Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week said the government
is ruling out a military draft "at the present time," and
went on to say, "I don't know anyone in the executive branch
of the government who believes that it would be appropriate
or necessary to reinstitute the draft." The statement is somewhat
reassuring, aside from the "at the present time" qualifier.
But there's no question there's agitation for a return to
conscription.
The impulse should be nipped in the bud. A draft would give
the United States a less-efficient, less-motivated, less-capable
military and would be deeply subversive of fundamental American
values. It would also virtually guarantee a large-scale antiwar
movement.
Nonetheless, a nascent bring-back-the-draft movement is under
way, led at the moment by Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.
There are a number of reasons that it might gain momentum.
The U.S. military, if not already, is reaching the point
of being overstretched by the war in Iraq. Regular troops
in Iraq have been asked repeatedly to extend their service
beyond the 12 months they had expected to be in the war zone.
The 130,000-person contingent in Iraq includes more National
Guard members (some of whom never expected to go overseas
when they joined) than in previous conflicts.
About 1 percent of those who served in Vietnam and 0.2 percent
of those killed were in the National Guard. In Iraq about
one in four soldiers is in the National Guard and about one
in 10 of those killed are from National Guard units.
When the current rotation is completed, about 40 percent
of those in Iraq will be reserves or guardsmen.
In addition, there are 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan
and about 100,000 stationed in other posts around the world,
including South Korea, Japan and Germany.
So on the surface, a case for conscription can be appealing,
especially to Vietnam war-era veterans such as Sen. Hagel,
who can recall that war's draft. But it's a temptation that
should be resisted for many reasons.
Conscription, with draft boards in every community, appeals
and enforcement mechanisms, is more expensive than is generally
acknowledged. It leads to higher military turnover and increased
training costs, a more important factor in today's high-tech
military than in times past. It would weigh the military down
with thousands of people who don't want to be there. And in
this day and age it would inevitably raise equity issues -
most notably the question of whether women should be subject
to conscription.
Most important, since conscription is a form of involuntary
service, it would subvert the liberty this country is supposedly
devoted to maintaining and expanding. It would also undermine
the spirit of community and service many advocates of conscription
or national service say - perhaps quite sincerely - they want
to promote.
Talk of a draft is a shortsighted response to a war that
has required more personnel than expected - remember, the
optimists a year ago expected the number of troops in Iraq
to be down to 30,000 or so by November. That's not surprising.
A more constructive approach would be to use the lessons
learned in this war to approach calls for future wars and
military involvement with more prudence and skepticism - and
to begin a hard-nosed reassessment of the many commitments
we have made, many of which make little sense - or actually
increase risks - in today's international environment.