November 21, 2006
Revisiting the Draft Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 06:40 PM EST Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.), the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, raised a few eyebrows this week by repeating his call for a military draft. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, has argued in the past that a uniform draft will ensure that the burden of protecting America falls equally on all its citizens. “There’s no question in my mind that this President and this administration would never have invaded Iraq,” he said this week, “especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way.” The military’s top brass is generally not supportive of Rangel’s idea, arguing that a volunteer military is superior to a conscripted military. Though the Armed Forces have had to lower some of their criteria in recent years to meet recruitment goals, a new draft would likely expand the number of active-duty servicemen and servicewomen to unreal proportions. That said, there’s something to Rangel’s argument. While I don’t have current data on the socioeconomic background of American service members, a recent report by the Kaiser Foundation found that 20 percent of military families have had to rely on food stamps and the WIC Program to feed their children. This is first and foremost a reflection of the shameful state of military pay, though by deduction it would seem that if these same service members came from families with economic means, they would not need to turn to public assistance. Which is to say, the military’s reputation as a working-class and working-poor institution may not be too off-base. In the Vietnam War era, America had a draft. But that draft had escape clauses that favored young men from middle-class and wealthy backgrounds. Exemptions were widely available for those who had the social and economic capital to procure a medical note from a doctor, and deferments were available to all full-time college and graduate students. Notably, part-time students were not eligible for deferments, which meant that any student who needed to work his way through college was likely to be drafted. For those who finished college or graduate school, additional deferments were available if one chose to work in a defense-related industry, or in other exempted professions, like teaching. In total, 80 percent of Vietnam War–era draftees had a high school education or less, while only 13.2 percent had some college, and only 7.2 percent had graduated from college. Until 1970 the draft burden fell on men 21 years of age and older, so these numbers do not suggest that people were simply being drafted before they had a chance to enroll in universities. Rather, these figures suggest that the draft had a serious class bias. A 1964 survey of enlisted servicemen found that 17 percent came from white-collar families, while 52.8 percent came from blue-collar families and 14.8 percent from farm families. This class bias had serious consequences. Roughly 40 percent of all Vietnam War draftees were killed in combat; in the Army, this figure reached as high as 62 percent in 1969. The implications of the Vietnam War example are complicated. On one hand, history suggests that a draft does not ensure uniformity or fairness. On the other hand, knowing where we went wrong 40 years ago could help today’s policy makers design a draft that eliminates class bias. Taken on balance, I’m sympathetic to Rangel’s proposal, and I think it deserves a hearing. If America is to continue sending young men and women to war, it needs to find a way to replicate the model of World War II, when virtually all draft-age men served in uniform. The burdens of our security should be borne by all.
| 
