The Draft and the Poor

To the Editors of The Crimson:

It is disturbing that perhaps the strongest arguments in favor of reinstating the draft have not been mentioned either by the Carter administration or by the members of the press. Instead, almost all of the public discussion has thus far been limited to the implications of the draft for military and international affairs. However, it is worth noting that a return to military conscription is important not only because our nation needs to have its conventional forces strengthened, but rather primarily because of the requirements of social equity and democracy.

The current "volunteer" army is a disgraceful institution for any country that actively advocates an egalitarian social order. In reality, this method of military selection is merely a cruel hoax perpetrated upon the poorer classes of society, since these are the people who are forced into the military by their lack of jobs and other opportunities. A system whereby poor people are forced by economic necessity to risk their lives for the benefit of society at large is hardly egalitarian. The current composition of the army--30 per cent black and other third world people, the remainder largely poor and uneducated--reflects the result of this cruel exploitation at the hands of a middle class who can afford to hire mercenaries.

The volunteer army also frustrates the aspirations of the poor and disprivileged in another way as well; the budgetary strain imposed upon the federal government by the costs of economic incentives to keep people in the armed forces ultimately leads to cutbacks or curtailments of social programs for the needy. Institution of the draft would allow the current force levels to be maintained at a fraction of their present cost in wages and benefits. The funds that would be released by these savings could go towards programs that would, say, create more jobs for the unemployed youth in our cities.

Another reason for reinstitution of the draft is largely political: do we want to have a standing professional army? For example, would we have found out about My Lai or the secret bombings in Cambodia if no unwilling and uncommitted inductees had been in the armed forces at the time, ready and willing to risk blowing the whistle on these illegal acts? A citizen army, representing all classes, races and ethnic groups, would be an institution that would more closely adhere to the values, and ultimately, the will of the American people.

The final argument for conscription is a social one; in the wake of the 1970s and the "Me Generation" style of thought, we need a social institution that will revive the concept of public service among our people. A mandatory system of national service (like the ones that France, Germany and Switzerland have, for example) would allow every young person the opportunity to serve our society either in the military or in another form of public service (e.g., Peace Corps, Vista, hospital volunteers, community organizing, etc.). The human resources and enthusiasm that this system would channel into constructive tasks would be considerable. This might make possible programs to clean up the environment and rebuild our cities that would have been far too expensive even to contemplate attempting if everyone who participated had to be paid with tax dollars.

In conclusion, the draft is not merely a manifestation of jingoistic saber rattling. In addition to its military and strategic significance, it serves to advance many progressive causes right here in the United States. It would be a mistake if our generation chose to narrowly pursue our own self interests (as upper-middle class youths who may face the draft but would never be forced into the "volunteer army") rather than our larger responsibility to the less privileged members of our society. Matthew M. Guerreiro '80