The stalemate in Iraq and the no-end-in-sight fight against terrorism are reigniting debate about the merits of a military draft.
In a Washington Monthly article titled “The Case for the Draft,” authors Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris argued for a “modernized draft” that would require the privileged to serve, allow soldiers a choice how they serve, and give the military large numbers of deployable ground troops.
“America has a choice. It can be the world’s superpower, or it can maintain the current all-voluntary military, but it probably can’t do both,” they wrote in March 2005. The article gained new life this week when a writer for posted it at the issues-based community. “Makes sense to me. How about you?” wrote the instigator, who goes by the username “shooter99.”
“I agree,” replied “1averagejoeusa.” “(The) best way to stay out of a war is to have your kid in it.”
Opponents of the draft weighed in from the left and right. A community member named “ptif219” called talk of the draft “a liberal ploy” designed to stir up anti-war sentiment. “If the voluntary military works, leave it alone,” he said.
“Dreamer” seemed to be arguing against the draft and the war in Iraq: “When you have politicians calling the shots and the sovereignty of the U.S. is not at stake, ‘duty, honor and country’ may not be as important as just saying “Hell, No, I won’t go!” Remember the Vietnam War?”
A member named Carlos thanked Shooter for posting the article. “I am of draft age and if that hypothetical situation occurred I think I would be OK with it. I grew up an Army brat and knew right away that the military lifestyle would not be for me. However, ‘duty, honor, country’ … are values every American should share,” Carlos wrote.
“You are most welcome, Carlos,” replied Shooter. “It sure makes an old vet like me feel good to here someone from your generation speak such words.”
Join the conversation at
