John Whitehead's Commentary
The Draft: Unwise, Immoral and Unconstitutional
Several weeks ago, on an obscure federal website devoted to the war on terrorism (which has since been removed but is available online at this address), the Bush Administration quietly began a campaign to resurrect draft boards. "Serve Your Community and the Nation," the site urges. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."
To those old enough to remember the Vietnam debacle, talk of resurrecting the draft brings back some painful memories. Ended by Congress in 1973, as the Vietnam War was winding down, the military draft had long been the target of anti-war activists.
To this day, the draft remains highly controversial in and out of the military. Yet as the need for more American troops at home and abroad increases, the draft is being revisited as a ready solution by some in military and public policy circles.
The situation is certainly dire, given how thinly the Bush Administration has spread our military forces around the globe and the increasingly precarious state--and seeming failure--of our Iraq occupation.
However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.
The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.
However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.
During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?
The United States went on to win that war without a single draftee. And as we saw during World War II, when our freedoms are truly threatened, there is no shortage of patriotic Americans willing to fight for their country.
Ronald Reagan was a more recent critic of the draft: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral. A draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending." In a 1979 column, he added:
It rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.
Congressman Ron Paul (R, Tex.), another draft critic, suggested that the draft "undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness." In other words, it weakens the military by introducing tension and rivalry between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been forced into it by way of the draft.
Draftees are also unlikely to choose the military as a career. Thus, a draft will do little to solve one of the current military's biggest problems: retention of personnel. Because of today's high-tech military, retention is one of the most vital personnel issues.
Faced with an increasing need for military personnel, instead of reinstating the draft, perhaps the Bush Administration and Congress should consider some incentives for Americans to voluntarily sign on, such as competitive salaries and benefits. Then we might stand a better chance of developing a professional army adequate to the tasks of war.
As Congressman Paul noted, "It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests."
After all, who would best represent the interests of our country and the military--a high-tech professional army committed to the Armed Services as a career or a ragtag group of draftees forced to fight in conflicts and wars with which they disagree or in which they have little interest?
To those old enough to remember the Vietnam debacle, talk of resurrecting the draft brings back some painful memories. Ended by Congress in 1973, as the Vietnam War was winding down, the military draft had long been the target of anti-war activists.
To this day, the draft remains highly controversial in and out of the military. Yet as the need for more American troops at home and abroad increases, the draft is being revisited as a ready solution by some in military and public policy circles.
The situation is certainly dire, given how thinly the Bush Administration has spread our military forces around the globe and the increasingly precarious state--and seeming failure--of our Iraq occupation.
However, as a constitutional attorney and former officer in the U.S. military, I believe that reinstituting a military draft is not only unwise and impractical but immoral and unconstitutional.
The basic premise upon which the draft is based--a philosophy at odds with those of our Founding Fathers--is that the individual is the property of the state and that individual rights are granted by the state; therefore, politicians and bureaucrats can violate or eliminate our rights at will.
However, in the Declaration of Independence, those who risked their lives for the sake of freedom proclaimed that individuals receive their rights from God alone and that the state cannot in any way abridge those rights. The Founding Fathers even believed that standing armies were clearly inconsistent with the notion of human rights. In fact, King George is criticized in the Declaration of Independence for maintaining such armies and programs.
During the War of 1812, the renowned statesman Daniel Webster also condemned the draft, but on constitutional grounds:
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?
The United States went on to win that war without a single draftee. And as we saw during World War II, when our freedoms are truly threatened, there is no shortage of patriotic Americans willing to fight for their country.
Ronald Reagan was a more recent critic of the draft: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral. A draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending." In a 1979 column, he added:
It rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.
Congressman Ron Paul (R, Tex.), another draft critic, suggested that the draft "undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness." In other words, it weakens the military by introducing tension and rivalry between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been forced into it by way of the draft.
Draftees are also unlikely to choose the military as a career. Thus, a draft will do little to solve one of the current military's biggest problems: retention of personnel. Because of today's high-tech military, retention is one of the most vital personnel issues.
Faced with an increasing need for military personnel, instead of reinstating the draft, perhaps the Bush Administration and Congress should consider some incentives for Americans to voluntarily sign on, such as competitive salaries and benefits. Then we might stand a better chance of developing a professional army adequate to the tasks of war.
As Congressman Paul noted, "It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests."
After all, who would best represent the interests of our country and the military--a high-tech professional army committed to the Armed Services as a career or a ragtag group of draftees forced to fight in conflicts and wars with which they disagree or in which they have little interest?
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
