Anybody feeling a draft?

Byline: The Register-Guard

It's downright astonishing how many news organizations appear to be taking seriously Rep. Charles Rangel's recent announcement that - once again - he'll introduce a bill calling for reinstatement of a military draft.

The New York congressman's credibility is obviously enhanced this time by his new role as incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, but that doesn't mean he'll get off Square One with his draft bill.

Rangel is serious about one thing: He believes that presidents and politicians would be less inclined to send American armed forces into questionable conflicts if their own sons and daughters were vulnerable to mandatory military service.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said Sunday on the CBS broadcast "Face the Nation."

It's a plausible argument, and it goes to the heart of the difficult question of how a nation should, after it has made the momentous decision to go to war, fairly distribute the burden. The agonizing sacrifices of the Iraq war have been borne almost exclusively by members of America's all-volunteer military and their families.

But Rangel is sharp enough to know that beyond the political points he may score with his draft bill, military conscription is a nonstarter in Congress. In 2004, Rangel's bill to reinstitute a draft covering people age 18-26 was crushed 402-2.

Rangel's fellow Democrats aren't about to embrace a bill that would alienate the youth vote that was an important component of the party's midterm election victory. Young people aside, recent surveys show that fully 70 percent of Americans oppose the idea of a draft.

Even if Rangel could persuade the public to consider conscription, the Pentagon wants no part of it. The draft isn't a cost-effective manpower solution. It would induct far more people than are needed, creating the expense of equipping, training, housing and supervising the surplus.

A Government Accountability Office report estimated that a draft would add $4 billion in annual costs to the Department of Defense.

Of even greater concern to military leaders is the effect a draft would have on the quality of the force. A generation of senior officers who remember what it was like to fight an unpopular war with unwilling soldiers in Vietnam has no desire to turn back the clock.

The all-volunteer military has stood the test of time. Since the end of the draft in 1973, the uniformed services have been able to attract and retain qualified recruits to create a cohesive professional corps with high morale.

Despite the strains of extended enlistments and repeated rotations into combat duty in Iraq, military retention is at all-time high levels. Recruiting goals to maintain an active-duty force of 1.4 million were met in 2006.

Though his efforts may be quixotic, Rangel deserves great credit for reminding Americans that it is President Bush who chose to place the burden for an unjustified war entirely on the nation's volunteer military.