|
|
|
Independence, MO —
I, along with most other young men during World War II, remember the seriousness of the military draft. Our anxiety perked up every time a number was drawn that would determine if we were to be called up immediately or if we had escaped for a few more weeks until the next drawing.
Of course that was a pale reflection of the seriousness of military conscription in World War I, when convicted objectors were dealt with very harshly. Those who refused to submit to military authority resulted in 17 being sentenced to death, 142 to life imprisonment and 345 to penal labor camps.
Today, young men in the United States are still required to register with the Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 25, but there is no palpable worry that they will actually be called to active service. That is certainly a relief to young American men, but is it really good for America?
In World War I and World War II, everyone knew the nation was facing very serious political and social challenges. But today, unless one has a family member or close friend in the military, our normal peacetime activities are rarely inconvenienced by the present War on Terror. The war is primarily something in which others, not me, are inconvenienced.
This is why a growing number of responsible politicians are suggesting a reinstatement of the military draft. The irony is that this suggestion is coming more from the peace camp than from those supporting military actions. The philosophy is that if this War on Terror is truly a threat to our national (or world) security, the response should be born equally by all Americans, not just those who are, by choice or circumstances, serving in the military.
Their argument – which I find very persuasive – is that when every man’s son is subject to military service, including sons of members of Congress, the appetite for supplying young men (and women) for cannon fodder will immediately and drastically decrease.
After World War II, most industrialized countries continued with some form of universal military service. The requisite number of years or months of service has in recent years been greatly reduced, in many cases to zero. Nevertheless, they have maintained an egalitarian philosophy that is far healthier than what we presently experience in the United States.
I, along with most other young men during World War II, remember the seriousness of the military draft. Our anxiety perked up every time a number was drawn that would determine if we were to be called up immediately or if we had escaped for a few more weeks until the next drawing.
Of course that was a pale reflection of the seriousness of military conscription in World War I, when convicted objectors were dealt with very harshly. Those who refused to submit to military authority resulted in 17 being sentenced to death, 142 to life imprisonment and 345 to penal labor camps.
Today, young men in the United States are still required to register with the Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 25, but there is no palpable worry that they will actually be called to active service. That is certainly a relief to young American men, but is it really good for America?
In World War I and World War II, everyone knew the nation was facing very serious political and social challenges. But today, unless one has a family member or close friend in the military, our normal peacetime activities are rarely inconvenienced by the present War on Terror. The war is primarily something in which others, not me, are inconvenienced.
This is why a growing number of responsible politicians are suggesting a reinstatement of the military draft. The irony is that this suggestion is coming more from the peace camp than from those supporting military actions. The philosophy is that if this War on Terror is truly a threat to our national (or world) security, the response should be born equally by all Americans, not just those who are, by choice or circumstances, serving in the military.
Their argument – which I find very persuasive – is that when every man’s son is subject to military service, including sons of members of Congress, the appetite for supplying young men (and women) for cannon fodder will immediately and drastically decrease.
After World War II, most industrialized countries continued with some form of universal military service. The requisite number of years or months of service has in recent years been greatly reduced, in many cases to zero. Nevertheless, they have maintained an egalitarian philosophy that is far healthier than what we presently experience in the United States.
