INTRODUCTION. Greg and Vic had a long-term interest in the workings of the military draft - at first, because Greg was a prime candidate for it, and didn't want to serve. As they looked into the situation, their concerns broadened to Constitutional and humane issues. At the time of World War One, the Supreme Court had declared the draft law constitutional, but they had their doubts. In January 1966, Vic had written a letter to the editor that had provoked quite a bit of response. In the spring, with Congress looking at ways to improve the draft, Greg felt he needed to write one more letter.
***
Back in the house, they settled down on the couch. Greg started to hand a sheaf of papers to Vic. "Why don't you read it to me first, Greg? Then, I'll get both the words and the feeling. When I read it afterwards, that should help me know what I'm looking for."
"Are you sure? It's a little dry to start with, and then I've spent a lot of time on the Supreme Court decision. Maybe it's too much."
"Just go ahead, and
we'll see."
He started to read: "Dear
Representative, There's a lot of discussion right now about Selective Service
and the military draft. The House Armed Services Committee hearings are being
covered in our local newspapers. The Pentagon has just released their own
evaluation of how the draft is working - something, apparently, the President
asked for two years ago. Then, in early July, I see that President Johnson
appointed a 20-member National Advisory Committee to do a six-month, in-depth
evaluation of the Selective Service System. Unfortunately, since doing away
with the military draft is not one of the possible recommendations or outcomes
of any of these efforts, it is - as the old saying goes - like putting a
band-aid on a cancer. No matter how much "improvement" is
accomplished, a serious Supreme Court review of the draft laws would almost
certainly find them to be unconstitutional.
"Do you think that's a good introduction?"
"Sure. You state why you're writing the letter now, and what you think is wrong with what's being considered."
"Okay, now I get into sort of dissecting the Supreme Court decision. I'm pretty tough of them, but I think it's fair. Here goes. "The Supreme Court looked at the draft law almost 50 years ago. That was the first and last time. The look was brief and superficial. Being asked for a review at that particular time must have been a real dilemma for them, and later a real embarrassment. Congress declared war on Germany in April 1917, Congress passed the Selective Service law one month later, which set the draft in motion. The law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional (actually, there were several challenges), the Supreme Court heard arguments in December of the same year, and published their decision - that the draft law was fully constitutional - less than a month later, in January 1918. It must have been one of the quickest Supreme Court rulings in history, and on what looked to be a pretty complicated issue. But, in retrospect, what choice did they have? With the draft already going forward, and the United States committed to sending thousands of U. S. troops to Europe, were we about to tell the world that our actions were unlawful? Hardly!
"Now, I get a little sarcastic in this next section. See if you think it's too much.
"One thing that can be said in the Court's favor is that, knowing all they were doing was rubber-stamping Congress' law, they didn't besmirch the Constitution itself by pretending to analyze it. Instead, they resorted to hyperbole - tongue-in-cheek questions and comments not meant to be taken seriously. For instance, 'Compelled military service is neither repugnant to a free government nor in conflict with the constitutional guarantees of individual liberty.' Really? Isn't 'compelled' a contradiction of 'individual liberty?' What about, 'As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution, the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice.' Is it too frivolous, then, to talk seriously about how much individual freedom can be eroded by supposed military need? Also, the Court made the argument that lots of countries had mandatory military service requirements? What does that have to do with our Constitution? As a teenager, how much weight did your parents give to your argument that 'everybody was doing it,' whatever 'it' was that you wanted to do? Is 'everybody's doing it' the usual way to judge constitutional issues?"
Vic chuckled. "I like that 'everybody's doing it' comparison. It's a little snippy, but accurate."
"Okay, there's more.
"When the Court finally worked its way through a confused and confusing 'history,' a conclusion was reached: Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise armies to fight those wars. The power is unlimited by the Constitution. The Government can meet their needs any way they feel they need to. Conscription - forced employment in the military - is one chosen way.
"You might wonder - since this was a constitutional review - what they said about the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. You remember? 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' Here's what they said: 'Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement'"
"If you can weave your way through all the words, you'll see that their answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment doesn't matter. They made no attempt to explain away 'involuntary servitude' as something other than 'involuntary servitude.' They just said it doesn't matter, when the only thing the Government is asking is that American men perform their 'supreme and noble duty.' Presumably, the statement in our other beloved document - the Declaration of Independence - that all men are endowed 'with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' is also set aside in the face of military need. What else in our Constitution might be subject to modification or loss if the 'military need' was considered strong enough?
"Why do I think the draft is 'involuntary servitude?' Because you can't get out of it, no matter how you feel about it. You must register. You must keep your registration current. If you are called, you must serve. You may get a deferral for education or some other purpose, but eventually you must serve. You might be spared from killing someone, or being killed yourself, by being a conscientious objector - but only if your 'conscience' is the result of attending certain churches, not any moral outlook (probably a clear violation of the church-state separation in the Constitution?). In any event, you might not have to go to war, but you must serve your two years in some war-related way. If that isn't 'involuntary'..."
"Greg, that statement about conscientious objectors - is that true? You can't be morally against war and killing people unless they taught you that in church?"
"Not just church, but very specific churches that specifically teach against war. One thing I didn't say is that clergymen - certain church officials - are exempt from the draft? Why? Isn't that another church-state issue? Well, anyway, here's more.
"We should also remember that our 'involuntary servitude' isn't just for two years. Yes, we are drafted for two years, but our period of servitude could last for eight years, from age 18 until we are drafted, or until we turn 26. We only have to serve two years, but we are on call for eight! It's like a prison sentence, in reverse. If you're in prison for a crime, when you are released you might be on parole for a certain amount of time. During that period, if you don't follow all the rules, you could be sent back to jail. With the draft, we're put on parole for eight years, during which time we might or might not be called into active service. Whether we are or aren't, we could go to jail during those eight years for not following the draft registration rules.
"There isn't any way to know when - or if - we will be called. How do we plan? We can get married, but we might be called the next day. We might have children, but we might be called the next day. We might move our residence. We might get a new job. We might say 'what the hell' and just decide to live as normal a life as possible. Nothing protects us from it being disrupted at any point. Not 'involuntary servitude?' How can you say that?"
Vic interrupted. "You used that 'parole' idea when we were talking before. Nobody seems to mention that, but I think it's a very strong point. I'm glad you put it in."
"Thanks. I think it's pretty important, too. When you think of it, we really are being drafted for up to eight years, not two.
"Okay, here I change to talking about if we really need a military draft, at all. And I want to use terms like 'involuntary servitude' and 'conscription' to continue to question the constitutionality issue.
"Do we need 'involuntary servitude' and conscription to have an effective national military system? I don't think so. If there was ever a direct threat to the United States by an enemy power (Pearl Harbor is perhaps the only example we have of a premeditated attack on an American territory), I don't think there's any question that every able-bodied person would rush to defend family, home, and country. We wouldn't care about how long it took, whether we lived or died, how much (or if!) we got paid. We would fight with all our might for all we believe in.
"Our wars are not like that. They're fought in far-off countries - sometimes, in places we never heard of - for obscure reasons that even our leaders are unable to explain to us. Our chances of dying are high - they say 116,000 Americans died in World War I, 405,000 in WWII, 36,000 in Korea, and already 4,000 in Viet Nam, with the Pentagon predicting this war has barely begun! I wasn't able to find any estimates of how many Americans were so maimed physically or mentally that they couldn't lead a 'normal life' when they returned home. Those figures would probably be very high.
"With these kinds of wars, and these kinds of casualties, it's no wonder men aren't racing to enlist - particularly if they're not being offered any extra incentive to take their chances. But what if they were offered pay and other benefits commensurate with the risks? My government job is not particularly dangerous, but I occasionally have to do dangerous things. For those assignments, I'm given hazardous duty pay - considerably more than my usual salary. I understand that some soldiers get 'combat pay' when they are actually fighting, but I don't think everyone does, and I don't think it's probably enough to be much of an incentive. Why not offer a hazardous duty wage full-time for men who will enlist for, say, three years, with a guarantee of the same deal for re- enlistment? I predict you'd have an abundance of men whose patriotism, enjoyment of military life, need to support a family, or desire for an interesting job or career would be energized by a healthy paycheck.
"The Defense Department report that was just released claimed that, to attract an all-volunteer force of 3 million (the present number of servicemen) would cost an increase of $4 billion to $17 billion over current salaries. Obviously, the numbers aren't precise, and I don't have a lot to work with, but it looks like that much extra money would be enough to double the annual salary of every serviceman, volunteer and conscript. The newspaper just reported that this year's total military budget is $66 billion. Considering that, it seems like quibbling not to pay for a fighting force that wants to fight!
"There are other benefits to a volunteer army. Conscripts are only forced to serve two years. The majority of them probably have no military training, so their time before entering battle is long, more than a third of their total time and probably close to half. That means, assuming they are not killed or seriously wounded, their actual fighting time is little more than a year. These men did not want to be in the military, and few are likely to re-enlist. They take what training they received - mostly in the use of firearms - into private life, where it is of little use to them or the Government.
"Enlistees, on the other hand, want to train, so they will undoubtedly be quicker getting to the battlefield. If they re-enlist (which many will), they won't need major re-training, a bonus both in money saved and time not lost from combat. Some will find they like military life enough to make it a career, keeping both their training and experience in the military, and useful to the country.
"To say that a volunteer army won't work is only to say it hasn't been seriously tried. To say it will cost too much is false economy, pure and simple."
"What do you think so far, Vic?"
"I'm quite impressed. I thought maybe it was going to involve just re-saying what we said in our first letter. Most of this is brand-new, and really important. I like it. I'll read it closely when you finish, but I don't think I'll suggest many changes."
"Great. Now, this last section has been a little harder for me. I don't really want to talk about 'improving' the current draft situation. I want to get rid of it, altogether! However, I think I'm smart enough to see that some effort to make the draft easier or fairer is the best we can hope for - maybe even that is more than will happen. So, I want to make a couple of recommendations, but I don't want to encourage anybody! Here's what I have, so far.
"I don't want to say much about ways to improve the draft, because I think it is unconstitutional and should be terminated. However, reading in the paper the kinds of things you are discussing, I'll offer several suggestions.
1. Don't allow a draft to occur until Congress has officially declared war. This is your constitutional responsibility. To ignore it, while at the same time allowing involuntary servitude, is doing double violence to the Constitution.
2. Don't continue to force men to be in limbo for eight years. Select two to three years of the age group that the military thinks make the best fighting force, and hold the draft only for that age range. If the low end of the current range is picked, your own conclusion (as expressed in news stories) is that there will be plenty of new potential recruits for many years. If a higher range is picked, there will always be men coming behind. It will mean that most men can plan much of their young lives without worry of disruption by the draft.
3. Do go to a national lottery of some kind. As one of your members expressed it in our local paper, the system can never be fair when '4,000 boards are each making their own deferment policies.'
"The draft has been characterized by Armed Services Committee Chairman, Mendel River, as 'an unpleasant fact of life that cannot be wished away.' Another congressman said it is a 'hodgepodge of confusion and inconsistencies' that are not being addressed because the draft is a 'sacred cow' You could get rid of this unpleasant sacred cow, altogether. At the least, I hope you fix some of its most serious issues.
" Thanks for your time. Gregory Cleveland, Magic Valley, Idaho."
Greg put down his papers, and looked a question at her.
"I really like the ending - bringing their own words back to them. I think the recommendations are good, too. We don't want any draft, but if Congress would just do the few things you recommend, it would make a lot of men's lives much more in their control. I think they should be left in the letter."
"Okay. I still worry about the second one - the age of being drafted. You know that, if I had my way, under no circumstances would I allow anyone under 21 to be drafted. But, if I say that, then it seems to me I've condemning some other group."
"I understand that feeling, but remember what you're trying to get across. To show that a three-year age limit on the draft would be just as effective as eight years, you have to show that it would work at either end of the eight year period. Well, as we discussed before, men older than 26 might actually be the best choice. I don't think you have to give a preference - especially since your preference is to have no draft, at all!
"So, let me read this over a time or two, and then we can discuss it. As I said, I really don't think I'd suggest changing much. Do you want to try to get this out before the wedding?"
"I'd like to, because I'd like to get it out while the hearings are still going on. If we wait, we're talking at least two or three weeks, I'd think."
"Well, if we're happy with it in the next few hours, I think I can type it up today. Then, we'd have to get copies made in town. We could probably still get it in the mail this week."
They broke for a quick lunch. Vic reviewed the letter several times. They discussed it, and agreed on a few minor changes of wording. Vic typed a final copy.
To the Writing It Down Homepage
Why don’t you leave a comment?