Nice that they finally noticed

It's been all over the media, and over whole swathes of the blogosphere as well: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill seeking to reinstate the draft. Quelle surprise! The man's only introduced the exact same bill virtually every session of Congress since 2003:

• H.R. 163, January 7, 2003 (108th Congress, First Session)
• H.R. 2723, May 26, 2005 (109th Congress, First Session)
• H.R. 4752, February 14, 2006 (109th Congress, Second Session; the current bill: PDF link)

What you probably won't hear from the media is that Rep. Rangel's bill is primarily a piece of political theatre, intended to introduce a bit more sanity into the deliberations of his fellow members of Congress when a war is at stake. The reasoning is that if this bill were to become law it would necessarily mean that those voting for war might have to serve in it themselves (if they're under the age of 43) or else face having their own children or other relatives serve in it. Personally, I think that rationale is a load of crap (see Bush, George W., and Texas Air National Guard, for example). But on the whole, I think there's at least some merit in Rangel's bill. I'll tell you why below the fold.

The short title of H.R. 4752 is a good place to start: "To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Rangel's bill would be very much in line with what most of our allies have been doing since World War II. It would require a period of two years' service, in either the uniformed military or in some other designated capacity, for all individuals aged 18-42. There are exceptions for hardship and other circumstances, provision is made for conscientious objectors (they do the national service thing or, if they're qualified and don't mind, they can serve in a noncombatant role in the military). Women must serve as well as men. So far, so good.

Some things that I'd change if I could include:

• Rather than requiring an individual to register as a conscientious objector or to be rejected by the military for whatever reason in order to be able to do national service, I'd prefer to make it a voluntary choice except in times of a declared war or a congressionally recognized state of national emergency. That allows us to keep our all-volunteer military, and also lets the armed forces be pickier about whom they take--which they haven't been able to be under the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush régime.
• I'd also allow exemptions from national service for anyone who was serving voluntarily in AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, VISTA, or other similar programs, or who had already completed at least six months' service in such an organization. Those organizations should be among the first to be certified by the president for national service outside of the armed forces.
• For each year of national service performed, an individual should get a voucher good for a year's tuition at the college or other institution of post-secondary education of his/her choice. Any individual willing to serve a double tour should be able to get a four-year college degree essentially on the taxpayers' dime. (Not quite the GI Bill, but close enough to make it a real incentive and to help out people who might not otherwise make it through college, given the skyrocketing cost of tuition.)
• Students pursuing a course of teacher education and who are willing to teach for at least two years in an inner-city or rural school district should be exempted from the obligation to do other national service, and should also receive the tuition assistance. If they renege on their promise to teach in an underprivileged school district after graduation, they are then liable to immediate induction for national service and must pay back in full the value of any tuition adjustments they have already received.
• Students pursuing a course of study in nursing, medicine, dentistry, or similar professions, and who are willing to serve for at least two years in a rural or otherwise understaffed/underserved community health setting, should be exempted from national service and should receive tuition assistance, subject to the same penalty as for the teachers if they then fail to live up to their obligations.

So why do I think this is a good idea? Because of the results of the World War II draft. If you've read any of my comments on this matter elsewhere in Left Blogistan, it's been a pretty constant theme for me. The WWII draft really mixed up the inductee population, with an awful lot of social benefits that were reaped both immediately and after the war's end. You had Iowa farm boys serving alongside Brooklyn Jews and Back Bay Catholics from Boston. Swedish loggers from Minnesota were marching next to German and Irish steelworkers from Pittsburgh, sharecroppers from Georgia, miners from West Virginia, and oilmen from Texas. People were a lot less insular after that, and they mostly wound up with a lot fewer regional, class, and religious prejudices than they'd had before reporting for induction. As our modern society seems to be on the verge of resurrecting precisely those kinds of regional, class, and confessional boundaries, I think it behooves us to do what we can to break them down and keep them down.

Plus, there's nothing like having to take a couple of years out of your life to work with other Americans, for other Americans, to drive home the message that we're all in the same boat. We rise or fall as one, and even in this richest country in the world there are those who don't have all the same opportunities (or even the same material goods) as we do. Citizenship is an incredible right that carries with it a tremendous number of privileges--but an equally tremendous number of duties and responsibilities. We hear all about the former, but next to nothing about the latter: and I think it's about time many of our fellow Americans were reminded that they exist.

And on a purely selfish note, I hope that having to serve a couple of years in between finishing high school and starting college might cut down on the number of pampered pin-headed prima donnas that show up on college campuses every autumn, thinking that just because mommy and daddy paid their tuition, they should get to pick and choose whatever they want and call it an education. The ones who seem to have their shit together, the ones who routinely hit the libraries and show up for all the lectures are the non-traditional students, the ones who understand that you get good grades by showing up and doing the work to the best of your ability--not by cutting corners, taking shortcuts, or making an annoying nuisance of yourself until the professor gives in just to get you to shut the hell up and get out of his/her office.

Comments

[Bryan]

This is the type of national service I support. I would limit the compulsory military service to a formally declared war, not a "use of force" resolution, or emergency declaration.

I also would like to see the CCC restarted to clean up and fix up the national parks.

Think of how much better off New Orleans would be today if we had thousands of hands to gut houses and clean up the city, as well as to shovel dirt and rebuild levees.

[Michael]

We agree on "use of force" resolutions. They don't count as either declared wars or national emergencies. But if, say, the southeast had gotten pounded with another massive hurricane season this year (something along the lines of last year's disaster, say), and FEMA decided that they just couldn't cope with it all, I'd say that Congress or the president could reasonably declare that a state of limited national emergency such that the National Guard (and only the Guard) could get a priority on able-bodied personnel coming through the induction pipeline. But if they were inducted into the Guard during such an emergency, they could only be used to respond to it: they couldn't be sent out for combat duty, or forced to stay in the Guard once the state of emergency had passed. If they still had time left on their two-year service clock, they could transfer to their first choice of alternate assignments, or voluntarily remain in the Guard on non-combat duty until the end of their hitch. That seems an equitable distribution of the administrative pain and suffering--everybody's unhappy. Isn't that the sign of a good compromise?

[Bryan]

I want VISTA, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. to be included in the national service area, and they should be able to provide the bodies necessary for a disaster.

You need the National Guard for security and combat engineering, but a lot of the tasks they do in emergencies don't require military training.

I'd like to see fewer uniforms and more people in humanitarian situations.

[Michael]

On the whole, I'd agree with your last comment, Bryan--but it depends on the time frame. The time for the humanitarian agencies to go in is after the emergency has passed and once the situation on the ground is again more or less stable. While it's unstable, and while the emergency is ongoing, that's when I want the National Guard there--keeping looting down, securing roads and bridges, clearing away debris, and so on. And we're hard-pressed to find the bodies and the equipment to do that, with so much of the Guard (and most of its equipment) off chasing Bushevik fantasies in the deserts.

Though I suppose if we're talking about people who've been inducted for a couple of years' worth of national service, they could be trained to do a lot of that stuff themselves. Have to think about that some more.

[Wil Robinson]

Unfortunately, I think this is just a "toe in the water." Remember, it was the Democrats that "escalated" the Vietnam War - and when it comes down to it, everyone (Republican and Democrat) loves a good war.

I think in the future we will see serious debate over the draft...and it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years we have one.

This was just "disguised" as political theater...in actuality, the Dems are wondering if they can escalate the so-called "war on terror" if they win the white house in 2008. Iran is a big threat to Israel, or so we are told, and Democrats are much bigger recipients of AIPAC money than Republicans.

[Michael]

Sorry, Wil, but I'm not buying it. There are only a few fossils in the Democratic Party who even believe in Bush's sacred War on Terra, much less anybody that thinks it would be a good idea to expand it.

[Andrea]

Well, when I stage my takeover of the Defense Department and turn it into the Social Justice Department, here's how it's going to be. National service, sure. War, no.

BTW, I agree with you that we need the National Guard in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. I've ranted about that a lot. But there's also disaster mitigation/prevention that could be done before there's even the thought of an actual (oh shit here it comes) disaster. Building levees, raising houses (rather than razing) to beyond the flood line, retrofitting structures for soundness, even disaster education..... all of this could be the task of a national corps.

The timing of Rangel's repeated proposal makes it hard for me to support, though. There's this poorly planned and ineptly managed war, and now you want a draft? He'd get a better hearing if he'd wait.

[Incertus]

I agree with most of the discussion here, but I'd want one more caveat--you don't get out of national service by being an intern or some other government flunky, thereby allowing congresscritters to protect their spawn or the spawn of donors.

[Michael]

Good call, Brian. The exceptions I had in mind were for people who were already doing real public service, or who were trying to get themselves to the point where they could do so. I don't think flunkying for a fatcat pol in Washington even registers on that scale.

[Random Goblin]

Keep in mind that the National Guard gets deployed to combat all the time now. It's a lot different from the Vietnam era when it was a place to hide out.