Have you ever thought about enlisting in the military? What if you didn’t have a choice?
It’s the proposal of Rep. Charles Rangel, a longtime Democrat from New York, to re-instate the draft, requiring all U.S.men and women aged 18 to 42 to serve. 
Aten-HUT!
While a draft—also called conscription—was used in the Civil War and World War I, it became official policy in 1940 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted it as a means to fill holes in military forces, even in times of peace. If called up, men aged 18 to 26 served from one to two years.
Some 10 million were drafted in World War II and almost 2 million during the Vietnam War. The unpopularity of the Vietnam War combined with the more than 100,000 Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft led to its demise in 1973, the same year the war ended.
Today the military is made up of volunteers but men between 18 and 25 years must register with the Selective Service System, the agency that would oversee a draft, to give an accurate count of eligible servicemen.
The draft abroad
Even women are drafted in some countries, including Peru and North Korea. Israel requires men and women between 18 and 21 years old to serve two years, and a host of countries require men to serve or train, including Germany, Switzerland and Denmark.
The big picture
Rep. Rangel proposed reinstating the draft back in 2003 just before the U.S. invaded Iraq. The proposal failed 402-2. This time he’s reportedly pushing the issue to poke holes in the Iraq war and what he sees as inequities in who serves, questioning if leaders would support a war if their children had to serve.
While most see this as a political stunt and agree that a draft will never pass again, it’s stirring conversation that some would like to see addressed on the House floor.
Do you think women should be included in the draft? Post a comment!
More resources
The case against the draft from the Heritage Foundation
Military demographics - report by GAO
In today's world, modern women - who has for decades demanded equal rights and pay - must also be included in any US draft. Anything other than women's willingness to bear their part of a potential broadly distributed societal burden of defending the nation would be self-serving and hypocritical - at best. Anyone vaguely familiar with military history - for instance the records of all female batallions fighting in the frontline for the Soviet army in WWII or the Iranian army from 1980-88 - will know that concerns over women's ability to bear the "stress of combat" is either 1) blatant male prejudice or 2) selfish women trying to shirk away from their obligations, based on these ever-convenient excuses about "the weak sex"
Posted by: Jackie Kirkegaard | December 1, 2006 11:46 AM
Ummm, yeah, i agree. In today's world men and women are equal, so they should be treated equal in all things, including mandatory military service.
In any case, due to the unpopularity of this war, i would find it extremely unlikely that a draft would be honored by some (hopefully many) people- i certainly would not participate under any circumstances...
Posted by: elevendozen | December 1, 2006 12:31 PM
Conceptually, I agree that men and women should be treated equally in all regards, and that equality should be applied to the draft. However, from a practical standpoint, I also believe that men and women have different inherent strengths and these are what should be acknowledged and celebrated. Yes, all genders should be called upon in equal numbers in the event of a draft, but I think there is nothing sexist or unfair about the draft taking into consideration each individual's capacities and strengths and deploy them in an appropriate manner.
Posted by: Brittany | December 5, 2006 12:51 AM