I saw a fun discussion on the neutral politics section of reddit last night. Basically they discussed the merits and detriments of having a referendum vote on whether or not we go to war (seeing that its us who are on the front line).
There was even a proposed amendment to the constitution once that would put the vote of war to the people and whoever voted for it was immediately put in the draft.
Thoughts?
I think a hybrid system would be better. The majority of Americans simply don’t think deeply enough about the actual cots of military actions to be trusted carte blanche. I would keep the congressional vote, and add that to GO to war, the public vote must also agree.
Problem is referendums are cumbersome and slow-moving things, and it might be something that needs a rapid decision.
I tend to be hostile to referendums by principle, but at the same time can appreciate everyone’s distrust of legislatures to handle the power well, given the Iraq War.
Why would this make a difference? When has the American public ever been against a war at its beginning?
World Wars I & II?
You know, the ones we didn’t get involved in for several years, due to isolationism?
Absolutely, in terms of action and policy if nothing more. If a referendum returns a 49% disapproval rate, then forward planning will be greatly affected. When a significant portion of your electorate disapproves of you even being there right from the start, then long-term quagmires and the like are far less likely to gain popular support in congress. Additionally, a referendum can provide a solid, legitimate, public basis for protesting additional expansionist actions. The invasion of Iraq is a good example.
The decision to use the military is based in classified intelligence, and the government can choose to only declassify things that help its case. See Powell’s presentation to the UN. Wouldn’t a resolution for the Iraq war have passed? I seem to remember the Bush administration’s PR campaign being rather persuasive for more than 50% of the population.
Congress didn’t vote for war at the beginning of those wars, either. Once the Zimmerman telegram and Pearl Harbor occurred, both public opinion and Congress were strongly in favor of war. A referendum would have been totally irrelevant in those cases.
On the other side, what if the public supported a war that the government thought was stupid?
As others have noted, a referendum would do nothing to have prevented any war in which we have engaged, with the possible exceptions of Korea and the War of 1812. (And I suspect that each of those were popularly supported when they began.)
It is trivially easy to manipulate the populace into support for a war and that has been true, probably forever. All adding a referendum would accomplish would be to give the hawks the cover that it was the “nation’s” decision when the war later began to lose popularity.
An interesting example of this phenomenon occurred in Europe between 1910 and 1914. The various socialist movements included a strong anti-nationalism platform and people such as Rosa Luxemburg were able to persuade nearly 100% of the membership of their organizations across multiple countries in Europe to take a pledge to refuse service in the military and to abjure war when, (they knew it was not “if”), it came. Yet, in July of 1914, they saw an overwhelming majority of their memberships throw away the pledges and begin volunteering for the military or demanding that their nations go to war.
After Vietnam brought views of wars in living color to the living rooms of this nation, there were complaints by some that we would never be able to mount an effective defense because too many people would have been traumatized by what they saw on TV to ever support a war, again. Yet, neither of the Bush administrations had any trouble getting massive popular support for their wars against Iraq. (Granted, the silly escapade in Grenada and the massacres in Panama (neither of which were reported to any extent), might have dulled many fears among the populace, but it remains true that simply waving a banner saying “we need to fight” was enough to persuade well over 50% of the people to support their actions.)
Oh, really? I"ve posted this link about a dozen times over the years. This is a poll taken a few weeks before the Iraq War AUMF was passed in Congress.
I suspect that you and I would differ on a definition of “a few weeks” in this context. According to the link:
What was the general view by March 20, 2003? There were twenty-two weeks from the poll until the launch of the war during which time the administration invested heavily in pro-war propaganda. In contrast, World War I was declared on July 28 following the June 28 assassination of the Archduke.
How do you square those results with these?
Between February 2001 and November 2002, support for an invasion of Iraq never dipped below 53%, and opposition was never more than 42%, when respondents were asked this question: Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
We already have an informal “referendum” for war: an all-volunteer military.
If a really, really stupid war gets started, recruitment will fall to near-nothing, and the political and military establishment will get the message.
We also have an informal referendum on all government actions in our freedom of speech, and a rather effective formal one in the re-election of the entire House of Representatives every other year.
What’s to stop the military from increasing the salary/benefits and lowering recruitment standards to compensate?
No, we don’t. But we should. An actual all-voluntary military where soldiers could quit whenever they want. Then, if you have a war and nobody shows up, you know it wasn’t worth fighting.
Congress controls salary and benefits, as well as sets a ceiling on the size of the armed forces.
Sure, that would bring in some people – mercenaries! – who would fight in a war they consider immoral, simply for the pay. But in a really unpopular war, like the Viet Nam war, I don’t think the country could have afforded to pay the kind of money that would have been necessary to recruit a fighting force.
Well, technically, we do have a volunteer military. No one was conscripted, and very, very few people get sent there by judges in lieu of criminal penalties. (I think it does actually happen now and then, but rarely.)
If members of the military were allowed to leave when they chose to, the effectiveness would be hampered. People would join, enjoy the benefits, and then simply scarper off when a war started. This wouldn’t work for any job where the work is contingent. Firefighters, policemen, hazardous materials clean-up techs, etc. Take the money…and run.
At very least, it would be a breach of contract.
As it is, if you have a war, and no one enlists once it has started, you know it probably isn’t worth fighting. The military is very aware of the situation, and is, because of it, reluctant to get drawn into that kind of action.
“Volunteer” means you’re there by choice. And nobody knows what they’re getting into until they’re into it. At the very least there should be options after training and, say, six months out of training to quit with no questions asked.
This is not true. For one thing, officers aren’t bound by contracts and can resign their commission any time after their initial ~6 year commitment. And they’re not quitting in droves, even during wars. For another thing, I was there, I know. The number of gung-ho idiots in Iraq was astounding. I would say most of the people I met were itching for more action. Mechanics begging to go outside the wire. Reservists who didn’t want to go back home. I knew a truck driver who was shot on six separate occasions. Finally, he was hit by an IED and lost his arm. Instead of going home like a sane man, he went back to Iraq as a civilian to keep driving trucks and dodging roadside bombs. If you can’t talk those people into fighting, you have no right starting a war.
As attested by their signatures on the enlistment forms.
Dude, you’re trying too hard; if your argument depends on re-defining a word, you may want to reconsider your argument.
The term “volunteer army” refers to enlistment, not to deployment. We all know damn well that, once you’re in the army, they send you where they want, and you have no say in the matter (other than “Yes, sir.”)
The term only applies to enlistment, and is in contrast to conscription, which was a major controversy during the Viet Nam war.
Should deployment also be voluntary? I say no, but that’s just one bloke’s opinion. I think that effectiveness would be severely hampered (crippled!) if troops could simply say, “Nope.”
(In the early days of the Soviet Union, military units were democratized. They’d have a regimental vote on what to do! This idea, while perhaps admirable in the abstract, didn’t work worth dog-poop in combat, and was very quickly done away with.)
If you have to bother with a referendum, you shouldn’t be going to war.