Sending our armed forces into harm's way

For more than fifty years, our great nation has debated the rightful role(s) for the armed forces, including when and where they are to be ordered into combat.  Most famously, opposition to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have fueled the ongoing debates.  Certainly, there is consensus to responding to a direct physical attack upon our country by a nation state, such as what occurred at Pearl Harbor in 1941.  Otherwise, the debates rage on.

The purpose of this piece is not to enter that particular debate, but rather to offer two proposals pertaining to when the nation goes about committing of our armed forces to combat.

By law, the National Command Authority and Congress must work in concert to approve the employment of military force.  (As an aside, it is absurd for some to insist on UN approval, as it cedes our sovereign rights.)  Much rancor, most of it political, has been observed in the process of Congress approving the use of military force.  Voting for, then voting against various authorizations for the use of military force.

What I find particularly galling is that the vast majority of our elected federal officials have absolutely no military experience.  Consequently, their votes on authorization for the use of military force are an exercise in the abstract.  With no direct experience, they lack any true understanding of the military and its employment.  This inexperience extends to the impact of combat deployments on military families.  Further, they willingly send the sons and daughters of others into harm's way, without the least understanding of what it means to do so.  Platitudes, bromides, and "visits" to combat zones notwithstanding, the absence of direct experience as a member of the armed forces disqualifies, in my mind, these individuals from proposing, let alone approving employment of military force.

There is no more singularly important decision made by elected officials than to send our sons and daughters into harm's way, so the bar must be set at the highest level possible for those we place in such positions.  In setting this bar, I offer two specific proposals.

First, enacting a Constitutional Amendment requiring all candidates for and holders of elected federal office, with specific requirement for the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress, to have served a minimum of three years of active duty in the armed forces of the United States of America.  (Note: I exclude the National Guard, which is essentially a state force, although very much overused by the federal government over the past 12 years.)  This minimal experience as members of our armed forces, while by no means perfect, will at the least provide a basis for informed decision making by these elected officials.  For example, being a Marine infantryman, even in peacetime, is by no means an easy job.  Living for days, even weeks, without basic comforts; serving at sea for extended periods; rigorous physical training; menial tasks assigned and completed; carrying heavy loads on one's back; learning combat first aid; learning to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.  Further, numerous benefits attendant to military life, such as teamwork, resource management, taking care of one's subordinates, living and working closely with fellow citizens from across the nation, unit over self, and overcoming challenges would contribute to making the future elected official a better citizen.  And for the purposes of this proposal, three years of active duty in the armed forces will provide at least an appreciation of what it meant by sending our men and women into combat.  Should the three years of experience include actual combat, that appreciation becomes direct knowledge.

Second, reinstate the draft for all able bodied men and women at age 18.  The all volunteer force sounds all too catchy as a progressive theme.  In practice, however, it displays the increasing separation between the growing political class and the segments of the population that do the heavy lifting for the nation.  Reinstating and applying the draft uniformly across all social, racial, ethnic, and economic classes is a great leveler.  Living in an open squad bay with fifty or so of your new friends from across the nation will pursue the vaunted diversity so sought after by the progressives.  Exposing the youth from inner city Detroit, Iowa farm country, Bel Air, Oregon lumber country, Texas, North Dakota, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. to one another is a terrific way to begin to breakdown the stereotypes both major political parties countlessly hype.  For the primary purpose of reinstating the draft, I contend that if elected officials would be sending their children into combat, more careful and deliberate consideration would be given the votes and ensuing decisions.

These two relatively small, but important fixes do not combine to provide a magic elixir that will solve the debate regrading the employment of our military.  They will, however, be a damned good beginning to recognizing the seriousness of approving and ordering the deployment of our armed forces into harm's way.