Bring Back The Daft

In the Washington Post, Dana Milbank has another one of those bring back the draft pieces*.  I've said it before and now I have to say it again--this may not be the worst idea ever, but it's probably in the top ten.  The armed forces are not primarily a social experiment.  Their main purpose is to protect and defend the United States.  A volunteer army has much higher morale than one that's been forced to serve.  Really we don't need to go any further than that.

But then there's the concept of stripping away everyone's freedom for two years because some people (usually not the people losing their freedom) think it's a neat idea.  For this alone it's such a horrible idea I don't think it's worth it even if the results approached the magical world Dana Milbank apparently lives in.

And magical it is. He honestly believes reviving the draft might "reverse the problems that have built up over the past few decades." I wish he'd be more specific as to what problems, because there have been good and bad things happening over the past few decades, just like there are in any decades. (Among the very good things--we got rid of the draft.) Does Milbank honestly think things are worse now than ever?

But let's assume even that's true. How is it tied to lack of military service?  He notes that the percentage of veterans serving in office are far lower than it was not so long ago**. (By the way, he discounts George W. Bush's veteran status since his service was no good according to Milbank--so when we get this new draft, we'll have to follow special rules to make sure everyone's service helps them become better politicians.) He notes it's "no coincidence that this same period has seen the gradual collapse of our ability to govern ourselves: a loss of control over the nation’s debt, legislative stalemate and a disabling partisanship."

Oh, I think it's a coincidence.  For one thing, the parties' composition has changed over the years so you don't find as many liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and I don't see how that can be traced to military service.

Of course, the bigger point is Milbank whining because Congress isn't passing laws he'd like to see.  Funny, since quite a bit more Americans are crying over laws Democrats passed when they were completely in charge. Which is why the public sent a bunch of Republicans to office--to stop all this, which they've been doing (somewhat).

As far as losing control of our national debt, a lot of that is because Congress keeps spending money through all that legislation I thought they weren't passing.

He goes on to explain his wisdom:

Because so few serving in politics have worn their country’s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a “cause greater than self,” and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country.

There's a lot wrong with this reasoning (in fact, I'm hard-pressed to find anything sensible in it), but my favorite point is how fighting wars apparently teachers you how to compromise.

Milbank gives a number of generic positive effects a draft would create.  Among them:

future leaders, unlike today’s “chicken hawks,” [would be] disinclined to send troops into combat without good reason;

Let's ignore the cheap shots and ask ourselves, do veterans actually have a record of voting against war at a higher rate than non-veterans?

Speaking of which, I would think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were great moments for Milbank--who complains of Washington's "disabling partisanship"--since they both had solid bipartisan support. (And let's throw in the Patriot Act while we're at it.)

Another benefit:

above all***, giving these young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country.

Interesting. So imprisoning**** every young adult for two years when they're just getting started will make them grateful.

I have nothing against service. It's good when people volunteer to help others. But that's what it should be, voluntary. Meanwhile, if Milbank is unhappy with D.C., does he really need to pass a law affecting everyone?  Why not cut out the middleman and just send every newly-elected politician into a Milbank-approved sensitivity training seminar

*The left can't get enough of this idea--it's like they say, liberals don't mind what you do as long as its mandatory.  Of course, they were also the ones who kept threatening that George W. Bush would bring back the draft, even though they seemed to be the only ones calling for it.

**He doesn't note one of the reasons might be that more women are in office.

***He writes "above all" but I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason is he figures it'll be much harder to wage a war if everyone's drafted, though that's probably not true and even if true could end up being a bad thing.

****If you don't think it's imprisonment just try leaving and see what happens.