First draft: the battle to create universal national service has just started Here's how it can be won

Washington Monthly, March, 2003 by Paul Glastris

IN JANUARY, AS U.S. TROOPS MASSED FOR A possible war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) proposed something no lawmaker had done in years: legislation to reinstitute the draft idea sparked several weeks of lively debate in the halls of government, on TV pundit shows and in the op-ed pages. Proponents-and opponents of Rangel's idea debated his charge that the current all-volunteer military puts a disproportionate number of African Americans in harm's way. They debated his contention that America's leaders would be less willing to go to war in Iraq if their own offspring were on the front lines. They debated whether conscription would strengthen the military or undermine readiness with large numbers of ill-trained, unmotivated troops. About the only thing both sides agreed on is that politically, a draft just isn't going to happen.

In a taking-the-temperature-of-Washington sort of way, this is unquestionably true. The president, his cabinet, the Pentagon brass, and leading members of Congress remain adamantly opposed to conscription. Though a handful of lawmakers have signed on to Rangel's bill, established opinion has written off the measure as noble-but doomed. A headline from a Buffalo News editorial summed up the mood: "Even if Conscription Stands No Chance, the Idea Poses Food for Thought."

But if the chance of universal service was measured by what the American people actually think, a different picture might emerge. In late January, a Newsweek poll found that 14 percent of Americans favored and 38 percent would consider reinstating the draft; only 45 percent would refuse to consider the idea at all. As it happens, that poll did not describe the kind of draft that Rep. Rangel has proposed, one in which young people would be able to choose either military or civilian service. The only poll I know to pose that question was conducted in November 2001 by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), and found that 6.0 percent of Americans favored a draft that offered a choice between military or civilian service

It's hard to know exactly what to make of these poll numbers. Among other things, they don't reveal whether those who oppose the draft are more intense in their opinions (as one might expect they would be) than those who favor it Nevertheless, the polls do suggest that a majority of Americans are at least open to the idea of some sort of draft--more than supported the president's tax-cut-heavy economic plan in early February (46 percent), and more than supported a U.S. ground invasion "soon" (37 percent) rather than giving U.N. inspectors "more time." Yet the same Beltway observers who write off the draft as a political nonstarter think that some version of Bush's economic plan will probably pass and expect U.S. forces to march on Baghdad within weeks, not months.

They might be right about universal service. Then again, they have often been wrong. Most pundits in the mid-1980s dismissed the idea that the loophole-ridden tax code could be simplified, because doing so would mean gouging just about every Washington special interest. In 1986, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a bill simplifying the tax code. A few years ago, Beltway prognosticators insisted that soft money would never be banned because incumbents in both parties benefited from it. Last spring Congress passed and President Bush signed a bill banning soft money. Both measures faced serious obstacles while enjoying broad, if not very deep, public support They became law only because of the intense and relentless efforts of a handful of smart politicians--Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ.) and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan on tax reform, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) on campaign finance reform.

What, then, would happen if a similar cadre of committed politicians were to get behind some sort of 21st-century draft?

Volunteer State

Almost every argument against the draft boils down to the belief that we don't really need one to defend ourselves. According to this line of reasoning, the all-volunteer force is fully up to the task; and in any event, the public simply won't support conscription if they don't feel an immediate, obvious need. One often hears this from hawks who argue that we should invade Iraq, if only for precautionary reasons. Nevertheless, history belies the notion that a draft can only be passed when the need is overwhelmingly apparent. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Selective Service Act, which created the World War II draft, in the summer of 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor.

For the next two decades, the draft remained a successful and relatively uncontroversial fixture of American life. Millions of young men, from farmhands to Harvard students, put in their two years of service. Some enjoyed the experience; others hated it,. All came away with a better sense of their fellow Americans. Most importantly, the military had the manpower it needed to prosecute World War II, the Korean War, and the early Cold War.