A Case for the Draft

Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has been dependent upon a military made up solely of volunteers. They have used educational and monetary incentives to attract some of the nation’s best and brightest young men and women to serve in uniform which has resulted in the most highly trained and best equipped all volunteer military force in United States History. After the terrorist attacks on September 11^th, 2001, our nation was forced to enter into a war it did not ask for, against an ideology it was unfamiliar with and using means it was unprepared to deal with. As a result, the United States currently fights an asymmetrical global war on extreme, radical Muslims –a war, that for the first time, is being fought with an all volunteer military force and spread thin across the world fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with special task forces located at the Horn of Africa and the in Philippines.

President George W. Bush and his administration have denounced the possibility of a draft at least 100 times since the war started and have been vocally against proposals made by Democratic members of Congress in recent years asking for a form of the draft to be reinstated. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 created the country’s first peacetime draft and was done so by then President Franklin Roosevelt. It was seen as a necessity in 1940 when other world powers had committed expansionist acts of aggression and could quite possibly threaten the United States, its allies, and its interests as well.

Currently, the US military as it stands is a minority group. It is a minority group because it is comprised of less than 1% of our population or 1/79,000^th to be precise –an astoundingly small minority when you see the numbers, and few if any could claim a smaller minority status. It would be in keeping with our shared values to rally behind this group who protect our freedoms and provide more collectively in the form of manpower to our armed forces. We need to get the whole of the United States involved in this global war. In order to do that, a military draft is a necessary part of accomplishing that goal.

To draw a parallel to our current situation we need only look back to the late 1930’s and the days leading up to the Second World War. By the late 1930’s, Italy, Japan and Germany had all begun to expand their borders and had developed sizeable militaries to carry out this expansion. Eyeing military expansion as a possible threat to the United States and its interests, the U.S. Congress proposed the Burke-Wadsworth Act also known as the Selective Training and Service Act, in September of 1940. This act established the first peace-time draft in United States history and was quickly signed into law by then President Franklin Roosevelt. This act served to prepare the United States for the possibility of foreign aggression and acts that countered US interests abroad. In October of 1940, the draft was put into action utilizing a lottery system for all American males between the ages of 21 and 35. If a man was drafted through this system he was expected to serve for a period of twelve months and in any location “…in the western hemisphere or in United States possessions located throughout the world”.

Recognizing the need for longer terms in the early summer of 1941, President Roosevelt asked Congress to extend the terms of enlistment. The House narrowly voted in favor of the term extension by one vote, but the Senate passed the bill by a wider margin. As a result, many of the men who had been drafted in October of 1940, upon hearing of the draft extensions, threatened to desert after their original twelve month terms were up. Few of them did so, and after the December 7^th attacks on Peal Harbor that year, the military ranks swelled with volunteers, but it is important to note that the draft did not cease.

Similarly, after the September 11^th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, our own military saw increased volunteers for enlistment, but unlike previous wars, we did not currently have a draft in place to replace those men and women once their volunteer contracts were complete or in the event they were killed in combat.

The current lottery system of the draft was last used at the end of the Vietnam War and was developed after many perceived unfair practices were identified. Among the top issues was college deferment. During the Vietnam War a male could get a draft deferment “if he… showed he was a full time student making…progress towards a degree.” Because of the deferment system some ethnic minorities who were unable to attend college for socioeconomic reasons thought this rule unfair. It was perceived that the uneducated minorities were the ones being sent to fight. This added fuel to the fire of civil unrest as the nation was undergoing a change with the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Many who felt they were being unfairly targeted for the draft participated in war protests. This created more animosity between minority groups and government entities who had already been implicated in unlawful surveillance on protest groups. Another issue was the classing of males ages 18-25 in one large pool. It was unfair to put the lives of our nation’s young men in a virtual limbo for seven years playing a form of “Russian roulette” with the draft lottery. What was developed was a classing system that would end a candidates ”high priority draft number the year he turned twenty or the year his deferment ended.”

Because of the lessons learned from past drafting practices, the Selective Service System has undergone a series of reforms and has developed new guidelines in the event modern day draft is re-instated. To ensure fairness and equality, the old system of college deferment has been done away with. Now, under the current law, a male has until the end of the semester for deferment unless he is a senior, in which case he is allowed deferment until the end of the full academic year. This new deferment law is designed to fairly draft young American males preventing those of “privileged” backgrounds from staying in school, deferred, until they are too old, thus using their “means” as a way to avoid their duty.

Under the old draft laws, local and state boards selected draftees using a “quota” system. The quota system assigned a number of men to the draft and because of the power and authority of the boards, board members would determine “who” was selected. This resulted in some instances of favoritism because of personal relationships some board members had with prospective draftees.

One of the changes instituted to prevent favoritism is that “membership on the boards [is] required to be as representative as possible of the racial and ethnic background of the area served by the board.” This law supports a fair and equitable means in dealing with the draft from all socioeconomic areas throughout America.

Another change that was utilized at the later part of the Vietnam War was the lottery system. By implementing this system it helped to alleviate the uncertainty of a potential draftee by setting up a priority system. According to the Selective Service System website, first priority of the draft would be assigned to young men in the calendar year they reach the age of 20 or the year their deferment ended. This way uncertainty associated with the draft would only last a year unlike the old system which placed a candidate in first priority for 7 years. After age 20 a young man would be dropped to the second priority.

A final change to the system and, in keeping with individual rights is the right of a draftee to appeal to his local selection board directly. Previously, and up until the end of the Vietnam War era, a young man was not guaranteed this important right. The right is important because it allows a young man to meet with his draft board and appeal to them personally in regards to his deferment. Now with the backing of the law, he has that right.

The reforms and changes in the laws governing the Selective Service System have taken the inequity and unfairness of the past and molded them into a fair and equitable system that could, if enacted serve to fill our military ranks in a manner that would be fair to all the participants.

Now that we have historical and current functional information on the draft as it would be used in the United States today, there is another reason to seriously consider the draft. Calling for the draft to be re-instated will prevent our country from carelessly going to war in the future. When congressional members think twice about sending their own children into harm’s way it equals a chance for the rest of the nation to avoid the loss by sending our sons to fight in foreign lands. As a matter of fact, Sen. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has called for the draft based on such a theory. He initially asked for a draft to be instated in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq as, at the time he thought that the US would not be able to maintain what appeared to be a long road to securing Iraq. He has since called for the draft twice more, but after his first bill was voted down, his consecutive bills have languished in congressional committee. Rangel had a legitimate point when he said, “The war in Iraq would never have occurred if members of Congress and the administration thought that [their kids and] kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way.” Taking into consideration the great support the nation had in the beginning of the war on terror, he further states “I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft.”

Echoing similar sentiments, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) has also introduced a bill that would require 2 years of mandatory service for every male and female in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26. This occurred shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and unlike the current selective service model, it would include young women, and throw America’s young people back into the state of uncertainty that occurred during the draft previous to the current laws and reforms. He added other reforms to his bill that would revert the current draft legislation to pre-Vietnam War era with the exception of one major change which is the addition of young women to the pool of viable conscripts. Certainly adding women to the draft is fair and equitable, but it is unnecessary due to the fact that the US has a pool of over 16 million male candidates registered with the selective service. His bill had merits however because those not qualifying for service could participate in a community service program that would fulfill the same requirement. By reverting the draft and adding young women to the draft pool, Sen. Hollings’ bill was doomed from the start.

According to the Newsmax.com article “Mandatory Military Service Would Benefit the U.S.” by Armstrong Williams, when countries institute conscription and they do it right, not only can it be an asset to the nation, but to society as well. Even those who are conscientious objectors could make a contribution by filling non-combat roles in the military. There are benefits to the nation as well. When society has invested in the national interests by way of its young men, “the national spirit increases, …national unity improves and society grows healthier [on the whole].“

The draft of bygone days is no more. Today’s draft is fair and equitable. Enacting the draft would be a good way to support that small group of men and women, who although doing an outstanding job abroad, are spread thin and could frankly use the reinforcements. The benefit of a draft in future conflicts could be invaluable to Congress when the decision to go to war presents itself. Congressional members would be slower to beat the drums of war if they feared that their own children and the children of their constituents would be sent to fight and die on foreign soil. Finally, a draft would serve the nation as a means to improve national spirit and improve our national unity. The draft of today is the best chance we have at filling our military ranks and preventing another terrorist attack on US soil.