You're going to start hearing a lot about re-instituting the draft in this country. Let me just say a few things about this. First off, almost every argument you will hear in favor of the draft is completely and utterly wrong. Second off, the American military, today, is the most professional and disciplined fighting force on the planet. It's also one of the few all-volunteer militaries. Correlation?
Let's look at some of the arguments.
The military is a trap for the economically disadvantaged and undereducated. When was the last time you actually saw a study that supported this contention? If you'd like counterevidence, take a look at the Heritage Institute analysis.
The people who run the country aren't impacted by war deaths, so they'll make better decisions if their children are also at risk. Let's look at the numbers first. There are about 300 million Americans today. Using the Census Projections, about 80 million are too young to have served, and about 100 million are between 20-44 - let's use that as the estimate for people who could be on active duty. According to the VA, there are about 25 million veterans currently alive; there are about 1.4 million people on active duty. Given the approximately 2 children per couple birthrate, there are an estimated 200 children of Senators in the 100 million people who could serve; to match the demographic, we'd expect to find 2 to 3 of them in service. Jimmy McCain. Brooks Johnson. Hmmm, close enough, especially when you consider that many of the Senators either have children to young to have served.
As for veterans, we appear to be about 10 percent of the of-age population. Are there ten veterans in the Senate? According to their official bios: Akaka. Burns. Carper. Cochran. Graham. Hagel. Harkin. Inouye. Jeffords. Kerry. Lautenberg. McCain. Reed. Roberts. Stevens. Thomas. Warner. National Guard or Reserve: Isakson. Kohl. That makes seventeen, plus two if you count Guard and Reserves. Several more had been in the Peace Corps, if that tickles your fancy. But clearly, the Senate has a disproportionately high number of veterans.
But that's only part of the story. The argument that they aren't impacted is bogus. How many Senators have relatives making minimum wage? Who have no health insurance? Yet on these topics, we allow them to govern. The argument from impact is just another recycling of the old "chickenhawk" canard, which isn't worth dignifying.
The draft can also be used for national service. I understand the desire to permit the opt-out for those unwilling or unable to defend their country. And in cases like Israel, which has a 100% conscription rate, it's even understandable. But let's be clear: the draft is a form of institutionalized slavery. Does it matter that you're getting shot at or changing bedpans? In fact, yes. A draft for the survival of the nation is morally defensible. A draft for the purpose of creating a labor force to be applied to politician's pet projects? Morally reprehensible.
There are sure to be other arguments. Remember this, though: the draft is a bogeyman used by politicians who are opposed to the use of military options. That alone is a clear argument against it. The politicians in favor of the draft are not advocating it for national defense, or improvement of the military. They are advocating it to weaken our military and our political will. Don't let that happen.
Update: Gus Van Horn notes that
a nation cannot defend itself without an army. But what good is such a "defense" if said country denies the rights of its own citizens to decide for themselves whether to risk combat?
Hmmm. Food for thought, and a compelling argument. Question: Which is worse: the draft, or removing the right of citizens to form autonomous militias?
