Don't "Be All that You can Be"

Don't "Be All that You can Be"
by Michael R. Allen

High school graduates who don't have a job lined up for the summer might want to check in with the local recruiter's office. He has a $5,000 check waiting for anyone who signs up for the Navy or Air Force by the end of May. This new bonus is designed to hook gullible kids on joining that outfit of overextended troops known as the U.S. military. The numbers aren't in yet, but let's hope this enticement doesn't work.

The military offers no solid future for young people who aren't going to college -- and knows it -- but that doesn't stop it from targeting the most confused people with what looks like a lot of money to them. What high-schooler doesn't think $5,000 is a good chunk of change? Only after the kid signs up will he find that he cannot get money for nothing.

The enlistees who sign up now must serve four to six years in the branch that they choose, and will have to choose one of 118 "targeted career fields." Certainly, this is not going to be easy work. And the way the U.S. has casually dispatched troops into recent conflicts suggests that combat roles may very well be among the "career fields."

The price of the bonus to the recruit will be high -- almost as high as the price a free society pays for this bogus scheme. The federalist system demands a restrained military, not one bursting to the gills with new recruits.

The Constitution is clear: Congress is granted the powers to "raise and support armies" and to "provide and maintain a navy." Certainly, after the revolutionary times preceding the establishment of the United States of America, the nation was still at risk of being disturbed by any number of European powers. A defensive army was needed then as well as now to safeguard the nation. Thus, Article One, Section Eight's charging Congress with the duty of raising an army.

Yet, the Constitution does not blindly grant powers to maintain a perpetual army when there is no need for one. Therefore, " ... no appropriation of money to [defense] shall be for a longer term than two years." Implicit in this clause is that Congress is to have judgment as to whether to renew an army's charter after a two-year period(presumably, the army was raised for a war). While the clause allows Congress to continue an army's tenure, it also allows for the end of a combative army in peaceful times, that is, times when the U.S. was not being attacked. That would be now.

Some may see justified uses of the military which involve troops being sent overseas, but even they might be cautious of the new signing bonus. Under no circumstances should the military of a free people offer huge incentives for joining, just good pay. The military is supposed to be a mechanism at the control of the public, to be employed whenever the public's representatives call for its deployment.

When the need for a military is recognized, and that need can be perpetual, it is up to the public to decide whether or not to affirm their representative's decisions by enlisting. Enticing people into the Air Force and Navy establishes a permanent military sector that competes with other public and private institutions in the job market. This could not be further from what the Constitution calls for.

Another aspect to consider is that the signing bonus will only continue to fill the armed services with more poor and minority members, while failing to attract middle-class whites and women to the military. The less politically powerful the soldiers, the more likely they will be casually dispatched to combat. Many people perceive the military to be a place for lower class and uneducated people to get a job. We need more diversity in the services, not less.

So, let the young people think it over: $5,000 or a limited, temporary military that serves the free society called the United States. It's not a hard choice to me, but they're young and $5,000 seems like an awful lot of money...

www.american-partisan.com