OP/ED The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 5A JLS )BY S BlVICE9 Debat si' of fa co / 8 se _ .i fl~i 1a b ing the draft he United States has not employed a military draft ince the Vietnam War, and the looming possibility war with Iraq has sparked a fresh debate on the irness - or lack thereof - associated with mpulsory military service. Questions of national 3curity and patriotism, discrimination and civility bound ... here are a few possible answers. VIEWPOINT 'If we cannot justify draft, how can we justify war?' BY DAN ADAMS As citizens of the greatest nation on Earth, we profit tremendously from our nation's hegemony. Each April, the Inter- nal Revenue Service asks us to contribute a slice of that profit in the form of income tax. We make this sacrifice, some more grudgingly than others, to provide for a variety of government services. Sac- rifices such as these are non-negotiable. All able-bodied citizens have the obli- gation to contribute in order that the whole remain strong and intact. We con- tribute so heavily monetarily to our nations prosperity, yet we shudder when we are expected to contribute to its defense. Though not entirely analogous, one can certainly make a case that given our dependence on one another in all other aspects of our lives, that we should be equally dependent on one another on the battlefield in meeting threats at home or abroad. It is by this logic, that I whole- heartedly support Democratic Congress- man Charles Rangel's (D-N.Y.) proposal to reinstate the draft to meet the challenge of possible intervention in Iraq. Some would argue that when the threat is great enough and public support is high, there is no need to conscript a fighting force. This is not entirely the case. In the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II, a draft was utilized despite excellent public sup- port for each conflict. Conscription helps solve the collective action problem, which in this case is the tendency for some or all of a population to assign mili- tary responsibility to others, but never themselves. The necessity of military action is not always connected with pub- lic support, especially given that the pub- lic rarely has all the facts. While in a perfect world we could be totally informed of every foreign policy initia- tive, national security dictates that this not be the case. Therefore, we must be expected to contribute to its resolution as a whole, regardless of how we perceive its legitimacy individually. Furthermore, no one group should be asked to contribute more than any other to a cause which, if it is worthy, affects us all equally as U.S. citizens. I speak of the poor and of minorities, who at times have borne the brunt of U.S. foreign policy ini- tiatives. It is well documented that while involved in Vietnam, the middle- and upper-classes avoided combat duty by seeking deferments at colleges and in a variety of other government services like the National Guard and the Peace Corps. Ironic, given that it was these same class- es of men and women who ultimately were making the decision to expand and lengthen a war that ultimately cost more than 56,000 American lives. Many of these lives were of a class faceless and expendable to the social elites hurling them into a bloody and tragic guerrilla war. The rich and poor should be expect- ed to serve as equals, especially with stakes as high as open combat, and a draft is one means to that end. In the case of Vietnam, we too often refer to the draft as though it were the cause of the trauma. We blame the draft, when it was presidenta like John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyn- don Johnson who all made the decision to continue U.S. action in the name of the infamous "Domino Theory." Certainly they were erroneous in believing that South Vietnam was the lynchpin of Southeast Asia and, in retrospect, action could have been avoided. Is Iraq a cause worthy of military action? That remains to be determined, but perhaps the knowledge that it will not be the lower classes, but all Americans fighting and dying in this new war, that will ultimately stave off a second, poten- tially more dangerous Persian Gulf War. Diplomacy is always preferable to war, and perhaps the threat of a draft is enough to jolt President Bush from his persistent and reckless attitude toward what will certainly mean the deaths of thousands of Americans. Rangel has hit a nerve with an other- wise complacent American populace. Content with the progress of the "War on Terrorism," many Americans accept out of hand Bush's allusions to a process he has dubbed "regime change," making it sound more like housekeeping and less like what it is: the deadly serious confrontation with a cornered and dan- gerous leader. Yet support for action remains very high. Americans are all too willing to support this war, but are they willing to send their son to fight? We should expect casualties. We should expect sac- rifice. This sacrifice should not be borne on the backs of the poor as in past wars. Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft is, in many ways, a sort of litmus test for our commitment. Serious threats call for serious action and if we cannot justify a draft, how can we justify the war? Adams is an LSA sophomore and a member of the Daily's editorial board. VIEWPOINT Five reasons to oppose draft BY J. DAVID SINGER A few thoughts on a military draft, which I oppose for several reasons: First: The smaller a nation's armed forces, the less the temptation to go to the use of force prematurely. Second: The fewer of our citizens who experience military training, the fewer who have been socialized into thinking that war is a legiti- mate activity. Third: A universal draft would legitimize the idea of women at war, and deprive us of those citizens who by dint of cultural and genetic evolution are most likely to resist the further militarization of our society. Fourth: If the armed forces are desperate for recruits, a dash of unemployment is easily arranged. Fifth: One of the few virtues of military service is the acquisition of some useful skills, but there are more economical and civilized alternatives. Singer is a professor of political science at the University and specializes in international politics, military policies and war He served in the US. Navy in World War II and the Korean War A panel discussion with: Eloise Anderson Director, Program for the American Family, The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, and former Director of the California Department of Social Services Rebecca Blank Dean of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and Henry Carter Adams Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan Sheldon Danziger Professor of Public Policy, Co-Director of the National Poverty Center, and H-enry J. Meyer Collegiate Professor of Social Work, University of Michigan Judith Gueron President, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation The panelists will be joined by a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Friday, January 17,2003 3:00 - 4:30 p.m. 6050 Institute for Social Researc~h 0 IVLII UUUUIIIIniiIi~ rr 1 U VULU IUiruUu ~ iI n UYLL d~ n II~ .0