I'm a veteran of the U.S. Navy, Navy Reserves and the Army National Guard. I think service in the military is both good and honourable, BUT if the state can insist on military service there must be a very valid reason for that service.

In Europe, the countries there were hostile to one another and a standing army was a necessity, because the lack of a strong army meant you were next to be invaded. Britain on the other hand did not have borders with hostile nations and was averse to a strong army at home, because it was seen (I think rightly) as a danger to the peoples liberty.

The Americans inherited this view from their British forbearers and have, for most of our history, been opposed to a strong standing army. A strong standing has rightly been seen as a tool of tyrants to oppress the citizens at home and lead to aggressive actions against other nations.

The United States, after every war, very quickly disbanded her armies – and only maintained a very small professional army and state militias in times of peace. This was true until after WWII, when disbanding the Army was impossible, because of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed the need for a large standing army collapsed with it. (BTW- Our all voluntary military began in the mid seventies. Long before the Soviet Union collapsed. This was the military I was part of and there was never a question that we could defeat the Soviets.)

Terrorists pose a different problem than that of the Soviets, and we do not require a massive army to deal with that problem.

I am not a pacifist and do believe that we need a strong, lean, voluntary professional military and state militias (voluntary weekend warriors). An American drafted army today would be far less solid than our current all voluntary military, because it would include a large group of unmotivated, disgruntled, young people who want to be doing other things. It would also be far more bulky and less agile.

The current, all voluntary American military is the best military this world has ever seen. It is in the tradition that America inherited from here British forebears. Voluntarism needs to be maintained, because it is an important aspect of a free people. We don’t need a drafted army to screw that up. A drafted army would be fine if we faced invasion, but we don’t and won’t face such a possibility for the foreseeable future.

Militarism, for its own sake, is the way of tyrants.
In Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton made similar points. He wrote that “The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy…” Notice he mentions that those armies in Europe were a threat to liberty, but he goes on to say that they were necessary there because if any nation was not armed to the teeth, it would face invasion from its neighbours. And he was correct on all points.
Hamilton then argues that ratification of the Constitution (which the Federalist papers argue for) would prevent a large standing army from being established.

I agree with the Founders. Both Federalists --- like James Madison and Geo. Washington --- and Anti-federalists --- like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson --- considered standing armies to be a danger to liberty. I agree with the Founders on this and numerous other issues.

Sic Semper Tyrannus,
Kenith