Should the U.S. Bring Back the Draft?

The United States has long relied on an all-volunteer military—and because Americans aren’t required to enlist, few of them do. About 1.3 million people—less than 1 percent of the population—currently serve in the armed forces. 

But for decades, the country maintained what’s known as a draft, which required young men to serve in the military if called upon. With the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, however, the government no longer needed a massive supply of troops, and the draft was discontinued. 

With the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, some people are now questioning whether a volunteer military can still meet the nation’s needs—and are pushing to reinstate the draft. (More than 30 countries, including Russia, Israel, and Mexico, maintain a draft.)

Supporters of that idea say it’s unfair that such a small percentage of Americans bear the burden of protecting our country. Plus, they say, a draft would allow the government to quickly bring in more troops if the U.S. were under attack.

But some opponents say that forcing people to join the military would violate their rights. Many also say that volunteers make better soldiers than people who don’t really want to serve. 

Should the U.S. bring back the draft? Two experts weigh in.

The current model of staffing our military using an all-volunteer force is unfair and expensive, and it should be eliminated.  

The system is fundamentally unfair because it relies mostly on low-income Americans, forcing them to shoulder the burdens of risk and sacrifice. That’s because the government offers economic incentives to enlist, so poorer Americans are more likely to sign up than wealthier ones. Relying exclusively on volunteers essentially allows people who have more money—and therefore more options—to get out of serving their country.

Bringing back the draft would allow the military to quickly pull in additional troops when necessary. In the past 15 years, the U.S. has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. During that time, the military has been forced to deploy many of the same troops again and again. The stress of repeated deployments can be harmful to service members’ health, leading some to experience post-traumatic stress disorder or to abuse alcohol and drugs.

Reinstating the draft would also be less expensive for the nation. The government currently spends a lot of money trying to get people to enlist—and to remain in the military once their initial commitment is complete. Last year alone, the Army paid $424 million in enlistment bonuses, up from $284 million in 2016 and $8.2 million in 2014. 

To help solve these problems, the U.S. should adopt a military draft that applies to both men and women. Doing so would be more fair, more efficient, and less expensive for the nation. It would also allow more upper-class Americans to experience the honor of serving their country.    

—Major General Dennis Laich (Retired)
United States Army

A fundamental question we must ask ourselves when thinking about whether to bring back the military draft is who owns our bodies, our time, and our lives. If the answer is not ourselves, then we are essentially slaves.

Draft supporters argue that young people owe a debt of service to their country. I reject this notion. Involuntary servitude does not promote patriotism. No one should be forced by the government to work in a job they don’t want.

Today, young men must register for the draft on their 18th birthday and remain in a database throughout their 20s, just in case the government needs to reinstate the draft. There are proposals in Congress to force young women to do the same. In my opinion, making people join the military against their will is a violation of their rights.

Additionally, how effective would a fighting force be if it were made up of individuals who had no interest in being there? That’s one reason many military leaders strongly oppose a draft. They know that our current all-volunteer force is more highly trained and professional than draftees would be.

Were the U.S. under attack—or threatened with attack—there would be no shortage of Americans volunteering to defend their country. The problem is that the U.S. has troops in more than 150 countries, most of them not vital to our national security. Maintaining that global presence is increasingly costly and requires a larger military than we need for our own defense. 

If the U.S. weren’t so involved in other countries, we would eliminate any need for a draft in the first place. It would also set a shining example of personal liberty to the rest of the world.      

—Ron Paul
Former U.S. Congressman (Republican of Texas)