This is a letter between a socialist friend and opponent of the war. We discussed a claim made by David M. Kennedy, a professor of history at Stanford and the author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945," is working on a book about the American national character. My response is in blue italics and took place in July 2005.

Hello Bill

Kennedy makes a couple of excellent points that I have been promoting for along time (though not as eloquently as Mr. Kennedy):

"The implications are deeply unsettling: history's most potent military forcecan now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so [Remember that the USA is 28% of the world's GNP and 10% of its population, a level not reached by any society in history except possibly China at the end of the 18th century and the British at the end of the 19th century. An occupation of a nation that is economically equal to North Dakota and physically equal to Texas is not tough]. We can now wage war while putting at risk very few of our sons and daughters, none of whom is obliged to serve [What a wonderful achievement, kind of like growing cotton without slaves]. Modern warfare lays no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged." [If we were to wage war on any of our contemporaries like the EU or Japan (rather than North Dakota), it might be necessary for the USA to resort the brutal practices of the past, like conscription and attacks aimed at civilian targets like factories and refineries. Fortunately, our contemporaries have followed the same path to prosperity that the USA has--free market democracy--so such practices will never need to be used again]. "Leaving questions of equity aside [Is Senator Kennedy implying that a voluntary armed forces is unequal?], it cannot be wise for a democracy to let such an important function grow so far removed from popular participation and accountability [Our form of government, which is composed of popularly elected politicians, decides on the use of our armed forces]. It makes some supremely important things too easy - like dealing out death and destruction to others, and seeking military solutions on the assumption they will be swifter and more cheaply bought than what could be accomplished by the more vexatious business of diplomacy. [The use of force by free-market democracies is an action of last resort that typically follows substantial public debate. All the major uses of force, in my voting life-time, were preceded--and sometimes succeeded--by public and political wrangling and discourse. On the other hand, can you think of any situations were regular forces were not used because public debate prevented it.......Nicaragua, Cuba, Lebanon, Iran.]

"I've long advocated that we should only draft white men over 40 making $80K/year or more (include other races and women if you want, but they need to be economically advantaged). It's not fair to have the middle class and upper classes benefit from America's world domination by sending our lower (economic) class to fight our battles. It's too easy because these people are too"expendable". Follow my draft strategy and we'd have a lot less wars. What do you think?

I disagree with Senator Kennedy "too easy" claim. I think that our nation does debate and wrestle with the use of force and that the politicians are held accountable. I assume you agree that folks in the armed forces are already held accountable for the use of force since you advocate forcing "advantaged" people into the military (i.e. drafting wealthy 40+ year old males). I also disagree with your claim that a lower economic class goes to war. Our armed forces are not disproportionately made up of the "lower economic class". Where do you get that idea? Remember, 95% of all officers in the armed forces have baccalaureate college degree (with 45% having advanced degrees) and officers make up more than 12% (my guess) of the armed forces. Because of the entrance requirements, armed forces members have greater high school graduation rates and higher average scores on aptitude tests than the civilian population. Only the black minority group is over represented in the armed forces (22% military vs. 14% civilian) while women and Hispanics are under represented. All but women are proportionately represented (to the general population) in the officer corp. The all volunteer military has successfully eliminated the injustices and disproportions experienced with the draft military.

It is hard for some people to believe that for many in the Armed Forces, membership was a first and not a last choice. I think part of the issue that Kennedy is experiencing is that he does not understand why the general population is not raising up in protest over the violence that is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. He remembers the public protest during the Vietnam War and probably believes that if the draft was in place then people would protest the war. Many people believe that popular protests ended the Vietnam War and that a similar movement should be occurring today. Where are rallies, the protests, the marches, and the veterans against the war?

I hear several explanations for why a popular protest against the war has not occurred. The most common excuse I hear is that the media is not presenting what is truly happening in Iraq and Afghanistan—that is, the embedded reporter is biased. This thinking follows that if the American public knew what was truly happening, protests would erupt. The other is this “too easy” argument that Senator Kennedy has presented.

I believe the reason that protests have not occurred is because the US military has been successful in Iraq and Afghanistan where as in Vietnam they were not. The goal of the weaker force in an asymmetrical war like Vietnam and the Middle East is to inflict enough losses on the bigger force to encourage them to negotiate an end to hostilities or to leave. The goal of the bigger force is to prevent the losses and create local allies that will force the smaller force out. The North Vietnamese were successful in their efforts and the US military failed in theirs in Vietnam. If the US forces in Vietnam had successfully isolated the South from the North in 1965 or 1966, the war protests would never have occurred because 55,000 Americans would never have died. The US was successful in Korea and Taiwan in isolating the Communist from their local Allies and thus those nations prospered. South Vietnam probably would have turned out the same way if the US had been willing to build a massive wall (like the Iron Curtain, Berlin Wall, or Korean DMZ) around South Vietnam, a strategy easily within the US’s capability (and one the Israelis are pursuing today).

Moreover, America’s local allies are making significant progress toward establishing a viable government in Iraq. In several years the Iraqi National Forces will be quite powerful, the Americans and their allies will be gone, and the country will be busy achieving the same miracles that the South Koreans and Taiwanese have achieved.