Better than the Draft

Ever since the U.S. abolished the military draft, the condition of our armed forces has gotten worse. There were plenty of compelling reasons for doing it at the time - not the least of which was that no one wanted to go fight in Vietnam - but it was the wrong solution, and the "no one wants to go fight in ____" reason comes and goes... and it was never a truly sound reason to begin with. Folks weren't crazy about going to Europe in the 1940's, but it's arguably a good thing they were sent.

Without the draft, it's even easier for privileged people to get out of serving in the military: they simply don't. (The whole question of whether Quayle or Clinton or Bush was a draft dodger would be moot if they'd been born a couple decades later.) It's become harder for poor people to stay out, as the armed services have become a kind of "last resort" employer for any high school graduate with no particular skills but a reasonably healthy body. It affects our foreign policy because (as Michael Moore overdramatised in Fahrenheit 9/11) our legislators generally don't have to worry about their own children dying in military undertakings overseas. And even the hawks are chiming in, pointing out that our armed services are no longer staffed by our best and brightest... and they're simply understaffed as well.

Many people are suggesting that the solution is to bring back the draft. But it was the wrong solution in the 1960's and it's the wrong solution today. The privileged would still get out of service (or at least harm's way) one way or another. (Seriously, the idea of sending the Bush girls - or the child of any highly-placed politician - into combat is just idiotic; does the word "hostage" conjure up any Really Bad scenarios?) The draft was always unfair, and that was one of the things that led to its downfall: Some get drafted, others don't.

A better solution would be universal compulsory service. Say, two years, starting when you turn 21. Or 18, if you really want to do it sooner (and sober). Everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc, would do a stint. There'd be suitable options for pacifists, the disabled, etc. In peacetime we could deploy a lot of these people on public works projects, or tutoring kids, or whatever else needs doing but isn't being done.

Sure, the Bush girls would get assigned to something incredibly safe, but with the mother and father of every other young adult thinking daily about their still-a-child-to-them off building bridges or planting trees or even in combat overseas, there'd be plenty of pressure to make sure it was genuine service of some kind.

This isn't an entirely off-the-wall idea. I understand Israel has been doing this for quite a while, and it seems to work pretty well for them. There are probably other countries doing it as well. The only good argument against it is that it would require young people to take another two years out of their lives before finishing school. I think that'd be good for them: get them out of the classroom and experience something different. If they find they enjoy the service, and they're good at it, there'd be a promotion and a career waiting for them at the end. If not, they'll go back to civilian life (school, the job market, etc.) with a better perspective on it. I loved my first time in college, but I got more out of the second time, because I'd been away from it.

People are talking about bringing back the draft, but I don't think it stands any chance of happening. It'd be political suicide, and don't think that even a President Ashcroft would try it. But maybe the voters would be more tolerant of something less divisive, more equitable, and frankly a lot more useful.