— by Odysseus
Sadly, we here at The Cassandra Times have to once again address America’s national affliction of mass shootings, not because of one but because two such tragic events occurred in a single weekend. We have to address this issue again because our political and cultural leadership will not. The leftists seek to follow the advice of former Obama White House chief of staff and mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel. Mr. Emmanuel essentially advised leftists to never let the opportunity of a good crisis go to waste because, to “solve” the crisis, the public will allow the leftists in government to expand their power in ways not previously imaginable.
Following the combination of two tragedies in the same weekend, leftists are seeking to aggressively accelerate their slow but incremental gun confiscation agenda while conservatives are forced into taking defensive action to preserve gun liberty. This unfortunate dynamic prevents a constructive analysis of the real sources of the problem and the formulation of potentially effective remedies. We here at The Cassandra Times have the freedom to contemplate the greater extent and nature of the problem. After many years of analysis, we believe that we have formulated a workable solution and course of action. Although we are mostly libertarian in our positions, it is not practical or productive to be either doctrinaire or dogmatic. We freely admit that the solution we think would be workable is decidedly not fully within the libertarian spectrum.
We believe that the most productive means to address mass shootings is to reinstate a program of national military service for young men and women. We need to bring back “the draft” to ameliorate the many societal ills that underlie mass shootings and also to better equip American society for the perils of the 21st century. The return of a short period of military conscription, consisting of two years of military service upon a teen turning 18 years of age, if instituted on a society-wide basis, would have broad-based salutary effects, not the least of which would address mass shootings and other terrorist actions.
America’s problem of preventing and addressing mass shooting is tactically–though not politically–similar to the problem that the State of Israel has faced for more than 70 years. If we set aside for a moment the issue of the shooters’ motivation and focus solely on the tactical aspect of the problem, it is strikingly similar to the sudden attacks inflicted upon Israeli civilians by terrorists. In other words, it makes little difference what is the source of the shooters’ motivation, whether stemming from political and ideological grievances like the terrorist, or from the psychopathic drives of disaffected men, these dangerous individuals within both Israeli and American societies will randomly yet periodically attempt to murder concentrations of civilians.
Trying to delve into the motivation of these murderers, whether Islamic-based fanatical insanity, politically and ideologically-based insanity, or Satanist-based insanity, is futile because motivation is largely irrelevant. Considering the mass murderers as sick people who are suffering from a public health epidemic wrongheadedly seeks to “medicalize” the issue and to find an effective “vaccine” to inoculate the civilian population. Likewise, it is a military problem, not a “crime” problem. All criminal acts have a rational motivation that has benefit to the criminal. Merely seeking death and destruction in a society, with intangible political or philosophical benefits is “enemy action”, a military style problem rather than a criminal problem. Thus, laws and law enforcement are poor tools. In a military problem, either a hostile foreign action or an insurgency, there is no alternative to stopping the killers with speed and violence of action. This usually means accurate small arms fire. Only in this way can exposed civilians be quickly and effectively saved. That is is a military rather than a law enforcement problem is easily demonstrated.
For the past 70 years, Arab mass killers have targeted locations within Israel, based primarily on how to achieve the greatest impact both in terms of press coverage and the vulnerability of the civilian targets. This is the same as the spate of mass killers in the United States and other western countries. In Israel, the earlier terrorist attacks in the 1960s and 1970s targeted Israeli airports and airplanes, then massacres of children in schools, then carnages at popular gatherings, and then at religious institutions. However, as those targets became “hardened” with appropriate defensive measures, the Arab killers opted for “softer” targets. Eventually these killers started attacking restaurants, shopping centers, and supermarkets. The parallels are apparent when a similar progression over time took place with the mass killing attacks in the United States. In Israel, it was eventually realized that the only workable solution required the “hardening” of the defenses of society at large and of all vulnerable civilian population centers.
Likewise, the mass killers in both Israel and in the United States will use whatever means are at their disposal, with which to commit their mass murders. In Israel, terrorists started out with firearms and hand grenades, but over time the terrorists resorted to using automobiles, knives, large trucks, and even earth-moving equipment such as tractors and backhoes. In every instance, terror attacks were only stopped by one or many good guys already on location, with guns. Universal conscription created a society wide immunological response to unpredictable attacks, much like the presence of phagocytes and antibodies are a permanent presence throughout an organism. There is no effective immune system that requires conscious direction of defenses to a site of infection, with dispatch of the response from a centralized location.
If the United States were to reinstate “the draft”, then the overwhelming majority of the population, both men and women, would have the necessary training, knowledge, and practical experience to capably and effectively respond to terroristic threats, whenever and wherever these threats occurred. This does not only mean that civilians would know how to fight back, but also how to move effectively under enemy fire, find cover and concealment, and to employ other means to evade or escape a direct attack. This solution would also mean that most people would have, at least, basic knowledge on how to help move the injured to safety, stop massive bleeding, and render emergency wound treatment. The civilian population would have the required training on how to best follow instructions and provide useful information to professional responders when they arrived on scene, and they would be capable of rendering assistance in an orderly, directed fashion. Reinstating “the draft “ would be a highly effective means of “hardening” the defenses of the entire American society.
A country that has universal conscription and a knowledgeable population is much better equipped to deal with randomly-dispersed mass murders or terror attacks. In contrast, when a relatively small subset of the civilian population, e.g., retired or off-duty police officers and soldiers, have any knowledge or training on how to handle hostile action and emergency events, this means that any undefended location and the general civilian population remain utterly vulnerable until the professionally-trained on active duty personnel finally arrive on scene. In the Dayton, Ohio attack, officers were already in the area and were able to kill the killer before even more lives were lost. In other instances, off-duty armed officers, firemen, soldiers, and armed civilians were able to minimize loss of life by violently stopping the killer early in the attack. The greatest losses of life always occurred when a vulnerable population lacked armed protectors in close vicinity and capable of delivering the necessary violent response, including in gun-free zones, unarmed workplaces, and schools.
The safety of civilian populations should not need to depend on sheer luck to have professionals already on scene or seconds away, to minimize threats and save lives. In order to make all of American society safer, we have to make all of society more able to address threats and more responsive to them. We simply cannot rely on sheer luck to have capable responders on scene. Nor can we rely on a rapid response time from a select few professionals whose job is to interdict violent threats. Instead, a society composed of people, who at some earlier point in their lives were trained to deal with violent attack and mass casualty situations, by virtue of military training and experience, is much less vulnerable to foreign or domestic terrorist attacks.
In addition to ameliorating the direct effects of mass murders, instituting “the draft” would have other salutary effects that would address one of the major sources of the problem in the West, e.g., young, alienated, males. A separate article and analysis can address the concomitant societal causes of their alienation and disaffection, including the collapse of traditional male roles and positive role models, lack of religious affiliation, and the 21st century collapse of many of the institutions that were the traditional source of societal “glue”, which were replaced by isolating pastimes such as Internet social media or countless hours of video games. However, in this piece, we will only focus on the salutary effects of a limited period of universal military conscription.
In the United States, a return to “the draft” would force young men of all races, religions, creeds, and social classes to train and work closely together for long periods of time. Time-honored methods of military psychology will mold them and forge in them a close bond of brotherhood and teach them how to work successfully in a group setting. Through this process, young people will come to a greater understanding and appreciation–or at least tolerance–of values outside their own inborn group and for individuals who come from very different backgrounds than themselves. They will learn to think of each other and accept each other for what they have in common, as citizens of the United States. They will viscerally appreciate the military service bond in a way that no other current institution is capable of creating. Military service has long been the time-honored way for a country with disparate groups and traditions to weld themselves together into a common sense of national unity. At this juncture, the United States needs to utilize those methods as well. Our polyglot American society has slowly abandoned the indirect methods of forging social cohesion, so we have no other choice than to return to this more deliberate method.
Further, a universal conscription will put all the young males into a stressful crucible, under controlled conditions. Those individuals who have latent mental defects or psychological vulnerabilities can be quickly identified. They will either acquire the necessary knowledge and tools to get along with other people and achieve stability or they will be come under more careful observation for possible intervention. Likewise, their performance records, capabilities, and attitudes will allow them to be more easily traced by law enforcement agencies.
A comprehensive program of universal conscription prevents the phenomena of isolated, mentally unstable young males from slipping through the cracks unnoticed until the inevitable violent and deadly explosion. It assists young men to learn how to work within the rules with authority figures and to negotiate interpersonal conflict. It instills in young men a solid foundation of self-esteem, accomplishment, and a more stable sense of their identities and places in society. In short, it teaches young men how to be responsible and productive citizens within their own society, not adrift in the world.
Further, a society with universal military service would be far less eager to commit military forces in the less important conflicts across the globe and needlessly risk the lives of every American family’s precious sons and daughters. It has proven far too easy for America’s political leadership and elites to deploy what they deem to be an army of disposable mercenaries on missions of ever decreasing gravity to its national geopolitical and economic interests to ever more exotic parts of the world. If a significant part of the military were composed of part-time draftees from every segment of society, rather than only those who chose a career in the military, there would be much greater hesitancy to use the military option on issues other than those of grave national importance.
Additionally, a return to conscription would bolster national defense against truly existential threats. When asked about the possibility of invading the continental United States during the early phases of World War II, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto observed that it would be impossible, because, “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. Although the United States has not faced an enemy that was truly an existential threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now countries and collaborations that could pose such a threat. The prevalence of unregistered, untraceable, firearms throughout the civilian population has always been an element of the strategic defense of the United States. A return to conscription bolsters that capability by vastly increasing the skills of the general citizenry through having at least some military experience. It would truly follow the intent of America’s founders in the maintenance of a “militia”.
The final value that we will discuss, in the return to universal conscription, is that a conscripted army would be much more difficult for a tyrant to use on his own citizenry. The Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of standing armies because of how often they are used to bolster the power of a tyrannical government that has lost its legitimacy and support of the people. It is very easy to use a professional mercenary military to oppress the citizenry, whether that military is a foreign occupying army or a domestic professional army. It is much more difficult to oppress a population with an army that is broadly drawn from that population since they are being asked to oppress their aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, and neighbors. A return to “the draft” would truly protect our republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
There can be no dispute that a voting public with its own military experience would have a greater understanding of what military action entails and would be better equipped to cast informed votes on these choices. Citizens with military service experience are better equipped voters. They better understand the limitations of large governmental organizations’ abilities to address problems. Their military service abroad gives them a greater exposure to other societies in other parts of the world. As a result, they are more knowledgeable and better able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their own society, government, and institutions when they make political decisions by voting. Their military experience brings with it the capacity to make more realistic, rational decisions, based on real world experience, rather than having a society of gullible voters who are easily influenced by the armchair fantasy notions and unrealistic solutions proposed by impractical academicians from their mere thought experiments, classrooms, academic papers, and video games.
Although the 21st century has brought forth a panoply of new challenges for our society, sometimes the solution can be found in the solutions to older, analogous problems. When facing problems of a collapse of societal cohesion and the threat of unpredictable, diffuse sources of extreme violent attack, the old method of conscription and “the draft” may well be the broad spectrum antibiotic that this societal illness calls for.