Download PDF of this full issue: v11n4.pdf (8.2 MB)

Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight: Draft Near

By Barry Romo

Despite protests by Reagan and Company to the contrary, the draft is a very real prospect on the horizon. The simple fact is that there are not enough military personnel to staff the projected expansion of the armed forces, and with Reagan's blusterings about stopping the Russians wherever they appear (or he thinks they appear), the need for more troops becomes clearer and clearer.

Reagan's $1.5 trillion gift to the Defense Department (more realistically, the War Department) calls for the building of more aircraft carriers, nuclear destroyers, subs, and even bringing old battleships out of mothballs. But wait! The Navy already is having problems with trained personnel to operate the fleet already in existence. In the past, the draft has been used only to fill the needs of the Army, and occasionally the Marines. But the draft does more than that: in fear of being drafted, many people are stimulated to join other services; while the Navy isn't great, it beats the hell out of stomping through the jungles in the Army, so there are people who join up even though it's for a longer period of time.

Reagan & Co have stated their insistence that any new draft would be fair and equitable. But the history of the draft suggests something different. There has been opposition to the draft and its glaring inequalities since the first draft law was enacted during the Civil War. Draft riots in major Northern cities were common. At the time, the law was written so that a man could simply buy his way out of the draft by posting a cash bond—$800 was sufficient to buy a substitute. Many a patriotic citizen took this option, including the original Rockefeller who went on to build his fortune by selling shoddy arms to the union Army, and Grover Cleveland who went on to become President.

The period of World War II was the one exception to the draft's glaring inequalities. In fact the level of education and social position of the military was higher than for the civilian population as a whole. Despite the absence of such patriots as John Wayne, draft policy was fairer than it was during earlier wars— and certainly later wars. In part the "equality" came from peer pressure; many were persuaded to join up simply because the country was united behind a cause in which the great majority believed, and to stoop Nazi's, many men joined the Canadian military before the U.S. had gotten into the war officially. More important, however, was the simple manpower needs of the military. At the height of World War II there were 16 million people in uniform, compared to 5 million during Korea and 6 million during Vietnam. And during those years the population kept on growing, so that the 16 million were a far higher percentage of the population than in later conflicts.

While percentages changed in later wars, so did the pool from which people were drafted. To put it bluntly, it became a poor man's Army. Increasingly, businessmen's children found ways to avoid the draft whether it was for braces for good teeth or exemptions to run the "family" business or perpetual schooling, or even divinity school. Yes, divinity school as either David Stockman (noted axeman behind Reagan's budget) or Jerry Farwell (noted moral majority preacher of patriotism) can testify! During Vietnam, only one third of the pool of eligible manpower ever served in the Armed Forces.

During the period of the Vietnam War the inequities of the draft became more blatant. Prior to Vietnam there were physical and mental requirements which had to be met, but with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's "Project 100,000!" all of the rules were changed. The program was set up to draft youth whose qualifications were below draftable levels, run them through a cram government program, and send them off as cannon fodder for Vietnam in the combat arms. Meanwhile, physical deferments were handed out to $100,000 a year sports stars.

The eye-catching upper-class bias of the draft, combined with opposition to the war in Vietnam led to the end of the draft, though the selective service system was left intact.

With signs pointing toward a reinstitution of the draft under the military madness of Reagan/Haig/Weinberger Administration, this draft promises to be as unequal as any. Under present projections only about one in five draft-age youth would be needed in the military; even with a 10% increase in military personnel, the figure would still be one in four—a long ways from the World War II figure. All the rhetoric about "fair" and "equitable" service melts in the face of the fact that 75%-80% would not serve. Even under straight lottery, there would always be the question of who gets out of the lottery altogether; there's always religion (remember the sports stars or the ability of the rich to hire their own personal physicians). A straight lottery is only "straight" for the people who are part of it.

Historically the draft has provided the cannon fodder for the military's combat arms—the infantry, artillery, armor and engineers—and there is no reason to believe that a new draft would be any different.

One clear side effect of the draft, however, is to increase the pool of personnel who enlist in the military rather than wait and take their chances in a draft, even though enlistment carries a longer term of service. Recruiters love it since it greatly increases their ability to fill jobs which are more specialized than humping through the mud with people who are more qualified. What this all adds up to is that people without the background, without the education will still end up doing the military's dirty work; options open to working class and minority youth will be severely curtailed (other than hand grenade throwing). In short, war will remain a poor man's fight.

Barry Romo
VVAW National Office