How To Construct A Crappy Argument

Noel Koch, former assistant to Nixon and Deputy SecDef for part of the Reagan presidency, tells us, from the comfort of old age, why we need the draft. And he's full of shit.

The subject has surfaced since Vietnam but never, until now, with much force. In fact, there are few good arguments against the draft and a surfeit of good ones for restoring it. The most obvious is that we do not have enough men and women in our armed forces. Reliance on reserves and the National Guard is creating strains along the socioeconomic spectrum and is not an endlessly sustainable expedient. If we are to fight elective wars, as we are told we must, we need more men and women on active duty.

If we do not have enough men and women in the armed forces, there is the option of going to Congress and passing laws increasing the size of those forces. Drafting people is not the only solution. Another one would be QUESTIONING THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT ELECTIVE WARS, you dipshit.

Also, we find this bit of sagacity from Mr. Koch:

The draft shattered class distinctions. It mixed high school dropouts with college graduates, rich with middle class and poor.

Is he living in the same country I am? I seem to recall that the sons of privilege, as well as those who were lucky enough to get into universities, usually managed to avoid the draft (Big Dick Cheney himself got five student deferments during the Vietnam years). But he's not through shoveling the bullshit yet, folks!

The military did more to advance the cause of equality in the United States than any other law, institution or movement.

Huh? You mean to tell me that, like you mentioned in the first paragraph you wrote, that the draft was NOT a polarizing issue in America? It actually advanced equality? Then why did the burden of fighting in Vietnam fall disproportionately on the shoulders of poor people, buster? And don't quote Shakespeare to me, either, you dishonest bastard.

The resurrection of the draft, so vitally necessary to restore the depth of ready manpower we need in our force structure, is self-justifying despite the arguments of a succession of defense secretaries who feel obliged to defend our "volunteer military" with technical arguments that mask political squeamishness.

But the nation also needs a draft because it is one proven mechanism to bring unity to our rapidly separating parts. It needs a draft to provide that common civic grammar that encompasses those who have served and their families and friends. It needs a draft to honor, and to even out, the sacrifices we call upon our young to make for our nation.

Finally, America needs this fund of experience to expand the pool of people likely to find their way into the corridors of power and, when they get there, to bring with them a bone-deep appreciation of the true costs of conflict. Thus might we reduce the risks of counsel from those who have never had to learn the difference between a war and a cakewalk.

If the resurrection of the draft is so obviously necessary, so "self-justifying," why was this piece written? In the next paragraph, Mr. Koch throws out the tired old canard of our "rapidly separating parts." What parts are those? Finally, he (whether intentionally or not I do not know) indicts pretty much everyone in the current administration, which doesn't jive with his earlier reaffirmation of the necessity of fighting elective wars (a phrase which makes my damn head spin). He also begs the question: when was the last time an enlisted draftee was later admitted to the "corridors of power," anyway?

I can't believe the Post had the gall to put this on their editorial page. It's so dishonest, so mendacious, and so patently stupid, it hardly qualifies for reprint in the Weekly Standard.

The biggest lie in it, the one on which all the others are predicated, is the aforementioned and dizzying characterization of the necessity of elected war. If we are told we "must" fight these wars, do we have to believe it? I thought that we had a decision to make in this country over whether or not we agreed with an administration's policies--both foreign and domestic. This war was so unnecessary as to be nearly criminal. Throwing thousands of unwilling young men and women into that maelstrom on the pretext that it would be good for America down the road is so dishonest as to also merit the charge of criminality.