Volunteer army's failures beckon the draft

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of conscription of citizens into the armed forces of the democracies of the American Hemisphere. The role of the military in a democratic society is to protect the borders, sovereignty and integrity of that country, as well as its interests in the world community. Ideally, a democratic society’s armed forces should be capable of defending its country against all enemies, foreign or domestic, present or future. That military force must be credible to deter aggression and allow that nation to participate in the world community, free to pursue its interests.

A democracy’s military should never be a threat to the society that it serves. Modern models of democracy have the armed forces as an apolitical entity subject to civilian direction and leadership. A military that reflects the society that it serves and shares its values and interests will be less likely to pose a threat to that society. In contrast, a military that has political will is a threat to the society that it serves.

It is the contention of this paper that conscription of citizens into a democracy’s armed forces is the best way to ensure that a country’s armed forces remain a mirror of the society that they serve, and never a threat. This paper will compare conscripted armed forces with all volunteer forces. The contention is that an all volunteer armed force will evolve into a force that does not reflect the society that it serves and can become a potential threat to its democracy.

The United States once relied heavily on conscription to fill the ranks of its armed forces, but since 1972 has relied on an all volunteer force. With the end of the Cold War, and the universal growth of democracy in the Americas, many American countries are considering following the example of the United States in ending conscription of its youth into the military and replacing it with an all volunteer professional force. Reasons for this range from the desire to cut the cost of maintaining large armed forces, to the idea that forcing citizens into service of their country is inconsistent with democratic values. This paper will use the example of the United States’ military and other select examples from the American Hemisphere to compare conscription and all volunteer forces. Lessons and recommendations from the United States’ experience will be made applicable to all the democracies of the Americas.

Scope of Investigative Work

The scope of this investigative work paper will be covered in the following chapters:

1. Chapter II will review the history of conscription in Europe, the United States, and in the rest of the Americas. The focus will be on the United States’ experience with conscription.

2. Chapter III will examine the current status of the all volunteer force, which exists in the United States.

3. Chapter IV will examine the arguments that are against conscription of citizens into the armed forces, as well as arguments that support an all volunteer professional military.

4. Chapter V will present the arguments that support conscription of citizens to serve in their nation’s armed forces as well as arguments that support mandatory service of one’s nation in other non-military forms.

5. Chapter VI will present recommendations on how to implement conscription in ways that support and strengthen the democracy that it is intended to serve. What is key to a successful military is that it is reflective of the society that it serves, not an entity that neither trusts or is trusted by its society.

CHAPTER II

THE HISTORY OF CONSCRIPTION

Conscription is the system of compulsory enrollment of men and women into the armed forces. Conscripts are distinguished from volunteers and professionals, as well as from mercenaries, who offer their service to any government solely for pay. Conscripts may be called to serve in time of peace in order to train for war; they may be called into uniform in time of emergency. In the United States, conscription is popularly called "the draft" and, by legislative enactment, Selective Service.

Military service as a fundamental obligation of citizenship dates from early times. In the ancient Greek city-states, young men were required to serve several years in the citizen militia, a system that reached its highest development in the citizen-soldier class of martial Sparta. In the Roman Republic compulsory service in the militia was regarded as a privilege, and all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 60 served without pay, the older men being restricted to garrison duty. Imprisonment and confiscation of property punished those who evaded their duty to the Roman Republic. Toward the end of the 2nd century BC, professionals and mercenaries replaced Rome’s citizen militia.

When weapons were expensive, armies were small and aristocratic, as in the Middle Ages. When weapons were cheap, armies became large and democratic, as after the development of firearms. Poor nations depended on citizen militias and mercenaries. The Italian statesman, historian, and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli suggested universal compulsory service in the 16th century. King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the early 1600s became the first ruler to require that men serve in the army. This was called “conscription.” Shortly after this time, the Swiss army was composed entirely of conscripted troops. By the 18th century, military ranks were filled by the poorest of society, and impressment and enticement were the usual methods of recruiting for military service.

Conscription in its modern form arose in revolutionary France, where universal military service was regarded both as a Republican duty, based on the principles of equality and fraternity, and as a necessity for national survival. In August 1793, a law limited liability for service to men between the ages of 18 and 25. They registered in their localities, and the youngest were called first, the others being chosen if more men were needed. On the eve of war with Austria in 1796, France modified the procedure by instituting universal military service by classes for men between 20 and 25 years of age. The first class consisted of men of 20 and 21 years, who provided the basic contingent of conscripts. The other classes served to the extent necessary to meet military requirements. Conscripted troops constituted the bulk of the French armies in the Napoleonic Wars, and more than 2.6 million men were inducted between 1800 and 1813.

In 1808, Prussia instituted a system of universal conscription and, after 1815, put it into practice fully, without exemption because of social class or payment. All young men served a specified term of duty for military training. A short-service conscript army cost less, since the draftees did not get paid, but required that the government be popular with the people or risk overthrow. Prussia’s popularity with its people was ensured by victories over Austria and France by Prussia’s conscript army of citizen soldiers.

In the Americas, conscripts were used in all of the wars of independence from Spain. Typically, the landowners who supported independence led the peasants from the villages on their land to fight. During the War of the Triple Alliance, Paraguay fought against Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. The Brazilian army was composed largely of conscripts and slaves who hoped to earn their freedom. Paraguay conscripted virtually every male in the country. Towards the end of this costly war, women and children were conscripted to fight with disastrous results. At the war’s end, 9 out of every 10 Paraguayan males had died in the war.

By the end of the 19th century, all the Great Powers, except Britain and the United States, had systems of conscription during peacetime. By then, however, conscription began to decline in usefulness. Compulsory education replaced military service; weapons became more technical, requiring professional operators; and armies could not absorb all the young men of growing populations. Abuses in granting exemptions and deferments became common.

When total populations became vulnerable to attack from the air in the 20th century, industrial resources were mobilized on a forced basis, together with human resources. The nation-in-arms concept of Napoleonic times developed into the rigorous organization of the entire state conscripted for total war, as in Germany, Japan, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the 1930s.

In the United States, conscription was based on the colonial tradition of the militia. All able-bodied men, usually those between 16 and 60 years of age, were compelled to possess a weapon. They were required to register on the lists of those available for service, called muster rolls; to train periodically with a unit; and to be liable for service. Forces raised for war consisted of volunteers, sometimes enticed by promises of land, money, or clothing. Such rewards were called bounties. If insufficient numbers came forward, however, men were drafted, usually by a modified lottery from the muster rolls. Married men, officials, teachers, and others were exempted. In February 1778, during the American Revolution, Congress faced a critical manpower shortage in the Continental Army and urged all the states to draft men. The entrance of France into the war made such action nation wide unnecessary, although conscription was practiced from time to time in the individual states to meet quotas. The Militia Act of 1792 made it obligatory for all free, white male citizens, 18 to 45 years old, to train and serve in the militia. This system soon declined, and volunteers provided the manpower for the War of 1812 and the Mexican War (1846-1848).

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), several states threatened to conscript soldiers as a means of stimulating volunteering. The Federal Militia Act of 1862 gave the president authority to draft 300,000 men, but widespread opposition and increased volunteering provoked by the measure suspended its implementation. The Confederate states enacted the Conscription Act of 1862, drafting men 18 to 35, but the exemptions and substitutions allowed made it less than universal in application.

The Draft Act of 1863, sometimes called the Enrollment Act, obtained increasing numbers of men for the Union forces. Applying to all men between the ages 20 and 35 and to those unmarried men between 35 and 45, it was designed to prompt additional volunteers. The act provided for draft evasion by permitting substitution, by which a drafted man could hire another to serve for him, and by commutation, through which a drafted man could pay $300 for his release. Wealthy men could buy their way out of compulsory military service, therefore, most wealthy men did not serve. Of the 225,000 union men drafted to serve, 204,000 supplied substitutes or paid the $300 fee. Such unfairness crated wide spread criticism and dessent among the population. Around the Union it ignited protests and riots. The most violent draft riots occurred in New York City in July 1863, costing millions of dollars in damage, over 200 lives lost, and over 1,000 people injured. Despite the controversy of the Draft Act of 1863, the law established the principles that every citizen had an obligation to defend the nation and that the federal government could call citizens to service directly without resorting to state action.

The Confederates used conscription too. All white men between the ages of eighteen to thirty-five were required to serve in the military for a period of three years. As the war raged on, the eligibility for conscription was changed to include all white men between the ages of seventeen and fifty. Eventually, the south conscripted slaves to fight too.

In World War I (1914-1918), the Great Powers fought with conscripted military forces. Britain depended on volunteers until 1916, and then resorted to conscription. The United States enacted the Selective Service Act of 1917 upon entering the war. Canada relied on volunteers until 1918, when it used conscripts.

Between the two world wars, all the Great Powers except Britain and the United States continued universal military service. Germany, although prohibited by the Versailles treaty from conscripting troops, reintroduced the system in May 1935. In May 1939 the British Parliament adopted a Conscription Act, establishing a system of peacetime military training. Upon the outbreak of World War II, a law adopted on September 3, 1939 provided for conscripting all males between 18 and 41. In May 1940, Parliament adopted the Emergency Powers Defense Act, which mobilized the human and industrial resources of the nation.

Peacetime conscription was inaugurated in the United States in September 1940, with the passage of the Selective Training and Service Act. New selective service legislation broadened its provisions on December 13, 1941, six days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. During World War II, the United States conscripted people from all economic and social classes. Conscription ceased in 1947.

President Harry S. Truman wished to institute peacetime universal military training in 1948, but Congress instead passed the Selective Service Act of 1948 for the purpose of maintaining the strength of the armed forces during peacetime at 2,005,882. This act was to expire in June 1950, but was extended to July 9, 1951, because of the Korean War, then broadened in 1951. The draft was small during the Korean War, with mainly doctors and dentists being drafted to fill shortfalls.

The draft laws continued in existence, with frequent amendment, and provided manpower for the war in Vietnam. There were numerous deferments and exemptions granted, particularly to college and graduate students. Most people recognized this system to be unfair because if a young man was poor and could not afford to go to college, he was more likely to get drafted and go to fight in Vietnam.

In 1969 a lottery system for choosing draftees was introduced. Most draft deferments and exemptions that had previously been granted were eliminated to make the conscription process more fair. The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 expired in June 1973, and membership in the U.S. armed forces was put on an all-volunteer basis.

Draft registration was reinstituted in July 1980. At the end of his term in office, President Carter initiated the new call for draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Reagan was against the new draft registration, but the congress pressed forward with the new law requiring registration. The law now requires that men register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Some opposition to registration exists, although present practice does not call for a resumption of compulsory military service.[1]

CHAPTER III

CURRENT STATUS OF DRAFT REGISTRATION

AND

THE ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE

This Chapter will discuss the current status of conscription in the American Hemisphere and cite select examples of conscription in the hemisphere. The Example of the United States’ military will be explored in detail.

Mexico currently has universal conscription for military service. Conscription started in Mexico in 1910, with the current system of conscription being in place since 1940. All males are required to report to military induction centers at the age of 18. A lottery system is used where a white ball or a black ball is drawn. Those who receive the black ball report for duty; those who receive the white ball do not serve, but go on the rolls for emergency reserve. All who report for this lottery receive a card that attests to the fact that they presented themselves for national service. This card is mandatory to be able to get a driver’s license, passport, or acceptance to government universities. While in uniform, the conscripts are used mainly for public projects and services, rather than training for war fighting. In practice, the more affluent the family, the less likely that the young man will draw a black ball which mandates service. The wealthy are able to use many different means to influence the outcome of the lottery.

Brazil has had conscription since before World War II. During World War II Brazil sent an expeditionary force to fight against the Germans in Italy. This force included many conscripts who extended their term of service and volunteered to go fight in Italy. Their heroism in combat earned the praise of General Mark Clark, the Allied Theater Commander. Young men between the ages of 18 to 19 must report for military duty in Brazil. The term of service is 10 months. Because the relative size of the Brazilian armed forces is small in comparison to the population, there are many more who report for duty than are accepted into service. Military service brings with it education and skills training. It has become a way for advancement in the social classes, and a source of great opportunity. As a result, military commanders have their choice of recruits, selecting only the best of what are truly volunteers. Since there is such an abundance of conscripts competing for entry into the military when they report at the end of Carnaval, the sons of the wealthy are in practice exempt from service.

In Argentina, there is conscription of young men. University students are deferred from service; those who can’t afford university serve. During the Falklands/Malvinas Islands war, conscripts were used to fight the British. Rather than sending units from the cold south, units from the northern tropical region of Argentina were sent to the cold and rainy south Atlantic islands without the proper weather gear. Despite their gallant defense, the conscripts were not postured for success. This misuse of the conscripts certainly contributed to the defeat of the Argentine forces.

Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, and Peru all have conscription. Each of these countries has deferments for university students. Sons of wealthy families are not obligated to serve in the military. The civil war in Colombia is being fought with conscripts that come from Colombia’s poor. Wealthy Colombian families do not have to worry about their sons being sent to fight the rebels.

During World War I and II, Canada had conscription. The Canadian armed forces were large and fought along side of other British Commonwealth Nations. Canada’s armed forces are now all volunteers. With the collapse of communism, Canada has reduced its armed forces from its cold war readiness levels to a much smaller, more mobile force geared more toward the international peacekeeping mission.

In the United States a series of reforms enacted by President Nixon during the latter part of the Vietnam conflict changed the way the draft operated to make it more fair and equitable. If a draft were held today, there would be fewer reasons to excuse a man from military service.

Before 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress toward a degree. Many men who could afford college used this as a way to escape service in Vietnam. Many college professors who were opposed to the Vietnam War simply gave out high marks to their students to assist them in showing satisfactory progress toward their degree. Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A college senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year.

Another significant change was to make the local draft boards better represent the communities they serve. The changes in the new draft law made in 1971 included the provision that membership on the boards was required to be as representative as possible of the racial and national origin of registrants in the area served by the board.

According to the Selective Service, “A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call. Before the lottery was implemented in the latter part of the Vietnam conflict, Local Boards called up men eligible for service between the ages 18 ½ through 25 years old, oldest first. This resulted in uncertainty for the potential draftees during the entire time they were within the draft-eligible age group. A draft held today would use a lottery system under which a man would spend only one year in first priority for the draft - either the calendar year he turned 20 or the year his deferment ended. Each year after that, he would be placed in a succeedingly lower priority group and his liability for the draft would lessen accordingly. In this way, he would be spared the uncertainty of waiting until his 26th birthday to be certain he would not be drafted.”

In 1973 the armed forces of the United States became an all volunteer professional force. Young Americans are encouraged to join the armed forces through a combination of sophisticated recruitment techniques and financial incentives. Recruitment has difficult from the start and has been below desired target rates during the 1990s. The armed forces show no signs of solving their serious recruiting problems, and retention of valuable tech-people continues to get worse. The booming economy and the resultant job market of the 1990s compounded the recruiting problems. Yet, the current economic slowdown has had no significant increase in the ability of the armed forces to attract new recruits.

The proportion of 16- to 21-year-old men who enlisted in the military dropped from 34 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in1997. That is actually a slight rise from 26 percent in 1996, a historic low.

The Army is paying bonuses of up to $20,000 to bring in recruits. Standards for recruits have been lowered and still it struggles for recruits. The Navy has lowered its standards to allow more non-high school graduates into the service. The Air Force, once so popular it never had recruiting problems and was able to enjoy its pick from the cream of the American youth, has started paying $5,000 signing bonuses, too. Only the Marine Corps still makes its recruiting mark, largely because of its special esprit de corps.[2]

All this is happening in a period of personnel cutbacks. The United States’ armed forces now seek to keep about 1.4 million on active duty, down sharply from the 2.5 million of the 1980s. But despite such a dramatic reduction in force, the services still can barely fill the ranks. In an emergency, the United States’ only choice would be wholesale activation of the Reserves and National Guards.

The armed forces are having a difficult time holding pilots and other selected skills, such as computer technicians. The Air Force is currently retaining only half the number of pilots it needs. Even annual bonuses of up to $25,000 haven’t solved the problem. To the contrary, the separation rate rose 9 percent in 1998. The service is now losing three pilots for every two that it adds and estimates a potential shortage of 2,000 pilots by the year 2002. Highly skilled airmen as well as officers are leaving the service.[3]

The volunteer force has turned out to be 60% married. (In the age of the draft, it was closer to 20%, and even fewer in the enlisted ranks.) This has put enormous pressure on the Pentagon budget for housing and day-care facilities. The services are almost 40% black, with only about 55% of the services being white males. In contrast, the civilian labor force is only about 12% black and 72% white.

The Reserve and National Guard components of the armed forces are also having problems in recruiting and retaining members. Generous financial and educational benefits have not produced the recruiting results that have been hoped for. The strength of the Reserve and National Guard are critical to the defense strategy of the United States.

1. Countries in the American Hemisphere in which there is no conscription

   Antigua and Barbuda
   Bahamas
   Barbados
   Belize
   Canada
   Costa Rica
   Grenada
   Haiti
   Jamaica
   Nicaragua
   Panama
   Trinidad and Tobago
   United States of America
   Uruguay

2. Countries in which selective conscription exists but military service is voluntary in principle

   Argentina
   Honduras

3. Countries in which conscription exists but is not enforced

El Salvador

4. Countries in which provision is made for civilian and/or unarmed military service

Brazil

5. Countries in which there is conscription without alternative service

   Bolivia
   Colombia
   Cuba
   Dominican Republic
   Ecuador
   Guatemala
   Honduras
   Mexico
   Paraguay
   Peru
   Venezuela[4]

The following is a snapshot of the American military as called for in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review.

The Army maintains four active corps, 10 active divisions - including six heavy and four light divisions - and two active armored cavalry regiments. The Bottom-Up-Review directed the creation of 15 National Guard brigades to be maintained at an enhanced level of readiness.

The Navy maintains 12 aircraft carrier battle groups and 12 amphibious ready groups. The number of carrier wings is 10 active wings and one reserve wing. Surface combatant ships will be reduced 116 as newer and more capable systems are added to the fleet. The attack submarine force will be reduced to 50.

The Air Force maintains just over 12 active fighter wing equivalents, eight reserve fighter wing equivalents, and four air defense squadrons. In addition to its fighter force, the Air Force will maintain a total fleet of 187 bombers, 142 of them assigned to operational units.

The Marine Corps maintains an active force of three Marine Expeditionary Forces, each comprising a command element, a division, an aircraft wing, and a service support group. The active force will continue to be supported by one Reserve division/wing/service support group.

MAJOR ELEMENTS OF FORCE STRUCTURE
	Programmed Force
	FY 1997	FY 2003	QDR
ARMY Active Divisions	10	10	10
Reserve Personnel (000s)	582	575	530
NAVY Aircraft Carriers (Active/Reserve)	11/1	11/1	11/1
Air Wings (Active/Reserve)	10/1	10/1	10/1
Amphibious Ready Groups	12	12	12
Attack Submarines	73	52	50
Surface Combatants	128	131	116
AIR FORCE Active Fighter Wings	13	13	12+
Reserve Fighter Wings	7	7	8
Reserve Air Defense Squadrons	10	6	4
Bombers (Total)	202	187	187
MARINE CORPS Marine Expeditionary Forces	3	3	3

DEFENSE MANPOWER
	Programmed Force
	FY 1989	FY 1997	FY 2003	QDR
Active*	2,130,000	1,450,000	1,420,000	1,360,000
Reserve	1,170,000	900,000	890,000	835,000
Civilian*	1,110,000	800,000	720,000	640,000

CHAPTER VI

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONSCRIPTION

The first argument against conscription in a democracy is perhaps the most compelling. The ideal purpose of a nation’s armed forces is to defend a free society built on respect for and protection of individual liberty. Opponents of conscription believe that the preservation of liberty is the most important reason to reject conscription. They claim that the right of a person to own his or her body must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. Conscription ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men. Conscription is viewed as a form of slavery or servitude.

The second argument against conscription is that with an all volunteer force, conscription is not needed. Opponents to conscription see the all volunteer force in the United States as a successful example that the rest of the world should follow. They believe that the all volunteer force increases overall quality. It is argued that the military’s problem is not an inadequate quantity of recruits but an inadequate quantity of quality recruits. The all volunteer force is choosier than a conscripted military. It is argued that the military could solve all its recruiting problems by slightly lowering its recruiting standards. The current goal of all recruits being high school graduates is viewed as unrealistic. They point out that the current level of education among new recruits is much higher that it was during the years of conscription, and that a better educated recruit is more likely to complete his term of service and reenlist.

The all volunteer force attracts superior personnel for two important reasons. First, the services can choose not to accept people who are not high school graduates and people who score well below average on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. As history of conscription in the United States shows, non-high school graduates and persons with lower aptitude scores would be more vulnerable to compulsory service call than they would be to today’s invitation to enlist. A volunteer military draws in people who want to be there instead of forcing in people who do not. Thus, the military can discharge soldiers who abuse drugs, perform poorly, or are not otherwise suited to service life. Opponents to conscription say that the services must retain draftees at all cost, lest indiscipline become a means of escaping military service. All phases of military life are transformed for the better when the armed forces are made up of people who join voluntarily and desire to succeed.

Opponents of conscription do not believe that a conscripted force is less expensive than an all volunteer force. Some savings in recruiting costs might be achieved, but even radical pay cuts would save little because new recruits earn the least. If the American military were to return to the Draft, it is doubtful that the current pay scale designed to attract volunteers would be reduced for the new draftees. That would likely be seen as unfair.

A return to the draft would be more costly in other ways too. Conscripts serve shorter terms and, reenlist at far lower rates than do volunteers. The all volunteer force in the United States signs up serve four or more years compared with the typical draft term of one to two years. The revolving door of a conscripted force would mean that the military would have to train larger numbers of conscripts and offer more generous reenlistment pay and bonuses to build and retain a career force. Another expense would be the costs of classification, induction, and enforcement of conscription.

It is feared that conscription would also make the military less efficient because the services would make less effort to use productively their most valuable resource: manpower. They worry that existence of a draft also affects battlefield tactics. The availability of essentially endless supplies of manpower allowed the North in the Civil War and most of the countries participating in World War I to undertake those bloody wars of attrition. In the latter conflict, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George raged, “The generals could not be expected to judge the issue dispassionately. Their reckless wastage of the man power so lavishly placed at their disposal also vitiated their judgment.” To constrain the generals, Lloyd George limited troop reinforcements.[5]

Opponents to conscription point out that there is no national consensus calling for reinstitution of the Draft in the United States, and that the cost of implementing and enforcing an unpopular program such as this would be high in terms of money, and social unrest. They recall the anti-draft/anti-war protests and disturbances of the Vietnam War era. “Conscription created an entire opposition industry, replete with emigration, early marriages, unnecessary schooling, inefficient employment, and political violence. In short, a draft increases total costs for society and then shifts the burden—said to be too high for everyone to bear—to a few 18-year-old conscripts.”[6]

Conscription opponents don’t believe that compulsory service would save time in mobilization for a major war or national emergency. There are concerns that not everyone who is eligible has registered, and that a new registration may even be necessary. After a draft was started, draftees would not immediately report, since they would need time to put their personal affairs in order prior to reporting for duty. Basic training would take two months, with the follow-on specialized training taking even longer. It takes the Army 13 to 17 weeks to graduate an infantryman. Training for other military occupational specialties takes even more time. If a draft was ordered today for a national emergency it could be at least four months before the first draftee graduated from training and even longer before combat units would see large numbers of draftees. Even the fight in the United States Congress to approve conscription would delay the arrival of conscripts on the battlefield.

In summary, critics of conscription believe that conscription would be incompatible with the government’s duty to protect the individual liberty of its people. They believe that an all volunteer force is sufficient to meet a nation’s defense and societal needs.

CHAPTER V

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CONSCRIPTION

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

- John Stuart Mill

Arguments against conscription based on defense of individual rights strike a chord in the heart of every freedom-loving citizen in a democracy. But the United States’ Supreme Court has upheld the country’s right to conscript individuals. It has done so in a series of court cases that started in World War I and that continues to a 1981 Supreme Court case that dealt with the government’s right to require the registration for conscription of males and not females. It is undeniable that the United States does have a stronger military today, than it did during the days of conscription. But the issue is not protecting the rights of the individual, or the state against external attack, it is the issue of ensuring that the military never is a threat to its own democracy.

Civil-military relations in the American Hemisphere are at a crucial juncture. With the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, democracy has flourished in Latin America. During the mid 1980s a large number of the countries in Latin America had military governments. Now, democratic governments have been elected in all American countries except for Cuba. Politicians who were persecuted by the military regimes lead many of these new democratic governments. A basic distrust exists between the militaries and their civilian leadership. Civilian leaders fear the military as a armed threat that has used its force before to unseat governments that ran afo

INTERAMERICAN DEFENSE COLLEGE

PREFACE