Voluntary drafts in America - Essay Example

? Voluntary drafts in America Number] The dynamics of a war are complex. Two sides are at loggerheads, developing a dispute over an issue and decide to act out their aggression. It is the perspective of each side that acts as a barrier between an opponent and the opposed. Going into a war warrants employment of measures wherein each side fully utilizes its resources. This battle of survival is won by one who rises to the challenge. Various options are adopted by countries in the wake of any threat from any aggression or from an enemy. One such method in practice by the USA is the American Draft also called as Conscription. Historically speaking, the draft was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and it required all males between the ages of 18 to 25 years to be called in times of war or if there is a crisis in the country. Those who didn’t abide by were liable for a fine of $ 25, 0000 and imprisonment of five years (Friedberg, 70). The idea behind initiating this draft service was to raise manpower in case; if the United States faces any aggression outside its borders. Today, with an army of 1.4 million forces, (Friedberg, 82) the United States is a super power with deep rooted interests across the globe. So, those who occupy the corridors of powers: felt a need to make available a kind of a reserve force which could strengthen the armed forces in times of war and peace. Although this draft has been discontinued under President Nixon in 1973, (Oi, 42) the present times have seen an increasing focus on a debate about revoking this draft yet, again as the USA is embroiled in active combative scenarios in various countries around the world. This essay will examine if it would be prudent or otherwise; to make this sign up mandatory on the people. We have witnessed the two world wars and several military conflicts in the past decades, but the aftermath of technological advancement is also obvious in the changing natures of war. While the main crux of the war used to be active combat on battlefield in the past, now strikes from drones and guerilla warfare have been declared no less successful. This is the main reason why there is a growing need to bring up trained soldiers who are equipped and experienced in participating in a war. The lists of signatories who are enlisted in the draft are least bit prepared when it comes to actual warfare, having left behind families and any kind of militia training wound be found lacking in them that can potentially affect the outcome of the war. Making the draft mandatory on the citizens would set a wrong precedent of individuals taking up arms against an enemy and being driven towards killing others or even risk being killed. Going to the war is a decision that is taken by a group of individuals forming the government after following a due process of consultation. Only the government has resources that are necessary to meet that end. And hence, the responsibility too lies with it, and it must ensure to take up all steps to achieve the goals for that specific action. Those who favor an increased and compelled upon role of the people in case their nation goes to war, assert that there comes a time when the citizens need to reciprocate their association with their country by a meaningful contribution. It in no way should reflect that they are being deprived of their liberty as an individual. In one’s life, the rights and duties go hand in hand and fulfillment of one’s duty to the state is no less important. According to them, the citizens of a nation are liable to serve their country, because it is their nation that bestows them with opportunities to succeed through provision of rights and liberties, grants them a status of a citizen and unites them into a nation. Hence, they believe that a state owns the life of its citizens, and could claim it whenever a crisis situation emerges (Horowitz,Levendusky, 9). However, their claim presupposes that fighting for one’s country is a duty of the citizens and reflects their patriotism. In reality, it takes away the rights of the people, to choose whether they want to serve for the country or not. It rids them of their right to life, which is a fundamental right enjoined by each individual and forces them to adhere to the rules laid for them (Horowitz,Levendusky, 12). For some people, their religious beliefs or political aspirations do not befit them to join military. People who are against the government and its policies, the decisions it has taken, are not disposed to fight under its rule. Similarly, for some religious zealots who believe in peace, fighting is against their inherent beliefs. Historically, such people were called ‘conscription objectors’ (Yew, 374-376). The disadvantage of admitting ‘conscription objectors’, in military service, is that these fighters will not be as motivated as their duty requires them to be. Historically, such people are more likely to rebel and take up arms to rally for justice, in order to fight for their cause. Hence, admitting such people poses a cost to the government rather than a benefit (Ibid). A lot of countries have conscription although; there is a minimal threat of war in such countries. They still require all 18 year olds to register themselves so that they could be called to fight for their country if the need arises. Hence, conscription does not rest upon the demand for the armed personnel. This leads to a larger, less motivated, forceful allocation of inductees. According to liberals, this could be regarded as the worst form of slavery. It not only takes away the fundamental rights of individuals, but also makes way for their exploitation as well (Friedberg, 22). Governments are often induced to pay less to these individuals, rather than if the individuals were inducted based on their skills, competencies and their choice. To attract such people, the government would have to offer handsome pay packages. Hence, drafts usually result in lower pay packages, and due to the right to service enjoined upon individuals, they are unable to fight to their basic rights (Ibid, 34). Drafts also encourage governments to mishandle resources rather than effectively allocating them. According to U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), a research conducted in 1988 on the impact on enforcing conscription again revealed that such a move would be more costly for the government (Jehn‘Conscription’). Because such personnel’s are available cheaper under conscriptions, governments often undertake more people than they need. This results in inducting the same number of efficient people more costly for the government (Ibid). According to GAO’s estimation, as draftees serve a comparatively shorter beginning enlistment training session that volunteers, thus a significant part of the forces would be required to fulfill activities such as management, provision of training sessions and administering the new, less experienced inductees until they become fully trained by meeting the required conditions. GAO concluded that this operation would require a total cost of four billion per year more than the existing defense budget in 2003 ( Jehn ‘Conscription’). Furthermore, as draft introduces the induction of unwilling people, this entices further administrative issues. It directly hampers the efficiency, as the people inducted forcefully are not as motivated as the people who join military because they are passionate about pursuing military as a career (Yew, 345). The draftees are prone to be more productive in other jobs, the jobs they chose by choice. Hence, due to misallocation, the overall turnover rate increases in a direct proportion. The unmotivated, unwilling draftees cause disciplinary issues as well, which adds to the administrative costs of managing them (Ibid, 349). If U.S history is closely scrutinized, one could trace this trend over time. Since 1973, the quality of military personnel has risen exponentially, making current day military comprising of finest quality personnel. Rating on various parameters, it appears that these new recruits perform better in all areas of expertise (Ng, 527). For example, they do not only have better education, but their performance on induction tests also out pars that of their draft peers. According to a research, the percentage of new recruits was significantly higher in 2001, at 94 percent, as compared to only 70 percent at the time drafting was practiced. Due to a lower turnover rate, the overall level of experience of recruits has also escalated and the number of disciplinary issues has significantly reduced (Jehn, ‘Conscription’). The statistics reveal that the disciplinary punishments and number of court Martials, calculated per 1000 people, from 1972 to 2002, has reduced from 184 to 64 respectively. Moreover, the percentage of people with more experience has significantly amplified, as people with five year of experience constitute half of today’s military force, as compared to less than one third in 1960’s when drafting was the norm (Jehn, ‘Conscription’). Thus, from the historical evidence elaborated above, it could be concluded that a voluntary force does not only attract and sustain a better quality, well-motivated force, but also ensures that the fundamental rights of people remain intact. This would reduce administrative costs, disciplinary actions and the likelihood of revolts and rallies from the people forcefully enrolled. Thus re-introducing draft would weaken the armed forces in terms of quality, but also increase budgetary cost of the army. Works Cited Friedberg, Aaron L. "In the Shadow of the Garrison State: " Google Books. Princeton University Press, 2000.Web. 14 Mar. 2013. Horowitz Michael C.&Matthew S. Levendusky. "Drafting Support for War: Conscription and Mass Support for Warfare." JSTOR. Cambridge University Press, Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. Jehn, Christopher. "Conscription." : The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Liberty Fund, 2008.Web. 14 Mar. 2013. Ng, Yew Kwang. "Why Is the Military Draft Common? Conscription and Increasing Returns."Http://ftp.aefweb.net/AefArticles/aef090208.pdf. Annals Of Economics And Finance, 2008.Web. 14 Mar. 2013. Oi, Walter Y. "The Economic Cost of the Draft." JSTOR. American Economic Association, May 1967. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. Read More