Military Draft in the 21st Century

current music: boredoms - spiral

Given thee never-ending military endeavors of the American government the supply of troops to fight in them are understandably wearing thin. With each significant military action since Vietnam, discussions of the possibility of the draft arrive. However, the draft should not be reinstated, for the sake of the integrity of the country and the protection of its citizens. Given the rich history of draft resistance, the inevitability of mass action against its implementation is almost certain. Even while the current president denies the possibility of conscription during his presidency, the debate still continues. As unlikely as its future existence would be, it would no doubt be a terribly unpopular decision that only causes an array of iniquitous complications. A draft in the 21st century would mean the degradation of the constitution as well as the continuance of an obsolete, racist, sexist, and classist system that divides the country and turns its citizens against their leaders.

If the history of the draft has shown anything, it’s that drafts only cause problems. The New York draft riots of the Civil War era demonstrated the people’s natural resistance to being sent off to war. The nationwide anger and rebellion over the draft for the Vietnam War unsurprisingly widened the gap governed and the governing classes. It unearthed the discrepancies between classes and races, and fueled the antiwar movement of the 60’s and 70’s. If the draft could cause so many problems across the years, it is certain that implementing it now would only mean more problems given the country’s 30-plus years of an all-volunteer army. Logistics aside, no generation will be unanimously willing to fight in wars that seem to become increasingly unnecessary and costly. How could the American government deal with such harsh dissent during wartime and successfully use troops that are less than willing to fight and die?

The possibility of a draft raises many questions about its fairness, which fuels much of the dissent and criticism towards it. Many claim the system of the draft is biased against lower-income citizens as well as racial minorities. It is easier for one to buy one’s way out of military service given a higher social status and income, which is not only classist but racist as well since racial minorities are disproportionately lower-class citizens who very rarely have any other choice. On the other side of the issue, there is also the question of whether the draft would call up women in addition to men. If this were not the case as it is now with the selective service, it would only promote the archaic, sexist view of women as the weaker sex and it is embarrassing that the Selective Service would be so blatantly and inexplicably sexist. Furthermore, the draft is biased against non-religious applicants as it greatly favors religious reasons for conscientious objector status to moral reasons. While it is possible to receive conscientious objector status for moral reasons, the Selective Service has made it nearly impossible to receive it without establishing a religious case. Thus the draft would surely continue its discriminatory practices that the American people should not tolerate.

The most incriminating of the problems that arise from these issues are the problems of constitutionality. Though the Supreme Court did rule that the power of conscription was under the power of the federal government in the case Arver vs. United States in 1918, there was no satisfactorily conclusive statement made addressing the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Unless serving in the military is considered punishment, which would seem to contradict the argument in favor of a military draft, surely being forced to join the military under penalty of law would be considered “involuntary servitude,” making it unconstitutional. No matter what the degree of the support for the war is, everyone has a right to deny service. If all the slaves in America before the Emancipation Proclamation were drafted into the military, which was very similar to the case during the Civil War, would it be considered “national service” or “slavery”? Does it matter, anyway? Involuntary is involuntary, and the government has no right to force its citizens to work for them, especially when the service is as severe and dangerous as military service.

For these reasons, it is imperative that the armed forces remain a voluntary service for the integrity and stability of the country. To do this would be to give the eligible citizens the comfort of knowing the government does not have absolute control over their lives and force the leaders of the country to consider the troop supply before starting unnecessary wars. Many draft apoligists would say that conscription would be necessary for a large war, but the absence of a draft would ensure that leaders would have to deal with a smaller army that is large enough to protect its country but not so large that unnecessary wars wouldn’t significantly decrease the supply of troops. A draft would mean devisions across the country, the ostracism of the resistant minority, and the depletion of national resources. For the sake of future generations, the current generation must make sure that a draft will never occur again.

Happy Solstice.  ¶ 12/21/2005 11:11:00 PM