Mothers Against the Draft

Nation Builders: The Struggle to Transform the Military

The fighting in Iraq has exposed the limits of Donald Rumsfeld's transformation agenda. The U.S. military remains underprepared for dealing with guerrillas, and such unconventional threats will grow in coming years. The next stage of military transformation must focus on training large numbers of infantry for nation building and irregular warfare--and Washington must make that task a top priority.

Should the United States Reinstitute the Draft? A Conversation with Congressman Rangel RANGEL: It would be about 36 million people between 18 and 26. We couldn't possibly need more than a million, probably far less than that, for military activity. We have a tremendous dropout rate in the poorer communities: 50 percent of high school, and only 10 percent of them actually go on to college. We also are losing our edge, competitive edge in the world in terms of technology and competition. So it would seem to me that, as the general says, [laughter] you bring everybody in, and then you determine what can you do with them, what contribution can they make? National security is not just guns and bombs, it's education, it what contribution can you make.	The Case for the Draft Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. Unlike an old-fashioned draft, this 21st-century service requirement would provide a vital element of personal choice. Students could choose to fulfill their obligations in any of three ways: in national service programs like AmeriCorps (tutoring disadvantaged children), in homeland security assignments (guarding ports), or in the military. Those who chose the latter could serve as military police officers, truck drivers, or other non-combat specialists requiring only modest levels of training. (It should be noted that the Army currently offers two-year enlistments for all of these jobs, as well as for the infantry.) They would be deployed as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions. They would serve for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations.
Liberals and Neocons: Together Again The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Joining the neocons in the letter to congressional leaders were a group of prominent liberals – giving some credence to PNAC's claim that the "call to act" counts on bipartisan support.	PNAC Letter to Congress...More Troops There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
Now Do You Believe We Need A Draft? We need a draft. But because this is a new kind of conflict, we need a new kind of draft. A 21st century draft would be less focused on preparing men for conventional combat-which probably won't be that extensive in this war---than on the arguably more daunting task of guarding against and responding to terrorism at home and abroad. If structured right, this new draft might not be as tough to sell as you would think.	Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Rebuilding America's Defenses In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Leaked before it had been formally approved, the document was criticized as an effort by “cold warriors” to keep defense spending high and cuts in forces small despite the collapse of the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was subsequently buried by the new administration.	Shy of the draft, there are other ways for Americans to pay the price of freedom We might give thought to requiring that at age 18 or upon graduation from high school every young man and woman who is physically and mentally capable would owe a term of service to the nation. They could be offered a broad choice in where and how long they would serve: In the military; in a new Civilian Conservation Corps tasked to repair and rebuild our failing National Parks; in a volunteer corps to work in our schools and hospitals; in the Peace Corps overseas.
The Promise of National Service: A (Very) Brief History of an Idea Divisions over the meaning of service are rooted deeply in our history. When the United States was founded, liberal and civic republican ideas jostled for dominance. The liberals—they might now be called libertarians—viewed personal freedom as the heart of the American experiment. The civic republicans valued freedom, too, but they stressed that self-rule demanded a great deal from citizens. The liberals stressed rights. The civic republicans stressed obligations to a common good and, as the philosopher Michael Sandel has put it in his book, Democracy's Discontents, "a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake." In our time, the clash between these older traditions lives on in the intellectual wars between libertarians and communitarians.	ATTITUDES, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC SERVICE: A SURVEY OF AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS Support for U.S. military operations would meet stronger opposition if students themselves were asked to serve in the military. American college students voice an overwhelming opposition to the idea of a military draft, as almost three in four (73%) do not support the return of the draft. One in seven students (14%) say that they would support a military draft and 6% volunteer that their support would depend on certain factors. Support for a draft is slightly higher among conservative (24%) and Republican (25%) students, but is no higher among students whose parents served in the military (15%) than among students overall.