Draft Congress, Not their Children!
As we have argued here before, there has been some talk over the last few years about bringing back the
I think legislation like this misses the real point. Do we want our leaders making military decisions out of fear for their families or would we rather have those decisions based on experience. Why not require military service of some sort for those who wish to seek federal office? Representatives and Senators who want the responsibility for making military and defense decisions should be educated in the capabilities and structure of the system. Why not require some term of service? I don’t know whether I would necessarily be for this type of legislation, but I wanted to incite some comments on the topic to see how you feel about it.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Interesting idea. Service didn’t do much for our current leader, tho, IMHO. Oh, wait, no – he skipped out on that. Maybe it would have helped if he’d actually done his military duty.
Seriously, though, it is interesting. Some requirements for those who seek federal elected posts might be interesting. Some kind of military service could be helpful. But it might also open a Pandora’s Box. What else might they be required to do? Experience as a parent or teacher since they are legislating our schools? Experience as a farmer since they determine subsidies? Or, well, more generally, experience as an economist, or a degree in economics or accounting, etc, since they set the tax rules?
cgiselle12 – Learning how to fly military jets is a feat that few ever accomplish and you don’t do it without a lot of training. There is no way Bush “skipped out on that”. Just because Dan Rather forged documents doesn’t mean Bush didn’t perform his duties.
Our military is currently loaded with very well qualified people, many with college degrees. If we go back to a draft, we’ll be back to the Vietnam style military of people that don’t want to be there. I would rather have our military made up of people that want to be in it. Who would you rather have protecting your family?
“Why not require military service of some sort for those who wish to seek federal office?”
So you’d completely bar all conscientous objectors, who may have a great deal of political, foreign policy, and military knowledge as well as a legitimate ANTI-war stance that deserves hearing in Congress, and all members of certain religious groups who are religiously forbidden from serving in the armed forces, from serving in Congress?
Every few years someone suggests every Congresscritter should have to have a law degree if they’re going to be making laws. I think this military service idea falls in the same category — likely to cause a lot more problems than it solves.
(Also, I’m not entirely sure that there’s anything about being an infantry grunt that prepares one to deal with complex questions of military-political policy. If you’re a general, sure, you’ve gotten a lot of relevant experience. If you’re just a grunt? I don’t think that’s per se relevant to anything to do with lawmaking but the concerns of the enlisted man.)
Eyebrows:
I think that the most common misconception about the military is the idea of the “Infantry grunt”. Having not been one, many people would like to think that we are the lowest on the totem pole of military minds. The fact is that’s just not the case. Almost all of the highest ranking officers in the Army today have at one time or another served in the Infantry. As a matter of fact when it comes to an officer’s career path advancement becomes much easier if you’ve spent time in the military.
As for education, a significant portion of the soliders in my unit, which is an infantry unit, either hold degrees or are pursuing degrees (and 99% are enlisted). And there are a handful that have or are pursuing graduate degrees in fields like: business, law, and political science, like I am.
When it comes to fighting a war, battles are won or lost with the Infantry. Just because someone is trained to kill doesn’t mean they aren’t trained to think. The men that serve in the infantry are not only some of the bravest in the armed forces but they are also some of the most intelligent. Especially, in urban operations like Iraq the decision whether or not to open fire or turn an entire building to rubble is more and more that of an infantry sgt or even lower. That’s alot of responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of 22 year old guy. How many people reading this have actually had to make the decision of whether or not people live or die on a daily basis?
And the comparison to the law degree isn’t at all like the military service requirement. When someone passes legislation to increase taxes or even give citizenship status to illegal aliens people don’t die as a direct result. However, when troops are mobilized for war the likelihood is that some of them will be coming home in a flag draped box.
My point is these aren’t mindless zombies who just carry out orders. These men that you call grunts understand the political ramifications of their actions, and understand the broader scope of military operations.
As for the conscientous objector argument, they can and do serve in the military. They are allowed to take non-combat and non-combat support roles.
I think we should make the President, who claims to be the Commander in Chief of the military (is this constitutional?), go ahead and act like a real king. In other words, lead the charge. Better yet, war should be two heads of state beating the stinking crap out of each other, a boxing match.
When is the last time Congress declared war? Any war they have not declared is ILLEGAL and should not be supported by any citizens or illegal aliens.
Vaspers sex: “is this constitutional?”
I sez: Indeed it is.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. “
Vaspers sez: “When is the last time Congress declared war? Any war they have not declared is ILLEGAL and should not be supported by any citizens or illegal aliens. ”
I sez: Oh, really?
Why do you think that is? Congress hasn’t declared “war” since doing so against Germany and Itally shortly after having done so against Japan. Is it, perhaps, because Congress did not have the cajones to do so?
Look at this from a realistic standpoint. Even the declaration of war by Congress had little effect on December 8, 1941. We had, in fact, been at war for 36 hours by the time Congress acted. A lot happened in those 36 hours. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamy_Speech)
The fact is, there is a new reality. Times have changed. Congress has oversight. The American people have oversight. in 2004, they determined that a change was not in order – it looks like in 2006 they think a change was in order). The system works. Just because Congress did not exactly create a “declaration of war” does not make military action “illegal.”
MDD: HaHaHaHa. I can’t stop. Haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa ahhaaa . Bush did indeed skip out on his miltitary duties. Rather’s forged document had nothing to do with anything other than it was a forged document. Bush can’t make a coherent sentence let alone fly a jet. But, he is “The Decider”. Forge or not one has to wonder what happened to the proof he did serve. That hasn’t been found either.
Emtronics,
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
11Bravo,
I was afraid my comments might be misconstrued.
“I think that the most common misconception about the military is the idea of the “Infantry gruntâ€. Having not been one, many people would like to think that we are the lowest on the totem pole of military minds. The fact is that’s just not the case. Almost all of the highest ranking officers in the Army today have at one time or another served in the Infantry.”
The point you make there, however, is that these infantrymen have gone on to be high-ranking officers.
My point is not that infantrymen (or seamen or whatever airforce entry-level enlisted are called) don’t rock the house, intellectually or otherwise. My point is that service at the lowest level of the military is hardly preparation IN AND OF ITSELF to make major strategic military decisions, let alone major political-military decisions. It’s an entirely different realm of knowledge and decision-making. Having seen people die and made battle-decisions does not automatically qualify someone to understand major political decisions. Having studied political science but not served in the armed forces does not automatically disqualify someone; in fact, someone with a Ph.D. in political science and a solid background in military history is probably better-equipped to make those decisions than an airman with a degree in music (yes, I know one — two, actually. Lots of musical airmen in my life).
“As for the conscientous objector argument, they can and do serve in the military. They are allowed to take non-combat and non-combat support roles.”
Most conscientous objectors cannot and will not. Most democratic countries with mandatory military service (Switzerland, Israel) allow C.O.s to avoid the mandatory service. They are not forced into support roles. And members of certain religious groups are absolutely barred by their religion from any service of any kind in a military organization.
“My point is these aren’t mindless zombies who just carry out orders.”
If they were, they wouldn’t be U.S. soldiers. Mindless zombies have no place in the finest army in the world. (And frankly, after Nuremburg, it’s horrific to think that ANY democratic country could allow “mindless zombie”-ing of its troops.)
But maybe the largest point to be made is that our Founding Fathers deliberately avoided a system where the military would be in charge. They deliberately and specifically set up civilian control over the military (president as commander in chief). Federalist #28 talks a lot about the point, as does Federalist #41. While the founders obviously had a somewhat different view of civilian control than we do today, they felt civilian control over the military was essential. Many of our Founders were excellent students of history and knew the dangers of a too-powerful military. The Founders viewed the defense of the republic as the responsibility of every citizen, and conversely the military responsible for that defense must be subordinate to the citizenry — soldiers, civilians, and veterans alike.
Lincoln, incidentally, is an excellent example of a civilian president with no military history who not only oversaw a major war, but took a personal hand in directing it, and did a pretty good job of it.
There is definitely a question in the modern era as war has become ever-more complex about how best for Congress and the president to have enough technical military information to make good strategic decisions. However, I think that tends to point up the biggest MILITARY reason universal service would be a bad idea: Today’s military is made up of professional soldiers trained on highly complex equiptment for the complexities of modern warfare. They military doesn’t really WANT 300 million random schlubs taking up money, space, and training time from the professionals.
But to argue that those with military service should have a privileged position in government is to argue against the intentions of our Founders (as well as the implied intentions of the Constitution), and it takes a heckuva good argument to overcome the Founders’ intent.
Vaspers, “who claims to be the Commander in Chief of the military (is this constitutional?)”
Dude, it’s like foundational to the Constitution! Ultimate command of the military resting in a democratically-elected executive who may or may not have any military background. The military subject, through the president, to the people. And the president’s control over the military (because an executive with a strong army is dangerous) mitigated by requiring Congress to fund it and Congress to declare war.
I don’t believe that people wanting to be elected into office should have to serve military service. Military service is not for everyone, and therefore should not be forced on everyone who intends to be a civil servant. I for instance, support our military, and I understand that in order to have Peace…one must be able to accept the fact that War makes this possible. Although, I am not a big fan of the draft, being an American, it is my obligation to serve if the circumstances require civilian recourse. I would like to have certain perimeters set, however, such as possible nuclear threats…
But, to say…Everyone serving in Congress must serve in the military is just not a rational decision, Okay…there are a few people that are going to say..yes…Give Hillary an AK-47 and have her hit the streets of Iraq. Also, the members of Congress, do work in the military from a different angle. They are in the upper echelon of military operations, so they understand whats going on with the intelligence.
When anger erupts of fear of the draft and fight or flight instincts kick in-people tend to make radical decisions. You first must look at the big picture and how are Country was founded in the first place…from here..it is much easier to understand.
Mouse: It is in the military. Try getting a shot record or paid for leave without proof you’re there. I know. I spent 6 weeks in Subic Bay when my records went on without me. I couldn’t get paid and was in transit hell until they found them.
Bush cut out. It was the thing to do in those days as the wealthy were the only ones to get their kids in the Guard during Viet Nam. The other wealthy ones who couldn’t get their kids in the guard got them into college deferred. The rest of us went. Although if you insiist he served he must have been hidden as no one can recall him serving.
Then how did he pass flight training if he didn’t show up?
Hey, MDD, according to what I’ve read (on websites from everywhere BUT the U.S., where the so-called “liberal media” hasn’t spent very much time reporting this stuff), there are thousands of soldiers from ALL branches of the military who have gone AWOL since the start of the Iraq…whatever it is. (Since no one has declared war, and the Gitmo detainees are not classified as POW’s, then it must not be a “war”).
Here’s one story on it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2318643,00.html
11Bravo,
Just what part of infantry are you in? The officer corp? The reason I ask, is that of the infantrymen I knew when I was in (90-93), the majority of rank and file grunts did not have degrees, working on degrees or advanced degrees. The officer corp most likely, but the grunt level, not that I knew of. (And this is not to include things like SFG or the like.)
I don’t think anyone is saying infantrymen are dumb. Those folks are some of the smartest, bravest and most honorable people I have ever known.
But something has to give. Some where some group of people must get the politics our of the decision to make wars (which I doubt will ever happen).
Obviously, the wealthy and influential out there have little to lose and seem to care little about those who must fight these wars on their behalf.
As for Bush – he did not meet all the requirements of flying an obsolete jet that would never be sent to Vietnam. He missed physicals and was removed from the rolls.
Now, let’s be honest here on the Dan Rather story – never did the facts of that episode come under dispute. The existence and authenticity of the documents did. And to prove this, go back to the comments by Dan Bartlett, an advisor to Bush when this story broke. When he was asked about the content he clearly stated he was not denying the content of the documents.
I just want to see some of these folks who talk the talk put their money where their mouth is.
Military service as a requisite for public office, at least on the federal level … that’s a bit of a throwback idea. That was the requirement for citizenship in the ancient “democracies” of Greece and in the Roman Republic. Those who risked their lives for the state would rule the state.
In a very indirect way, that’s still true here. It’s why the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Eighteen year olds were eligible for the draft, so it was thought that they should also have a voice in running this country.
I certainly think military service can be an asset to public service, especially on the federal level, and the people can weigh that alongside other factors when they go to the polls to vote. It should not be a requirement.
sctobrien,
I’m an enlisted and getting ready to make the jump to OCS, but the men I speak of having degrees are enlisted. Just off of the top of my head I know of enlisted soldiers in my unit who have degrees in civil engineering, accounting, political science (a couple of us have that one), computer science, a couple who are close to finishing degrees in law enforcement and those are just the guys I am aware of.