The Evening Star (August 31, 1945)
ON THE RECORD —
Why we must have peacetime conscription
By Dorothy Thompson
In principle, President Truman in his letter to the congressional committees on military affairs abandons the idea of universal selective service in peacetime. In principle he accepts the theory of voluntary service for occupation purposes, but expresses fear that insufficient numbers will volunteer and therefore asks Congress to prolong the draft bill in order to induct supplementary youth between the ages of 18 and 25.
The main objection against teen-age induction is that more mature men would be better for occupation purposes.
The main argument for the continuance of selective service is that we owe it to our veterans that they come home quickly.
I am inclined to think that neither the pros nor cons are speaking to the point.
It has been estimated that the occupation forces needed to police Germany will not exceed a quarter million men, or half the numbers originally contemplated. The reasons are: The population is more docile than expected; and the atomic bomb.
For the same reasons the Japanese occupational forces will not have to be huge, and there we have the additional advantage of a working government pledged to co-operate with the occupation.
The Army estimates that between now and next July we can only raise 300,000 men by voluntary enlistment. Some congressmen doubt this, if a real recruiting campaign is put on. With the outlook for a temporary unemployment crisis, I incline to doubt it also.
But the issue is not whether we can raise, by volunteer enlistment, sufficient forces for occupational purposes. The issue is whether it is wise, at this point, to abandon selective service. There we are not altogether free to decide. The answer depends on what other nations do.
With the exception of the defeated nations all intend to have huge conscripted armies. The counterargument to this is that we needn’t care; we have the world’s largest Navy and airpower; we have the highest technology; and we have the atomic bomb.
But how long will this argument hold? Only while some other country does not get the atomic bomb. The estimate on that is from two to five years.
In pure military terms, the argument for conscription is not that it creates a huge standing Army, because it does not necessarily do so, but that it creates a trained nation that can be called up at any moment. At present we have a trained nation. But five years from now many of the present veterans will be over age. and the youngsters will not have had the training.
Military experts are saying that the “next war” – horrible words – will not be fought with huge armies, but with robots, V-weapons, rockets, super-super bombers and atomic science. But that is not sure.
This war was not fought with poison gas only for the reason that everybody had it. Mussolini used it against Ethiopia, but did not dare to use it against Britain. We dared to use the atomic bomb against Japan; despite the propaganda for it we did not use poison gas. There was too much possibility of reprisal. Thus there may be international agreements to outlaw the atomic bomb and other super weapons, and these agreements may be kept.
I do not say this to reassure the public about these weapons. On the contrary, I would like to arouse the public which after the first sensation seems to be settling down to life with the atomic bomb. I have said it before and I shall say it on every possible occasion that Dumbarton Oaks and the San Francisco Charter were blown into the air with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But the question of selective service still cannot stand or fall with the atomic bomb. In the world, as it is, a great nation must train its youth for war. It can be argued that we should begin with 20 rather than 18 – though it is easier for a young person to interrupt his schooling or career after high school than at any other time. But it cannot be argued that we should let our reserves become physically obsolescent in the world as it is – not as we wish it were.
If the United States does not like peacetime conscription – and we don’t – then we must work to bring about the universal abolition of conscription. The way to do that is not to start unilaterally to abolish it, while the enormous power that we presently hold gradually evaporates.
But if I could beg anything of our leaders, it would be to discuss the issue on the highest level of national policy, and not try to smuggle something in through the back door.