“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root…”
-Henry David Thoreau
Walden (1854)
Do you ever get the feeling that progressives have run out of ideas? This thought crossed my mind when I read Thom Hartmann’s “The Draft: A War-Killer” on Truthout. Hartmann advocates reinstatement of conscription in a “new and improved form.” He proclaims that the military industrial complex “would finally be held in check if we were to re-instate a draft.” Hartmann seems oblivious to the fact that the military industrial complex grew and prospered with a draft in place.
The hook for Hartmann’s piece is the upcoming tenth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. “Would we still be in Iraq today,” he asks, “or even have gone to war with Iraq — if there was a military draft in this country?” He claims that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than other major US wars where a draft was in place, such as the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
Right away, Hartmann runs into problems. The Vietnam war is generally described as having been fought from 1965 to 1975, so it lasted at least as long as Iraq has. And in actuality the US was involved in Vietnam for years before that.
Hartmann further argues from several flawed premises. For instance, he claims that conscription is “a great leveler,” ensuring that people from all backgrounds share in the sacrifice. But that claim contradicts much of what we now know about the Civil War (in which two out of three Union draftees were hired “substitutes”) and about Vietnam, the last war in which conscription was used.
Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney received five draft deferments while flunking out of Yale, struggling through six years of college and impregnating his wife (in the nick of time, it turned out). Shotgun Dick famously told the Washington Post, “I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.”
Cheney’s running mate, former US President George W. Bush (son of George H.W. and grandson of Prescott) protected the America South from a Viet Cong invasion while serving with (and apparently deserting from) Air National Guard Units in Texas and Alabama.
Fellow Republican (and 2012 GOP presidential nominee) Mitt Romney, son of Governor George Romney of Michigan, was granted deferments first as a student and then to serve as a Mormon missionary in France.
To be bi-partisan, I should add that former US President Bill Clinton also received student deferments. To his credit, Clinton did express moral objections to the war, unlike Cheney, Bush and Romney. In a letter to an Arkansas ROTC Colonel, Clinton stated, “no government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.” Did you catch that Thom?
But Hartmann is undaunted by the experience of Vietnam. He thunders, “history shows that when we have a draft, our lawmakers are less enthusiastic to start wars, and more enthusiastic to end them quickly.” Where is the evidence for this claim? The government’s actions during Vietnam clearly undermine this notion, but let’s talk about World War I as well.
According to historian James W. Lowen, people may believe that President Woodrow Wilson took the US into World War I reluctantly. There was a draft, after all! But this is hard to swallow, since Wilson was a serial interventionist. Under Wilson, the US armed forces “intervened in Latin America more often than at any other time in our history” (Lies My Teacher Told Me, p.16). Wilson’s administration also actively aided the “White” side in the Russian Civil War. And how did Wilson react to those, like Emma Goldman, who agitated against conscription during these years? With swift repression, of course.
Surely Hartmann is aware of all this. But he imagines that we will get it right this time around: “As part of a draft, we should be asking young Americans to give 1 or 2 years of their life to serve their country, not just in the military, but also, alternatively, in civilian programs like Americorps, to volunteer in hospitals and schools, or to care for our nation’s elderly and disabled people.”
But the government would not be “asking” young Americans to do anything. That’s not how conscription works. If young Americans resisted Thom Hartmann’s draft, like their forebears did during Vietnam and World War I, the government would turn to force as it has done before. Hartmann and progressives like him misunderstand the nature of the state, which makes them naive and potentially dangerous.
Citations to this article:
- Dave Hummels, Would Conscription Curb US Militarism? Thom Hartmann Thinks So, Before It’s News, 02/28/13
“I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.”
Yeah, like getting myself into a position where I can send other people to fight in wars for me.
There you go, Joe. Well put!
After this article was posted, I was had a discussion with a C4SS comrade about Clinton. I had some reasonably kind words for Clinton here, but, as my friend pointed out, Clinton did not act to end selective service registration when he was in office. So it was fine for him to evade the draft, but the rest of us were still required to register after turning 18. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a common attitude amongst members of the political class.
I wasn't aware that Hartmann had gone on record as unequivocally in favor of reinstating conscription. Is this a recent development? I had heard him hinting at such things on his radio show, back before Clear Channel unceremoniously and summarily dropped the progressive talk format from the Detroit market.
Rangel has as much as said that he wants an actual draft to replace the poverty draft. Hartmann's contributions on the subject, I suspect, have less to do with not wanting another war, and more to do with wanting another "sixties." In either case, the ends are used in defense of some pretty sickening means. Remember, it's not just about life and limb, but placing people under an absolute chain of command, and in a training program utilizing the most directly thought-stopping methods known to psychological science. That's even worse than the loss of life involved.
The idea that the draft is what made the 1960's more politically volatile than movement politics in recent years is a direct statement of the belief that fear of death is the strongest of motivators. A decidedly Hobbesian take on things, don't you think?
I love Cheney's line "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service."
I mean, so did a lot of people.
"And in actuality the US was involved in Vietnam for years before that."
Even the DoD recognizes that: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?rele… (see also Wikipedia)
Gah, that really is the essential progressive perversity: "if only we could kill more people, our leaders might eventually treat us better and the world could be a more peaceful place."
Hi n8chz:
When I looked back, I found references to Hartmann supporting a new draft as far back as 2009. I don't know if he did so before then. From what I can tell, he tends to bring it up on Iraq war anniversaries.
I found one link in which he was interviewing Charlie Rangel on RT. Perhaps he has fallen under Rangel's spell, since the congressman has been calling for a draft for a long time. Rangel has also been a bellicose drug warrior, so he's definitely a progressive with an authoritarian streak. If I were Hartmann, I would seek inspiration elsewhere.
Regarding the motives of Hartmann and progressives with similar positions, I'm not sure. Your remark about wanting another "sixties" may have merit. Or perhaps they are just deeply cynical and think that things must get worse (read: more authoritarian) before getting better. Whatever the reason, they are showing a lack of regard for individual freedom, a dangerous lack of concern about state power and a poor understanding of history.
This is very well done.
One cannot simultaneously "volunteer" and be conscripted.
Hartmann is a low IQ patsy. RT should not have given him a show, it threatens their credibility. Bring back Adam Kokesh.
You ought to mention the jingoistic, xenophobic and racist BRAINWASHING that occurs in the military.
The Founding Fathers wisely shared Hartmann's suspicion of professional armies. Rights come at a cost, and the practice of citizenship and civic virtue is that cost. Do you think the American public would be so oblivious to what is going on with our military abroad if we had a system of universal conscription like the Swiss? Would it be so easy to support politicians who want wars for oil if your son or daughter could be drafted to go fight in them?
The bottom line is our military are professional mercenaries for international capital, recruited from the lower and middle classes of society. We (including you anarchists) enjoy the bounty of imperial plunder here in the USA. If we want to change this sorry reality, it's going to require some sacrifices.
"Remember, it's not just about life and limb, but placing people under an absolute chain of command, and in a training program utilizing the most directly thought-stopping methods known to psychological science. That's even worse than the loss of life involved. "
Well, that would be easy to fix. Reform the military. But in order to do that people need to give a shit. At present, nobody gives a shit because most able people avoid the military and treat it as a private mercenary army at the service of the president and his corporate backers.
If everyone is required to serve (or anyone could serve in a draft) then the military is the business of everyone. So we would have to talk about it in our political discussions, instead of ignoring it as we do now.