Winds of Change asks if we need a new draft and asks for opinions. I'm game.
Back in January 2003 I wrote down some thoughts on this. (see "A New Draft?" posted January 1, 2003, in my old Defense Issues archives for the original) In it I assume a draft and look at how it should be structured. I remain opposed to a draft unless we are in a true massive war against a peer competitor (like China). Anyway, this is a modification of the original essay.
I am not terribly sympathetic to the idea of a new draft. Yes, I value my (limited) military experience. There is merit to having people of varying socio-economic groups get their lumps together in the cause of defending America. My own experience is an example-the white Detroit "old man" of the platoon sparring with Frear-the son (or was it nephew) of a Motown star. For the life of me I can no longer remember her name. He had graduated from Brown University. I was a University of Michigan graduate. We each claimed superiority and belittled the other's school. He carried his silver spoon in his mess kit! I liked him, actually. I have to respect someone who had no reason to join, yet still did. A lot of people could benefit from Army Basic Training.
Yet despite these societal advantages, our volunteer military does not need conscripts. We are an information age military and not an industrial age mass production military. Our military does not need massive numbers of cannon fodder. Since proponents of the draft today seem to base their argument on military necessity, this fact alone should end the talk before we even debate the societal pros and cons.
Nor am I persuaded by our war on terror to support conscription for the sole reason of calling on our people for "sacrifice." If even the modest efforts our government has made thus far lead critics to cry "police state!" how would they react to a needless draft? I think we are fortunate to live in an age when going to war does not require us to eat beans and put off all major purchases until after the war because every factory has to produce war material. Why do advocates of sacrifice think we have to mimic World War II conditions in the twenty-first century?
Yet maybe conscription would be a good idea. Oh, not to staff our regular military. Unless we must fight a peer competitor like China (if Chinese power and hostility grow over the decades-neither are guaranteed, however) or anything like that we just don't need masses of infantry for our high tech wars against small powers.
But in a decades-long war on terror, mass conscription could serve valuable purposes. The fact that we do not need conscripts to wage the war actually makes it easier to start universal conscription. If we wanted to use a draft to man our actual fighting military, we would need to take only a small percentage and exemptions would undermine the leveling effect. Making a draft nearly universal is a key to providing the socializing aspect a reality. So how would we use draftees in a Homeland Defense Corps?
We could train medics whose skills are obviously of use in coping with a terror attack even before they are mobilized. Such skills diffused throughout the population would save lives.
We could train security personnel who could augment military police type formations guarding our borders, bases, or civilian infrastructure in their communities during emergencies. This might be a pool of individual reservists available to the military services, state governors, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Recruits would need basic training, some advanced schooling for their skills, and civics education. This should take no more than four or five months. This will hardly be an onerous duty of citizenship. Of course, anybody could volunteer for any of the services as civilians do now for the higher pay and benefits of those services instead of doing the minimum draftee service.
We would train the members in basic squad-level infantry skills so that there is always a pool of troops who may be mobilized for additional training should we need infantry for war or peace operations.
Other skills might also be of use such as vehicle drivers, supply specialists, and other jobs that would allow individuals to fill out active units or augment them for war tasks.
After their initial training, these people would return to civilian life to fulfill their term of service. During their term of Homeland Defense Corps reserve service, we could exploit online or distance learning for refresher training every three months to validate their initial training.
We could require four years duty maximum in the homeland defense reserves. We could limit their mobilization to three months total duty during their term of service unless their was general mobilization for a large war.
Such service members would never rank higher than private first class (E-3). They would always be commanded by somebody from the traditional services. They could also transfer to the traditional services if this taste of military life suited them.
Nor should such service be considered the equivalent of military service for benefits unless the troops are mobilized by a military service. Their pay would also be nominal following initial training. We don't want this easier service to draw away recruits from the traditional services.
Establishing a new draft would mean we would have to gear up the training establishment to crank out graduates at a high rate without interfering with traditional force training. We would need a much larger training establishment so the regular military would have to be expanded just to run this program. I don't know whether basic training should be integrated with those going to the regular services or done separately. Doing it together would build confidence since all serving would know that everybody went through the same tough initial training. Done separately, the military could focus on skills needed and minimize skills that only regulars need. If I had to answer this now, I'd say use the same basic training and have separated follow-up schools for the Homeland Defense Corps focusing on their likely duties.
A draft with these attributes might have merit. It avoids foisting unwilling draftees on the military yet provides citizenship training with reasonable sacrifice and trains our people with actual useful skills should they be needed by the nation. Establishing such a draft-filled Homeland Defense Corps is worth a thought, anyway. And given that many of those calling for a draft are on the left, maybe it will silence those others on their side who bemoan the idea that our military recruiters visit high schools.
But in the end, while I think a Homeland Defense Corps has merit, it should be a voluntary force. We don't need millions inducted every year. And if we induct only those bodies we need, inequities will arise in who is exempted from service. But having some martial way for people to serve in this time of war without joining the active or reserve military services would help to induce people with higher education who have career aspirations yet would like to do something for our country. Although this recruiting pool would likely be sufficiently separate from the pool from which the military draws recruits, the pay (a nominal stipend) and benefits (Life insurance but certainly no college benefits) should be minimal to avoid any impact on the regular services. We won't benefit with a fully staffed Homeland Defense Corps if our military cannot meet recruiting goals. And the benefits to society will be people who, even after they leave the Homeland Defense Corps, retain first aid, weapons, and other basic military skills. They will have a greater understanding of what our military does for the rest of their lives.
for the War on Terror, we should not compel service. But we should provide a useful option that does not interfere with our current outstanding military.
So create a Homeland Defense Corps. But don't draft the members. And certainly don't foist draftees on our splendid military.
