America Reinstitute a Draft? Once

¶ … America Reinstitute a Draft? Once upon a time, not so long ago, nearly every able-bodied young man in the United States held his breath in anticipation that his draft numbers might be called in the national draft lottery. If his or her number was selected, the individual's life was no longer his own -- his future was put on hold and it temporarily belonged to the U.S. military.

The recent war in Iraq has caused a resurgence of calls to reinstate the peacetime and military draft -- not so much to bolster the flagging spirits and minds of those in their enforced deployment in the Middle East, but based upon the argument that the U.S. government would never have pursued such a foolhardy mission, had the lives of the wealthy as well as the poor been at stake. "Imagine if all our sons and daughters were at risk for deployment to the desert...

[if] we feared our children were next up to be gutted like fish...if turning 18 meant your kid's boots on the ground, a resolution to pull troops out of Iraq by a certain date might grab more than six votes in the U.S. Senate. A key difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the country's ability to keep this war at a convenient distance" (Vennochi 2006). U.S.

Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York who opposes the war introduced the Universal National Service Act of 2006, requiring young men and women all between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a period of military service or period of civilian service "in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security" (Vennochi 2006). The bill was not phrased in terms of national military need but national deterrence -- not deterrence of an exterior military threat, but to deter politicians who would propel our nation too quickly to go to war.

Rangel did add that the way the military is currently staffed is discriminatory: "Right now, the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who, with limited options, chose military service and now find themselves in harm's way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share" (Vennochi 2006).

This argument seems to contain the implication, however, that those who do serve in the military are somewhat inferior, people with no other options other than service, with an implication about the competency of the current forces which seems slightly offensive.

Furthermore, the idea of drafting all able-bodied people as a deterrent to politicians pursuing war seems like a specious argument, no matter how impassioned or well-intentioned, given that it is belied by the historical fact that so many young men were deployed in Vietnam, for so long, despite the presence of a draft. Many of the wealthiest young Americans circumvented the draft by finding alternative, less risky service in the National Guard, obtaining an exemption due to health concerns, or, after 1971, pursuing higher education.

Although we have idealized the military draft in our collective minds, historical memory is short. The period where all young men served 'feels' very far away, yet long in duration -- the country has not had a military draft since 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer military. But the existence of a peacetime draft is actually a very recent historical occurrence in the United States.

It was only in the 20th century when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 that the U.S.'s first peacetime draft was established along with the Selective Service System. "From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means...The registration requirement was suspended in 1975, but resumed again in 1980 under President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" ("Background of Selective Service," About.com, 2008).

Drafting men and women into service during peacetime thus does not have a long, proud history within the United States, it only arose during a relatively extraordinary time in our nation, during World War II and the total mobilization required during and afterward, because of the ensuing Cold War. In fact, one could argue that the debacle of Vietnam, the first war America 'lost,' was allowed because of the existence of so many available men to fight.

Of course, there are many other factors that contributed to Vietnam, but such a simplistic argument that drafts prevent or cause wars is similar to the equally logically fallacious argument used by people who wish to instate the peacetime draft. Freedom from national compulsion, including compulsion to serve was one of the reasons our nation was founded.

One of the causes of the war of 1812 was the forced conscription or impressment of American seamen into the British army -- but the British were not above impressing their own citizens, when needed, into military service, something the Americans abhorred. "The Napoleonic Wars increased English need for sea power and led to the impressment of a large number of deserters, criminals, and British subjects who had become naturalized Americans" ("Impressment," Columbia Encyclopedia, 2008).

America was resistant to a professional federal force in general (hence the need for the amendments allowing semi-or nonprofessional state militias the right to bear arms and preventing the forced quartering of servicemen) because of the anger the British military abuses of freedom had aroused in the colonies.

During the Civil War, when New York failed to meet its recruitment quotas, making it "subject to provisions of the Enrollment and Conscription Act passed by Congress on March 3, 1863," meaning "conscription was to be employed when enrollment targets were not met by a community," New York City rioted for three days straight in an "orgy of violence" ("1863 Draft Riots," Mr. Lincoln and New York, 2002). Thus, a peacetime draft is not a part of a long tradition of America.

Freedom to choose to serve, unless historical circumstances necessitate a mandatory draft, is part of the American tradition. A professional highly-trained army accustomed to the sophisticated technological equipment in use today, rather than individuals who serve for a paltry two years is likely to offer far more effective resistance to any threat.

Democratic nations that do deploy an effective universal draft, like Israel, are, in the case of Israel, nations that are involved in what might be called an constant state of tensions or war with neighbors -- and fortunately the size of Israel relative to its enemies and its need to constantly be vigilant against military invasion is not, for all of the concern about terrorism, the current state of affairs in the contemporary United States.

The arguments raised in favor of the draft are largely moral -- that all young Americans should.