Why eliminate it when it could be a good base to build other national ID initiatives on? Yes, it's unlikely that we'll ever return to a draft, but, given the push for a national ID and immigration initiatives, why not use it? We could even do it as a voluntary system linking a mailing address to the ID number.

Practicality aside, there's something to be said for a reminder at age 18 that you owe something to the society that raised you. As it stands, it's a purely nominal responsibility, but an important reminder of the the value of service to society.

"...there's something to be said for a reminder at age 18 that you owe something to the society that raised you?

We are born free and do not owe anything. We may wish to serve society. We should not be forced to do so except in an emergency.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

"Obedience to the law is freedom" Sign over the entrance to the Presidio stockade 1968

BOHICA, I suspect that our disagreement may have semantic and substantive grounds. As a practical matter, you are correct that we only owe the duties the law requires of us when we become adults. This may include involuntary service in the military, under the law. Substantively, I do believe that we owe a moral debt to a society that provides us with quite a bit by the time we become adults. It's a national disgrace that so few adults choose to repay that debt in any way, and that our national political debate has not done more to encourage repayment.

I do believe that we owe a moral debt to a society that provides us with quite a bit by the time we become adults. It's a national disgrace that so few adults choose to repay that debt in any way, and that our national political debate has not done more to encourage repayment.

Military service is national service, not social service. It seems important to draw this distinction.

I owe no "moral debt" to a nation that has supplied dictators and thugs the world around (such as the one we handed over for execution yesterday) with the training and materials needed to torture and murder people like me. I owe no moral debt to a nation that allowed some of its most vulnerable citizens to drown in the fetid waters of a preventable flood. I owe no moral debt to a nation that allows 1.3 million children to live homeless on its streets.

I owe a moral debt to the people described above but not to the nation that betrayed them.

"owe," "debt," "repay."

The rhetoric you choose shows how steeped we are in a culture of commerce which is perhaps a source of the alienation that you decry. Alas, the message growing up is that you can contribute if your are good enough to make it in the marketplace. For more along these lines, please see the very interesting book: "A history of failure."

Notwithstanding, if you want to observe contributions (or repayment) please don't necessarily look at the armed services which unfortunately have, in many ways, been captured by the powerful for purposes other than defense or protection. I am sorry but that was abundantly clear to me in my youth, after studying Vietnam and US interventions in Central and Latin America. There have been some exceptions, but the lead up to war in Iraq confirms my impression.

Instead look at how young people engage in friendships, provide moral support in their families, neighborhoods and schools. There's a lot missing but it's a more heartening picture than the pessimistic one you portray.

Observe how just about any young person is chomping at the bit to be of geneuine help to his/her community and is often shut out by the structures we put in place (rules, professionalism, competition, rationing, misplaced community action, social avoidance of real problems, absense of genuine communication, "entertainment," and disjointed social units).

Given post WWII historical trajectories and the formation of the military industrial complex, the draft isn't a good model for engagement in problem solving.

I'd point instead back to the WPA. If we reconstructed it and modernized it with a social and environmental focus, I have no doubt that people, young and old, would line up to take part. You would not need to draft people into it if they were reasonably compensated.

I don't argue that we don't need a military or peacekeeping forces. I am sure that many people do good things and get good skills that later allow them to become outstanding public servants of all kinds. If the military were managed in the broad public interest, my thinking about the draft would be more supportive.

I think Congressman Rangel's idea is better--reinstate the draft immediately. Here's why:

"In my view, the war option would not be on the table if the people being placed in harm's way were children of White House officials, members of Congress or CEOs in the boardrooms." - Rep. Charles Rangel (D)

That seems like sound logic to me. No deferments, no exceptions.

Thank you, Zak! Middle America would never have accepted this war so passively if they felt that they had a stake in bearing the cost.

Zak, that is great, IF it could be a plan like Rangel has talked about---guarding seaports, working in many other areas, and not just being sent into combat. There was a plan decades ago with large benefits for those who would go wherever they were sent, smaller benefits if people specified work for the general good in the US--and it was defeated. AND if there really were no exceptions for children of the rich and powerful like the "champagne unit" Bush and so many others belonged to in the 1960s, as well as if there was a provision to use people who couldn't pass bootcamp (limited mobility, problems with other manageable health problems from asthma to diabetes, etc. ) in ways that would use their skills and take their health problems into account. But the logistics of such a system would require more thought and attention to details than DC has seen in some time. Would women be drafted or only men?

Whatever happens as a final product, I think just open debate on both the Rangel and DeFazio plans (and the fact both served in the military--DeFazio served in the Air Force in the late 1960s as I recall) combined with the new members who have military backgrounds would finally bring a welcome dose of reality to the whole subject of military service. A debate we haven't had for too many years needs to take place--esp. after all the years of yellow ribbons, car magnets, and other symbolism shutting out the substance of what needs to be serious discussion.

I would rather see DeFazio do something real, like voting against the next Iraq war supplemental, coming up soon. He has voted for the last two, plus the 2007 Defense appropriations bill that shoveled another $70 billion into the war. How he gets away with this, considering feelings about the war in his district, is beyond me.

The draft is a form of slavery. We wouldn't need it to stop wars if liberals had any political guts.

Some would remember the Cold War in a revisionist view that decided the Soviet Union and it’s alliance with China during the 50’s and 60’s an aberration of the US military industrial complex, some would say we were on a melting pond of thin ice that would result in a 300yr nuclear winter!! Too which degree you understood our past and our world’s reaction to the threat, real or perceived we eventually overcame the threat with a combination of sustained freedom, prosperity, and strength!

Our freedoms and civil liberties were as an example of civil society that could be freely promoted to the world as the best way for their future opposed to the totalitarianism that is the enviable result of a communist form of governance, and the painfully obvious difference economically!

But; the truth cannot be denied that it was an example of overwhelming strength projected through out the world with NATO, and a global military strategy that included ICBM’s, nuclear submarine fleets, carrier groups, and strategic military presence, and alliances that made the struggle clear to the Soviets, and eventually the reality of their unsustainable posture until which time they relented.

We stand now at the crossroads of a war that includes invading, occupying, and rebuilding whole rogue nations that will be sustained as reliable allies long after we have left. This strategy needed only been done right the first time in Afghanistan and we would have likely sent a message to the other nations of similar circumstance of our resolve!

But; we did not. We handed this vital security strategy to those whom saw the job as a political strategy for winning elections, and rewarding political allies with tax dollars, all the while our enemies saw our weakness, and our willingness to fail dispite the cost!! We have allowed our nations armed forces to degrade to a state that cannot maintain our security as it’s defined in today’s international landscape, the Muslim World! We provoke them, and unleashed the chaos that is Iraqi, and the prospect of a Sunni vs. Shia uprising that may well consume the world in its carnage!!

A hodge-podge military that is the military we have become since Rumsfeldt’s transformation and Cheney’s foreign military occupation of Iraqi, and Bush’s complete disregard for the consequence of an ever increasingly privatized military at a cost never imagined before is unsustainable!!! We will need to de-nuclearize our military into the type of standing force we maintained during the WW11 and Korea!!

It is clear we will be required to have an international coalition of armed forces readied to deploy against nations that would harbor terrorist operations. We are unable to maintain these forces to win the wars we already have invested so heavily in blood and treasure.

A democracy can only survive with supremely strong military; history has made this painfully clear. We have allowed a pair of draft-dodger to thump their chests as though they were the only Americans qualified to protect our nation. The results should not be catastophic to the standing military.

A draft is the only way we can maintain our military strength, restore order both in Afghanistan, and yes, Iraq. If we allow this option to pass, and rely only on an all volunteer armed force, we will have for our future generations resolved to rely on others for our security! We would have crippled our military past the point of repair, and would have demoralized them with two losses needlessly!! A truly shared responsibility that comes with a fair and open draft will be the only way to restore the military that we voters allowed to be squandered by the Neo-Cons, like it or not!!

The prospect that we will follow the path of the Neo-Con’s desire to privatize our military for their own eventual hold on power is the path we’re on now. We have mercenaries serving behind the volunteer forces with little oversight, committing atrocities that our own troops are left to suffer for is the military we will end up with if not for a draft!!

When the time comes that American interests conflict with Neo-Con or Corporate interests, who will they follow?? When we spend 10 times as much for the same logistics the military used to do themselves, what will happen when the funds for these no-bid contracts run out??? This is not a way to secure our future as a Democracy, it is indeed unsustainable!

I say this with a heavy heart as I served in this same volunteer force, and would have loved to see our leadership behave as our forefathers had, but we as the electorate allowed these scoundrels to use our military for their political ambitions, this kind of sin cannot be easily resolved with volunteers that don't exist!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

mlwild

Practicality aside, there's something to be said for a reminder at age 18 that you owe something to the society that raised you.

Bob T:

I don't know about you, but I was raised by my parents.

Bob Tiernan

Bert:

Given post WWII historical trajectories and the formation of the military industrial complex

Bob T:

Hold that thought

Bert:

....I'd point instead back to the WPA. If we reconstructed it and modernized it with a social and environmental focus

Bob T:

We still have it by other names. It thrives because of the Public Works-industrial complex, which is just as damaging to this country as the other complexes.

Bob Tiernan

<h2>This is a worthy discussion. Both Rangel's and DeFazio's approach have merit, though they are clearly mutually exclusive. I believe it is easier to support an imperialistic foreign policy when children of the upper-middle class are not in jeopardy. I also feel that compulsory registration is an unwelcome intrusion by state power. I can't think of anything more repulsive than being forced to kill someone I do not believe deserves to die. I'm also not too crazy about the prospect of being shot at in a conflict that does not have compelling worth to me.</h2>