New draft would lower military, subvert liberty

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently 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.