> But this is why the r.c. doesn't want a draft army - too many social
> problems. Now, they get the cream of the working class (or did, until
> Iraq gave them recruitment problems), people who feel obligated by
> their word to serve. With a draft army, they get a bunch of slackers
> who'd rather be playing video games.
I get the argument, and it isn't crazy, but I don't ultimately find it persuasive. First, the abolition of the draft has certainly bettered the lives of those of us who have never wanted to join the military in the first place -- that's a pretty big advancement, to say the least. Second, wealthy Americans have always been pretty good at weaseling out of combat anyway, our current president being a prime example. Third, military service changes people -- often not for the better. The idea that you can systematically break down a person's inhibitions against killing and then count on him/her being a well-adjusted citizen afterwards is pretty silly. Try talking to a criminal defense attorney who has represented a lot of ex-military defendants what s/he thinks military culture does to people in the long run. Fourth, just because a draft might prevent an unpopular imperialist war, that doesn't mean it can prevent a popular one: who knows what we'd be doing in Afghanistan right now if we weren't in Iraq. Finally, as you point out, the volunteer army imposes its own limits on imperial adventures. They're already relaxing the recruitment standards big time because the creme de la creme of the U.S. working class has been used up.
So I'm not all that eager to get on the anti-draft bandwagon with Charlie Rangel just yet. The case to bring the draft back would have to be damn compelling, and right now it's not. -WD