In the Know: Neither blood nor treasure gives
Rethinking the draft debate
By Jeff Genota, staff writer
Posted on December 7, 2006

A year ago, I sat in my GHIST 150 class as a panel of classmates debated reinstating the draft, an idea that surfaced before the Iraq War started. Although the measure died in Congress, it was proposed by Republican senators John McCain, Ariz., and Chuck Hagel, Neb., both Vietnam veterans. After last month’s Democratic victories, Korean War veteran and Congressman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who is next in line for chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee hit the airwaves to propose reinstating the national draft, but one that would include 18-to-42-year-olds, affecting a majority of America’s population. While Rangel wanted to get some attention to the issue and for the most part received shrugs and rebukes from fellow colleagues, his attention-grabbing move points to the overall dilemma of the United States and the use of its military might.

Whatever their intentions, they made one point perfectly loud and clear — we are too prone to the influences and the pretensions to use military force. For too long, many people have been ignorant of the main problem that uproots the draft debate. The older generation of Americans and veterans chastise the younger draft evaders, about whether we understand the nature, cost and sacrifice that come with war. Others complain of the unrepresentative character of the armed forces, that it does not match America’s demographic makeup. They also point out that small but vibrant democracies such as South Korea and Israel have conscription for the same age group due to both states’ constant insecurity and preparedness for conflict. And they argue America, the world’s bastion of democracy under threat from terrorism, should apply the same to American 18-to-24-year-olds as well.

On the other hand, opponents of reinstating the draft applaud the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force instituted after the Vietnam War and the mass anti-draft sentiment of the 1960s. In order to run the best professional fighting force in the world, you want to have people who are willing to serve and answer the call. Many of these voices respect the importance of freedom of individual pursuits such as the career you want and what one’s individual aspirations are. Therefore, any attempt to reinstate the draft will encounter the harshest resistance, so many of us should rest assured it won’t be reinstated. The fact of the matter is, both arguments are good and solid, but they ignore the behind-the-scenes factor of this debate. Still, many of us are inclined to resort to military force as a top-level solution to America’s foreign-policy problems.

Rangel, Hagel and McCain are all correct that we are too preoccupied with the use of our military power and are prone to resort to it, but we can make a sacrifice that requires neither blood nor treasure. Sacrifices begin as a change in attitude, and the gloomy situation of Iraq drives it home that open-ended military adventures cannot be continued. True, America’s military commitments to places such as Korea and Kosovo are important to maintaining stability and preventing aggression, and there will be future times where the ultimate sacrifice has to be made. But if we treat this military power as a “quick-results-guaranteed” and “number-one solution” toward international problems, it can only harm America’s interests in remaining at the pinnacle of unchallenged power. As we continue to shoulder the burdens of Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe we can learn from our mistakes and listen to Gen. Robert E. Lee’s admonition that “it is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.”

Jeff Genota is a sophomore international affairs major.