Compare the difficulty Sen. Hagel faces in trying to persuade taxpayers to instead fork over another $3.9 billion (spare change by D.C. standards) for a mere 30,000 extra soldiers with the 1,766,910 drafted during the Vietnam War. Can anyone really believe the Vietnam War would have lasted nearly 10 years if taxpayers had been asked to pay a competitive wage to nearly 1.8 million conscripted soldiers? Far from making it harder to get into unjustifiable wars, using the draft to build an oversized standing army would again be an open invitation to rush into foolish foreign adventures and (as in Korea) never send our troops back home.
Sen. Hagel says we need a draft so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the less affluent bear the burden of fighting wars. Scratch below the surface and this argument usually turns on the relatively high proportion of blacks in the military (as though blacks must be poor), and never on the inconveniently low proportion of Hispanics.
Kathleen Rhem of the American Forces Press Service reported that blacks now account for 21 percent of the armed services, mainly due to high re-enlistment rates, but that they only account for 15 percent of combat forces (because blacks are greatly overrepresented in the medical professions). Among civilians of the same age, blacks account for about 14 percent of the total. The key point, however, is that these are voluntary job choices, no different from deciding to become a fireman or policeman.
There were 343 firefighters killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Nobody then suggested that the fact that these men were paid professionals detracted from their heroism. Nobody worried whether the relative numbers of whites, blacks or Asian firefighters was fair and balanced. Nationwide, another 106 firefighters died in 2003 -- a typical yearly loss. From 1991 to 2001, an average of 163 law enforcement officers were also killed each year in the line of duty. If compulsory service is such a fair and reasonable idea, why don't Sen. Hagel, Rep. Rangel and others of that ilk come out in favor of drafting firemen and cops?
Rep. Rangel's bill would require "that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." That is, the bill mandates a period of involuntary servitude for a select group of young people who would be compelled to do whatever the government decides. They would presumably be paid something, but nothing remotely close to what they would have earned in chosen employment. If the pay and benefits were competitive, after all, there would be no need for force. And the pressure of competing with cheap draftees would, of course, deeply depress pay and benefits for military volunteers.
Young voters who value freedom should know that Rep. Rangel's deplorable bill was co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Corrine Brown (Fla.), William Clay (Mo.), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Elijah Cummings (Md.), Alcee Hastings (Fla.), John Lewis (Ga.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Jim McDermott (Wash.), James Moran (Va.), Pete Stark (Calif.), Nydia Velazquez (N.Y.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
All these apologists for a military draft have earned the same respect we would accord to anyone who openly advocates placing the financial interests of the State above the freedom of individuals, or to anyone who openly extols the practical and egalitarian virtues of slavery.