GyG1345
01-21-03, 12:04 PM
Washington Post
January 18, 2003
Rumsfeld's Draft Dodge
By Mark Shields
In his first news conference of the new year, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld shamefully smeared America veterans. He then went on to fib about
how there is absolutely "no need" to consider reinstating the military draft
because the nation's all-volunteer military is, he assured us, working
perfectly.
First, the smear of veterans. Speaking of the 11 million Americans who,
during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2
million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees "added
no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any
sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took
enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone."
I'll say they were "gone." Of the 58,152 Americans who gave their lives in
Vietnam, 20,352 were draftees. How dare the secretary of defense say these
good and brave Americans "added no value, no advantage, to the United States
armed services"? Why would he slander the sacrifice of these brave men,
dishonor their memory and rub salt in their families' wounds?
Certainly a man as smart as Rumsfeld knows that the draft was specifically
intended to bring forth volunteers. Faced with the certainty of a future
draft call, many young men chose to "volunteer" because then they could
select which branch of the service they went into and, if qualified, get the
specialized training they desired. So most American veterans--from 1940 to
1973--entered the service either directly or indirectly because at the draft
law.
Rumsfeld himself was "drafted." He chose, after graduating from Princeton
University in 1954, to serve three years on active duty as a Navy aviator.
More than two out of three of his Princeton classmates, also motivated by
the reality of the draft, served on active duty. Two years ago-with no
draft-exactly two members of the Princeton graduating class chose to become
officers in the military.
Now to Rumsfeld's fiction about the all-volunteer service. Asked about
legislation introduced to reinstitute the draft on the eve of war, Rumsfeld
was emphatic: "We're not going to re-implement the draft. There is no need
for it at all.... We have people serving today-God bless 'em-because they
volunteered. They want to be doing what it is they're doing."
Sounds good, except that it is not true. Two days after these unequivocal
words, the U.S. Marine Corps-which reports to the secretary of defense-froze
for the next 12 months every one of its 174,312 members currently on active
duty. Marines who had completed their voluntary enlistments or their 20
years and had chosen to return to civilian life or retirement will instead
remain, involuntarily, in the service.
Marines being Marines, they will answer their country's call. But let us be
clear: This action, along with other more limited freezes affecting other
thousands in uniform imposed by the other services, means the volunteer U.S.
military is no longer all-volunteer. The unavoidable question that now must
be answered by Rumsfeld and the president is not whether Americans should be
"drafted" to defend the country, because we are already doing that, but
exactly which Americans will be drafted.
Maybe the war-hawk Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hillcan now explain
why it is more just to retain on active duty involuntarily an American who
has fulfilled his voluntary obligation to his country than it would be to
bring to active duty involuntarily to those Americans--including the sons of
senators and CEOs-who have yet to serve. Now, before the bullets fly and
before the bombs drop and before the brave young widows again climb the hill
at Arlington National Cemetery, we must face that test of whether we have
the will to stand together on individual sacrifice for the common good and
determine whose brothers, whose sons and whose fathers will fight in war.
January 18, 2003
Rumsfeld's Draft Dodge
By Mark Shields
In his first news conference of the new year, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld shamefully smeared America veterans. He then went on to fib about
how there is absolutely "no need" to consider reinstating the military draft
because the nation's all-volunteer military is, he assured us, working
perfectly.
First, the smear of veterans. Speaking of the 11 million Americans who,
during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2
million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees "added
no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any
sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took
enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone."
I'll say they were "gone." Of the 58,152 Americans who gave their lives in
Vietnam, 20,352 were draftees. How dare the secretary of defense say these
good and brave Americans "added no value, no advantage, to the United States
armed services"? Why would he slander the sacrifice of these brave men,
dishonor their memory and rub salt in their families' wounds?
Certainly a man as smart as Rumsfeld knows that the draft was specifically
intended to bring forth volunteers. Faced with the certainty of a future
draft call, many young men chose to "volunteer" because then they could
select which branch of the service they went into and, if qualified, get the
specialized training they desired. So most American veterans--from 1940 to
1973--entered the service either directly or indirectly because at the draft
law.
Rumsfeld himself was "drafted." He chose, after graduating from Princeton
University in 1954, to serve three years on active duty as a Navy aviator.
More than two out of three of his Princeton classmates, also motivated by
the reality of the draft, served on active duty. Two years ago-with no
draft-exactly two members of the Princeton graduating class chose to become
officers in the military.
Now to Rumsfeld's fiction about the all-volunteer service. Asked about
legislation introduced to reinstitute the draft on the eve of war, Rumsfeld
was emphatic: "We're not going to re-implement the draft. There is no need
for it at all.... We have people serving today-God bless 'em-because they
volunteered. They want to be doing what it is they're doing."
Sounds good, except that it is not true. Two days after these unequivocal
words, the U.S. Marine Corps-which reports to the secretary of defense-froze
for the next 12 months every one of its 174,312 members currently on active
duty. Marines who had completed their voluntary enlistments or their 20
years and had chosen to return to civilian life or retirement will instead
remain, involuntarily, in the service.
Marines being Marines, they will answer their country's call. But let us be
clear: This action, along with other more limited freezes affecting other
thousands in uniform imposed by the other services, means the volunteer U.S.
military is no longer all-volunteer. The unavoidable question that now must
be answered by Rumsfeld and the president is not whether Americans should be
"drafted" to defend the country, because we are already doing that, but
exactly which Americans will be drafted.
Maybe the war-hawk Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hillcan now explain
why it is more just to retain on active duty involuntarily an American who
has fulfilled his voluntary obligation to his country than it would be to
bring to active duty involuntarily to those Americans--including the sons of
senators and CEOs-who have yet to serve. Now, before the bullets fly and
before the bombs drop and before the brave young widows again climb the hill
at Arlington National Cemetery, we must face that test of whether we have
the will to stand together on individual sacrifice for the common good and
determine whose brothers, whose sons and whose fathers will fight in war.