Tony, Tony, Tony Has Done It Again!

Nothing like doing a 180%-spin because your party isn't in the White House anymore:

The United States needs a bigger army. If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, it is a price that should be paid by all - and that requires national service. The draft is essential for achieving victory in the long war on Islamist fascism and assuring our capacity to meet the many other threats that are likely to emerge in this already dangerous twenty-first century.

A military draft is well within the American tradition, and the scars of the Vietnam-era draft should not keep us from doing what our national interest requires. During the Vietnam War the draft became not a symbol of unity but of division. The reason was simple: the draft became unpopular because the war became unpopular.

The draft should not be viewed as an instrument to force citizens to fight an unpopular war. As was the case during both world wars, the draft is effective at marshalling needed manpower to fight wars that society, by general consensus, deems just and necessary. It also helps to stimulate volunteers who might need that extra incentive to step up and answer the call to duty.

But the primary reason for reinstituting the draft is this: our military needs it. Between 1990 and 2000, the Army shrank by a quarter of a million troops. The Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps had their manpower reduced by 36 percent, 34 percent, and 12 percent, respectively.

Now this isn't to say Blankley wasn't for a draft. From the looks of it, it's something he's talked about before...although then he seemed to think that America's obesity problem was keeping it from being plausible. No, my beef is Blankley's logic. Let's go paragraph-by-paragraph here.

First paragraph: mostly positive, upbeat patriotic soundbites that really have no solid, factual standing. Vigilance and liberty are things Americans believe in, but that doesn't necessarily justify having a draft. The War on Terrorism was started without a draft, so what's changed (other than a Democrat being President) that requires one? What are these other threats?

Second paragraph: Any person involved in critical thinking or debating knows that tradition is both the most frequent and weakest reason for doing something. And although there's a (small) argument that could be made about the unpopularity of the war, I think factors like high fatalities and the sense that Vietnam was not the war to fight might have contributed more to the opposition to the draft of that era. I'll give Blankley the benefit of the doubt here because he's older than I am.

Third paragraph: It's been my understanding that protests, not drafts, has been used to fight unpopular wars; I don't remember anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan crying for a draft to get us our of Iraq. Furthermore, the draft is a military decision, not a proposition you put on a ballet. As far as "just and necessary wars," all conflicts are initially presented as just and necessary; it's hard to sell an argument to go to war if the salesman thinks it's a waste of time and resources. And by definition, a draft takes the decision process away from whomever's being drafted; having "incentive" is a moot point when your number's been called.

Fourth paragraph: It can be summed up in two words: blame Clinton (see, Clinton was in the White House during that time period). What Blankley fails to mention is that the military didn't exactly improve under George W. Bush.

From the looks of things, Blankley has some ways to go before the draft becomes a popular concept again. Most importantly to someone like him, there's the political fallout from this. The children of rich Republicans and conservatives won't be able to duck out of a draft in the 21st century without having the story frontpaging every liberal blog in the country. How's Blankley going to justify to his fans and admirers (many who believe that they're already patriotic enough) that their heirs will also have to pick up a gun and walk side-by-side in Baghdad with a guy who was bagging groceries two months ago?

And from the looks of the comments to his idea, he's not starting on the good foot. A sample:

Tony, I have numerous members of the military in my family and none of them want the draft, particularly those old enough to have served when there was a draft. Would you like your doctor to be drafted or would you rather have someone who wanted to be a doctor?

Couldn't be more wrong. The lessons of Viet Nam remain clear - a draftee military can not hold a candle to a professional, volunteer force. It is not my intention to disparage the men who served in Viet Nam, and while I'm a veteran, I never served in combat. However, it is clear to me from both history and my time in the service that there is no substitute for the effectiveness and lethality of a professional, volunteer military. Desert Storm was not the validation of military technology as much as it was the validation of highly trained, highly motivated, professional service men and women.

Certainley an article written by a person with no military experience. As a 25 year Army (Infantry) veteran I can tell you with utmost certainty that all we would get in return for this folly is a much larger and grossly less effective Army. A soldier who WANTS to be a soldier is worth ten who do NOT want to be!

All this will accomplish is to drive the American people further into poverty. Bush I already bankrupted the country with nothing to show for with his idiotic War on Terror (tm). The idea that we can win this conflict with a larger military when out leaders are afraid to call the enemy by its real name is absurd.

As a retired military person I also strongly disagree with this article. First, we need to better heed George Washingtons warning to avoid foreign entanglements. If we were to do that we wouldn't need such a big, unaffordable military. Second, having entered the military during the draft era I can say that no organization needs unhappy, unwilling employees who are forced to be there. The draft was counterproductive. We need smart, motivated, technologically sophicticated soldiers, not forced labor.

Even the guys who hate liberals/progressives/Democrats (this is the Washington Times, after all) didn't really take a shine to the idea.