DRAFT BEER, DRAFT STUDENTS: There’s been talk lately of bringing back the military draft. So far, talk is all it is. Some Democratic congressmen, including Charles Rangel of New York, have introduced legislation (S89 / HR163) that would require all men and women between 19 and 26 to perform two years of national service, which would be in the military or possibly in some form of domestic service work. The Republicans aren’t getting behind these bills (that would be suicide just before a big election), so for now it’s little more than a publicity stunt.

Rangel, as a Democrat, seems at first like an unlikely sponsor of a pro-military bill. However, as a black legislator with enough stomach for racial politics, Rangel wants to put more white skin in the game, so as to give our leadership pause the next time they decide to send the boys overseas. (And girls. Rangel’s bill won’t let them off as in the past). The next “Operation Freedom” would thus mix sophomores from Yale and Harvard in with the brothers and sisters from Newark and Oakland. In theory, anyway.

It’s pretty clear that the U.S. military is smaller than it’s been in the past, and is taking a lot of wear and tear from the Iraq situation. The Rumsfeld concept of a fast shock-and-awe operation that relies heavily on high tech equipment was successful in gaining ground, but not in holding it. We really wouldn’t be ready today if a lot of troops were suddenly needed somewhere else (say, Korea?). If Bush is still in the White House come late January, fear of the D-word might well diminish once it was recaptured from the Democratic rogues. And hey, the Democrats also have a history as happy warriors; a veteran like Kerry might also claim a need to call upon our young men and women to help our nation meet its international responsibilities.

My first instinct is to oppose a return of the draft and let our young people have their lives (as I was lucky enough to have had; the Vietnam draft ended just as I reached the age). But then again, perhaps Congressman Rangel has a point. If our leaders, Republican or Democrat, actually had to think about their own children and nephews (and now, even nieces) when considering future Iraq-like operations, their thinking process might become that much more focused. Maybe the USA would then avoid getting stupid and thinking that we can run the world without the consensus and support of our major allies. (That is, if we have any left).