Draft and separation
What we need to learn is that whenever we create speciality groups, we are creating the dangerous possibility that our right hand will not know what our left is doing. I am not arguing that we should do without speciality groups entirely; that would be to throw out the baby with the bath water. But we must realize the potential danger, and structure our speciality groups in such a way as to minimize it. We are not yet doing so. For instance — because it does not hurt us as a whole — our society developed and currently maintains a policy of an all-volunteer military. Our response to the antiwar sentiment engenered by Vietnam has been to opt for an even more thoroughly specialized military, overlooking the danger involved. Abandoning the concept of the citizen soldier in favour of the mercenary, we have placed ourselves in grave jeopardy. Twenty years from now, when Vietnam has been largely forgotten, how easy it will be, with volunteers, to once again become involved in little foreign adventures. Such adventures will keep our military on its toes, provide it with real-life war games to test its prowess, and need not hurt or involve the average American citizen at all until it is too late.
A draft — involuntary service — is the only thing that can keep our military sane. Without it the military will inevitably become not only specialized in its funciton but increasingly specialized in its psychology. No fresh air will be let in. It will become inbred and reinforce its own values, and then, when it is once again let loose, it will run amok as it did in Vietnam. A draft is a painful thing. But so are insurance premiums; and involuntary service is the only way we have of ensuring the sanity of our military ‘left hand.’ The point is that if we must have a military at all, it should hurt. As a people we should not toy with the means of mass destruction without being willing to personally bear the responsibility of wielding them. If we must kill, then let us not select and train hired killers to do the dirty job for us and then forget that there’s any blood involved. If we must kill, then let us honestly suffer the agony involved ourselves. Otherwise we will insulate ourselves from our own deeds, and as a whole people we will become like the individuals described in previous sections: evil. For evil arises in the refusal to acknowledge our own sins.
— M. Scott Peck, writing in 1983 in People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil
7 responses to “Draft and separation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
interesting.
Having a father who was drafted to Vietnam, and several good (Christian) friends in the military, I find that all rather unrealistic, distasteful and harsh.
Didn’t intend to offend, Deborah. The quote is taken from a chapter in which Peck attempts to understand the reasons for the My Lai massacre. I find Peck’s explanation (the compartmentalization/specialisation of the military) compelling. It would be interesting to hear your father’s thoughts on the chapter.
“Twenty years from now, when Vietnam has been largely forgotten, how easy it will be…… to once again become involved in little foreign adventures. Such adventures will keep our military on its toes, provide it with real-life war games to test its prowess, and need not hurt or involve the average American citizen at all until it is too late.
……the military will inevitably become not only specialized in its funciton but increasingly specialized in its psychology…..then, when it is once again let loose, it will run amok as it did in Vietnam.”
Somewhat prescient words when you apply his analysis to Iraq. I am not sure his suggested solution would have worked though. The idea that drafted civilians could have a humanising effect on the military is interesting. Experience would tend to suggest that the army would have a militarising effect on civilians rather than the other way around. The german army was conscripted in WWII, certainly had little of the “fresh air” and sensitivity predicted by MSP.
It’s prescient only if you look at it superficially; America in Iraq is typical of their military actions over the past fifty years. And a lot of the movement in America about getting out of Iraq is being motivated by the families of soldiers over there, and other people sick of seeing portraits of nineteen-year-old privates killed on the news. People in the military are not “hired killers” or mercenaries. How are members of the military distinct from society? It’s wrong to say a volunteer army doesn’t hurt. Seeing the military as something collective, dehumanising and distinct from the rest of society and politics seems horribly like the view that made people in the 70s think it was okay to spit at Vietnam veterans. The military is a too-easy target.
Conscription was also not the only reason why Vietnam was popularly opposed, and I agree with the above comment in that history is against Peck’s advocacy of conscripted armies.
Yeah, perhaps more context for the quote would be good and interesting to chat about, but I admit that after researching the social history of war for so long, I find the concept of conscription so horrible that I think I would be unlikely to be persuaded, sorry.
And maybe I should say that I spent some the day worrying that my initial comment was hasty and harsh; thank you for being gracious as usual.
My “somewhat prescient” comment is based on my memory of the Vietnam war situation. It was so patently a disaster that for MSP to have predicted that it would all happen again within a generation would have been quite startling. Very sad that it has happened again, the US at war in a situation that they cannot win, their youth dying and killing, often horrifically.