Recent news stories have focused on the educational success of Finnish schools in comparison with other nations. Most of the reporting has noted that Finnish schools are less regimented that others, especially their near Asian achievers. What they fail to emphasize is that Finland does not allow any private schools, no religious schools and no other private alternatives. All children must attend the Finnish school system. The result of this is that everyone wants these schools to be the best possible and are willing to give them the resources necessary to do so (http://www.stat.fi/...). The exception is the 7 private schools for foreign residents, mainly consular employees. The training of the teachers is the focus and vastly contrasts with the poor education of American teachers today. The same can be said for our military. When we moved from a conscription army where everyone served to a volunteer army, the attitude of many Americans was, "Well, now its their problem." We were sold a bill of goods that a volunteer army would be a better trained force producing soldiers who would not engage in atrocities as in Mai Lai, would not be susceptible to the kinds of disabilities we saw in the Viet Nam War, with fewer suicides and injuries and be a cheaper force to maintain. None of these promises came true. While the national suicide rate has declined from 1950 to the present, the military rate has exploded (http://www.suicide.org/...). Disability rates are at historic highs for veterans of recent wars, partly due to poor support and treatment (http://www.foxnews.com/...).
In education as in the military we need to have universal conditions, every child should attend a public school and every American adult should be required to serve their country. In both cases, the concern and attention of the nation will be maintained in both institutions because of their universal nature. But there are other reasons why we should have conscription, a draft, return.
If there is anything we can learn from history it is that professional armies are a danger to democracy and freedom. Our National Guards and Reserves are depleted in both personnel and equipment, seriously affecting our states' ability to respond to national disasters. Bush's two architects of this situation are Rumsfield and Cheney who made their careers privatizing the military.
After the Punic Wars the Roman Senate could not convince the Assembly of the people to vote for war, the people were so tired of its consequences. The Senatorial Party was only able to trick them into war with Philip of Macedon, claiming he was about to attack Rome. But the Senate connived to achieve their aims not with a traditional vote to raise an army by conscription. Instead the people resisted and the vote was to allow for the first time private armies to be raised with paid soldiers from the proceeds of the war. This situation led to the creation of independent forces which obeyed their leaders and not the government, and then to civil war for control of the government.
While most arguments for the draft focus on the issue of fairness, we must consider the future of our republic and the corrosive power of a professional army. The history of the British army alone should stand as a strong argument against them. The British government of the 18th and 19th centuries gave rights to various corporations (like the East Indian Company) to raise armies and maintain forts in lieu of taxes (think here Blackwater today). The result was corruption, pillage and neglect. The power of the corporations sapped the strength of the military with a thorough corruption both in promotions, use of commands and expropriations of military stores. Mistreatment by corporate agents and their military governors brought rebellion in colony after colony. By the end of the 19th century this system had left the British military in shambles and British power in ruins.
The draft may be inconvenient but if properly applied it is a fair and safe means to defend the country. Arguments for the need for a rapid response military for the 21st century are specious. It is better that we think first and then respond later. Speed will not make us either more effective or wiser. In both the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990s, inaction not reflection characterized the West. In Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq speed has resulted in a harvest of destruction and no solution. Our citizen army forced our leaders to reflect and to prepare. Reports, like that by the New York Times recently of rising incidents of rightwing, KKK and Nazi group organizing in the military and by militant Christian racial separatists, is also a troubling part of this "new army."
The most absurd statement of the 21st century has been Rumfield’s, "You go to war with the army you have not the one you want." Only the unprepared go to war without the army they need.
The U.S. military has been testing its recruits since 1914 after disastrous results during the Civil War. This rather belies your claim to service since those who serve know they are tested for equipment and aptitude. Assignments are still up to officers, except in specific skilled tasks that require specific training and certification (http://en.wikipedia.org/...). We also know that the recruit general abilities have fallen since the draft and the number of people joining with psychological problems and criminal records has gone up (http://www.boston.com/...). A qualified examination is contained in the CBO report found: http://www.cbo.gov/...) which often diverges from other studies and the initial projections for an AVF see:http://www.cengage.com/.... Meeting personnel needs has been one of the greatest challenges and the effects on military families has been substantial and probably also has a role in the increase in suicides.
This does not address the issue of fairness that Rep. Rangel has been pushing.