Tom over at Being Thomas Luongo has responded to my last post with some sound and considerable arguments, and you can click here and here to read them.

At this point, I’m afraid to say, I’ve exhausted my ability to continue in an informed debate. A lot of what Tom and I are debating probably comes down to semantics, and it may well be that each of us is reacting to an individual, personal definition of the words the other uses, with no real way to be 100% sure of the other’s intent. That’s probably true of most debates. At any rate, after a rocky start, I’ve enjoyed discussing the nature of law, government, and the draft with Tom. I’ve added his blog to my “Other Blogs” list on the side, and I’ll refer to it myself when I’m looking for a challenging perspective.

I’ve also discussed the topic of the draft with my friend’s Saul and Tony, both of whom served in the army. Like Tom, they’ve given me a lot to think about, and they’ve also given me permission to post some of what they’ve said to me by e-mail. Saul and Tony both present their ideas clearly and a great deal more succinctly than I do. I think there’s a similarity in their opinions, and that what they’ve written on the subject is similar to what another ex-military blogger had to say.

Saul said the following by e-mail:

What freedoms were the conscripts who fought on both sides of the Civil War dying for? How about Vietnam? Though I think there were some noble motives for going into Vietnam, I'd have to say that in retrospect that war did not defend the freedom or security of Americans. I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't trust the government to decide who goes to war; I'd like for the people to have some say in it by means of volunteering for service. I would never want to give the government a blank check for any of its fiscal programs, why would I trust them to throw bodies at some random problem overseas?

Yes we did have a draft in WW2 and WW1. I don't know how these affected the military; I'm not sure it was such a great system. It seems to me that there were a whole lot of other factors that made WW2 a success for the US. Plus, all the countries we fought against were using conscripts, too, but were doing a pretty poor job of it. I don't think many of the soldiers wanted to fight for Hitler or Stalin.

I think having an all volunteer Army is great. Since the '70's, the Army has had to strive to make the military a desirable place where people want to be, not something they are forced into. I think of the soldiers fighting now...it's been 3.5 years since September 11th; I'll bet a significant portion of our current military has voluntarily enlisted or re-enlisted sometime in the last 3.5 years, knowing full well that we are a country at war. That's gotta be good for morale.

And I like using the examples of the Civil War and Vietnam, because they both demonstrate what happens in every country and every war...there's always some way out of military service if you have an "out", usually money (a $300 payment to the government during the Civil War, or a deferment while you are in college during Vietnam). If we do have a draft, let's have everybody do it, and not give these lame excuses people can use to avoid service.

I think my experience in the Army was great, and something that all young men should go through. However I was in during peacetime, so I'd hesitate to encourage anyone currently eighteen years old to enter the military knowing that they would probably go to war. I've always fancied there being some kind of alternative service similar to the Army, but with non-military missions, and this would be a better place for mandatory service. I think that was JFK's vision for the Peace Corps, but once again, I haven't researched.

One more note, I'm looking forward to the time when people born after 1955 run for office. If you were born in 1955, the draft ended in 1973 when you turned eighteen. No more arguments about who did what during Vietnam. Let's face it, neither John Kerry nor George Bush would have been in the military at all if it wasn't for the draft, yet we still had to hear about their "sense of duty" during that time. Give me a break.

Tony had this to say:

This conflict has virtually nothing in common with either world war and isn't going to be won by putting huge numbers of troops in the field. That doesn't mean that we don't need huge numbers of troops, mind you, it means that we aren't going to invade Iran on our own anytime soon and we sure as hell aren't going into North Korea, either. So, if I am right about this, what good would a draft do us now? Frankly, conscripts are virtually worthless, especially in the sort of fight we are in right now. Look at Afghanistan as an example. We knocked the Taliban out with spec force guys, the 101st AB, the 82nd AB, nasty loads of air power, and a very motivated indigenous ground force. That war was probably the most intelligently fought campaign in the nation's history. Conscripts, like those sent in by Russia, would have been slaughtered in the mountains. So, if my vote counts (and it sure doesn't in Washington's gubernatorial election, it appears) I am against the draft.

The other thing that bothers me about the draft is the concept that military service ought to be an obligation that all men should honor. A debt to our nation to be paid, so to speak. I reject that as a professional service. Think of it this way, is military service an obligation or an honor? I viewed it as the latter. I was honored to serve, not obligated to. I understand the thinking that some have that they must "pay back" their nation for all she has done for them, but I don't think the complex modern battlefield is any place for compassionate conservatism or bleeding heart liberalism. Want to pay back the country? Get a job, pay taxes, volunteer for a bunch of stuff, have babies who vote Republican. Leave the fighting to the warrior class. Do-gooders in uniform end up dead, disillusioned, or stuck in some non-combat role because they aren't suited for the rigors of warfare. This is, of course, one hell of a broad generalization. I mean, Pat Tillman was a do-gooder who felt obligated to serve his country in uniform and paid for that since of duty with his life. I would never question his fitness to serve, since he could have snapped my neck like it was Howeird Dean's, but he is not a typical case.

So, I suppose, I don't feel like anyone is duty bound to join the military and I would discourage anyone who feels that way and how is not of the warrior mentality to join the Peace Corps, instead.

Thanks to Tony, Saul, Tom, and everyone else at Homespun who’s given me input on my symposium topic. This has been a fun, active, and thoughtful week of blogging for me.