Ask Auntie Pinko
January 23, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

What are your views on reinstating the draft?

Trina,
Ames, IA

Dear Trina,

Sometimes the simplest questions are the hardest ones to answer. Auntie Pinko's views on reinstating the draft are complicated, not always very consistent, and loaded with feelings, which makes me very glad I'm not in charge of making these decisions. So I can have some real empathy for those who are facing this issue right now.

Some of my views (well, more like feelings, really,) on reinstating the draft right now, are:

In any form of mandatory registration, service, etc., expected of America's young people, the requirements should be applied equally regardless of gender. This is now practical, since women have demonstrated their ability to perform an almost infinite array of military functions very well indeed. If we are going to demand service of our young people, there is no reason whatsoever to have lower expectations of women than of men.

If we do reinstate mandatory service, we should carefully examine our reasons, be honest about them, and be pragmatic about who serves and how. What do I mean by that?

There are, basically, two platforms for the imposition of a draft, and they have very different implications.

The first reason is because a level of military threat to our country is so great that our very survival depends on having the greatest possible level of resources to meet that threat. In this case, the only reason to exempt anyone from service would be that enabling them to serve would consume more resources than their service could generate. In other words, in the heat of a battle to survive, it would be foolish to spend time and money figuring out how to enable someone with multiple physical and mental challenges to play a useful military role, unless such mechanisms already existed. When the chips are really down, we would have to let the military choose.

The second basis for implementing a draft arises from political and social needs. These can range from relatively high-minded desires to foster citizenship and responsibility, through a form of political reality testing (such as Rep. Rangel's,) to socioeconomic engineering (trying to divert a segment of the population from an already-saturated job market, to give them marketable skills, etc.,) to opportunism--recruiting what is, in effect, cannon fodder, to achieve a policy goal through the application of military force.

I would suggest that all of the above reasons for this second basis would require virtually no exemptions for principled and effective implementation. That is, they must apply to all young people in order to achieve their - even if that means we must make expensive accommodations for youngsters with physical disabilities, mental health or addiction problems, etc. And even if it means the best and brightest college-bound youngsters must delay their plans for the duration of their service. And, yes, even if it means providing meaningful alternative service for conscientious objectors. So if we are going to justify a draft based on any of these, we must weigh the costs of such implementation in our decision.

If we are going to demand mandatory service of our young people with the notion of fostering citizenship, responsibility, etc., it should not be limited to military service. Auntie Pinko has often contemplated the notion of a mandatory national service for youngsters that would include military service among its options, but also have opportunities not unlike a domestic Peace Corps or the old Civilian Conservation Corps.

Do I support the notion of mandatory service at all? Is it compatible with our Constitution? Is it compatible with my own religious conviction of promoting non-violence in human affairs? These are some of the troubling questions Auntie Pinko wrestles with, Trina, and I wish I could give you clear, unambiguous, consistent, reassuring answers. But I can't.

I can see the value of national service, if it is available in non-military options. In fact, I find the notion very attractive on a number of levels (it's the incurable liberal social engineer in me, I'm sure.) But the passionate advocate of Constitutional freedom within me raises loud and strident doubts about a state making such demands of its citizens - especially without a broad consensus in favor of such a device.

And in the last analysis, when considering the draft in a purely military context, the Christian in me wins. We cannot force, or even demand our youngsters to execute violence for national policy purposes. It's not what Jesus would do, or Buddha, or perhaps even Mohammed. (Jihad, as I am coming understand it, is the drive for spiritual advancement, not to foster the wealth or political interests of governments. And even then, I believe to many - even most - Muslims it is a personal spiritual journey, not violent aggression toward others.)

Were our nation fighting for its very physical survival, my views might be different. But I can't really tell unless such a situation should arise. May it never happen!

Thank you for asking Auntie Pinko, Trina!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.