Conscription: An Unnecessary Burden

Conscription, also known as “the draft” in the United States, is forced service in the military—specifically the Army—for eligible citizens that lasts a specific amount of time and is activated and implemented at the discretion of the Selective Service, part of the federal government. The policy of forced armed service makes sense during times of emergency and extreme peril, but the needs and realities of the United States as it pertains to modern warfare, the political difficulties of building consensus for conscription among the public, and the social harm that conscription causes are all good reasons not to return to conscription as a matter of enacting good public policy.

Conscription in the United States is as old as the nation, used first to draft soldiers in the colonial militias (NewsHour). It was used again during every major U.S. military engagement, starting with the Revolutionary War, including the Civil War and both World Wars, and finally ending with the Vietnam War (NewsHour). Technically, the draft is still active—having been reactivated by Congress in 1980—and can be used to conscript males between the ages of 18 and 35; however, it has not been used in any military campaign since the Vietnam War, including the Gulf War of 1989, the Iraq War of 2003, and the ongoing Afghanistan War that was started in 2001. Conscription in the United States is currently limited to males, and, if activated, would require any man selected to serve in the Army for a duration of time that is contingent upon the Army’s need. Exemptions exist for a variety of reasons, including medical conditions, student status, and conscientious objections, which can include religious or ethical concerns about military service. Conscription has not changed extensively since its inception, proving it is an outdated policy.

First and foremost, the point of conscription is to raise a standing army of bodies to fight another standing army of bodies. In today’s technology-driven battlefield, manpower is not the necessary force it once was. Of course, any successful military campaign will need soldiers as “boots on the ground,” but the majority of wars are now first waged with aircraft and long-range missile and ordinance strikes. The use of drones and robots in warfare is increasing, which means the reliance on soldiers is decreasing, and technological advancements make it so that fewer soldiers are necessary to complete missions. As Joshua Kopstein reports, Congress and the President are looking to use drones and other technologies more prominently and as a first resort in future military and reconnaissance missions. As Kopstein points out, the conventional wisdom is that drones are cheaper than troops and that as unpopular as drones may be currently, “drone advocates push targeted killings as the lesser of two evils: keeping American troops out of harm’s way.” As technology advances, the importance of the single soldier diminishes. Whereas it was good public policy to be able to raise a militia in the 1600s in Virginia to respond to the threat of hostile Native American attacks, the modern military of the United States does not need the policies or tools of conscription to be able to function effectively and efficiently and is a policy that is becoming outdated as it will not likely face another standing army. Furthermore, the skills required to perform today’s functions in a military, from flying drones to repairing helicopters, require a specific amount of knowledge, training, and skills that would not likely be found in a general public draft. It makes little sense, then, to randomly pull bodies from the populace when people who have specific backgrounds are needed.

As public policy, conscription violates most people’s notions of civil liberties and personal freedoms. Any compulsory action mandated by the government, from conscription to wearing seatbelts to buying insurance, has often met with a significant amount of resistance. Conscription, unlike seat belts, has a broader base of public disdain that has been present for almost as long as conscription was active. For example, during the Civil War, riots broke out in New York as a result of people resisting the draft (NewsHour). Furthermore, conscription has a gender and age bias, focusing only on men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register and up to 35 years old to serve. Women are excluded from the draft because of a Supreme Court decision in 1981 and based on the recommendations and policies of the Department of Defense that held that women would not be asked to register for the draft because their contribution to the military is more limited and specific to men (Selective Service). Such thinking is dated and demeaning to the capabilities of women soldiers and shows a gender bias that is based more on history and custom than in the present needs of the nation and its military. Of course, this is a soft issue—as feminists have not typically been banging down the doors of the Department of Defense in order to sign up for the draft in the name of gender equality, but the policy difference between genders shows the anachronism and outdated thinking that is behind the policy of conscription.

The larger impact that gender inequality has in regard to conscription is the negative effect conscription has on society. Dr. Juliet Gardiner, a historian and expert on World War II, explained that conscription during World War II had a negative social impact, including impoverishing the family if the man was the major income earner in the family who suddenly had to accept low military wages, creating difficulties for children who suddenly lost their fathers to the draft, and problems in the relationships between husbands and wives because women were unable to understand the horrors of war and men were equally ignorant of the hardships women were facing with suddenly having to run the household alone (Gardiner). Braden Robinson also points out that conscription disrupts the workforce and can have an effect on the availability of goods and services that are important for the economy (7–8). Thus, as public policy, conscription has more adverse effects on the public, including a diminished economy, weaker communities, and struggling families. The defense of a nation is not just a defense of its sovereignty or of the physical protection of its people. It is also the defense of a way of life and its sustainability, and conscription as a policy has been proven to detract from both.

Most governments wish to instill a sense of nationalism upon its citizens that would stir them to act in defense of the country. The current all-volunteer army is sufficiently meeting the needs of the country, and as technology increases the efficiency of tools such as drones, the need for soldiers will decrease. The all-volunteer army matches the other armed services, which are filled with volunteers, and is in line with the idea of natural rights to freedom—an American principle. Furthermore, the all-volunteer army does not create gender disparity that affects the social fabric of the country as well as creates economic instability for the homes and businesses affected by a draft. At this point in time, conscription is an unnecessary policy that has too many negative consequences for it to make sense. The current attitude and policy of the federal government to keep the draft dormant and to not prosecute anyone who fails to register or comply with all provisions required by Selective Service shows that it is a policy of last resort and hopefully one that will never be implemented in the future.

Works Cited

Gardiner, Juliet. “Consequences of Conscription.” World War II History. n.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.

Kopstein, Joshua. “Obama’s New Department of Defense: Fewer Troops, More Drones.” The Verge. n.p., 5 February 2013. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

NewsHour. Timeline of Conscription (Mandatory Military Enlistment) in the U.S. n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

Robinson, Braden. An Analysis of Conscription. n.p., October 1 2004. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.

Selective Service. “Women and the Draft.” Selective Service. U.S. Federal Government, 6 Aug. 2008. Web. 6 November 2013.