Milbank for the draft
At the last big anti-war protest, I sat for five or ten minutes sitting on a curb in front of the White House and chatting with Dana Milbank, a columnist from the Washington Post. I found him to be an affable fellow, although I almost never agree with him. Today, he writes a column that advocates for a return to the draft; Save America: Restore the draft. Although he makes some good points, I still can’t agree with him. Basically, he says that returning to the draft would help cure our problems in Washington;
Because so few serving in politics have worn their country’s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a “cause greater than self,” and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country. Without a history of sacrifice and service, they’ve turned politics into war.
Well, you know, Dana, there’s already a Federal program that is supposed to train the youth of our country to be good citizens, that is the program that has failed the country – our school system. Teachers in the public school system already pass on their academic failures to the college system, where most freshman classes are enrolled in remedial English and math classes, now you expect them to pass along their failure to make good American citizens to mandatory military service?
Milbanks, like Thomas Ricks, another advocate for the return of the draft, hasn’t served himself. I’m constantly amazed how all of these social engineers who want to go back to the draft, haven’t served in the military and are well-beyond the age that would require their own service.
I was lucky enough to have served while their was no draft – all of my troops volunteered, and they were still hard to manage. I can’t imagine what my predecessors experienced with people who were forced to be in uniform. We have become the most lethal military force in the world with only volunteers, why does everyone want to change that – well, except for the fact that a draft force could be paid less and treated poorly.
Milbanks continues;
The costs would be huge. But so would the benefits: overcoming growing social inequality without redistributing wealth; making future leaders, unlike today’s “chicken hawks,” disinclined to send troops into combat without good reason; putting young Americans to work and giving them job and technology skills; and, above all, giving these young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country.
Yeah, you’d get social equity and make future leaders if we spent more time fixing what’s wrong with our schools instead of expecting the professional military leaders to do that which they are not equipped or inclined to fix. The military is not some giant social program – it kills our enemies and breaks their stuff. The school system is a giant social program that is broken.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
im a huge fan of mandatory military service, but not a random draft. it is not the military’s job to fix the country’s leadership, its our job to defend the country and smite our enemies with violence that would make the God of the old testament so “wow, thats a little much”
HAHAHAHAHHA. I think that’s a GREAT idea, to reinstate the draft – but with a few twists. Make an experiment of it. Start out small, say, a division’s worth of warm bodies.
(Here’s the twist). Draft the children of first, politicians (at all levels, any party), and second, college professors, third, big business CEOs and board members, fourth, main stream “authorized reporters”. No exemptions, no deferments. Uncle Sam Wants YOU, NOW!
Put these pampered princes and princesses under the meanest, snarling-est drills and DIs in the known universe. And make the training co-ed, per the Libtard’s latest requests.
Then pull up a chair, pop the popcorn, pour your favorite libation, kick back, and watch the fun begin.
Put Milbank’s meandering writings to the test. He talks the talk. Obviously, many people agree, as he a well paid, well respected “main stream authorized journalist.” Is he (and all agreeing readers) equally willing to walk the walk? Stand by, boys and girls, test time is a’comin’.
It used to be the military was the choice to correct the misbehabior of juvenile delinquents. The judge gave them a choice: the military or the jail, and usually, they chose the military. A lot of ‘bad’ kids got straightened out, but they faced the draft even if they didn’t go, so their choices were limited to that or jail.
Would there be any similar benefit from a restored draft? I don’t know. No one does that kind of course correction any more. On the other hand, a large part of the misbehavior comes from not having jobs and being bored, and some of them have said so in plain English. Is it social engineering to put some brat into a mandatory training environment that might actually straighten him out?
But let’s not do it that way. Let’s start with the two generations of men and women who never faced mandatory service to their country, no matter what their age is. That includes Milksop – sorry, Milbank. Give them two years, maybe three, with the same pay and bennies that I had in the 1960s. They might actually find out what ‘family’ and ‘unit cohesion’ mean that way.
‘misbehabior’ – should be ‘misbehavior’. Sorry.
Back in the 1960s, General William Westmoreland once criticized the idea of an all-volunteer military force by stating that “he didn’t want to lead an army of mercenaries.” Economist Milton Friedman retorted, “Would you rather command an army of slaves?”
Conscription is just a nicer sounder version of slavery. Indentured servitude. Thralldom. Pick whatever word you want, you are making people do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do with the threat of imprisonment.
And to back up B Woodman, Dana Milbank is 45 years old and has been married since 1993, according to Wikipedia. If he has a son or daughter, I eagerly await the announcement that they stand ready to go, once have been “selected for national service” by their friendly neighborhood draft board.
I was a volunteer. I served with draftees for six years.
1. Many of them were perfectly happy to say, “I didn’t agree to this, so screw you, you can’t make me do anything”.
2. The draftees seemed to get into trouble more than the volunteers. The primary issues were theft, drunk / disorderly, and drugs.
3. The draftee malaise seemed to be catching, “why should I work when this jerk-off is just sitting around?”
If we let the troops sit around, they will entertain themselves and get into trouble. All of this resulted in vast amounts of senior NCO effort to keep these people moving at all and moving in something like the right direction. If we don’t have the funds to train then we will have to have make-work projects. Those are hard on everyone and it is a waste of manpower to make more freshly painted green rocks.
As a Private and E4, I did my share of slacking. My Officers and NCOs were pissed at me plenty and I got the message. I would like to think that I learned from that. At the time, it seemed to me that my NCOs despaired of us (or at least me) ever amounting to anything. I was an E5 when I left. I wonder if the draft might aggravate an NCO drinking problem.
In my opinion if we bring back the draft, we will need a higher ratio of NCOs to troops in order to keep order. There will be higher rates of petty crime and drug use. Morale and the overall force readiness will drop. I won’t speculate on any social benefit that may arise 20 to 30 years later.
Those of us who remember the draft are at least 55 years old and by current definition too old and foolish to have a useful opinion. So just go ahead and ignore this 🙂
It won’t work. Whether it’s a good idea or not (which it isn’t), whether we can afford it or not (which we can’t) is irrelevant: It can’t be made to work within our current culture.
Conscription only works when it is supported by society as a whole. Until someone is willing to turn in his next-door-neighbor’s kid to the police for going AWOL or dodging the draft, it simply can’t work. And with all the self-absorbed navel gazing in our society, I can’t see people getting worried enough about an external threat to support a draft anyway.
We already have a huge “victim advocacy” industry that is eagerly seeking out “victims” to support and defend. A draft would create a huge ready-made supply of such victims.
By the time the draft ended in 73, it had huge holes in it anyway: Student deferments, family deferments, health exclusions, etc. Under that system a draftee was someone who wasn’t clever enough to figure a way out of the draft.
Just another dumb idea from another navel gazing liberal.
“…there’s already a Federal program that is supposed to train the youth of our country to be good citizens…”
a. Oh, it’s “Federal”?
b. And it’s “supposed to train the youth of our country to be good citizens”?
Where do you get this stuff? I don’t find any mention of it in the Constitution.
Um, #8 Eagle Keeper, some of us read the founders beyond the Constitution. You should try it sometime.
Which is it? The military is no longer needed therefore we need a reduction in force OR we need a draft to keep the numbers up? Sure wish the libbies would get their stories straight on this one.
@6, I dealt with the same problems, re:the draftees.
Milbank exposes his ignorance, “Without a history of sacrifice and service, they’ve turned politics into war”. He never cracked a history book, if he had, he’d know about Andrew Jackson and his political campaigns, U S Grant and how he was treated, and on and on. Politics has always been an up close and personal kind of “war”.
Milbank is gushing himself over visions of entire battalions working on Dear Leader’s 5 Year Dream – fixing potholes, picking up garbage, closing off parks next shutdown.
The first 10 years or so of my career was in the draft era Army and my experience was that it wasn’t until the last couple of years that discipline problems with draftees began to manifest itself. Contrary to #6’s experience, I found that it was usually the young RAs that were more of a problem. Draftees tended to be older and better educated and have something to go back to that they risked losing by screwing up. I was always in maintenance companies, so that may have had something to do with it. That said, yeah the pay was low and never improved much for those under two years service.
What many people seem to forget is we no longer have the size Army we once did, so where are we going to put all those warm bodies? We no longer have the 16 divisions and umpteen separate brigades to man. Without a realistic mission, you’re just asking for trouble if you’ve got a lot of bored young people just sitting around. The end of the draft and VOLAR was a bitch and I’d hate to have to go through all that again, but putting people in uniform to get back at their isn’t an ideal solution, either. So whether you’re a congressman from Harlem of newspaper columnist, we really don’t need to bring back “the good ol’ days”.
As for the Marines, our NCOs have more important things to do than babbysit malcontents who don’t want to be there in the first place. People who call for a draft have one redeeming quality: skylining themselves as clueless idiots to be disregarded.
I am going to get blasted for this. Deep breath, this is why the Marine Corps almost never uses draftees. Yes there are some birhat thru recuit training.Some get straighten out after joining th e Fleet. Others get the boot. Bobing and wreaving Joe
In 1967 4 days out of high school I joined the Army, for the next 3 years 18 months in Germany and 11 in Vietnam I served with many exceptionally good men who were drafted and many of them served with honor and integrity.
I have a son today that is serving with the Army. When he graduated from Ranger school my wife and myself went to Ft Benning for the graduation, on the evening of his class graduation I had the opportunity to meet his successful class mates at a celebration party, I listened to them that eveing, many had been deployed several times and some were still new to the service. The one thing I noticed right off the beginning was how really intelligent this group of young men were, the majority having also graduated from college. I started comparing thethem with the military I knew in my era. There was no comparison, these men were proud to be who they were and where they were. Unlike some of the draftee’s that I had known during my service. These young men and women are the real deal, there is nothing fake about them they live the committment! As a RA from the RVN period, I felt bad for the draftee’s they didn’t want to be where we were and honestly………..I didn’t want them there either. I want people around me who want to be there, not forced to be there!
The anti-war movement used draftees as a foothold in the military when they wanted to work against the country and military, some of them realized that working with the anti-war movement was their ticket to the big show (politics).
I am currently a boy and some day I will be a girl. I hope I get drafted. Pres Obama is fabulous!
As to the topic at hand: One of my contemporary heroes re. things military and international has been retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich. In his latest book, “Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country,” he decries the disconnect between the professional soldiery (sometimes called the “warrior caste”) and the citizenry, and he advocates SOME kind of mandatory national service (not necessarily military) to help rebuild broader citizen involvement and awareness in international and military affairs.
I agree with Bacevich re. the symptom — there IS a disconnect between the relatively few who enlist (and the even fewer who fight), and those who do neither but (ahem) “support the troops” with their yellow ribbon car magnets and ten percent discounts.
But I disagree with his solution. The State has no legitimate moral claim on the life or labor of the citizen, whether it be in the Army or the Peace Corps.
Rather, I would prefer to see us move to an official policy of armed neutrality — non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, backed up by a true citizen militia (including a SMALL corp of full-time professionals to “keep the machinery greased” — i.e., the citizens trained and the depots stocked with materiel) a la Switzerland.
Being the policemen (OR the “liberators”) of the world is in NO nation’s job description.
John, done it. I’m not AWARE that any of them advocated a national school system for training young people in citizenship, but I certainly could have missed that.
Regardless, there are LOTS of things the Founders discussed “extra-constitutionally.” But they’re not the law of the land, are they?
And BTW John, please suggest 2 or 3 Founders’ writings that advocate a national education system for the purpose of instilling character. I may very well have them on my bookshelf already, and would love to study something about our history I hadn’t been aware of before.
Correction: “for the purpose of instilling CITIZENSHIP”, not character. (I can actually imagine them advocating that, but ONLY in concert with families, churches and communities.)
Eagle Keeper, you also wont find any mention of department of education, department of health, department of (fill in the blank) in the constitution. they are all parts of liberal government expansion that should never have been created. in 1973, America was number 1 in the world in math and sciences, 40 years later, we are falling to the bottom of the industrialized world. do you know what changed 40 years ago? federalized public education with the establishment of the department of education
The way to fix it is not the draft and its not so much a left/right sort of thing. A lot of people on both sides see that or system is broken and trying to wear itself apart and we need to try some way to improve the system. But the people advocating it haven’t had to serve with someone who decided that they didn’t want to be there. In the volunteer Army we’ve all had to serve with one or two shitbags, I hate to think how bad it could be to deal with a squad full of “you can’t make me”s. I could see some benefits to getting slightly older more experienced and educated people into the service because we get some of that with the Reserves. A better way to fix the current problem would be to require military or some other national service as a prerequisite to full citizenship especially voting or holding office. Military people would obviously get to vote but the hard part would be to figure out where to draw the line on who else also gets to vote. I’d say firefighters, probably police, and high school and elementary teachers but its hard to to say who else.
As with the random nonsese on Tom Ricks’s “blog” on Foreign Policy, the left hasn’t gotten over the troop surge, George W. Bush (he was name checked in Milbank’s article) and *still* is sore about Vietnam.
They want our pay and bennies cut. What better way that to claim that most of the troops are draftees.
One contributor called Ricks out: a draft would skyrocket UCMJ and most would get bad discharges.
And Milbank’s ilk HATES the military. If there is a draft will they approve new gear? New weapon systems? Benefits? Pay raises?
No, they need a draft to re-start the “youth” movement. Most of the brain trust in the left are aging hippies, Gen-X’er in their fourties and fifties, and the few “Millennials” who can recite Occupy talking points.
As Paul Begala pointed out, the 60’s generation (mostly suburban hippies) never cared what was happening until they could get drafted. As soon as the Vietnam was was over, they became the Yuppie “Me generation” of the 80’s.
Smitty: You make my point. See my comment @8, re. John’s comment in the OP. (Maybe he was actually being sarcastic at Milbanks’ expense, but from his reply @17, it doesn’t look like it.)
To be clear Smitty, I’m opposed to gummint-provided (a.k.a., “free,” a.k.a. taxpayer funded) education at ANY level.
And national, most of all.
I think that the draft is all smoke and mirrors, it may prompt some who wouldn’t have served into serving, but overall it won’t be a positive thing. For instance, someone who has the resources (i.e. friends) will get out of the draft or will use their friend to get good assignments. How the hell did Ted Kennedy get sent to Paris during the Korean war?
This will lead to an increase of people who would have never entertained the idea of joining the military. Could you imagine what the mythical poverty draft if it were true? Filling the ranks with “disenfranchised” youth who don’t want to be there in the first place? Right now the military has a base of individuals who for the most part want to be there. What about the draftees who cannot pass the ASVAB? Are we going to fill the ranks with idiots.
So basically what will have to happen is an increase in the number of lower standard troops, an increase of frustration in troops that truly want to be there, while those who can and will use money influence to get out of service will continue, just so that someone else can feel better. Sounds like a plan to me.
I served from 58 to 74 as Air Force enlisted reaching MSgt from 73-78 as an Army warrant, then from 79-98 as a GS-12/13, since 71 in club management. As a new warrant I figured I could depend on my NCO’s but was wrong because many lacked professionalism or competence. One night after consuming a quantity of adult beverages at an advanced course reception where the DCS Personnel of the Army was in attendence (he was over club managers), I shared my disappointment in the quality of Army NCO’s encountered with him. Thankfully he had also consumed adult beverages and we had a good conversation without my being taken out of there in irons. The Army leadership knew they had a problem and in the next 20 years as an Army civilian, I observed the all volunteer Army was a vast improvement over the Vietnam-era Army and the vast majority of NCO’s were absolutely professional in every regard.
This is NOT about making military service equitable, but rather about stripping the military down to a VERY small cadre core to save all those personnel costs, and picking up the cannon fodder on an Ad Hoc basis. Remember Rumsfeld’s remarks about going to war with the Army you have and not the one you wish you had? Same results in this plan.
What Clinton did to the military in ’95-’96 was just a REALLY small test run.
If anybody sees or knows who is selling the new 10/22 takedown? I have been looking for one for about 6 months . Any help is gladly accepted. Also , I take back anything I said about you. Joe
The questions being asked include ‘Is the US military ready?’
http://news.msn.com/us/is-the-us-military-ready-or-should-americans-worry
Well, should we worry?
Comrades in Arms: For me, the topic of compulsory military conscription is a VERY personal matter. I repeatedly tried and failed to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. The Navy and the Air Force both had lengthy waiting lists, and all of the slots in the local National Guard units were already completely filled up. Even after showing the official response generated by my letter to President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Army recruiter still would not let me enlist. Were it not for the combination of the extremely controversial and unpopular war in “the old Republic” of Viet Nam, plus the option of volunteering to be drafted, I never would have succeeded in becoming a soldier in the United States Army. And, I was not alone. Many years later, I would meet other Viet Nam veterans who had been handicapped by the nightmarish horrors of similar abuse such as I had endured and somehow, miraculously survived. Draftees served for only two (02) years, while enlistees had to serve for a minimum of three (03) years. Some draftees, attempting to avoid going to “the old Republic” of Viet Nam, would enlist for a guaranteed assignment in Germany. As for me, as a draftee, upon completion of Basic Combat Training at Fort Lewis, Washington, I was sent to the Southeastern Signal School at Fort Gordon, Georgia, given a “Secret” security clearance, and trained for several months in two (02) courses, i.e., Field Radio Relay and Carrier Equipment Operator (MOS 31 M 20), and Field Radio Relay and Carrier Equipment Repair (MOS 31 L 20), after which, I was sent to my first assignment, Company A, 11th Air Defense Signal Battalion, 32d Army Air Defense Command, at Kleber Kaserne in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Since most of my first year was spent just simply being trained, as a draftee stationed in Germany, I only had a little over a year left to serve, and if I hadn’t wanted to, I never would have gone to “the old Republic” of Viet Nam. Yes, I was surrounded at all times by complaining draftees who didn’t want… Read more »
“Paid professional soldiers have less ties to local communities, and thus, can probably be relied upon to obey orders to use their weapons against fellow American citizens, while draftees, having strong kinship bonds to local communities, are more likely to be sympathetic to the rebellion, and refuse to fire their weapons.”
So, draftees won’t shoot their fellow citizens? I suggest you read a history book or two and check out the Red Army (USSR), People’s Liberation Army (Communist China), you know, conscription armies. Also, check out the 1940s, when the draft army of WWII was used to break up mining and railway strikes here in the U.S. in 1943 and 1944. Being drafted does not instill some magical bond with the common people, contrary to whatever idiocy Charlie Rangel is going on about at the moment.
I was a 20-year man myself (retired back in 2012) and I can assure you there was no way I was going to violate anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, no matter who was in the White House. My “ties” to my community stayed strong the whole time I was on active duty, so I really have no idea what you’re talking about with the professional vs. amateur argument. Either you’re an ethical, moral human being or you’re not, how you get into the military has no impact on that. Having a professional military does provide a way for limiting the numbers of “lame, lazy or crazy” that you bring into the force, however, and that is more than worth it in my opinion.
@31 “… while draftees, having strong kinship bonds to local communities, are more likely to be sympathetic to the rebellion, and refuse to fire their weapons.” Kent State ring any bells? Draftees ain’t National Guard, but the guard is even closer to the local community.
@31, John – good to hear about you trying twice to enlist in the marines and not making it. So did I. Then I volunteered for the draft at 18. Much like you, I spent a year in the states getting schooling, for me in artillery school electronics, then deployed to what was better than anyone deserved. Our battalion was mostly US young guys and it was a mixed lot. The few RA’s we had were every bit as much trouble as we were. In our specialty draftees were probably an advantage. Most of the RA’s were not really into the electronics game as much as some of us draftees were. The best one we had (RA) moved on to get his Warrant, and I was privileged to work for him.
[…] This ain’t Hell… discusses Dana Milbank wanting a draft […]
I came in on the cusp – was draft-eligible but courtesy of the lottery wound up coming in as a volunteer. By then there were no more drafteees – even if originally drafted, those still in had volunteered for re-enlistment. I do distinctly remember many older NCOs saying that the typical draftees were less trouble than the volunteers – they tended to skew more educated and just wanted to keep their noses clean and get out. Me, I like the idea of the decision makers having some skin in the game but hate using the military as a medium for social engineeing yet again.
@29 – Joe, try a store called 10-Ring in Houstin, TX – they had one Saturday.
The only way our nation would support a draft would be if there as a viable external, existential threat. In 1940, when the first peacetime draft was initiated, everyone pretty much knew we would soon be involved in WWII. The Post-WWII draft was initiated amidst rising cold war tensions and ramped up with combat in Korea, the “loss” of China to the Communists, and the Soviet acquisition of the A-bomb and H-bomb.
There is no such threat today that would justify a large standing army. Even if you think Islamic radicals are a threat to the very existence of our country (and I, for one, do not think they are such a threat) you don’t fight that kind of war with conscript troops anyway – you need professionals.