Belatedly Heeding the Call

The Maximum Leader asks his ministers to post, so post we shall, or die in the attempt.

Of note today is the latest Drudge link to an article about draft talk. This seems to be coupled with the running argument about troop strength in Iraq, and may or may not indicate a little nervousness about how badly stretched we are, currently.

I have a feeling this issue won't be taken seriously once the discussion widens into a larger public debate, but some lines from the article do give pause:

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

Two items:

1. The "all our citizens" question. Would a draft actually catch "all our citizens"? I haven't dipped into the history books on this (I'll leave that to the experts on this blog), but haven't the richer folks generally had an advantage when it comes to fancy methods of draft-avoidance? And if we put aside class issues and grant for argument's sake that a draft would be absolutely fair (i.e., catching people proportionately from all social strata), is the American populace actually ready to bear this burden now?

2. On a related note: doesn't the last line of the above quote sound more like the ulterior motive for a draft would be, in fact, to snag more upper-class folks and make them serve?

Item (1) above amuses me because, even if the draft-reinstitution idea isn't taken seriously, it's a "put your money where your mouth is" issue. It's a good metric for determining who, in fact, would be a chickenhawk, squawking pro-war rhetoric but finding excuses not to make the ultimate commitment. I suspect the loudest murmurings would come from the upper class.

Item (2), however, seems to give away the game: this sure as hell sounds like a hunt for the upper class. It sounds like an honor-and-glory version of the "redistribution of wealth" idea: redistribute the burden of military service. Sure, this might actually be fair, but it's not consistent to talk about a draft-- something whose randomness/fairness should make it impossible to target a particular social stratum-- while implicitly targeting the upper class. (Or am I misreading this?)

The moral question for us, Joe and Jane American, is whether we're willing to be consistent with our rhetoric. If able to serve, would you serve? Would you accept being drafted even if you don't believe in the war? If you're a war supporter of age, would you go willingly to Iraq or bolt to Canada?

A modern question: would today's draft include women? Ha! There's a debate in itself! I don't see why it shouldn't, personally.

I look forward to seeing a public debate on the draft. I'm curious to see how many people suddenly decide that we don't really need more troops in Iraq. I'm curious to see what we discover about just how stretched our forces are; currently, I don't have a clear read on this because the numbers are being spun by both sides, red and blue. I'm curious to know what people who praise the voluntary nature of our fighting forces will say about a draft.

On a personal note: my Dad's been worried for years that the draft would be reinstituted. He worries because my younger brothers could, in theory, get drafted. I don't know whether Dad's heard about this issue yet, but I doubt he'd be cheered by the news that we're beginning to discuss conscription again.

_