BCT Editorial – 9/1/06

This page was last updated on September 4, 2006.

Universal soldiers; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 1, 2006. Published in the print edition, this editorial was not posted on the Times website when I wrote this critique.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Draft would make U.S. military look more like America

“Bring back the draft.”

[RWC] This is at least the fourth Times editorial pushing for a military draft. The previous three I know of were entitled “Role model”, “Staying power” and “Out of sight”.

As you will read, in trying to push its view, the editorial takes shots at the volunteers that make up the military.

“McClatchy Newspapers reports the Bush administration hasn’t ruled out the use of force to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon if diplomatic efforts to do so fail.

“What for that attack would take – and it’s important to stress that it is now just a contingency plan – remains to be seen. But if that were to happen, an already-stretched U.S. military would be pulled even tauter.

“Pentagon officials don’t see any need to restore the draft, pointing out that enlistment quotas are being met.”

[RWC] How can that be possible? During the past couple of years the Times published at least three editorials telling us enlistment and reenlistment goals weren’t being met. Two of them were entitled “Fighting trim” and “Role model”.

The third editorial, entitled “Summer soldiers”, told us quotas weren’t being met and “we are showing ourselves to be a nation of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots who shrink from the service of our country while letting others die and be maimed in our stead.”

Apparently, being an editorial author means never having to say “oops.”

“However, there are two related reasons to restore the draft.

“The first is that right now the responsibility for fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as peacekeeping and nation-building duties, is coming from a very small segment of the American people.”

[RWC] You will note that nowhere does the editorial describe the “very small segment of the American people” it’s talking about.

“As a result, most Americans are anesthetized to sacrifices that men and women in the military and their families are making. This disconnect makes it easy for civilians, who confuse lip-service jingoism for patriot [sic] duty, to take the military for granted.

“Sure, the military is all-volunteer, and the men and women in the ranks are trained professionals who are paid to fight and die. However, even they have a breaking point. How many combat tours can military personnel and families endure without resentment, frustration, and anger?”

[RWC] I would have written “to defend our country” instead of “to fight and die,” but that’s me.

Here’s a pop quiz. Who is more likely to experience “resentment, frustration, and anger,” a volunteer or a person forced to serve against his will?

Note the editorial appears to believe the only way to increase the number of people serving is conscription.

“The second reason to bring back the draft is that a military that comes from a small segment of the population could evolve into a modern-day Praetorian Guard for an imperial presidency.

“It could happen if an ideologically homogenous, elite military identifies its interests with the leaders of the state instead of giving its loyalty to the nation.

[RWC] Why doesn’t the editorial describe the “small segment?”

Note the insult to our volunteers. According to the editorial, they’re only a small step from being the personal army of a rogue president. Together with the “paid to fight and die” comment above, these sentences convey the idea our military is nothing more than mercenaries loyal to the person signing their paychecks, not their country.

I believe the above two “reasons” for reinstating the draft are merely stand-ins for the Times real reasons.

The first real reason is an all-volunteer military makes it difficult for the Times and its fellow travelers to drum up mass anti-war demonstrations they can use to bash President Bush. After all, the only people serving are people who want to serve.

The second reason is that with an all-volunteer military, it’s less likely there will be internal discontent.

Third, the Times knows the voting pattern indicates the military leans more to the right than the general population. That’s why the Gore campaign in 2000 convinced election officials to disallow specified military absentee ballots on a technicality. Why? Because Gore anticipated military votes would favor Bush, and they did, nearly two to one. In a 2004 Army Times poll, 72% of active duty and guard/reserve voters indicated they voted for President Bush.

Fourth, the Times knows implementing a draft during the administration of a Republican president with a Republican-majority Congress would return Democrats to power faster than just about anything else. Why do you think the only people to date talking about a draft are liberals? This is the same stunt Democrats tried during the 2004 election season.

“Bringing back a universal draft would spread the burden of protecting this country throughout the entire populace, while at the same time making the military look more like America. The military and the nation would be better for it.”

[RWC] Note the language used.

When liberals talk about taxes, it’s usually in the context of a contribution, such as the “employee contribution” to Socialist Security and Medicare.

When it comes to “protecting this country,” the editorial labels it as a “burden.”

Finally, the editorial claims the military doesn’t look “like America.” As I noted a couple of times above, the editorial doesn’t tell us why the military doesn’t look “like America.”