Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently called
on the government to force young people to spend two years either "serving" in
the military or performing some other type of government-directed "community
service." Neoconservative Senator John McCain has introduced legislation creating
a mandatory national service program very similar to Reich's proposal. It is
not surprising that both a prominent progressive and a leading neocon would
support mandatory national service, as this is an issue that has long united
authoritarians on the left and right.
Proponents of national service claim that young people have a moral obligation
to give something back to society. But giving the government power to decide
our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism.
Mandatory national service is not just anti-liberty, it is un-American. Whether
or not they admit it, supporters of mandatory national service do not believe
that individuals have "inalienable rights." Instead, they believe that rights
are gifts from the government, and, since government is the source of our rights,
government can abridge or even take away those rights whenever Congress decides.
Mandatory national service also undermines private charitable institutions.
In a free society, many people will give their time or money to service projects
to help better their communities, working with religious or civic associations.
But in a society with government-enforced national service, these associations
are likely to become more reliant on government-supplied forced labor. They
will then begin to tailor their programs to satisfy the demands of government
bureaucrats instead of the needs of the community.
The very worst form of national service is, of course, the military draft,
which forces young people to kill or be killed on government orders. The draft
lowers the cost of an interventionist foreign policy because government need
not compete with private employers for recruits. Anyone who refuses a draft
notice runs the risk of being jailed, so government can provide lower pay and
benefits to draftees than to volunteers.
As the burden of our hyper-interventionist foreign policy increases, it is
increasingly likely that there will be serious attempts to reinstate the military
draft. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, continues
to suggest that US troops on the ground may be needed to fight "Operation Inherent
Resolve" in Iraq and Syria. A major escalation requiring a large US troop deployment
will likely add pressure to consider a military draft.
The only real way the American people can protect their children from the
military draft is to demand an end to the foreign policy that sees the US military
as the solution to any and every problem -- from ISIS to Ebola -- anywhere
in the world.
Some who share my opposition to a militaristic foreign policy support the
draft because they think a draft will increase public opposition to war. However,
the existence of a draft did not stop the American government from launching
unconstitutional wars in Vietnam and Korea. While the draft did play a role
in mobilizing political opposition to Vietnam, it took almost a decade and
the death of thousands of American draftees for that opposition to reach critical
mass.
It is baffling that conservatives who (properly) oppose raising taxes would
support any form of national service, including the military draft. It is similarly
baffling that liberals who oppose government interference with our personal
lives would support mandatory national service. Mandatory national service
is a totalitarian policy that should be rejected by all who value liberty.
