This Memorial Day, like all of them for 35 years, our thoughts about American soldiers and our debates about when and where their lives should be put at risk are dominated by the contrast between World War II and Vietnam. Almost everyone at the time and ever since has agreed that WWII was the good war. Vietnam, at the time and ever since, was either an immorally extended mistake or a worthy cause betrayed (or dozens of variations on these themes).
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponBut another difference between WWII and Vietnam is usually overlooked, although it explains a lot. WWII involved mobilization of the entire society. Most young and not-so-young adult men served in the military or in some other way. Vietnam, by contrast, even at its peak required only a small fraction of a narrower draft-age cohort. Although the draft was supposed to be universal, four-fifths of draft-age males did no military service and nine-tenths never saw Vietnam. This mundane statistical reality explains much more than moral opposition or cowardice does about why, when Vietnam-age men pop up in the news, they usually seem to have avoided Vietnam.
The future occasions when Americans may be called upon to fight and die are sure to resemble Vietnam more than WWII: Their necessity will be debatable, and they will require the service of only a small minority. That makes WWII an almost useless model, politically. One thing democracy does best is mobilizing a whole society toward a transcendently important goal. One thing democracy does very badly, though, is allocating unequal sacrifice. When some are asked to fight and die while most get to continue the flow of their lives, war and peace becomes the ultimate NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) problem.
Maybe it is no bad thing if military escapades become as politically hopeless as a nuclear power plant. But the essence of NIMBY is that something cannot happen politically even with majority support, if it imposes an unfair burden on a few. Since Vietnam we have tried two solutions: the draft lottery and the all-volunteer military. But a lottery is just a way to allocate unfairness, not eliminate it. Meanwhile, during recent military actions, the press has turned even active-duty members of the all-volunteer military into your standard interest group being unfairly imposed upon. And, judging from those recruiting commercials, America's soldiers are justified in feeling that they volunteered for computer training, not to risk their lives in some miserable faraway desert or jungle.
Every political system, even democracy, is about forcing people to do things they don't want to do. This is justifiable when you need a social consensus. We must decide communally how clean the air should be, but we don't need to take a vote on what flavor of ice cream we prefer. On ice cream, we can each have our own way. That's even better than democracy. War and peace would seem to be the classic communal issue, and most aspects of it—is it worth engaging the national honor? killing lots of foreigners?—need to be settled democratically. But why can't the most painful issues—whether American lives should be put at risk, and if so whose—be settled on the ice cream model? Why can't people decide for themselves?
Take the main should-we-or-shouldn't-we issue of these years: humanitarian interventions. ("Humanitarian" is now a pejorative term for situations with no, or no self-sufficient, national-security issue at stake.) Is Bosnia or Kosovo or Sierra Leone worth some Americans' blood? There would be no need for a social consensus about this so long as every individual soldier was truly acting voluntarily. Suppose there was a volunteer corps explicitly devoted to "humanitarian" interventions. Suppose its members could even pick and choose: Rwanda, yes; Croatia, no ... or, for more money, anywhere you want, boss. A president wishing to use this corps would have to entice or persuade enough members or give up.
Would these soldiers be "mercenaries"? If so, so what? We positively celebrate mercenary motives these days in most areas of life. During Vietnam, the columnist Nicholas von Hoffman coined a brilliant eight-word critique: "Draft old men's money, not young men's bodies." In other words, why should shooting and getting shot at, of all professional activities, be expected to sell at a discount? But actually, the motives of these people are likely to be less mercenary than those of current military volunteers (based on the mercenary themes used to recruit them). Individual motives will differ. Some will be high-minded idealists. Many, no doubt, will be low-minded thrill-seekers. Once again, so what?
And is it immoral to pay someone to fight and maybe die for a cause that is not vital to the national interest? For a war not "good" enough, or big enough, for a national draft? Cruise the Web looking for death. Farming killed 210 people over a recent five-year period, just in Pennsylvania. According to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an American male's lifetime risk of death by homicide is about equal to an American soldier's odds of getting killed during Vietnam. Many jobs are dangerous and life is a tragedy waiting to happen. If idealism or machismo or money tempts someone into a dangerous life serving his country's values, if not its interests narrowly defined, his is probably a life well spent.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Reader Response from The Fray:
It is difficult to fault the logic of Kinsley's argument without falling back on hopelessly maudlin sentiments about patriotism and American ideals. How wonderfully simple he makes foreign intervention and defending America's interests. We just order up a mercenary force to handle those messy ethnic conflicts so that we are not disturbed in our SUVs, in our dot.com workplaces, and in our gated communities. We've conquered space, we've conquered disease, we've conquered the economic cycle. Surely, we've conquered history, too. No other country will ever challenge us or seek world domination again. They all just want to buy our toothpaste and listen to our CDs. And we'll cast our votes from home on our computer to elect the candidate who won't be afraid to throw some kick-ass mercenaries into hot spots to Just Do It and demonstrate America's resolve.
--Will
(To replace, click here.)
The mercenary concept is interesting, but there's more to the war issue than just whether or not the soldiers want to fight, or are willing to fight if the opportunity is offered. The non-fighting public has to pay for every military action, after all. So maybe I don't want my tax dollars wasted pursuing drug producers in Columbia, whether or not the soldiers are willing to go.
Personally, a military situation would have to be absolutely dire and absolutely necessary before I would fight, even if I were drafted. But if I were able to choose, the situation would have to be equally dire and necessary before I would support paying for the operation with public money. After all, the mercenaries might want to go on a mission which I consider murder. I don't want to foot the bill for bombing Serbian TV stations or water-pumping facilities in Iraq because I think it is wrong for us to do so and if I think it's wrong, it doesn't matter whether or not he soldiers have volunteered.
So, I'm fine with the mercenary army if they pay their own way. I don't know how they'd do this. I guess they could have bake sales. I wonder how much a brownie costs if its sold by the Pentagon?
--Michael Maiello
(To reply, click here.)
For America to not become barbaric, there has to be a cost paid when someone is killed. In the past, we paid that cost with American lives. I don't think money is an acceptable substitute. We left Vietnam largely because of the loss of American life. To many, it didn't matter how many Vietnamese we uprooted into Strategic Hamlets (read 'prisons') or killed outright, but American men were dying. In Iraq, we showed what butchery we were capable of, and no price was paid. Without an American consciousness of the value of other lives, what can we do? It's enough to make you root for the terrorists.
--Ipsin Trippix
(To reply, click here.)
If we are talking about mercenaries, why not create an American Foreign Legion modeled on the French Foreign Legion. There are millions of people around the world that would love to move to the U.S. and become citizens. The members of the French Foreign Legion serve for six years and are given French citizenship at the end of their service. In return for this they are highly trained and sent to do the absolute worst and most dangerous jobs in the French military. Recruits know what they are getting into and are attracted by joining an elite organization and being given the chance to fight. The French Foreign Legion only accepts 10% of its applicants and contrary to myth will not accept murderers or violent criminals (at least they don't today).
The reality is that there are many men that would love to be given a chance to go fight, just look at any English or Turkish football match. Of course, there would be claims of exploitation of poor Third World citizens so this idea would never fly in the U.S. It takes a more cynical or realistic nation like the French to create and sustain it.
--Martin Kannengieser
(To reply, click here.)
(6/1)