Why a draft is wrong
November 28, 2006| By Nathaniel Ward
In his New York Daily News article, Rangel wrote that he will once again call for a new military draft, which would include both men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Rangel says that this draft would be “fairer” than the all-volunteer citizen military and prevent the military from “dipping further into the reserves and National Guard units.”
This is a terrible idea that would weaken our military during wartime.
Heritage military expert James Carafano argues that “we should be wary of those who urge us to scrap the all-volunteer military force that has served this nation well for three decades. Nearly every expert who studies the issue concludes that all-volunteer—or professional—militaries perform more efficiently, more bravely and with less corruption and other breakdowns than conscripts.”
He goes on to debunk Rep. Rangel’s claims about shared sacrifice:
Sharing sacrifice, however, is exactly why we have reserve forces. The reserves offer Americans an opportunity to pursue civilian careers and serve the nation in moments of need. That's why we call them citizen-soldiers. They, too, take up arms for their nation because they want to, not because they have to.
In Vietnam, the United States had to use the draft because the National Guard wasn't prepared for such an undertaking. After the conflict, the military was reorganized so guard units could be used in any major operation. Employing the guard and reserves is how we ensure the burden of national service is shared.
In another article, Carafano recalls his experience in the military:
In 1977, I was commissioned into one of the worst armies in American history. The United States left Vietnam with a demoralized, poorly trained, ineptly led and over-stretched military.
Over the next decade, however, I participated in a remarkable transition. America abandoned the draft and began fielding a professional, well-equipped, all-volunteer force.
In my 25-year career, I saw the worst of times become the best of times. It is inconceivable that anyone could suggest that America abandon a winning formula. But that, in effect, is what advocates of a new draft are suggesting.
But Rep. Rangel’s plan goes beyond the military to government direction of the economy, where Washington bureaucrats would assign workers to “important” jobs. He said that, under his plan, “young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals.”
“Regardless of Rangel’s arguments,” Heritage’s Tim Kane writes, “justification of a ‘just draft’ presents a philosophical dilemma.” He continues: “Empowering the central government to oversee and restrict the employment of all young Americans for two years is not consistent with common good restrictions and is instead a dangerous violation of individual liberty.”
The New York liberal calls this ridiculous scheme “national service.” It’s really another step on the road to socialism.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
