I am an opponent of the war in Iraq, and I am deeply suspicious both of the viability of military means in pursuit of peaceful and democratic ends, AND of this Administration and its goals at home and abroad.

However, I find myself very conflicted about the possibility of a military draft.

If it appears that the purpose of instituting a draft next year is to better enable the execution and expansion of the policy of pre-emption, and policies based on the assumption that only an American monopoly on global military force can provide security and peace, then I will oppose it with every bit of energy, passion and intellect I can muster.

In the end, however, I believe that the creation of a professional, all-volunteer military has been bad for American democracy, bad for our foreign policy, and thus bad for countless millions of people around the world who are subject to that policy. It has not made wars less likely.

What it has done instead is:

1. Removed the decision to go to war from democratic deliberation

2. Greatly strengthened the Imperial Presidency, rather than weakening it

3. Provided an unaccountable army awaiting its Caesar (who has now arrived)

4. Militarized American foreign policy, by weakening public oversight and concern

5. Encouraged our leaders to carry out some of their overseas objectives by creating, funding and supporting non-state military actors to do our bidding (Al Qu'eda in Afghanistan being the best example), who have come back to bite us

6. Encouraged our leaders to privatize and outsource military and even diplomatic tasks to private companies beyond the reach of Congress

7. Created what is basically an army of economic conscripts, repeating all the errors of the Vietnam-era draft without any of the benefits of transparency and public discussion that a wartime draft tends to encourage. Do you want to see Bush/Cheney's policy for the working poor? You'll have to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to see it.

In theory, a draft ensures that decisions about foreign policy and war take place out in the open, in the bracing air of public deliberation. As long as the draft is fairly administered a draft is an essential part of a civilian-controlled military. While it rubs our libertarian tendencies the wrong way, a universal draft may be a better way to preserve those liberties in the end than a volunteer, professional military, accountable to no one -- other than to Congress, of course, which presently hears only strident and well-funded lobby groups (AIPAC), and defense contractors, on foreign policy and military issues. If millions of Americans are under arms, members of Congress will have little choice but to consider a broader cut of public opinion. Can you imagine Congress rolling over as badly as it did in the build-up to this war, if we had a draft (at the time, or in the works)? At the very least, hearings would have been held to validate or debunk the Administration's case for war, allowing for a real public discussion of whether Bush's radically new plan for American empire is something we want or need. The reality of a draft might have made Bush actually tell the truth from the beginning about the war, or seek international legitimacy for it, or better yet, not launch it at all.

Popular pressure to pull out of Vietnam was in large part a direct result of the ubiquity (and possibility) of military service among the American middle and working classes. Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman didn't force a change in policy. Church moms, WWII vets, and ordinary Americans worried about the lives of ordinary Americans, and about their own lives, did. A draft doesn't always stop our Presidents from lying about why we need to go to war, but it does make it more likely that the truth will win out eventually.

The World War II, peacetime and Korean War drafts (which were equitable in implementation, for the most part) provided two generations of American men with important experiences that shaped our culture, our foreign policy, and our military in positive ways. The experience of war for a substantial portion of our male citizenry helped to shape broad-based support for the internationalism of American foreign policy during the Cold War, which sought to contain communism, rather than 'pre-empt' it (the former worked eventually; the latter would not have worked, and won't now). The WWII generation, according to sixties-era polls, was consistently more critical of US policy in Vietnam than any other age group. The pre-Vietnam draft also provided millions of Americans with first-hand knowledge of other countries, other ways of living. After the desegregation of the armed forces in the late 40's, it gave many Americans their first and only sense of our national diversity -- but also of our commonalities, across lines of race, ethnicity and religion. This became the basis for an important post-war shift in white opinion on issues of race and tolerance.

When the Iraq war started, we heard a lot of talk of 'supporting the troops.' Supporting the troops, at the very least, has to mean preparing the nation as a whole to join with the soldiers in equally and justly sharing the burdens of a democratically declared war. Where will the compassionate conservative support for our troops be in a few years time, when they come back home, and seek employment, a union contract, a safe workplace, a living wage, and schools and jobs free from racial discrimination? World War II gave us the G.I. Bill, and the modern American middle-class. Bush has given us a rich man 's war, and a poor man's fight. It is less likely that this will happen if we have a draft. Social and economic policies to help vets would then become broadly supported, not just temporary assistance to a specialized class. Compare the support for Social Security, which virtually all Americans are entitled to, to the support for welfare, which goes to a small, means-tested and largely invisible group that is powerless to affect policy, and to make convincing arguments for a common interest in their lives.

We are fast reaching a point of no return in this country.

We can choose empire, or we can choose democracy. We can't have both.

If democracies are going to fight wars, as occasionally they must, they must have a means of waging war that bears some resemblance to the fundamental values and institutions on which democracy is based. The decision to engage in it must be made democratically, not by a small group of people in Washington, with a messianic religious bent, and a fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity, moral humility, and respect for the rule of law. As imperfect as it is, a draft is the best means we've come up with.

Mark Santow (msantow@UMassD.Edu) is an Assistant Professor, History at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. His political blog: http://chantsdemocratic.blogspot.com

###