently reported, “America is incredibly indebted. The debt in the financial world went from 21 percent of a $3 trillion gross domestic product in 1980 to 120 percent of a $13 trillion GDP in 2007, reflecting an astonish­ing accumulation of as much as $30 of debt for every $1 of equity in many firms.” [Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News & World Report, 27 October 2008, 92].

The evidence is overwhelming that the pursuit of wealth and greater levels of consumption dominate American thinking and actions more than any other endeavors. Con­sumption influences every aspect of American life, including the Nation’s ability to produce combat Soldiers.

[The focus of President Obama on the economy from the time he took office to his decision to escalate his Afghanistan War blatantly shows where his and America’s focus and attention really is AND IT IS NOT AFGHANISTAN FOR NOW. Not until the media shifts from selling the war to reporting negatively on it, and they will. VT.Ed.]

UNFIT FOR DUTY

With each subsequent decade of the latter half of the twentieth-century, the American people became physically and psychologi­cally less capable of fighting wars. In the 1990s, ROTC departments around the coun­try complained that new recruits couldn’t run a half-mile. New physical training programs were initiated to get potential cadets up to the minimal physical condition required for service, a standard that was far below that required in U.S. Army infantry units. Recruiters had the same problem. This is an issue of national security that has only grown worse since the end of the Cold War. The problem, although identified during the Korean War, plagued the services throughout the Vietnam War.

In 1957, Robert Osgood wrote: Quite aside from the moral odium of war, the fear of violence and the revulsion from war­fare are bound to be strong among a people who have grown as fond of social order and material well-being as Americans. War upsets the whole scale of social priorities of an individualistic and materialistic scheme of life, so that the daily round of getting and spending is subordinate to the collective welfare of the nation in a hundred grievous ways-from taxation to death. This accounts for an emotional aversion to war, springing from essentially self-interest motives. [Robert Osgood, Limited War (IL: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 33.]

“Getting and spending” are no longer subordinate to war; they, in fact, govern the American conduct of war. The absence of a national discussion on conscription clearly indicates that national security is subordinate to the major American endeavor, the pursuit of wealth and consumption.

Fragmentation.

Some argue that the United States is no longer a cohesive cultural entity. Evi­dence of the Nation’s fragmentation: “According to the geodemographers at Claritas, American society today is composed of 62 distinct lifestyle types-a 55 percent increase over the 40 segments that defined the U.S. populace during the 1970s and 1980s.” [Michael J. Weiss, The Clustered World (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 10].

Patriotism is more rhetoric than reality.

Robert L. Hanafin

Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.

My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.

Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.

I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.

I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.