This unwillingness to fight when called up seems to me to be akin to cowardliness and civil disobedience. Shades of the SDS again. Or, perhaps it is conscientious objection.

I believe that draftees would be less effective and less motivated in fighting a war such as Iraq or Vietnam. On the other hand, in a war of existential importance, I believe that the draftees will fight exceptionally well.

James, taking your point at face value, why not just scrap the entire Selective Service charade right now?

Presumably, there's some value in registering people in the event of a WWII-scale war requiring mass mobilization. Then again, since we now assign SSNs even to infants, the idea that the feds can't find draft age people if it comes to that has long struck me as odd.

Second, there is no absolute that says we must draft for two years only. At three years, a soldier can be effective for 2/3rds of his tour. Third, most of the draftees could be used in stateside or garrison assignments, thus freeing up volunteers for combat duty. If a draftee wanted to sign up for combat, that is, to volunteer, he could be allowed after he had sufficient training, just as the existing volunteers do.

As for fairness, leave it strictly up to the little balls in the jug. I daresay that with a draft in the offing, many guys would opt for enlisting in order to get their choice of service and career paths. That was the case in the Korean War, I know. Not that it always works out that way...that I know too!

Motivated mostly by his opposition to the Iraq War, Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, along with New York Congressman Charles Rangel, has been among the most vocal members of Congress talking about the idea of bringing back the draft, and forcing y...