Protests and the Iraq War-BECKER

To me, the absence of a military draft is the most important factor behind the minimal number of violent protests against the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. Explicit riots over the draft already occurred in New York City during the Civil War soon after the North instituted the draft in 1863. These riots were mainly by young working class men who could not afford to buy a substitute, a system in effect at that time. So it is no stretch to claim that violent riots have occurred in the United States when unpopular wars are combined with a draft. Recall that President Nixon and many other politicians during the Vietnam War felt that the drafting of young men to serve in the armed forces was partly responsible for the violent protests against the war. As a result, Nixon in 1969 set up the 15 members Commission on an All-Volunteer armed Force (Gates Commission) to look into whether an all-volunteer armed forces should replace the draft. Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and General William Westmoreland, who had commanded military forces in Vietnam until mid-1968, were all members of the Commission. Apparently largely due to the persuasive powers of Friedman, the Commission, while initially evenly divided between those in favor of and those opposed to the draft, came out in 1970 with a unanimous recommendation to end the draft. The draft was abolished in 1973, and protests largely vanished, although the war did not end until 1975. Representative Charles Rangel of New York has proposed to reinstate the draft. He has claimed that President Bush would not have invaded Iraq had a universal draft been in place. I do not believe he is right, but I do believe the pressure to withdraw earlier would have been far greater if young men were being drafted in large numbers. The war in Iraq is being fought only with volunteers for military and civilian service, although some members of the armed forces and the reserves would not have joined if they anticipated the war when they enlisted. The reliance solely on military volunteers means that "taxes" to fight the war are spread over all taxpayers, and are not concentrated on young people. Moreover, draftees are more costly in terms of the resources lost to other activities, and they are on the average less dedicated to the military than are volunteers. When draftees, and those who volunteer mainly to escape the draft, make up a significant fraction of military personnel, much of the burden of a war falls on them, not on the average taxpayer. Even those who volunteered during the current war have shifted some of the burden of their service to taxpayers by demanding and receiving higher pay. Since most of those involved in violent protests in general, and wars in particular, are usually young males, is it any surprise that they are protesting much less during this war when they are paying a much smaller share of the cost than young men did during Vietnam? I agree with Posner that the many fewer deaths from the Iraq war than from the Vietnam War have weakened the impetus to protest violently, despite the war's unpopularity, although the slightly over 3000 deaths have to be augmented by the many more serious injuries to military personnel to get a full measure of the personal cost of the war in Iraq (see my discussion of the cost of the Iraq war in the post on March 19, 2006). Still, I believe violent opposition to the war would have been far greater if many of those killed or seriously wounded had been draftees, . My emphasis on the importance of the draft in sparking unrest during the Vietnam War may seem misplaced since most young men who took part in violent protests were college students. Until 1969 students usually had their military service deferred. However, students could anticipate being drafted when their education ended. Studies have shown that the number of students in colleges and universities expanded during the Vietnam War beyond the numbers expected in peacetime because some persons continued with their education only in order to escape, or delay, being drafted. Even if college students ended up avoiding the draft, they were being indirectly taxed if they only stayed in college to avoid that. They would have been attracted to protests in recognition of the indirect costs they were paying as a result of the draft. An additional factor that encouraged protests by college students during the Vietnam era is that the returns to college were not high and were declining then for the typical student, not only for those in college to avoid the draft. The major change in this regard during the past 30 years has been the unprecedented increase in the monetary and other benefits of a college education (see my post on April 22). Since the 1970's, real earnings of young high school graduates hardly increased, if they did at all, while real earnings of high school graduates increased slowly. The only explosion in earnings has been among college graduates, especially of younger ones. With no risks of being drafted, and with a potentially large cost from reduced job opportunities if arrested for participating in violent protests, college students could lose a lot more now than during the Vietnam era by joining such protests.

Comments

[emlak]

thank you very nice topic very good thanks :)

[Jack]

Well Prof Becker with your emphasis on costs/benefits do you suppose that were we to actually raise taxes, ala LBJ's surcharge, that we might strike a vein of protest in aging Vietnam era folk who're in the taxpaying class?

It does seem politically cute and handy to be able to throw a war manned by "volunteers" (or economic refugees???) that asks no sacrifice from us and indeed may toss some war profits or federal pork our way.

Despite the claimed "uselessness" or lack of committment of draftees I recall draftees who had less reason for toadying for rank keeping things straighter than they would have been. I guess I'd favor a random, no escape, draft to fill out 10-20% of the military ranks just as a national "gut check" to connect the "volunteer" class with others, as was something of a benefit in the V-era. Regardless of economic "costs". My guess is we'd save a bundle in throwing fewer "nice little wars" if more might have skin in the game.

[mike kenny]

another incentive for people to protest in the vietnam era would be their desire to keep loved ones from going to war. the draft imposed a cost on the people drafted, and also the people who suffered because a son or friend or significant other went to war. with a volunteer army, perhaps, this incentive to protest is diminished, because the objection for a loved one to be sent away wouldn't be with the government, but with the individual choosing to join the army. the decision-making process as to who goes to war and who doesn't becomes decentralized by and large, it seems. parents or friends, et c., who wanted to argue with the decision making person or people, wouldn't aim at the government officials in power, but rather with the individual person choosing to join the army, when there isn't a draft.

[F.E. Guerra Pujol (Paco)]

Professor Becker, I generally agree with your post, but I would emphasize the meagre benefits of protesting today, as opposed to the large costs. In essence, in the absence of conscription (where there is then a strong personal incentive to protest), today the protesters find themselves in a kind of 'prisoner's dilemma'or 'tragedy of the commons' situation: the individual cost protesting is large relative to the small benefits of signalling one's opposition to the war in Iraq. That is, the benefit to ending the war would be enjoyed by everyone (assuming, of course, that a US withdrawal would not make the situation in the Middle East worse), while the costs of trying to end the war must be borne by a small number of radical protesters. In the absence of a personal incentive to protest (such as the fear of being conscripted), we have a classic free rider or social dilemma.

[Mike Kruger]

Another factor at work is that there's no obvious solution.

There were protests BEFORE the Iraq war -- in part based on the idea that we were getting into a morass. Well, now we're there and we are in a morass.

So where's the slogan? "I told you so" isn't so good "Let them wallow in chaos" isn't so great either.

In Vietnam we could lose to North Vietnam, which was a highly organized society that resulted in a stable state. We don't have anybody to lose to now. That's a big problem.

By the way, "I told you so."

[Andrew]

I agree with Becker. I read an article that quoted a soldier who did a good job of summing this up. He said to the effect of "I'm tired of listening to people complaining about how "we" are at war. I then ask them who's "we." I tell them that right now America is not at war, only the American armed forces are. Regular Americans haven't sacrificed anything in this war, so right now "you" aren't at war." I think this helps explain why people aren't out marching in the streets.

[Ray DeGennaro]

Another factor that reduces protests today: The employment rate is very high. If people are at work, then they aren't protesting. True, one can protest after work, but the cost of foregoing leisure is then higher.

[Mark Shapiro]

The factor that hasn't been discussed: demographics.

The Vienam protesters were largely baby boomers. There were large cohorts of teenagers and young adults, with less adult supervision than today. Note that there were also large protests in Europe at the time, which had similar demographics but no draftees going to Vietnam.

What makes this relevant today is that Middle Eastern countries have had near continuous baby booms for several decades. We find ever growing numbers of young males and outnumbered adults. The young are undereducated, underemployed, and undersupervised; they are ripe for protest.

This suggests a difficulty.

[Bruc e G Charlton]

I believe Becker is correct in pointing to the draft as the key variable.

It seems mistaken for some of the commentators to complain that the military is increasingly autonomous, and that the whole society is not conscripted into the war effort.

This is a fundamental aspect of the division of labour which is intrinsic to modernization. And such specialization of function greatly increases societal efficiency - as seems to be tacitly acknowledged by those who would wish to restore the draft purely in order to trigger protests and resistance which would inhibit the prosecution of the war.

[griffith King]

Don't you think that the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 still has an effect on how people think of the war in Iraq?

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

thanks for your post.perhaps you will like ed hardy

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

CPFXHV

[Anonymous]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Hi guys. Order is not pressure which is imposed on society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within.
I am from Nicaragua and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "— Adt security services, the country largest security provider, is adding icontrol remote management services to its offerings."

Thank you so much for your future answers :p. Ronald.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Great. Now i can say thank you!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

Great. Now i can say thank you!