COMMENTARY
It's time to think about draft and its alternatives
By John Griffin
John Griffin is former editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages and a frequent contributor.
Barring some dramatic event, it seems unlikely that proposals to revive the military draft will be a hot issue this election year.
Still, with our military stretched thin and even the topic of President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service in the public eye, it's also something to think about.
I'm for some kind of universal national service for young Americans, including women. This is a country that needs more than the patriotism lite most of us now practice.
(At the same time, I want to thank the reader who sent along a sobering comment made once by Bertrand Russell. Asked if he would die for his beliefs, the British philosopher said: "No, because I may be wrong.")
So here is a semi-biased, fair and balanced look at this issue whose time has not yet come but maybe will. First, the arguments against reviving a draft or any broader form of national service:
• Everybody agrees we now have a good military doing a fine job. The all-volunteer force is not only made up of polished professionals, it is a shining example of harmonious race relations and affirmative action.
• Faced with new kinds of warfare, the "new" American military stresses quality of trained people, not quantity of short-term amateurs. Its leaders say if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it with a flood of draftees and social engineering.
• Not only can increased recruitment handle anticipated needs, we have a military made up not just of poor whites and minorities. True, there are few Ivy Leaguers and other elites, but the reality is more middle-class than anything.
• Some 4 million young Americans turn 18 every year, while needed enlistment into the military has been running at about 185,000 a year. That means any draft system, even for broader national service, presumably by a lottery, would be highly arbitrary and far from "universal." It might even become hard to volunteer.
• Talk of "citizen soldiers" is both nostalgic and outdated. Conscription, except in times of grave national peril, actually goes against the idea of maximum American liberty. It's a divisive issue that could tear the nation. Think draft-card burnings, young protesters fleeing to Canada, etc.
• A military draft could enhance what many see as a growing American empire, or at least rising military involvement around the world. Vietnam, where tens of thousands of draftees were killed in a long, losing cause, shows what could still happen, especially given the ambitions of the Bush administration.
Here are the arguments for obligatory service, probably after age 18 or high school graduation:
• With the regular military, Reserves and National Guard overstretched and straining in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, more service men and women are going to be needed, even with changing concepts of warfare.
• The war on terror has opened a new front. Homeland defense requires more guards for facilities such as power plants and dams, and border and cargo-ship inspection. In what promises to be a long war, short-term draftees can do this with proper training, and at less expense.
• The Selective Service system, which still registers men when they turn 18, says that a draft held now would be dramatically different from the system in the Vietnam era. Presumably that would mean fewer loopholes and no special treatment for elite youths.
• We need a new-style draft that not only includes women but provides several options for national service. These could include military service, an expanded Peace Corps, homeland security, civilian service programs such as Americorps, and maybe some variation of the 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps that did environmental work.
Job training and G.I. bill-type benefits should be part of this. Yes, it will cost money, but as in the past, it should be worth it.
• If the civilian-soldier concept needs revising, a goal needs to be a new kind of patriotism and expanded views of national service — obligations that go with rights.
This is a lesson we all need to learn, not just our young people, and maybe the hard-line Bush people most of all.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who supported the Iraq invasion but now deplores how the aftermath is being conducted, recently wrote about what I call two-tier American thinking on this and related conflicts:
"The whole burden is being borne by a small cadre of Americans — the soldiers, their families and reservists — and the rest of us are just sailing along as if it had nothing to do with us ... no sacrifices required, no new taxes to pay for this long-term endeavor. ... "
Again, the draft may not be an issue now, but this is an election year when Americans need to think hard about what kind of nation we have become i and how our ideals need to be readjusted for the future.
