In the 17th century it was customary to begin assaults on fortified places with a wave called the “forlorn hope,” led by a junior officer who could expect to die in the attempt — or live to see himself decorated and promoted. In a recent editorial, former Marine Lieutenant Benjamin Luxenberg launched a forlorn hope of sorts for America’s draft advocates. Luxenberg’s goal, as expressed in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, is to lead the masses into what he calls “America’s last bastion of social and economic equality” — the armed forces.
The nub of our era’s great problem of inequality, as Luxenberg sees it, is not inequality per se, which he concedes is here to stay, but the lack of noblesse oblige and trust between America’s increasingly immutable classes. The children of the elite, he accurately notes, are unlikely to serve. But, he argues, they are the ones that are fated to lead. “If more of society’s privileged served in uniform,” he dreams, “we would foster leaders from more spheres — military, business, government — who know firsthand the rewards of caring for their fellow citizens.”
There is no “solution” in Luxenberg’s article. There isn’t even a problem. While he seeks to address “inequality,” and his citing of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century notwithstanding (which only proves that he’s been to a bookstore in the last year), he doesn’t engage deeply with the nature of the problem. Although he bemoans a “lack of trust,” he fails to explain who does not trust whom.
Such aimlessness pervades the current raft of articles on the draft and its glories. The problem is that many of the draft advocates see conscription as a panacea, and when you have the solution to everything, problem definition becomes unimportant. John Bridgeland, who is working with retired General Stanley McChrystal to encourage a national service program, is guilty of the grandest flights of fancy. “The World War II generation that served together had higher levels of charitable contributions, volunteering, voting, social trust, trust in one another,” he recently gushed to Dana Milibank of the Washington Post. “Even the gap between rich and poor was at its lowest levels. This greatest generation had an ethic of service that transcended politics and partisanship and belief.”
Bridgeland, who never served a day in uniform, is propagandizing, but his utopian language is not as atypical as one would hope. In a love note to the draft within James Fallows’ recent series on the “tragedy of the American military” in The Atlantic, 1950s draftee Joseph Epstein argues that a new draft can give young Americans “a vivid sense of the social breadth of the country,” which would change “the American social fabric” for the better. The questions of how the American social fabric would change and to what end, of course, remain unanswered — such is utopianism.
The idea that the military draft may have a military purpose in addition to its social one has not entirely escaped the latest commentators. Epstein, for example, insists that a draft “would redistribute the burden of the responsibility for fighting wars, and engage the nation in military conflicts in a more immediate and democratic way.” This, of course, is the answer to all of our ills, because as James Fallows’ centerpiece in that series insists, “[civil-military] disengagement inevitably leads to dangerous decisions the public barely notices,” and is the root of all foreign policy evil. “The next time we go to war,” retired Admiral Michael Mullen told Fallows, “the American people should have to say yes. And that would mean half a million people who weren’t planning to do this would have to be involved in some way. They would have to be inconvenienced. That would bring America in. America hasn’t been in these previous wars. And we are paying dearly for it.”
Utopianism and vagueness are not all that these articles have in common. A disproportionate number of them emanate from Harvard University — Luxenberg is a Harvard grad student, and Bridgeland a Harvard grad. James Fallows is also a Harvard man, and tiresomely annotates every Harvard alumnus in his article (other schools get no such treatment). Harvardians’ arms-length embrace of the draft has become something of a joke. As Andrew Exum recently quipped on Twitter,
I once had an office call with a recent Harvard grad who said he liked the idea of military service but felt he would be wasting his degree.
— Andrew Exum (@ExumAM) December 31, 2014
In 30 years, I have no doubt this same Harvard graduate will pen a passionate op-ed or essay on the need for military service. — Andrew Exum (@ExumAM) December 31, 2014
Of course, the problem is not Harvard. That is an institution whose record of service to the nation and martial glory, as measured in the number of Medals of Honor awarded to its graduates, surpasses every other civilian university. The problem is that these authors are excessively self-important.
Fallows is the greatest sinner. In a 1975 article that was both honestly arrogant and honestly regretful, he recalled escaping the draft by lying to draft examiners in Boston during the Vietnam War. He then watched the “white proles of Boston… walk through the examination lines like so many cattle off to the slaughter.” The idea that duty might animate such animals seems inconceivable to him. Or maybe, he can only recognize duty if it is mandated.
Fallows, funnily enough, doesn’t ever call for a new draft in his article, despite sending Epstein out to reconnoiter the terrain (he has called for one in the past). Neither does James Kitfield, in a suggestive recent profile highlighting retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry’s struggles with the limits of the All-Volunteer Force in the National Journal. “Somehow,” Eikenberry carefully, vaguely, and usefully concludes, “we have to find ways to reconnect the American people and their armed forces, so that there is a more direct and visceral understanding of the political, social and economic costs of war.” He is not alone among famous retired generals in rejecting the draft while singing its praises — Mullen mirrors Eikenberry’s studied ambiguity, while McChrystal does not back a draft but a civilian national service program.
In fact, no retired senior military leader or major newspaper’s editorial board has come out in favor of a real return to the draft. That is why former Lieutenant Luxenberg’s assault is a forlorn hope that has — for now, at least — achieved nothing. Such posturing will go on, though. With many of the would-be presidential candidates expressing interest in national service, including Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Rob Portman, according to Milibank, there is a draft debate looming.
I, for one, am proud that I am part of a professional force that protects a citizenry free of the burden of soldiering. That force is probably here to stay. The benefits of dismantling it are slim. As Nate Fick argued a decade ago — after Rep. Charles Rangel proposed a draft only to see it crushed in Congress with only two voting in favor — there is no clear military benefit to implementing the draft. And the case that public engagement ensures that we get the political side of war right has always been shaky. The political costs, moreover, are great — in implementing a draft, politicians would be limiting the versatility of the world’s most important force for stability in order to put constituents in harm’s way.
These realities, however, do not matter to everyone. There will be a battle in the newspapers, magazines, and blogs over the draft, and it will be unpleasant for those of us who fear leading conscripts off to war. Sadly, we can expect that it will continue to be characterized by fantastic exaggeration about the ability of the military to solve both America’s problems and the world’s, and by grandstanding by well-meaning people peddling terrible advice. Fortunately, its outcome is predictable. America’s military will remain professional, and its people will remain free.
Second Lieutenant T.S. Allen in an intelligence officer in the United States Army. The views expressed in his work are his own and do not reflect the position of the Department of Defense or any other part of the United States Government. Follow him on Twitter @TS_Allen.
Photo credit: The U.S. Army
ADM64 
T.S. Allen 
Mark 
Luke Jackson 
Palerider6 
James 
Ben 
A peacetime draft has many problems and has historically not been the norm for our country. Mandatory national “service” is a violation of our basic principles about an individual having a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A wartime draft, though, is a separate matter.
Were we to again fight an existential war like WWII – and it is an open question whether in an age of nuclear weapons we ever would – a draft would be required. That’s because even in WWII (the Good War) 2/3s of all who served waited to receive their draft notice first. And yet they served honorably and won against the greatest military threats we ever faced. The pre-WWII military, small and with an officer corps drawn mostly from the service academies, took professional military education seriously, was on balance prepared for war, and led this force to victory. I am far more dubious about the professionalism of today’s AVF, which differs from its predecessors in many ways. Its record, without an unequivocal win in the last 20 years, stands in stark contrast to all of its predecessors.
My bottom line is this: in peacetime, a volunteer military makes sense, but only if it is actually professional, competent and affordable. The current force offers 20 year careers to its members and tends to recruit based on benefits. No true profession is time-limited in this way. Many of its personnel policies are based on a big war mentality. It repeatedly fails to demonstrate competence at anything beyond the tactical (and perhaps somewhat the operational level), costs us an arm and a leg, is increasingly politically correct (which to my mind is contributing greatly to its inability to win wars), and blames all of its failures on the civilian leadership (and while they are guilty of much in this sense, there is blame to go around). This was most manifest in the consistently wrong advice the military has offered during the War on Terror. Meanwhile, it considers itself beyond reproach. The draft issue should not obscure the need for significant reform within the military as currently structured.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have never been ours to win–in the end, the only victories that matter are those won by Iraqis and Afghans, and those that the US won in order to support them. There was never a possibility of “unequivocal victory”–and although some folks did oversell the Iraq and Afghan Surges in some ways, many in the military have always been wary of making promises on behalf of Iraqis and Afghans. “Political correctness” had nothing to do with it. You are simply wrong in impugning the military’s competence and honesty and accusing it of blaming politicians for its failures and considering itself “beyond reproach.” In fact, it has been very self-critical and pointed more fingers at its own ranks than elsewhere. Although you can find plenty of folks who happen to be in uniform who are living evidence of your claims, you are simply wrong to suggest they represent the consensus among the US military.
As a former Army officer and combat vet, I am not sure that I can agree with the author’s (and Fick’s) assertion that there would be no clear military benefit to a draft. Some of the most impressive feats of arms in both World Wars and the Civil War were accomplished by personnel who had either been drafted or enlisted voluntarily in the shadow of the draft. And even if an all-volunteer force is better for the military, I am not sure it is better for society as a whole.
Mark, what military benefits do you see to the draft? The only convincing one I’ve heard is that the military would have a greater civil skillset to draw on among its soldiers, but given how impressively varied our military capabilities are today, I’m not sure we’d gain all that much. Moreover, just because draft armies did well does not mean that professional armies would have done worse. The Confederate and Federal armies in the Civil War and what Rick Atkinson has rightly called the “Army at Dawn” in North Africa and Italy bumbled through disaster after disaster for months or years before they found their groove. Our military forces, meanwhile, started off the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with stunning victories. As to the potential social benefits, they are unclear and the potential social risks have largely been ignored. I could be sold that the draft could have a compelling social effect, but it would take cogent, thoughtful, detailed books, not half-baked op-eds.
The disastrous war in Viet Nam was conspired, launched and lost during the period of the draft. Jim Fallows idea that a new draft would concentrate the minds of lawmakers didn’t seem to apply during that period.
Well, well, well, a “draftdodger steps forward from the shadows.
The growing distance from the draft is most felt in the ranks of government. In the postwar years, World War II veterans comprised a large portion of Congress, and frequently the White House. Today, there are few Vietnam veterans left in government, and only a few modern veterans being elected to replace them.
A government with no conception of the military has no frame of reference to make wise decisions about the military or war. What we have now are Presidents, Senators and Representatives who have no experience with the military, so they decide military issues based on their internal biases, rather than relevant facts. Such a non-decision process does not serve the military leadership, the civilian government, or the nation as a whole.
James, I don’t buy the argument that we need veterans in government any more than we need any other type of person in government. It is simply the nature of being in a profession that one has to struggle with politics that you do not necessarily understand. As Jeremy Bentham put it: “There are two points in politics very hard to compass. One is, to persuade legislators that they do not understand shoemaking better than shoemakers; the other is, to persuade shoemakers that they do not understand legislating better than legislators. The latter point is particularly difficult in our own dear country; but the other is the hardest of all hard things everywhere.” Anyways, the fact is that we are extremely well-represented in politics for a supposedly apolitical profession–a quarter of the new House Armed Services Committee has served downrange in the War on Terror. I realize this is a change from recent years, but it should be unsurprisingly that politicians rarely tried to use the peacetime military as a career springboard in the ’70s-’90s, hence the small numbers of recent vets in Congress until now.
The subject of national service being directed primarily to military service is what makes the idea problematic. National service is a definite benefit and can be easily observed in countries, like South Korea, where the populace stays fiercely nationalistic regardless of politics and struggles. Military service is not for everyone and I would not want to serve with those who are forced into the ranks, but I believe it would be worthy to consider a “draft” to national service which then has a component of volunteerism in the selection of the field of service. We already have the Military and Peace Corps which could serve as options, but we should look to addition of more programs that could benefit our nation. Examples would be State and Federal Forestry service, service in any of the state and federal civilian positions that support all of our government, creation of service organizations that directly improve State and Federal infrastructure, communities, disaster recovery, etc. Much like the military, those doing their initial service could be a source of talent that are observed for potential to continue their service and advance in the selected profession. Combine this program with our current broken welfare entitlements and there is already a starting budget. Having such a diverse service system through state and federal areas would make a broad network of jobs that could also serve as placement for those in the current welfare system. In this change to welfare, we get back to using the support available to provide training and skills that get people back into the workforce and provide a benefit to the community rather than just handing out taxpayer’s money. National service may not be the “fix” for all problems, as some may present it, but it would provide a step in the right direction and could serve to pull other dysfunctional social programs along with it.