First, this is not a screed for or against the military or military service; it is the expression of what I have come to understand based on my experience, and of critical examination of military history, science, and art. I served in the US Army for over 10 years; As an airborne cavalry scout in the 82nd, then as an explosive ordnance disposal technician, and eventually as direct support for special forces. I have 28 months in active combat, across 3 tours of duty, in 2 separate theaters; I am well versed in the arts and sciences of war. It is also not about the moral or ethical questions of any particular war, or of war itself, that is for philosophers and historians to discuss; this is about the usefulness and practicality of drafting troops for war, and whether or not it is necessary or prudent to do so in America in the modern age.
The concept of drafting troops is not new. Empires, kingdoms, and nations have relied on drafted troops, commonly referred to as conscripts, to either supplement or make up the bulk of their military forces as far back as history records. The theory of legitimate authority to draft conscripts is derived from a few core principles;
1) That a centrally controlled, organized, and equipped military force is better able to rapidly respond to threats and co-ordinate to mount effective defenses or offensives. It is often the case that there is no time to spend in debate over a course of action when war is underway or near at hand. Swift, decisive action often wins out, and even if better plans could have been devised through debate, it is often better to have a lesser plan and act then to have no plan and not act (in matters of war, it is often better to have a single leader with respected and experienced advisors to guide them rather than a group that must agree for action to be taken). It was also often the case that only the state had the resources to arm and armor fighting forces, or to feed and house them, as poverty was generally the rule among the general populations of such historical states that existed prior to industrialization and mass production.
2) That the head of state is in the best position to either lead, or appoint a leader of, military forces due to their access to more information and their lack of distractions caused by daily, life-sustaining activities. Heads of state usually do not farm, nor do they build houses or make clothes, or often even prepare their own meals or beds; thus, if taking their responsibilities seriously, they may turn their full attention away from matters of self and towards matters of state (towards serving others). Ostensibly, it is the turning of attention away from self and towards others, and the accepting of responsibility for the welfare of subordinates, that warrants the luxuries, services, and respect afforded to leaders; not their ‘power’, which is actually not theirs, but given to them by their subordinates.
3) That military forces are expensive to maintain and drain resources from the economy while mustered, and that the need for military forces is in constant flux; with some periods requiring only a small defensive force to deter aggression and respond rapidly to unforeseen threats, and others requiring large massed armies to fight off invasion or secure vital resources. While a state could opt to always maintain a large standing force, such forces are both expensive and non-productive if there is no war to fight. Keep in mind, every soldier could be working elsewhere to sustain the economy of the state, as farmers, merchants, or whatever else, besides standing around waiting for a battle; so it has usually been the case that maintaining such standing armies was deemed counter to furthering the welfare of the state, because it is better to have people producing rather than not if there is no war to fight.
4) That the head of state, in accepting responsibility for the welfare of the state and it’s peoples, has the right to charge those within the state with duties and responsibilities to the state, as it sustains their livelihood and ensures their protection and generational continuation; that is to say, that citizens owe a debt to the state for all that the state has provided and will provide for their parents, forebearers, and now them and soon their children. Hence, if the head of state, being responsible for the defense of that state and those within, perceives a threat to the welfare of the state and it’s people, they have the right to delegate that responsibility to subordinates, and charge them with duties and authorities that support the continued welfare of the state and it’s peoples. To not delegate such duties and authorities to others would be detrimental to the state, and thus violate the responsibility of leadership, as the head of state is, primarily, the ‘head’; that part which thinks and co-ordinates the actions of the body. Despite the apparent power of the head of the state, the true power lies within the body of the state (the people); for if the head calls for the body to act, and it does not, than no force is exerted, and nothing is accomplished.
Under these principles, the drafting of troops when needed has been viewed as a right of the state; as well as being the most practical and efficient way of ensuring the common defense and maintaining the ability to seize and control resources deemed strategically vital to the welfare of the state and it’s peoples due to the costly nature of maintaining standing armies. However, America represents a break from this tradition by reversing the normal paradigm by delegating most of that responsibility and authority to the people in a decentralized fashion, rather then keeping it centralizing to the head of state.
This is achieved by charging the entirety of the peoples within the state with the duty and authority of both self and common defense at all times via the Second Amendment; thus turning all able and willing citizens into a decentralized, self-sustaining standing army; a national militia. All the peoples of the United States are therefore, in effect, already conscripted into the standing national militia, with the President acting as it’s de facto commander and community leaders, chosen by their peers and not by appointment, acting as it’s captains.
Remember, it is also the duty of each unit commander, being charged with self-defense by right, and delegated command authority over the common defense by their peers, to refuse unlawful orders and see to local defense in the absence of orders. So, even though the President has the authority of overall command of the national militia, each of the many captains have a duty to the law and their subordinates first. This acts as a check on federal military power and makes it impossible to defeat the nation’s core defense forces by killing or otherwise incapacitating it’s federal leadership. The national militia is, by design, not a snake, but rather a self-sustaining hydra of decentralized fighting forces; present at all times, in all places, and able to adapt to local conditions in real time without oversight.
The Second Amendment allows for the largest standing army of the US, the national militia, to feed, arm, and train itself as it sees fit, as the individual members and units are free to decide when to farm, trade, or train as they see fit; thus making it self-sustaining and resilient. It allows all peoples to choose when and how to defend their local communities with little or no oversight by federal powers; thus increasing independence and adaptability. It allows for militias to act rapidly even in cases of surprise, when communication and reinforcement is either not possible or would take so long as to render it moot; thus making it impossible to defeat with any single blow to supply lines, communications systems, or leadership, as all units operate independently under normal conditions.
In effect, the Second Amendment created the largest, most efficient, and most resilient military force in history, and rendered the need for a large centrally controlled standing army or draft system to ensure common defense completely obsolete. As to the mustering of offensive forces, the existence of the national militia promotes a general readiness and competence for soldiering skills among the entire population; making them more effective and easier to train and lead should they volunteer to march to war.
Now, being that a draft is no longer needed for common defense of the state, it serves only to muster offensive forces to exert power outside the boarders of the state (and it has only ever been used for such by the US), but this can be accomplished with volunteer forces alone; and volunteer armies made up of professional soldiers who have chosen to be so are vastly more effective fighting forces then drafted conscripts. Indeed, history shows us this clearly.
Conscripted forces often suffer from low individual morale, a lack of will to fight, and are nearly completely bereft of the esprit de corps necessary to ward off desperation, desertion, and atrocity. People fighting to protect their homes and loved ones are likely to fight to the last, enduring hardships and deprivations willingly, but conscripts fighting in foreign lands for less apparent reasons are easier to route, prone to surrender if offered favorable treatment, and often become resentful to their own leaders if they do not support the raison d’etra of the conflict; making them much less effective in battle and prone to insubordination and high casualty rates. Not only does this make drafting conscripted forces morally and ethically questionable, it makes them practically and functionally questionable as military assets.
Additionally, all-volunteer forces act as a check on federal military power and lend legitimacy to the conflicts they engage in, as the troops have chosen to participate without coercion. If the federal government calls for volunteers to join federal armies to fight, and not enough answer the call, then the people do not support or cannot afford the war, and it should not be conducted; thus checking federal power and tying the ability of the state to make war to the will of the people. Conversely, if many answer the call to arms, then it is a sign that the people support the proposed war and are willing to march, fight, and die to see it done; and that is a powerful form of legitimacy, that a plurality of people are willing to leave home and family to potentially give their lives in service to the stated cause.
So, as to the question of women being considered for inclusion in our national drafting system, I say this; Not only should women not be included, no US citizen should. Drafting conscripts for common defense is an antiquated and inefficient solution to the problem, and the Second Amendment, empowered by free-markets, industrialization, mass production, and well established lines of trade, has rendered it obsolete.
What’s more, the lack of a draft system and the institution of an all-volunteer federal military force acts as a check on government power that shackles the military might of the nation to the will of the people; making it difficult for the federal government to muster forces for wars that are unsupported by at least a plurality of the people whom they ostensibly serve. Rather then increasing federal conscription powers, they should be diminished, if not abolished entirely. The upholding of the Second Amendment should be regarded as the core of the nations common defense strategy, with any standing all-volunteer federal forces being used as a bolster to the capabilities of the national militia and kept small until and unless there is a call from the Commander in Chief to march to war, and ‘We the People’ agree to answer that call; not forced to.
-JB