Transcript:The drumbeats for expanding our (and Israel’s) war with Iran are loud. Cable news panels talk about strategy. Politicians talk about deterrence. Pentagon briefings talk about targets and timelines. But there’s one thing missing from almost every conversation in Washington. Risk. Not the geopolitical kind. Not the think-tank kind. Real risk. The kind that lands in your living room in the form of a letter from the government telling your family that your child is being sent to war. For most of modern America’s leaders . and certainly for generations of the Trump family . that risk simply doesn’t exist. We live in a country where fewer than one percent of the population serves in the military. The burden of fighting America’s wars has been placed on a narrow slice of our people. They’re mostly working class, many come from rural communities, and many join because it’s one of the few stable ways to get healthcare, education benefits, and a future. Meanwhile the people who debate whether we should be bombing Iran are almost never sending their own kids. That didn’t used to be the case. During World War II nearly every American family had someone in uniform. War was a shared national sacrifice, and politicians understood that every decision they made could cost the life of one of theirs or their neighbor’s son or daughter. I remember well how Vietnam brought that reality home in a different way. I hated it, protested against it, got kicked out of school for those protests, and still curse LBJ and Nixon for their lies that killed nearly 60,000 of my fellow citizens. But that, in retrospect, is exactly how it should be. That protest/debate was a good thing for our nation, every bit as good as the war was wrong and bad. The draft lottery meant that millions of young Americans suddenly had skin in the game of war. College campuses erupted in protest not because students were uniquely radical but because they knew they might soon be the ones crawling through rice paddies under machine gun fire in a war that the country had, by then, fully realized was based on lies. The draft was what forced our country, our families from coast-to-coast, to confront the human cost of war. And eventually it forced our government to end that war. In 1973 Richard Nixon and Congress ended the draft and created today’s all-volunteer military. The argument sounded reasonable at the time, particularly after the upheaval of Vietnam. A professional military would be more skilled and more motivated, they said. It would be more competent, even more lethal. But then something else happened because the draft ended: war became easier for politicians to throw our military into, because the dissenting voices in the ranks had vanished. When only a tiny slice of Americans are at risk for fighting, bleeding, and dying, the political price of launching a war drops dramatically. Congress members can vote for military action without worrying that their own children or those of their constituents will pay the price. Television pundits can cheer for bombing campaigns without imagining their own kids in uniform. The result has been nearly nonstop war for half a century, from Ronald Reagan’s attack on Grenada straight through to today. Afghanistan lasted 20 years. Iraq dragged on for nearly two decades. The United States has been involved in military operations across the Middle East and Africa that most Americans can barely locate on a map. Now we’re staring at the possibility that Trump’s attacks against Iran could metastasize into World War III. The stakes here are much higher than George W. Bush’s wars that he told his biographer, Mickey Herskowitz, were fought to get him a second term in the White House. Iran isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan: it’s a nation of nearly 90 million people with a large military, deep regional alliances, and the ability to disrupt global energy markets overnight. It’s twice the size of Iraq or Texas. And a war there could ignite the entire Middle East, which could easily spread to Europe (and already has, in a minor way, with Iran’s attacks on Cyprus and their missiles sent at Turkey). As we deplete our munitions, it might also encourage China to try to take Taiwan. Yet the discussion among Republicans in Washington sounds strangely casual. Analysts debate air strikes on TV and guess about retaliation scenarios the way sports commentators pontificate about playoff strategies. Pete Hegseth struts and preens for the camera like a tough guy. All because it’s easy to talk that way when you know your family won’t be fighting. Now, imagine a different system. Imagine that the United States had a national draft that applied equally to everyone. Rich kids and poor kids. Red states and blue states. The children of senators, CEOs, and television hosts alongside the children of factory workers and teachers. This is how it works today in Norway (includes women), Sweden (includes women), Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel (includes women), South Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and Sweden young people can opt to serve in the nonprofit sector (like hospitals or environmental work) instead of the military. The draft provides a right of passage into adulthood for young people, something found in the history of every society. Those who serve for a year could be rewarded with free college or trade school. They’d get out of their local bubble, see the world, meet and work side-by-side with people who don’t look or speak or pray like them. These are all good outcomes of national service. And it’s successful: other than Israel, which has its own unique problems, you’re not hearing much bellicose war rhetoric from any of those nations’ leaders. If we had that here, do you think Republicans would still talk so casually about war with Iran? Would Congress rush to authorize military force if their own sons and daughters might be called up next month? History suggests the answer is no. Countries with universal service become more cautious about war because the entire society feels the consequences. Parents ask harder questions, students organize, and communities demand clear, explicit, detailed answers about why a conflict is necessary and exactly what victory would look like. Shared sacrifice, in other words, produces democratic accountability. And right now America doesn’t have that. Instead, we’ve created a system where war is something that happens to somebody else, that roughly one percent who volunteer. It’s fought by someone else’s kids. It’s endured by someone else’s family. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work. The Founders of our republic deeply distrusted standing armies, so much so that they wrote into the Constitution that the army must be funded every two years or it will cease to exist. It’s right there in Article I, forcing our country to reevaluate our military and its use every time Congress reconvenes:“The Congress shall have Power…To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. ”They believed that America should only go to war when the public truly understood the stakes and Congress had engaged in a vigorous, public debate about it. That’s why declaring war was not among the powers the Constitution gives the president.“The Congress shall have Power…to declare War…”When there was a national consensus, and only then, would we go to war. Citizen soldiers were supposed to ensure that war remained a last resort rather than a convenient tool of foreign policy. This BS like Republicans today are doing as they hold briefings for Congress behind closed doors would have horrified them. And ignoring that concern is how Trump got us here: the all-volunteer military quietly erased that safeguard. Don’t take me wrong: the men and women who volunteer to serve our nation deserve enormous respect. They’ve carried the weight of America’s wars with courage and sacrifice. The problem isn’t them: it’s the rest of us. When the risks of war are concentrated in a small segment of society, the rest of the nation stops paying attention. Politicians face less pressure, military interventions multiply, and wealthy defense contractors prosper. The human cost of war, in other words, gets hidden. But a fair national draft would change that overnight. It wouldn’t make America more warlike: history shows it would do the opposite. If every family knew their children could be sent to fight, Americans would demand diplomacy first, second, and third. Wars would still happen when they truly had to, but they wouldn’t happen so casually. A president who just orders the troops to start shooting at a country like Iran would be held to account by every family in the country. As the war with Iran grows hotter, we should be asking a simple question that almost nobody in Washington wants to hear:“If the road to war with Tehran required the sons and daughters of the billionaire and political class to march beside everyone else’s kids, would we still be there?”Thom Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and SiriusXM talk show host. His Substack can be found here.Our Analysis:The Real Cost of War: A Critical Look at America's Military EngagementIn a recent article by Thom Hartmann, a critical lens is cast on the United States' approach to military engagement, particularly focusing on the discussions surrounding expanding military conflict with Iran. Hartmann underscores a notable absence in the discourse: the real risk of war, not just in geopolitical terms, but the tangible human cost borne by a select few in American society. This analysis seeks to dissect the institutional powers at play, decision-making processes, and whether the framing of the article redirects responsibility away from the true actors of influence.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingThe article rightly points out that the decision to engage in or expand a military conflict does not lie with the general populace or the military itself, but with the political elite and decision-makers in Washington. This includes the President, Congress, and to an extent, the Pentagon. These entities hold the institutional power to declare, conduct, and end wars. The critique of a seemingly casual approach to war by some Republicans and television pundits highlights a disconnection between those who make decisions and those who bear their consequences.However, it's crucial to differentiate between the power to influence public opinion and the power to make actual decisions regarding war. While pundits and media figures can shape narratives and perhaps sway public sentiment, they do not have the authority to deploy troops or authorize military strikes. The real decision-making power rests squarely with elected and appointed officials in the government.Misdirection of ResponsibilityHartmann's article implies a shared blame between politicians who vote for military action and media personalities who support these endeavors without considering the personal stakes. While this shared criticism is valid in the context of shaping public perception, it's essential to underscore that the ultimate responsibility for military decisions lies with those in governmental power positions, not those in the media or punditry.The framing within the article risks misdirecting responsibility by not sufficiently distinguishing between the role of influencers and decision-makers. The primary critique should focus on the political system that allows for such decisions to be made with limited direct accountability to the populace. specifically, the lack of a draft that would democratize the risk of war.The Draft and Democratic AccountabilityOne of the article's most compelling arguments is the historical context of the draft and how its absence has shifted the burden of military service to a small, volunteer segment of the population. This volunteer force is disproportionately drawn from specific socio-economic backgrounds, creating a disconnect between those who decide on war and those who fight it.The suggestion of reintroducing some form of national service or draft to ensure a more equitable distribution of military service risk is provocative. It challenges the current status quo and suggests that a more widespread risk of military service could lead to greater democratic accountability and potentially a more cautious approach to military engagements.However, it's important to challenge the assumption that a draft or national service would automatically lead to more prudent military decisions. While it might democratize the risk and ensure a broader societal representation in the military, the decision to go to war involves complex considerations beyond just the immediate risk to one's own citizens. Factors include international obligations, defense strategies, and geopolitical dynamics that a draft alone might not influence.ConclusionThom Hartmann's article raises crucial questions about the nature of America's military engagements and who bears the cost. While his critique of the casual discourse around war in Washington is poignant, a sharper distinction between those who influence public opinion and those who actually make decisions is necessary. The discussion on reintroducing a draft or national service is an important one, as it touches on themes of democratic accountability, equity, and the social contract between a government and its governed.Ultimately, the responsibility for military decisions lies with the institutional powers of government: the President, Congress, and the military leadership. While expanding the risk of military service through a draft could alter the public and political discourse around war, it is not a panacea. The deeper issue lies in ensuring that those in power wield it responsibly, with a full understanding and appreciation of the human costs involved.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com