A better answer is to question the validity of the Selective Service as a valuable tool in creating a lethal and effective military force. As Dirty Harry said to a man who proudly noted he had never drawn his gun, “A good man always knows his limitations.” Those who volunteer are already more combat-ready than the rest of us.
Congressional reports show our all-volunteer force is effective: “Quality is far better than under a draft. A volunteer military can be choosy and set higher standards. Even when the army was reducing its requirements during the worst of the Iraq years, its quality standards remained well above those of conscript forces….The end of the draft also has dramatically improved commitment and morale in the armed forces. The difference is simple: recruits who want to serve and succeed are likely to perform better than draftees who want out, the sooner the better. The AVF also enjoys higher reenlistment rates, which reduce turnover and enhance experience.”
There are many reasons like this to challenge the premise of Raddatz’s question and consider the elimination of the selective service all together. Instead people were treated to cowed party that is so fearful of “the war on women” its representatives are now willing to make our daughters draftable. The candidates might want to consider that 82 percent of women don’t see themselves as feminists and that a majority of decent folks in this country, per Raddatz’s point to Bush, worries we are losing more than a debate in New Hampshire.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member