Consider a truly universal draft

Last update: January 22, 2007 – 6:25 PM

And in the process, ask why young adults are asked to bear so much of the war burden.

Barbara C. Crosby

A friend of mine, whose son was just notified that his National Guard unit will have its tour in Iraq extended, asks, Why aren't there massive protests against this misguided war? She remembers the Vietnam era and the sustained protest movement of the time.

Easy answer: No draft. Indeed, the antiwar movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s was dramatically subdued by President Richard Nixon's replacement of the existing draft with an annual lottery that, in effect, cut in half the number of young men who were vulnerable to conscription. Later, the nation adopted an all-volunteer policy for the armed services.

Now our nation is at war with terrorism, and the volunteer army is stretched to the limit, even with a questionable reliance on National Guard units. So should our policymakers reinstitute the military draft administered by the euphemistically named Selective Service?

A few members of Congress say yes, and perhaps they are right. A truly universal draft would diminish the current system's disproportionate burden on low-income and minority communities. And, no doubt, a return to the draft would heighten opposition to the current military strategy in Iraq.

My own proposal is that our nation consider instituting a universal draft of nearly everyone between ages 18 and 65, male and female, except for parents of minor children.

Admittedly, the oldsters in this group (and I'm one) can't do a lot of heavy lifting (unless we're talking ideas and such), but we could work on nation-building endeavors, such as microfinance projects or educational programs.

Of course, the designers of a new draft would have to be creative in order to minimize central bureaucracy. One idea is to rely, as in the past, on local draft boards that would randomly call up eligible individuals until a board's quota was filled.

Talking seriously about a universal draft might cause us to question our current reliance on the youngest adults to bear so much of the war burden. Public television reporter Jim Lehrer each night presents photos of U.S. troops whose names have been added to the Iraq casualty list. So many are 19, 20, 21, 22. What makes the lives of these young men and women less valuable than those of us who have had five or six decades of life? Maybe we should send tough grandmas to war at an equal rate.

I hope the nation also would consider an ongoing requirement that every 18-year-old put in two years of public service either in the military or in a community development program. Such a move could vastly expand VISTA and the Peace Corps, which in turn might do much to improve conditions that spawn hopelessness (and prime the terrorist recruitment pipeline) in the poorest parts of the world today. In such a scenario, special incentives may be necessary to ensure that enough young people sign up for military duty. Another approach would be to require all young citizens to go through both military training and nonviolent conflict resolution and serve two years as members of the military or peace brigades.

I'm not sure what the best approach is. I do think that U.S. citizens should seek alternatives to a system that allows the country to undertake what is billed as a major war on terrorism with minimal (or hidden) cost for most of us and very high costs for a minority. The consideration of alternatives should include questions about exactly what kind of wars we feel are worth fighting.

So let's convene a widespread conversation about instituting a universal draft without age or gender discrimination, as well as requiring public service for young adults. This policy shift makes sense if we are truly serious about fighting a War on Terror and improving global and domestic conditions. It certainly is preferable to current outrageous practices, such as using the National Guard to wage war in foreign countries and breaking promises to bring them home.

Barbara Crosby is an associate professor specializing in leadership and public policy at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.