Journal Sylver Dragon's Journal: Thoughts on the military 2
While reading either Slashdot or Fark, I ran across a comment along the lines of Thomas Jefferson having been opposed to a standing army, in order to reduce the temptation for the government to go on militray adventures. Needless to say, that this was a comment made in a discussion about the current war in Iraq and the possibility of war in Iran. So, I started chewing over this idea (I have an hour commute each way to and from work, I spend a lot of time letting my mind wander). I found that the more I thought about the idea of disbanding the military in whole, the more it appealed to me, though there needs to be some limitation on it. So, in thinking about it, I came up with an idea for a way to change our current military and probably society as a whole.
So, here's my proposal for an amendment on this (It would need to be such, as it would radically change accepted federal powers)
1. During times of peace, the government shall keep only such a standing military as is necessary to maintain and monitor equipment which provides for the detection of and first response against any attacks against the territories of the United States.
2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, upon reaching 18 years old or upon being being naturalized, if older than 18 years, shall be required to spend 1 year in either militray training or public service, at the descretion of said person.
A. Such military training shall not include any service in a war zone, nor shall it include any service in actual military operations; unless such involvement is the only option to prevent an imminent attack on the territories of the United States, and may only last as long as is necessary to prevent the imminent attack.
B. Upon completion of the military training program, each person who chose military traing shall be issued the current prevailing weapon for infantry use. Each person shall be responsible for the maintenence and storage of said weapon.
C. Public service shall be defined as those public works projects which are necessary or beneficial to the country as a whole. Such public works may not include direct support of the military or its infrastructure.
3. Upon formal declaration of war by Congress, the President shall be authorized to recruit soldiers for the execution of the declared war.
A. Recruitment may only occur on a volutary basis. Under no circumstances may the government force any person into service.
B. Such recruitment shall last for the lesser of 4 years or the duration of the declared war. In the event that a war extends beyond 4 years, Congress must formally declare such a war again to allow recruitment to continue.
C. No person, who has volutarilly been recruited, shall be forced to serve in the military beyond 4 years. A person may voluntarilly sign up for more than one 4 year term, but must wait at least 1 year after the end of each term to do so.
D. Only those persons who have completed the 1 year military training may be recruited.
So, the first obvious question would be, why? Why would I want to change the way our military exists so drasticly. The first reason is cost. The US people spend a ton of money on the military (aoubt 4% of our GDP goes to it currently, not counting the war in Iraq). This money could be better spent elsewhere. We no longer need a military which is capable of fighting a full scale war on two fronts, the technology of war has changed so much that such a war would be suicide to begin with. Moreover, we do not have an enemy which is capable of providing a major threat. While Al Queda et al. may be bent on the destruction of the US, they have neither the manpower nor the resources to do more that cause a few thousand deaths, with a bit of luck.
The second reason is to remove the temptation and ability of the Executive branch to engage in wars across the globe, which are not actually defending our country. While it could be argued that Afghanistan was a threat to this country, in that they were providing material support to Al Queda, it would be hard to say the same of Iraq. While Saddam was a bad person, and probably would have supported attacks against the US, the need to engage in an invasion and occupation is questionable. Then we look to Iran, which it would seem that the rehtoric is starting to build up as our next invasion target. Again, Iran definatly does not like the US (for some valid and some invalid reasons), and they might consider supporting groups who are attacking us; however, I don't see that pre-emptive war is really the way to go. Such an argument could eventually be tied to any such action, no matter how much of a threat a country really posed. It would seem that Rome had Carthage, we have the Middle East.
The next bit of my thinking lies with the idea of keeping our country safe from its own leaders. I fear a police state or military coup far more than I fear terrorists. Yes, the destruction of the World Trade Center was tagic; however, the chances of being killed by terrorists are still very small compared to the multitude of other ways to die. Statisticlly, I am far more likely to be killed driving into work each day than I am to be killed by a terrorist attack. The easy way to prevent such occurances, is to have an informed voting populous. Failing that, a populous who is capable of resisting oppression is the next best option. The amendment above would create a trained and armed populous, would elminate the military as a threat to that populous and as a possible source of coup and would keep the government from raising an army to oppress the people easily.
Moving on from there, one of the other things which this amendment would do is eliminate any sort of military draft. I should state that, I view forcing someone to go fight in a war is one of the greatest infringements on a persons rights, in my opinion. Not only does it infringe on the liberty of the person, it quite possibly strips them of their life as well. For a government, which is legitimatly supposed to secure a person's rights, to so thuroughly infringe upon them is unconsionable, in my opinion.
Now, before someone points out the seeming paradox in my logic, yes, the above amendment would require that a person either accept a year of military training or a year of public service. However, this would not be directly putting the person's life in danger. One of the ideas which we accept with a government is some level burdern placed on each of us for the operation of that government. Usually this is taken in the form of monetary taxes. The year of training or service is simply an extension of this. Like all taxes, it does impose on a person's rights to some extent, however, it does not carry with it the possibility of such total destruction of a persons rights as does a military draft. In effect, this year would be a time tax. A person would spending a year to help secure or build the country.
I'll add some more comments as to my thinking when I have more time later.
So, here's my proposal for an amendment on this (It would need to be such, as it would radically change accepted federal powers)
1. During times of peace, the government shall keep only such a standing military as is necessary to maintain and monitor equipment which provides for the detection of and first response against any attacks against the territories of the United States.
2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, upon reaching 18 years old or upon being being naturalized, if older than 18 years, shall be required to spend 1 year in either militray training or public service, at the descretion of said person.
A. Such military training shall not include any service in a war zone, nor shall it include any service in actual military operations; unless such involvement is the only option to prevent an imminent attack on the territories of the United States, and may only last as long as is necessary to prevent the imminent attack.
B. Upon completion of the military training program, each person who chose military traing shall be issued the current prevailing weapon for infantry use. Each person shall be responsible for the maintenence and storage of said weapon.
C. Public service shall be defined as those public works projects which are necessary or beneficial to the country as a whole. Such public works may not include direct support of the military or its infrastructure.
3. Upon formal declaration of war by Congress, the President shall be authorized to recruit soldiers for the execution of the declared war.
A. Recruitment may only occur on a volutary basis. Under no circumstances may the government force any person into service.
B. Such recruitment shall last for the lesser of 4 years or the duration of the declared war. In the event that a war extends beyond 4 years, Congress must formally declare such a war again to allow recruitment to continue.
C. No person, who has volutarilly been recruited, shall be forced to serve in the military beyond 4 years. A person may voluntarilly sign up for more than one 4 year term, but must wait at least 1 year after the end of each term to do so.
D. Only those persons who have completed the 1 year military training may be recruited.
So, the first obvious question would be, why? Why would I want to change the way our military exists so drasticly. The first reason is cost. The US people spend a ton of money on the military (aoubt 4% of our GDP goes to it currently, not counting the war in Iraq). This money could be better spent elsewhere. We no longer need a military which is capable of fighting a full scale war on two fronts, the technology of war has changed so much that such a war would be suicide to begin with. Moreover, we do not have an enemy which is capable of providing a major threat. While Al Queda et al. may be bent on the destruction of the US, they have neither the manpower nor the resources to do more that cause a few thousand deaths, with a bit of luck.
The second reason is to remove the temptation and ability of the Executive branch to engage in wars across the globe, which are not actually defending our country. While it could be argued that Afghanistan was a threat to this country, in that they were providing material support to Al Queda, it would be hard to say the same of Iraq. While Saddam was a bad person, and probably would have supported attacks against the US, the need to engage in an invasion and occupation is questionable. Then we look to Iran, which it would seem that the rehtoric is starting to build up as our next invasion target. Again, Iran definatly does not like the US (for some valid and some invalid reasons), and they might consider supporting groups who are attacking us; however, I don't see that pre-emptive war is really the way to go. Such an argument could eventually be tied to any such action, no matter how much of a threat a country really posed. It would seem that Rome had Carthage, we have the Middle East.
The next bit of my thinking lies with the idea of keeping our country safe from its own leaders. I fear a police state or military coup far more than I fear terrorists. Yes, the destruction of the World Trade Center was tagic; however, the chances of being killed by terrorists are still very small compared to the multitude of other ways to die. Statisticlly, I am far more likely to be killed driving into work each day than I am to be killed by a terrorist attack. The easy way to prevent such occurances, is to have an informed voting populous. Failing that, a populous who is capable of resisting oppression is the next best option. The amendment above would create a trained and armed populous, would elminate the military as a threat to that populous and as a possible source of coup and would keep the government from raising an army to oppress the people easily.
Moving on from there, one of the other things which this amendment would do is eliminate any sort of military draft. I should state that, I view forcing someone to go fight in a war is one of the greatest infringements on a persons rights, in my opinion. Not only does it infringe on the liberty of the person, it quite possibly strips them of their life as well. For a government, which is legitimatly supposed to secure a person's rights, to so thuroughly infringe upon them is unconsionable, in my opinion.
Now, before someone points out the seeming paradox in my logic, yes, the above amendment would require that a person either accept a year of military training or a year of public service. However, this would not be directly putting the person's life in danger. One of the ideas which we accept with a government is some level burdern placed on each of us for the operation of that government. Usually this is taken in the form of monetary taxes. The year of training or service is simply an extension of this. Like all taxes, it does impose on a person's rights to some extent, however, it does not carry with it the possibility of such total destruction of a persons rights as does a military draft. In effect, this year would be a time tax. A person would spending a year to help secure or build the country.
I'll add some more comments as to my thinking when I have more time later.
Sounds nice, only one slight issue (Score:1)
Re:Sounds nice, only one slight issue (Score:2)