It’s a question that surfaces every so often, usually when the headlines talk about armed forces struggling to meet their recruitment numbers: Should the United States bring back the military draft? The idea isn't new, of course. We had a peacetime draft back in 1940, and it played a significant role in staffing our military through World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Then, on January 27, 1973, the day the Vietnam peace accords were signed, the draft officially ended.
Now, decades later, with some branches of the military finding it harder to attract enough recruits, the conversation is back. Could a conscription system, a draft, be the answer to these personnel shortages? And if so, what new challenges might it bring?
Charles Moskos, a former draftee himself and a professor, argues that the recruitment and retention crisis is indeed the most serious issue facing our armed forces. He believes the only real solution is to reinstate the draft, but with a modern twist. His vision for a 21st-century draft centers on a few key principles. First, only males would be drafted, given the likelihood of service in combat roles, while women could continue to enlist voluntarily. The active duty term would be relatively short, perhaps 18 months, followed by a two-year stint in a reserve component. This, he suggests, could also boost reserve enlistments, addressing another recruiting shortfall.
Crucially, Moskos emphasizes that a revived draft system would need generous options for alternate civilian service. This would ensure that the rights of conscientious objectors are fully respected, allowing them to serve their country in non-military capacities.
One common counter-argument is that today's military requires highly trained, professional soldiers, not short-term conscripts. Moskos pushes back on this, reminding us that in past conflicts like World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, many combat soldiers had only about six months of training before deployment. He posits that peacekeeping operations, in particular, are well-suited for short-term service members in lower enlisted ranks.
He also points to a less-discussed reality of the all-volunteer force: a significant number of recruits, about one-third, don't even complete their initial enlistment. In contrast, he notes, only about one in ten draftees failed to complete their two-year obligation. From his perspective, a soldier serving a short term honorably is preferable to one discharged prematurely for cause.
What about the technical skills required today? Moskos agrees that these are essential. His solution? A two-track pay system. This would mean higher compensation for those whose skills demand extended training and experience, while draftees, even those with pre-existing technical abilities, would receive a different compensation level. This brings up another critical point: the compensation of the career force. Moskos argues that we currently have an imbalance, with overpaid recruits and underpaid sergeants, leading to family strains among junior enlisted personnel. He believes a draft would allow for a restoration of the pay ratio seen in earlier eras, where a master sergeant earned significantly more than a private, thereby incentivizing retention in critical skills and leadership roles.
Beyond military service, Moskos suggests a significant shift in how federal aid for higher education operates. He points out that billions are spent annually on grants and loans for students who don't serve their country, lamenting the creation of a "GI Bill without the GI." His proposal is to link federal college aid to military or civilian service.
Perhaps the most sensitive argument against a draft, and one Moskos acknowledges isn't often raised, is the question of equity: who serves when not everyone serves? Even with expanded active duty, reserve components, and civilian service options, he estimates only about half of the male cohort might be needed. So, how can it be fair?
His provocative answer is to start conscription at the top of the social ladder, drafting graduates from leading universities. This, he argues, would lend legitimacy to the draft in the eyes of the public and positively influence recruitment across all social strata. He recalls his own Princeton class of 1956, where two-thirds served in the military, a stark contrast to less than 2 percent by 1999. For Moskos, getting the children of America's elite to serve is the strongest argument for bringing back the draft, as those who benefit most from society should be the first to contribute. He believes that when privileged youth serve, future leaders gain a formative citizenship experience, which ultimately benefits both the armed forces and the nation.
