The Draft

Update: Shades forwarded a relevant Stratfor report:
"The problem with this argument is not the moral point, which is that the burden of national defense should be borne by all classes, but rather the argument that a draft would be more equitable. ... A draft, by itself, does not in any way guarantee equity.
...
Not everyone is needed in today's military. You might make the case for universal service -- people helping teachers and cleaning playgrounds. But there is a fundamental difference between these jobs and, at least in principle, the military. In the military, you might be called on to risk your life and die. For the most part, that isn't expected from teacher's aides. Thus, even if there were universal service, you would still be left with the dilemma of who gets to teach arts and crafts and who goes on patrol in Baghdad. Universal conscription does not solve the problem inherent in military conscription.

And there is an even more fundamental issue. During World War II, conscription, for just about everyone, meant service until the end of the war. During the Cold War, there was no clear end in sight. Since not everyone was conscripted, having conscripts serve until the end of the war could mean a lifetime of service.
...
In effect, it would be a huge tax on the draftees for years of earnings lost.
...
A volunteer force is a much more efficient way to field an Army. There is more time for training, there is a higher probability of retention and there are far fewer morale problems. Rangel is wrong in comparing the social base of this Army with that of Vietnam. But the basic point he is trying to make is true: The makeup of the U.S. Army is skewed toward the middle and lower-middle class. But then, so are many professions.
...
Still, Rangel is making an important point, even if his argument for the draft does not work. War is a special activity of society. It is one of the few in which the citizen is expected -- at least in principle -- to fight and, if necessary, die for his country. It is more than a career. It is an existential commitment, a willingness to place oneself at risk for one's country. The fact that children of the upper classes, on the whole, do not make that existential commitment represents a tremendous weakness in American society. When those who benefit most from a society feel no obligation to defend it, there is a deep and significant malaise in that society.
...
However, there are two points to be made. First, many -- perhaps most -- jobs in today's military that do not require the stamina of youth, as proven by all the contractors doing essentially military work in Iraq. Second, 18- to 22-year-olds are far from the most physically robust age group. Given modern diet and health regimens, there are people who are substantially older who have the stamina and strength for combat duty. If you can play tennis as well as you claim to for as long as you say, you can patrol a village in the Sunni Triangle."

Ah yes, like in John Scalzi's excellent book Old Man's War.

Update2: The rich and powerful would find a way around any new draft for their own children. The political reality is that the unfairness that concerns Rangel would not be resolved by any law Congress would actually pass.

Similarly, we could ensure the fairness of any new system of national health insurance by making sure members of Congress received exactly the same care under it as everyone else, except there is no chance any other conceivable Congress would pass such a law. Rather, it would be like Cuba today, where there is a fine system of national health insurance for party members, and next to nothing for everyone else. We already have that here too - the health insurance plan now covering members of Congress is great. But there is no chance Congress would give its benefits up to participate in an affordable Universal program.