A Call for the Draft with Credentials and Apologies

In this morning’s New York Times there is an op-ed by William Broyles Jr.  Broyles’ op-ed is titled “A War for Us, Fought by Them." The op-ed mentions Broyles’ service in the Marines, which he deferred as long as he could, a fact which he acknowledges, Pat Tillman and his death, and the lack of privliged individuals, read that as meaning few or no political servants sons or daughters, serving in the military.  The op-ed ends with Broyles calling for reinstating the draft.

Okay.  If Broyles wants to opine for the draft, so be it.  I disagree with him, and think his argument for the draft is spurious at best.  But that’s not what really bothers me about his op-ed.  Here’s what bothers me.

Broyles op-ed begins well enough, as he informs us of his efforts, first, to evade the VietNam War and then, realizing he cannot extend his deferrment by any means, volunteering in the Marines, and his subsequent service in VietNam.  Great.  But, as soon as I read this,

"My sacrifice turned out to be minimal. I survived a year as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I was not wounded; nor did I struggle for years with post-traumatic stress disorder. A long bout of survivor guilt was the price I paid. Others suffered far more, particularly those who had to serve after the war had lost all sense of purpose for the men fighting it. I like to think that in spite of my being so unwilling at first, I did some small service to my country and to that enduring love of mine, the United States Marine Corps."

he lost me.

Read the above paragraph, and pay close attention to Broyles apologetic presentation, his “survivor guilt,” his deferrment guilt, his “I did some small service to my country” false humbleness.  Can’t Broyles just be a man and say, “I think the draft should be reinstated in the U.S.,” wrong idea though it is, rather than first presenting his credentials and apologies as justification for his calling for the draft?  Sheesh.

Posted by on 05/04 at 05:01 AM

  1. To his credit, JV respects logic and distains coercion.  But the key to understanding William Broyles’ love letter to conscription is neither reason or principle, but emotion. 

    Broyles clearly feels shame for his failure to have sacrificed as much as many as his Vietnam comrades-in-arms.

    He feels appropriate dread at the prospect that his own son might well have to sacrifice sanity, limb or life while in military service.

    He feels resentment that the privileged evade risk, either because they had connections when there was a draft, or can exercise the choice not to serve now that military service is voluntary.

    Broyles might do better to try to align his feelings with these harsh reality rather then trying to assuage them by trying to coerce others:

    * Life is unfair—Desert is something you eat after dinner.  Its not a principle which guides the world.

    * Chance is just as unfair as is privilege.  Some people have wealthy and well-connected parents.  Other people might get high lottery numbers which allow them to avoid service.  Both situtations are equally unfair.

    * Coerced military service will not make life more fair.  All it does is make sure that some people might be punished rather than others.

    These are perhaps hard truths.  But at least William Broyles—and those who think like him—are not forced to accept them.  I only wish that Broyles will extend to the rest of us the same courtesy of choice.

    JWB

    Posted by  on  05/09  at  04:55 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: It's Sad, When the Obvious Must be Pointed Out

Previous entry: That's An Understatement

<< Back to main