The draft issue is fast becoming a political hot potato in the lead-up to November’s election.
Last week, the majority in Congress even took the extraordinary step of hastily scheduling a phony vote against legislation to restore the draft. Yet, an empty vote in Congress will not put an end to the debate.
Just because politicians and military leaders don’t want to deal with the substance of this issue doesn’t mean that momentum behind it won’t continue to grow, propelled by increasing anxiety about troop commitments, prolonged instability in Iraq and the ever present concern about another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The public, especially the generation that would be called to service, has legitimate reason to be disturbed about a possible return to conscription.
It’s time for a candid national dialogue about this issue so that we know where the politicians stand before – not after – the election.
A recent poll by the Alliance for Security found that 71 percent of Americans are worried about the capacity of the military to meet its overseas commitments and defend the United States from attack, and 58 percent believe a military draft will be reinstated in the near future.
Yet a majority of young people did not envision themselves heeding the call: 52 percent of draft-age Americans said they would actively seek a deferment or exemption, while a historic 40 percent of parents stated that they would encourage their children to avoid or delay conscription.
Cynics and partisans dismiss all who dare utter the “d-word” as fear mongers, political operatives with a sinister agenda, or both.
Quite frankly, failure to discuss the very serious issues surrounding a possible draft is a disservice to the voting public and, above all, to the nation’s young people.
We need an open and honest debate about the course that we are on, the state of our military and how the government’s foreign and security policies have stretched the Army to the breaking point.
We should start by debunking the myths.
First, the bill that the House just rushed to a vote was never intended to address the current manpower shortages that the Army faces – the shortages that serve as a primary cause for concern about a draft.
Rep. Charles Rangel introduced his bill before the Iraq war with the hope that political leaders would be less likely to enter into armed conflict if their own kin were vulnerable to conscription. He also wanted to draw attention to the inequitable burden that Americans from poor and minority backgrounds bear in fighting the nation’s wars.
Rangel suggests that if we are going to go to war, the sacrifices should be spread more evenly across the population.
Both of these questions merit extensive reflection and debate. They don’t deserve the short shrift given them by Congress in what was more an act of political theater than legitimate congressional debate.
It is wrong to believe that this “action” by Congress means that the draft is no longer a legitimate issue of concern.
Another oft-repeated myth is that the Selective Service System is (SSS) secretly re-staffing draft boards. Not so. The filling of vacancies is an ongoing and public process and is simply part of the SSS mandate.
In the event of a draft, the SSS would undoubtedly need a special appropriation to supplement its budget, and this has yet to happen.
The truth is that with all the confusion about the draft the real issue that needs to be addressed is often obscured. The question is really not if we want to have a draft but whether or not force requirements will ultimately necessitate a draft.
In spite of the indignant pronouncements of Defense Department officials, there is mounting evidence that the Army is stretched to the breaking point and facing deteriorating retention and recruitment efforts.
The Army National Guard just missed its 2004 recruiting goal by nearly 10 percent and, while the active Army boasts that it reached its target, it had to dip into its Delayed Entry Pool to do so.
The Army has recently resorted to adding 1,000 recruiters and is more than doubling recruitment bonuses.
It is clear that the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have pushed our military almost to its limit. And this on the heels of Ambassador Paul Bremer publicly stating that we never had enough troops on the ground in Iraq.
What is not clear is how the Pentagon plans to maintain significant deployments in these combat zones for the next several years, as it expects it will have to do.
And what if these fronts deteriorate?
The CIA has warned that full-scale civil war in Iraq is a realistic possibility.
Alternatively, what if the military is called upon to conduct an intervention and occupation mission in North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
Both candidates for president have stated in sound bites that they oppose a draft. But what we want to know – what draft-age Americans should be asking – is how the presidential hopefuls will either increase troop numbers and/or change our foreign policy to reduce force requirements and ensure that a draft does not become necessary.
To stimulate this dialogue, Rock the Vote, a national nonprofit that promotes youth voter participation, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation’s Alliance for Security, a new initiative aimed at getting the public engaged in foreign policy and security issues, have joined forces.
We are calling on politicians and voters alike to participate in the democratic process and weigh in on these issues – not because they are scary, but because they are critical and timely.
(c) 2004, Bobby Muller and Jehmu Greene

Author