Is a Draft Possible Today?
---
The Pentagon was quick to deny the statement by the Iraq War Czar* that a draft is "an option on the table."
Meanwhile, I wonder whether — as a matter of simple pragmatics — a draft can ever again be an option on the table in this country.
Putting aside the political and judicial questions, there are two major differences between (hypothetical) draft evasion in 2007 and draft evasion in, say, 1967: prisons and passports.
Take the latter first. Today it would be far harder for a draft evader to simply "flee to Canada." It would be harder for him to even get into Canada, with our new "War on Tourist" rules for international travel. It would also be far more difficult for family members to transmit funds to loved ones on the run. The government would freeze their credit cards and bank accounts. And that's even assuming that Canada didn't involve itself (i.e., turned a blind eye to U.S. draft evaders on its soil). How realistic is it to assume that the U.S. would not pressure, or haggle with, our largest trading partner to get them to intervene?
More important, I think, would be the prison question. Assume that 100,000 — or 500,000 or 1,000,000 — draft evaders simply said, "To heck with Canada. Here I am, arrest me. I'll surrender, plead guilty and promptly report to my jail cell."
Just one problem: What jail cell? We have no jail cells left, thanks to the War on Drugs. Our prisons are already overcrowded to the point where courts are finding constitutional inadequacies in how prisoners are housed. And we will simply throw another few hundred thousand draft evaders in on top of that? Impossible.
And even if space could somehow be found or built — so what? Jail in 2007 is not jail in 1967, especially for nonviolent offenders. No picnic, to be sure, but still: three hots and a cot, health care, education, recreation and entertainment. And, shanks and sodomy notwithstanding, at least you don't get blown up by a roadside bomb.
There would be offsets: As with all felons and "criminals of moral turpitude," a convicted draft evader would likely be ineligible for several occupations — law and law enforcement, Wall Street, etc. But there would also be the possibility that the first anti-war president to come along would simply pardon all draft evaders, even if after they served their sentences (cf., this story).
Netting it all out, I think the cost-benefit analysis of draft evasion has changed dramatically since Vietnam, and throngs of draftees would simply say, "Better jail than Iraq." I'm pretty sure that would be my decision, were I younger and drafted today.
More thoughts from Eric Kleefeld, Slate.
---
*I always thought that the president, qua Commander-in-Chief, was the "war czar." Go figure.
Meanwhile, I wonder whether — as a matter of simple pragmatics — a draft can ever again be an option on the table in this country.
Putting aside the political and judicial questions, there are two major differences between (hypothetical) draft evasion in 2007 and draft evasion in, say, 1967: prisons and passports.
Take the latter first. Today it would be far harder for a draft evader to simply "flee to Canada." It would be harder for him to even get into Canada, with our new "War on Tourist" rules for international travel. It would also be far more difficult for family members to transmit funds to loved ones on the run. The government would freeze their credit cards and bank accounts. And that's even assuming that Canada didn't involve itself (i.e., turned a blind eye to U.S. draft evaders on its soil). How realistic is it to assume that the U.S. would not pressure, or haggle with, our largest trading partner to get them to intervene?
More important, I think, would be the prison question. Assume that 100,000 — or 500,000 or 1,000,000 — draft evaders simply said, "To heck with Canada. Here I am, arrest me. I'll surrender, plead guilty and promptly report to my jail cell."
Just one problem: What jail cell? We have no jail cells left, thanks to the War on Drugs. Our prisons are already overcrowded to the point where courts are finding constitutional inadequacies in how prisoners are housed. And we will simply throw another few hundred thousand draft evaders in on top of that? Impossible.
And even if space could somehow be found or built — so what? Jail in 2007 is not jail in 1967, especially for nonviolent offenders. No picnic, to be sure, but still: three hots and a cot, health care, education, recreation and entertainment. And, shanks and sodomy notwithstanding, at least you don't get blown up by a roadside bomb.
There would be offsets: As with all felons and "criminals of moral turpitude," a convicted draft evader would likely be ineligible for several occupations — law and law enforcement, Wall Street, etc. But there would also be the possibility that the first anti-war president to come along would simply pardon all draft evaders, even if after they served their sentences (cf., this story).
Netting it all out, I think the cost-benefit analysis of draft evasion has changed dramatically since Vietnam, and throngs of draftees would simply say, "Better jail than Iraq." I'm pretty sure that would be my decision, were I younger and drafted today.
More thoughts from Eric Kleefeld, Slate.
---
*I always thought that the president, qua Commander-in-Chief, was the "war czar." Go figure.
Posted by Kip on
13 August 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
