In the
wake of
September
11th and
the
occupation
of Iraq,
The United
States
military
faces a
struggle
of
retaining
manpower
and
bridging
defensive
gaps.
Active-duty
soldiers
have been
forced
into
longer
assignments
while
families
wait
patiently
at home
for their
loved ones
to return,
only to
once
again, bid
them
farewell
for
another
demanding
fulfillment
of duty.
In terms
of
numbers,
the United
States
forces
have been
stretched
to the
limit, and
continue
to search
for new
ways to
increase
military
enlistment.
As the
possibility
of the
United
States as
a weakened
superpower
penetrates
both
government
and
society,
debate
over
possible
resolutions
to this
looming
problem
has caused
a stir
among
military
and
civilians
alike.
Perhaps
the most
controversial
of these
is the
reinstatement
of
military
conscription.
It has
been
nearly
thirty
years
since the
United
States has
eliminated
military
drafting
after the
Vietnam
War.
Public
support
for
government
and
military
officials
declined
heavily
during the
war as
draft
calls
intensified,
taking a
severe
toll on
the morale
of both
the
country
and those
drafted
soldiers
off in
battle.
"The
opposition
was
manifested
in a
variety of
ways:
…sit-ins
at
selective
service
offices,
the
burning of
draft
cards,
demonstrations
on college
campuses,
and
weddings
to take
advantage
of marital
deferments."
As the
Vietnam
War came
to an end,
the United
States
realized
the
ineffectiveness
of its
forced
military
participation,
and the
draft was
lifted.
Since
then, the
country
has
operated
on an
All-Volunteer
Force and
has
continued
to gain
both
international
power and
public
support.
As some
would
argue, the
U.S.
military
has
rebuilt
its
strength
and
success
based on
this freer
force of
military
enlisted.
According
to former
Secretary
of the
Army,
Louis
Caldera,
"today's
all-volunteer
military
recruits
only
motivated,
trainable
people
who, by
definition,
have other
options
but who
choose to
stay in
the
military
because
they find
satisfaction
in serving
their
country."
However,
it remains
that the
strain on
military
troops
grows
larger and
larger as
the need
for more
soldiers
in new and
old areas
of
occupation
continues
to
increase.
Lt. Gen.
John M.
Riggs
argues "I
have been
in the
Army 39
years, and
I've never
seen the
Army as
stretched
in that 39
years as I
have
today."
Reservists
are
putting in
more time
than they
imagined
upon
enlistment,
and new
"stop
loss"
policies
have
prevented
soldiers
from
leaving
active-duty
even when
their
service
agreements
are up.
New York
Congressman,
Charles
Rangel,
has pushed
the issue
even
further,
believing
that
without
the
re-instatement
of the
draft, our
nation's
freedom
will
continue
to be a
product of
socioeconomic
imbalance.
"I
strongly
believe
that
fighting
for our
country
must be
fairly
shared by
all racial
and
economic
groups…
the burden
of service
cannot
fall only
on
volunteers
who, no
matter how
patriotic,
are
attracted
to the
military
for
financial
reasons."
This
argument
follows
the fact
that
statistically,
larger
numbers of
lower-class
citizens
make up
the
enlisted
population
because
they are
more prone
to seek
out the
monetary
advantages
of
enlistment.
Rangel
predicts
that
without
the draft,
"we will
be a
nation in
which the
poor fight
our wars
while the
affluent
stay
home."
This is
precisely
why
legislation
for the
reinstatement
of the
draft was
introduced
to
Congress
by Rangel.
Additionally,
a bill was
introduced
in the
Senate in
early
January by
Senator
Fritz-Hollings
that would
"provide
for the
common
defense by
requiring
that all
young
persons in
the United
States,
including
women,
perform a
period of
military
service in
furtherance
of the
national
defense
and
homeland
security,
and for
other
purposes."
Under this
bill,
every
citizen,
regardless
of class
would be
responsible
for
contributing,
in some
capacity,
to the
military
force that
defends
and
supports
the
nation.
With these
added
numbers of
non-active
and active
draftees,
relief
could be
provided
for those
soldiers
spending
exhausting
amounts of
time in
the line
of duty.
In
opposition
to this
Senatorial
legislation,
Libertarian
presidential
candidate,
Aaron
Russo has
formed a
petition
that
outlines
this new
legislation
as an
"infringement
on our
personal
freedoms."
This
continuing
debate
draws on
the
experiences
of the
Vietnam
War, and
the
country's
aversion
to sending
unwilling
men, by
lottery,
into the
fatal
throws of
battle.
This
petition
serves the
argument
that
enlistment
in United
States
forces
should
remain a
choice
rather
than an
obligation,
as the
nation's
very basis
for
military
power is
to retain
its
commitment
to freedom
itself.
The debate
over
military
conscription
continues
to become
more
luminous
as the
issue of
limited
manpower
and a
strain on
active
troops
becomes
more
problematic.
Government
legislation
will
ultimately
decide the
fate of
our
national
obligations
and
responsibilities
as
citizens.
The
question
remains:
Is
military
drafting
justified
in its
effort to
provide
relief and
balance
socioeconomic
situations,
or is it a
direct
violation
of the
very
freedom
our
military
serves to
defend?
Read other
articles
by
Michele