Military conscription is morally reprehensible

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/040609a.shtml

By Stephen P. Gordon
Special to THE DAILY

For the last several months, national discourse about a military draft has been increasing in both volume and tempo. In addition to legislative proposals by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., other nationally prominent figures are speaking out on the topic, or evading questions about it.

While Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was attacking President Bush for being supportive of the draft, he was secretly stripping his own call for mandatory national service from his Internet site. While Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was denying any plan to reinstitute conscription, the Selective Service Board was actively recruiting members to fill the nation’s draft boards. While Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was introducing the topic at the Brookings Institute, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. actively called for the reinstatement of the draft.

We can be sure of one thing. When support for any political issue is both bicameral and bipartisan, it is the citizens who will inevitably pay the price.

Compelling reasons

The reasons to oppose any movement in the direction of the draft are compelling. To begin, it is morally identical to slavery. Ronald Reagan captured the heart of the issue best with, “The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral.”

This moral argument is quite simple. A slave is defined as one in the state of being controlled by another person, generally performing work under harsh conditions, for little or no pay. This clearly describes a conscripted soldier at time of war.

A volunteer military also serves as the primary check-and-balance against an overly ambitious military policy. In time of defensive need, Americans have always lined up at their neighborhood recruiting centers. At times of military expansionism, a primary check that the citizens hold over their government is the amount of people serving in uniform. By forcing our young men and women into carrying arms for the state, we will lose this delicate control. What is needed is not compulsory service, but a thorough review of our foreign and defense policies.

Additionally, the Selective Service System is not only looking at compulsory military service for men and women up to age 26, but wishes to add an additional 13.5 million doctors and other health care professionals, aged up to 44, to their rolls. Additional schemes are in place to rapidly expand this plan to cover language and computer specialists.

Unlikely alliance

There are some people speaking out against the draft. An unlikely alliance of people like Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and Hollywood producer Aaron Russo are vocal in their opposition to forced military service.

Their arguments reflect others that have been debated for centuries, and was perhaps most eloquently stated by Daniel Webster in a speech delivered to the House of Representatives in 1814.

“Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.

“The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

“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?”

Stephen P. Gordon is a member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans for Peace, and is the vice chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. He may be contacted at vicechair@al.lp.org