The world is a dangerous place. I’m sure you’ve heard that cliché – but who can disagree? In the last few years, global instability has increased, and that increases the likelihood of global conflict. War in the Ukraine has exposed two weaknesses which play into a third, well-known but rarely discussed one.
A large conventional war quickly exposes a problem that occurs in every war but is almost inevitably forgotten. Being ready for the first day of a war is not the same as being prepared for the first year. Every major war sees combatants struggling to fulfill the requirements for munitions and weapons – and troops; more of that momentarily.
The Ukrainian Army has been fed an increasing supply of munitions and weapons by Western states seeking to keep the Moloch of war at a safer distance. But this has quickly exposed shortages in both categories. Whether we have the skill and the will to ramp up production remains to be seen. But in the meantime, there is a two-fold problem; getting enough gear into Ukrainian hands while simultaneously making sure our own troops are not stripped of theirs.
Side point; we’ve been there before. In March 1941, the United States launched the Lend-Lease program, which let our government send supplies and weapons to countries resisting aggression. When the Soviet Union was declared eligible for the program, its long shopping list led General George C. Marshall grouse that the Soviets “would take everything we own.” Fortunately, we were able to meet both Lend-Lease and our own requirements. But then again, we had been preparing for the war for a while.
Which brings me to the third weakness.
For a long time, United States has been woefully over-committed. Our military alliances and commitments literally stretch around the globe. We have been fortunate in that we have rarely had to deal with multiple crises, but even a single one such as the last Iraq war stretched us to the breaking point in terms of personnel.
I remember one Army officer telling me that people were shaking hands with themselves as they were leaving and then re-entering the Iraqi theater. In a worst-case scenario, we could be in serious trouble. The United States faces the possibility of three major conflicts. One is obviously in Eastern Europe; Ukraine is not an ally, but other lands that interest Vladimir Putin are, and as a NATO member, we are automatically compelled to help those countries that are alliance members. Then there is East Asia, where our alliances with Taiwan and South Korea are both potential hot spots. And finally – need it even be mentioned? – there is the Middle East.
This problem exists despite our having maintained spectacular post-Cold War military budgets. By one measure, U.S. military spending in 2021 was 38% of all the military spending in the world. But impressive as that sounds, it has to be measured against need. We have maintained tremendous advantages in firepower and many areas of technology, which translates into instant advantages in the short term, but not necessarily the capacity to wage a long-term war. One could compare our situation to that faced by Britain and France in the decade before World War II – global problems, and the danger of having to deal with those problems all at once.
One way to meet personnel needs is the draft. Our history with it is somewhat checkered. In our early history, men were expected to serve in the militia, but that did not equate to the demanding service in a regular army.
For most of its history, America did not need or want a large Federal force. Geography and history protected us from opponents with large forces. France sold its bordering colonies to us in 1803. Mexicans expelled Spain from North America in 1821. Britain still held Canada but could barely protect it, let alone use it as a base of operations against us (although our attempt to seize it in the War of 1812 did not end well for us). Even when we became more globalist in the late 19th century, the need was for a large navy, which did not create a huge manpower requirement.
The draft was first introduced by the Confederacy in 1862; the Union followed in 1863. It was unpopular on both sides, effectively giving exemptions to the rich in the North and slaveowners in the South. The draft disappeared until 1917-18 when its use in World War I was supported by an excellent propaganda campaign and suppression of dissent. Once again, the draft ended with the war. The first “peacetime” draft began in 1940; it was sold to the country using the old Roman saying, “If you wish for peace, you must prepare for war.” (This was not entirely straightforward; Franklin D. Roosevelt had serious doubts whether the USA could stay out of what was already a raging global war.) Opposition was substantial.
Yet the draft was part of a series of measures that explain why we were better prepared for World War II than any other war in our history. The pattern of using the draft during wartime only was used again in the Korean and Vietnam wars. In the latter, it would prove to be a massive stimulus to the antiwar movement, which was one reason that President Richard Nixon phased it out.
So why consider it now? A large reason might seem counterintuitive: the existence of WMDs. There are two reasons why a large conventional army is useful in the WMD era. First, a country that becomes overstretched militarily, as we might become, might be forced to use WMDs as a last resort – and if that happens, be sure that the other side would retaliate in kind. Second, if we are struck with WMDs, the Army especially would play a vital role in maintain order and restoring the country’s functioning.
There are counter arguments. War has changed; conscription existed in an era when battle involved large groups of soldiers shooting at each other. With higher-tech weaponry, the modern soldier is often a highly trained specialist, not an ordinary infantryman. Poorly trained infantry are of no use today. It’s a good argument, but a long conventional war with multiple theaters WILL require replacements at a rate that we have not experienced since World War II – and having a pool of trained soldiers in reserve could make a big difference.
The second argument is that World War III is not likely to break out. Russia is in poor shape to wage one, and a settlement of the Ukrainian war could happen. The leadership in Iran certainly realizes that if it strikes Israel, a substantial portion of its country will be vaporized. China is not likely to invade Taiwan after all its recent aggressive rhetoric. Signaling aggression and then attacking is not a formula for success (ask Putin). As for North Korea, I doubt that the ruling Kim family is going to sacrifice itself by launching a war unless its allies force it to.
But can we afford to take the chance?
It is better to prepare for a war and not have to fight it than to be unprepared and have to fight it.
Hubert van Tuyll is an occasional contributor of news analysis for The Augusta Press. Reach him at hvantuyl@augusta.edu
