August 1, 1972
Page 26220
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will vote against the Hatfield amendment which would end the draft system at the end of this year. I strongly support reforms in the military manpower system, such as additional financial incentives, which will enable the country to move toward zero draft calls in times of peace. But I believe the draft system must continue to be available during times of war or national emergency. I have explained my position at length during previous occasions on which this issue has come before the Senate. I would like to do so more briefly today.
I believe we must first of all consider the question of what means a society uses to select those young men who will fight and perhaps die in a war. We will be asking these men to take risks in exposing themselves to the greatest sacrifice any society can demand. What are the most just means in a democratic society? When all is weighed, I think there can be only one answer: That all the young men in that society, rich and poor, majority and minority, must be presented with an equal risk of undergoing the danger of those sacrifices. I see no other fair way of distributing this potential for death, since all men cannot serve in battle.
The proposed alternative to a draft system is a volunteer army. The major inducement for service in such an army must be economic, whether volunteering is for pay, training, education, or escape. There are disputes over which group in our society would volunteer under such a system – middle class, lower middle class, urban black, rural white, and so on; but essentially it makes no difference, for whoever does volunteer will do so because he finds the incentives in the Army better than those in private life.
Such a system allows the more affluent members of society to avoid the obligations of defending that society during times of crisis. It was followed in the Civil War when wealthier young men could avoid the draft by buying a substitute for something like $300. I think, over a century later, with a greater appreciation for the demands of equal protection, we must reject such a method of selection during wartime.
Secondly, I believe we must recognize that the draft system, by imposing the greatest cost of war – military service – uniformly throughout the country, serves as a healthy check upon any tendency to commit our Nation to unwise military adventures abroad. A volunteer army would impose the burden of service upon those least likely to protest politically and upon those least likely to do so effectively, even if they wanted to do so. Through increased military appropriations, a process which is easily accomplished because of the committee structure of the Congress, a President can easily escalate a conflict using a volunteer army without confronting those political forces in our Nation which would be best able to oppose such escalation. We would reduce citizen impact on foreign policy.
In contrast, the draft system imposes service upon all, and if a President increases military manpower commitments, he must face the task of convincing all segments of society that such an increase is necessary for the public good.
Finally, I believe that a volunteer army during war might be prohibitively expensive. Our society cannot afford to spend billions of dollars for the primary purpose of avoiding military induction during times of war for those who would rather not serve this Nation's defense. We have too many other urgent priorities to which we must devote our precious resources – including the development of economic opportunity for those who now find such opportunity only in military service.
For these reasons, I must oppose the concept of an all-volunteer army and continue to support the draft system for use during times of war and national emergency.