Charles Rangel's proposal to reinstitute the draft -- just like all his similar proposals in the past -- shouldn't be taken as a serious plan. It's just not going to happen. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. A debate over the draft can tell us a lot about the war in Iraq, the war on terror and what we think about the relationship of the government and citizens.
Rangel is wrong when he says "the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families." It puts the burden of war on the people who are willing to fight it, and today's military is a smarter and better-educated group than we've had in a long time. I'm not sure about his point that the draft would make the government more careful about the wars it gets into. It didn't keep us out of Vietnam, but maybe times have changed.
The part of Rangel's proposal that's the hardest to defend is that, even in peacetime, there should be compulsory service that could involve either the military or some other kind of service. If a primary duty of government in a democratic republic is to protect our liberty, how can we allow it to put every citizen into involuntary servitude for two years.
In a time of national emergency, I think most would agree, all should be a part of the defense of the country, which brings up an interesting question. Whether Iraq was necessary for the nation's security depends on whether you think it is a legitimate front in the overall war or terror. But how about that overall war? Is that urgent enough to require the draft?
If it is, how can we leave women out, by the way, given our recent history? I'd say we can't. Maybe that step would make our leaders think long and hard about when and why we go to war.
