This nation is currently more polarized than in recent memory. These divisions are more than simply Democrat vs. Republican. They include rural vs. urban; “haves” vs. “have nots”; labor vs. management; Trump supporters vs. non-Trump supporters; vaccination proponents vs. anti-vaxxers, and much more.
A recent trip from Ft. Hood, Texas to Ft. Huachuca, Arizona to which daughter and son-in-law are being transferred reminded me of another cultural divide — families with connections to military life and those who do not and never had.
This was not always the case. About 44% of males over age 75 are veterans, compared to about 8% of males between ages 35-54, and only 3% of males of current military age, between ages 18-34. This change can be explained by an unpopular war and a five letter word, D-R-A-F-T, augmented by demographics.
When military service for the male half of the population changed from an expected two-year obligation to a purely voluntary choice, an unhealthy gulf between the military establishment and civilians was the result. For those of military age during the 1940s and 1950s, including those of us during the peaceful years of the mid and later 1950s, the question was not, “Have you served,” but, “In what branch and in what unit?”
Often overlooked is the role of demographics. Although technically at peace during the mid and later 1950s, the Cold War was still on. After the brutal lesson of the Korean War for which America’s army was totally unprepared, military readiness remained high during the mid and later 1950s. Those reaching military age during that era were a product of the “Birth Dearth” of the Great Depression. There never were very many of us. To fill the ranks, the draft remained. Along with the legacy of WWII and the Korean War, it was not “Will you serve?” but “When and how?” I recall our Vo-ag instructor, a WWII Navy vet, reminding us that “You have a two-year obligation to serve your country.” Given the history of that era, we didn’t question that.
This concept of a military obligation ended with the controversial US military involvement in Vietnam. Demographics played an important role. US military action in Vietnam escalated in 1964, exactly eighteen years after 1946, just in time for the beginning of the mushrooming Baby Boom generation. With that, an expanded pool of young men of military age became available for the draft, a large enough pool that, in contrast to the 1950s, not every eligible male was needed, nor expected to serve.
The unpopularity of that war led to multiple deferments for some, while others served either voluntarily or through the draft. In a terrible chapter of that history, combat veterans were often not only disrespected, but actually chastised, as if the war were their fault. Veterans of that era were even reluctant to wear their uniforms while on leave due to harassment. Of course it was possible for one to respect military service while believing American participation in that war was bad foreign policy. But such nuance was then, as now, generally lost in the heat of controversy.
As Americans withdrew from Vietnam, the rest of Southeast Asia did not fall to communism as had been predicted by proponents of US involvement. The credibility of the federal government suffered, and it was a low point for the US Army and the military establishment.
With the inequities and unpopularity of that war, the draft was ended, replaced by an all-volunteer force. The reputation and confidence of the US Army were reconstituted during the ensuing years, with much credit given to General Colin Powell who, as of this writing, has just passed.
Are we better off with an all-volunteer force?
President Truman often lamented the lack of a “one-handed economist.” We economists often observe, “On the one hand, this, and on the other hand, that,” because, in fact, there invariably are multiple consequences to any controversial public policy issue. So it is with the draft.
A draft requiring military or other public service creates a commonality among citizens. For example, consider the mutual respect that Kansas conservative Republican, Bob Dole, and South Dakota liberal Democrat, George McGovern, both WWII combat vets, had for each other.
A military draft would presumably give politicians pause before entering a conflict for which there is no achievable objective and no honorable, or politically acceptable, way out. With burden of war being more mutually shared, as opposed to being largely “invisible” to the general population, our leaders would be motivated to seek other solutions.
On the other hand, a draft is disliked and opposed by the military establishment, politicians, and the general public. Military brass would rather train volunteers then reluctant draftees. Parents don’t want their kids to be drafted. And teens don’t want their educations and careers interrupted.
The brilliant career of baseball great, Ted Williams, was interrupted during his tour as a Marine fighter pilot in Korea. Closer to home, our own MHS 1955 basketball star, Bob Anderegg, undoubtedly had his career with the New York Knicks shortened by serving his required two years in the Army.
Can you imagine professional athletes of today surrendering two years in the prime of their careers when there are plenty others of military age, including young women, willing to serve?
Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth lost two legs in combat. Is it less devastating for a female who volunteered to risk life and lose limbs in combat than for a professional male athlete to do the same? You decide.
For better or worse, we have an all-volunteer military force, and teens are no longer expected to devote two years to national service of any kind. In an ideal world, the horror of war and combat would be far less. But we aren’t there yet. We will have a military force, and as long as politicians don’t carefully consider other solutions, it will be used, sometimes for good, but too often counterproductively.
Meanwhile, the lack of commonality of a connection to military service is yet another cultural divide in this polarized nation.
— John Waelti’s column appears monthly in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
