link

There's an interesting discussion about compulsory military service over at the EphBlog. It is in response to this Record op-ed by Daniel Gura, which argues for a draft on grounds of socioeconomic egalitarianism. I'm with EphBlog writer Dave Kane in his assessment of the article ("slipshod"). I thought Aidan Finley brought up an interesting point in the comments:

The bottom line here is simple: the upper socioeconomic classes don't, and shouldn't serve in war. Part of the incredible stupidity of the Great War was preferentially recruiting and killing the best and the brightest. America's never done that—cf. Vietnam—hell, in the Civil War, you could pay for someone else to fight for you. I think society has a compelling interest in only sending less advantaged brackets to the front. As our dear Gura himself admits, he's got dreams. "I hope to be working somewhere that will allow me to learn the skills to later in life be apart of the decisions that are made in our government." Yep, that's not a dream your average grunt has. Drafting Williams kids is a waste of resources, and a waste of time.

While some will interpret this as sarcasm, I took Aidan's post seriously. Although it sounds crass, think about it. It's certainly appealing to envision Ken Lay risking his own ass for the future of the worldwide energy supply, but since he's old, lazy, and demonstrably poor at following rules, he wouldn't be of much value as a soldier.

With a volunteer army, each individual who considers joining must weigh its risks against its benefits. You only need join if the risks are worth it for you. If you're wealthy or expect a wonderful fulfilling life, the small risk of death outweighs the potential gains (salary, benefits, education, tuition, etc.). But if you're poor and uneducated, maybe the army is a desirable alternative to delivering pizzas.

The notion that we should have a draft in order to improve the socioeconomic diversity of the military doesn't appeal to me. This is because I don't believe the makeup of the military, socioeconomically skewed though it is, is any more unjust than the socioeconomic makeup of fishermen or truck drivers (other professions with low pay and high death risk). National defense seems pretty fundamental, but wouldn't our way of life also be threatened without reliable trucking services and affordable lobster?