An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
On Vietnam, Iraq, and Sacrifice
Some thoughts HERE.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “On Vietnam, Iraq, and Sacrifice”
And why should we be expected to sacrifice for the war in Iraq?
The administration has admitted that there was no existential threat, and I certainly don’t want to die for ExxonMobil’s bottom line.
How about for the Iraqi people? They don’t even want us there. Most of them think we’re doing more harm than good. Screw sacrificing for the Iraqis.
And that’s precisely why the administration hasn’t asked us to sacrifice. They know we’d start actually paying attention to all of the lies they’ve been spewing from day one.
Yes, I’ve been disturbed from tha very beginning by the fact the war only plays a direct role in the lives of the military and their families.
News broadcasts now devote more time to the stock market and business ventures than to daily updates from the war zone. Afghan ie seldom even mentioned.
There is something psychotic about this disconnect, and. in my opnion, it also feeds the already growing trend of people drawing away from notions like common cause and common good.
I don’t think reinstating the draft would work any better now than it did before. Loopholes and connections will always shield too many from actually serving. during war.
The idea of a national service should be explored, seriously, though. While they wouldn’t be drafted for combat except in the direst of emergencies, there are other ways to contribute. These young people and their families would be drawn into a national effort, perhaps reinstating the notion of ‘we’re all in it together’ once again.
I am currently writing a dissertation chapter on the Vietnam era draft and the transition to the all-volunteer force (AVF). So to say that I have done a little research on this would be a gross understatement.
First, bottom line fact is that the draft is not coming back under almost any conceivable scenario. There is no serious political support for the idea, and proposals in Congress were political stunts designed to make a point about national sacrifice, not suggest serious policy options.
Second, those who suggest that a draft OR a national service program will force upper classes to share in national sacrifice are ignorant of the history of the draft. In every war, up to an including Vietnam and with only the possible exception of WWII, men of privileged standing were able to find loopholes and deferments at a much higher rate than underprivileged men.
Third, the apparent cost-effectiveness of a draft for producing larger military forces is a mirage. Draftees have much higher turnover and are much more difficult to train, dramatically increasing costs other than just payment. Draftees also have many more disciplinary problems, which are expensive for the military to deal with and which make it much more likely that we would see greater numbers of atrocities and war crimes by U.S. forces. Furthermore, the draft is in effect an “in-kind tax” on labor, with huge hidden costs to the economy. Details about this can be found in the studies from the late 1960s, especially the Gates Commission report commissioned by President Nixon. The truly obsessive (like me) can download a comprehensive account of the draft and the AFV from the RAND web site.
That’s very interesting. I never thought about it like that. Thanks Jason.
If you are interested in that angle, you should read the Gates Commission report. (Unfortunately, you will probably have to go to a university library to find it, as it does not appear to be available on the internet.) Also, a very thorough summary and analysis can be found in the RAND corporation book “I Want You!” by Bernard Rostker which can be downloaded from the RAND web site.
The economic analysis of the draft is the central focus of the Gates Commission report which, in turn, became the primary basis for the move to the AVF. The economic focus may be explained in part by the very prominent role that Milton Friedman played in the AVF advocacy movement in general and on the Commission in particular. A key finding of the Gates Commission was that the hidden effects of the “in-kind tax” from the draft actually outweighed the substantial additional costs from having to pay an all-volunteer force better. (Remember, to make the transition, it was necessary to almost triple the pay of some junior enlisted ranks and, late in the early 1980s, increase military pay by additional very large margins.)
BTW — an interesting historical side note, quoted from my (draft) dissertation chapter:
Jason – If a significant real surge, say 50,000 tom 100,000 troops, could turn the corner in Iraq. Or if we are really in a Global War on Terror which will require multi front war. How can an all volunteer army meet our needs. A draft doesn’t have to mean sending poorly train recruits to the front. The draftees could mop ships and do logistics in Europe. In Vietnam a large percentage of draftees ended up as grunts in the Marines and Army. This is a mistake, volunteers who are highly trained, should do this and other things like Special Forces. The current situation is paying HUGE bonuses for Special Forces, how long can this go on?
Rudi,
We probably need somewhere near 500,000 troops in Iraq before we can even think about pacifying it, and that would likely only be a temporary solution.
The global war on terror shouldn’t need the huge outlays of conventional troops that are required for occupations.
It’s interesting how easy it is to shoot down specific proposals, while side-stepping what, to me, is an important problem by itself. I think that not sharing in OUR war has a very negative impact on how we relate to our society.
I definitely agree that a draft for military service would not work. I’m curious, though, why none of the ideas from the past are being resurrected: war bonds, a civilian corps for non-military funcions, etc.
I’m disappointed.