When the winds of war swirl in the national consciousness, readiness for armed conflict is a prime consideration. The point of the spear has always been the United States Armed Services - a class of willing warriors.

​

The Attributes of the American Patriot, past, present, and future, are shared and embodied by these professional warriors of the U. S. military, chief among them:

​

• Courage - the fuel that ignites and sustains the effort to achieve personal and political freedom.

• Strength - the able prosecution of a just cause. A hallmark of the patriot, then and now.

• Devotion – fidelity to a worthy cause that separates the righteous from mere henchmen.

​

The rich array of Rights and Freedoms enjoyed by all American citizens, and defended by the sworn Armed Forces, should be balanced by corresponding Responsibilities:

 

• Respect and Commitment for the Natural Rights of others.

• Abiding the tenets of Justice and the Rule of Law.

• Honor and fulfillment of the Compact with the Federal, State and Local Government.

• Respect and defend the equal rights of all other citizens.

​

It follows that in times of common danger, all patriotic Americans should be willing to join the fight to protect that which is American, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Every American might be expected to play their part in the common Defense, each to their ability, resources and ambition, in the spirit of the first patriots, volunteers all. They should not, however, be legally compelled to take up arms unwillingly or be put in harm’s way involuntarily. The Natural Right to Defense does not automatically create an obligation to defend, though a true patriot would not parse the two. While the responsibilities of average citizens should not extend to compulsory military service, those who decline that service when called, should not expect to receive the tangible and intangible benefits that accrue to those who rise to the challenge of the common Defense. They will not know or benefit from valorous conduct that is the core of the American warrior. More’s the pity.

​

“Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? ... A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.”  Daniel Webster

​

“Men will work hard for money. They will work harder for other men. But men will work hardest of all when they are dedicated to a cause. Until willingness overflows obligation, men fight as conscripts rather than following the flag as patriots. Duty is never worthily performed until it is performed by one who would gladly do more if only he could.”  Harry Emerson Fosdick

​

A military lottery drawing – the first since 1942 – was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970; for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950. Re-institution of the lottery was a change from the “draft the oldest man first” method, which had been the prior determining method for deciding order of call.

​

There were 366 blue plastic capsules containing birth dates placed in a large glass container and drawn by hand to assign order-of-call numbers to all men within the 18-26 age range specified in Selective Service law.

​

With radio, film, and TV coverage, the capsules were drawn from the container, opened, and the dates inside posted in order. The first capsule – drawn by Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) of the House Armed Services Committee – contained the date September 14, so all men born on September 14 in any year between 1944 and 1950 were assigned lottery number 1. The drawing continued until all days of the year had been paired with sequence numbers.

​

My birthday happens to be September 14th. Had I been born just a few years earlier; I would likely have been drafted into the service and sent to Vietnam along with others of that time. The proverbial luck of the draw. Descending from a line of patriots and soldiers dating back to the Revolution, my call to duty would have assuredly been answered, though I might have sought to join the Air Force rather than the Army as was my more recent family practice. My father, Captain Glenn A. Jewett (USAF), in fact, was a decorated combat pilot in the Vietnam conflict, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in 1968.

​

​

Conscription has been employed by the U.S. government on multiple occasions since the Civil War, compelling civilians to join the ranks of the volunteer fighters, ostensibly, to bolster National defense. The Selective Service System (SSS) is an independent Federal agency spanning eras of conflict and peace since that time. It has a statutory role to provide personnel during national emergencies when conscription is authorized by Congress and the President. In 1940, the Selective Training and Service Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. More than 10 million draftees were inducted into the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II. Only a few years after World War II, Congress passed the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), granting statutory authority for the Federal Government to maintain SSS as an independent Federal agency under the executive branch responsible for delivering qualified men for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces. The MSSA requires men, aged 18 to 25, to register with SSS and participate in a national draft lottery should the President and Congress reinstate conscription due to a national emergency. After the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, SSS entered a state of “deep standby” until 1980, when President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Proclamation 4771 to reinstate the SSS registration requirement. It remains in effect today.

​

The Constitutionality of a compulsory military draft has yet to be fully tested at the U.S. Supreme Court but is likely to land there should a renewed draft be called in the near future. The question of equal drafting of men and women may well be the primary channel by which this issue is decided.

​

The debate over including women in draft registration involves several arguments, pro and con. Advocates for inclusion argue that equal rights (and responsibilities) as Americans should extend to military service. If men are required to register and potentially be called to duty, women should also share that responsibility. Including women also broadens the pool of potential conscripts, enhancing national defense readiness. As gender roles evolve, women’s participation in combat and leadership positions is increasingly accepted. Noncombat and support roles in the U.S. military also offer pathways of inclusion.

The counter arguments are less persuasive. Attachment to historical gender roles and concerns about physical differences have been diluted in recent years due to gender equality and technological advancements. Adherence to common standards for both sexes in qualification for role-specific positions is an appropriate screening tool.

​

While women have voluntarily served in armed conflicts since the beginning of our republic, one of the principal arguments against requiring women to register for the draft has been the reluctance of some Americans to see women exposed to possible death, rape and injury as a result of draft registration and deployment. The U.S. Department of Defense has historically opposed women being subject to the draft. But in recent years, women volunteering for military service have completed special forces schools such as the Army’s vaunted Ranger School and joined special forces units. Truth be told, a substantial number of women are more ferocious and capable than some softer men.

​

While the legal rule blocking women’s obligation to register for the draft remains in place, recent relevant events and advocacy suggest that influential forces are working to change that. In 1992, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended integration of women into the armed forces based on qualifications rather than exclusion based on gender. And in 1993, Congress repealed the “risk rule,” which excluded women from combat units or missions that risked exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture. In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta announced that DOD was rescinding the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule, which had been adopted in 1994 by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.

​

The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service, in its 2020 final report, singled out draft registration among other areas of national life and made this recommendation: “The commission recommends that Congress amend the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) to eliminate male-only registration and expand draft eligibility to all individuals of the applicable age cohort.” More-recent proposed legislation has broadcast the persistent bipartisan interest in an inclusive approach to selective service.

​

Certainly, the equality debate will draw scrutiny to the fundamental question of the Constitutionality of a compulsory draft. When conscripted daughters as well as sons become potential casualties in a foreign conflict, the necessity for that action will become a more critical focus for the American population.

​

It is notable that all conscription since the Civil War, save for World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor, has been for foreign wars and conflicts, not for the immediate defense of the Homeland. The debate over the need and validity of conscription becomes more acute when it is employed to wage war far from the American shores and for reasons that may become murky upon closer examination. Rising to duty when called, the volunteer and professional warriors deserve fair compensation, perpetual care, and esteemed gratitude, but the uncommitted civilian should not be forced to rise to quite that level of risk.

 

Deep and abiding respect for the sworn members of the military should not translate into disdain for those who wish to be non-lethal. Instead, non-combat and alternative national service can be offered to those able to contribute to the country’s common defense and general welfare in lieu of traditional conscription. Contributing to the common American cause can include a wide spectrum of activities and efforts.

​

The wider view of the issue considers other factors beyond simple combat readiness and redefines the draft in the context of national service apart from expeditionary action. Civilian national service can be layered with military service to recognize that a strong America requires a multi-faceted solution to problems, both foreign and domestic.

​

Social cohesion, enhanced problem-solving ability, integration of disaffected youth, education & skills training beyond the inadequate public school system, are just some of the ancillary and beneficial by-products of a common national service, if properly organized and administered. This approach would also help address the unfortunate reality that much of the modern youth cohort lacks the ability to meet the physical and emotional rigors of traditional military proficiency. National service would also teach what it means to be a citizen. A focus on resilience training and general preparedness, would yield common benefits and advantages better tailored to the current range of willingness & abilities of the American population. Regional and community-specific approaches to counter unique emergencies and calamities, can supplement the more universal remedies and safeguards against dangers here and abroad. Imagine the everyday benefits of trained citizens who know what to do in an emergency. Trained Samaritans. Trained responders when other first-responders are over-whelmed. Able-bodied men and women responding quickly and skillfully during local and community crisis. Our ability to absorb blows at home strengthens our deterrence against adversaries.

​

Resilience training may be the single best reason to implement an inclusive, multi-layered national service program. Since resilience training doesn’t need to involve weapons, people of all stripes can embrace it. The current Selective Service System could be adapted to register, catalogue and deploy human resources against a growing list of natural and man-made perils.

​

See - ‘EmergencyReady’

​