As a former U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer who has served both during the draft and after the changeover to an All-Volunteer Force, there are a number of reasons why we should not go backwards and reinstate the draft. First and foremost is the orientation of our national perspective. What is meant by that? Essentially, are we to be a nation of peace or of war? Why do we need a large standing military? What is the purpose? If we, as a nation, have imperialistic aspirations then, yes, we probably do need a large standing army. However, if we aspire to be something better; perhaps a nation of peace, then we probably do not need a large standing army. There are many other reasons why we do not need a draft.

One of the main reasons that draft proponents put forth on why we need a draft is that there is a dwindling pool from which to draw new enlistees. While this may be true on one hand, their conclusion is erroneous; we do not need to draft people simply to fill existing military force structure requirements. That is because our active duty and reserve force mix needs to be re-evaluated and brought up-to-date. The United States does not need to start wars or to engage in almost every international peacekeeping operation that comes along. We need to choose our wars carefully and if in doubt, then stay out. The size of the active duty component must be large enough for immediate defense and to handle an immediate challenge to our nation. It should not be big enough to start a war. On the other hand, the reserve component, to include the National Guard, must be sizeable enough to handle every military event short of a world war. Should a world war become imminent then full mobilization, to include the draft, would be necessary to defend our nation from such an extreme threat.

Another reason touted for bringing back the draft is the social benefit to society; that the draft is the great equalizer among races, genders, and social class. The current belief is that an AVF is drawn mainly from people from poor backgrounds and that elites never have to serve. So goes the notion, that when the casualties start coming in it is the poor, the minorities that take the brunt of the casualties. The reality, however, is different. First, the AVF is comprised of people from every socio-economic class, even the elite class. Some elites, who may later aspire to political office, serve to include military service on their resume. The AVF is already diverse and includes a range of races, genders, and nationalities. In fact, it could be argued that this force is probably more diverse that any other segment of our society. During the Vietnam War draft deferments were given to college students for a while, members of the reserve component or National Guard, and others who were in alternative service such as the Peace Corps. And, of course there is always the exemption for conscientious objectors. The argument for bringing back the draft so that it includes more elites in its ranks is spurious because elites have always found a way to get out of service if they do not want to serve.

Social experimentation or engineering is something that should not be tried in the military. In 1966 the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, however, tried just such an experiment, as part of the Great Society’s efforts to improve societal’s ills under President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” This experiment failed as a victim of unintended consequences. “McNamara’s 100,000,” officially dubbed “Project 100,000,” sought to help reengineer society by providing training in the military to recruits with low mental aptitude scores (in the 10-30 percentile) and some who had impaired physical ability. Only a small number (9%) had a ‘physical disability’ that was quickly remedied. These were the so called, “fat boys” or physical weaklings. For the low aptitude group (91%), the idea was to provide training and opportunity to individuals so when they left the service for civilian employment they might have some basic skill and a job history. Though noble in concept, it became a nightmare in practice. The 364,000 personnel that passed through this program ended up becoming, for the most part, cannon fodder in the Vietnam War. Many of them received a one-way ticket to Vietnam and suffered high casualties because of their limited abilities. So, in practice the poor and minorities ended up suffering disproportionately under this social experimentation program.

Today, we should appreciate the overall high quality of AVF when compared to the conscripted force of the past. The AVF is of higher quality because it does not accept drug addicts, criminals, and accepts people with higher mental aptitude (AFQT category III and above). Because of the higher mental abilities, training can be successfully accomplished in less time. And in today’s increasingly technical military environment that is important. Also, in-service attrition is lower than in the past. A quality force is vital to success on today’s battlefield.

After patriotism, one of the main reasons young people give for joining the military today are the college benefits, the training, and the pay. The draft would do nothing to improve the social benefits to society and would probably hurt it because pay and benefits would be cut to those who did serve. With a drafted force these benefits could and would be reduced to accommodate larger numbers of conscripts. If you are forcing people to serve, then you do not need the incentives that you do for an AVF. Today, service members who may never have had the opportunity to go to college in the past are able to go to college now because we do have an AVF. The United States needs to maintain its focus on keeping and improving a high-quality, well-trained, All-Volunteer Force.

Finally, young Americans should have the freedom to choose, or to not choose, to go into the military. Why should the government force them to join? Barring a very extreme situation such as a world war, it should be their freedom, their choice. That way it will be volunteers who decide to enlist and be this nation’s frontline of defense, which is what our nation’s founders intended.

© Mount Vernon Institute 2004

Noel Gibeson was a Marine Corps strategic and manpower planner during the Reagan and first Bush Administrations and is presently a Senior Fellow at the Mount Vernon Institute.