How Reinstating the Draft Could Weaken the U.S. Military

Alan Gropman, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force with over 4,000 flying hours across two Vietnam tours, took part in 670 combat missions, including many that brought the Army's elite 101st Airborne into battle. After returning from service, Lt. Col. Gropman became Professor Gropman, teaching military history and strategy at institutions such as the Air Force Academy, Georgetown University, and George Mason University. He's regarded as an expert on African-Americans in the military.

Given his extensive background, one might assume that someone like him would support reinstating the military draft to build a more formidable army. However, he is firmly against it. 'I don't believe the draft would enhance the army,' he states in an interview.

Why is that the case? Other countries have mandatory military service. Doesn't that give them an edge over the U.S.? Are we compromising our security by not requiring a portion of our citizens to serve in the military? Does a nation’s military size directly determine its combat strength?

"You wouldn't improve the army — you'd just increase the number of people," says Gropman.

Mandatory Service Doesn't Equal Strength

Gropman's belief that America is better off with an all-volunteer military is widely held by many scholars and military leaders. They argue that America's volunteer force far outmatches any conscripted army globally. This might explain why the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never advocated for reinstating the draft.

"I believe Israel and South Korea are probably the only countries with both conscription and top-tier militaries," stated Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institute, in an email. "However, we outmatch nearly every conscripted force on a per-person basis, though measuring this can be challenging."

In fact, O'Hanlon argues, a conscripted military would weaken the U.S., especially in the age of advanced technology. "To be fair to that notion, it could foster a stronger sense of national unity in the fight," O'Hanlon explains. "But beyond that, I don't see significant military advantages."

After World War II's massive demobilization left the U.S. Army with fewer than 550,000 soldiers, President Harry Truman reinstated the draft on July 20, 1948. However, Congress ended it in 1973 and replaced it with an all-volunteer force as the Vietnam War came to an end. Although the draft had been a regular feature for American men for decades, the Vietnam War revealed its flaws. Critics labeled it a "poor man's war," where the wealthy, educated, and well-connected avoided service or were assigned to safer roles, while the disadvantaged, particularly African Americans, bore the brunt of the fighting. "We’ve never had an equitable draft," Gropman reflects.

Reinstating the draft would require an act of Congress and the president’s approval. However, all males aged 18 to 25 living in the United States with a Social Security number are already required to register with the Selective Service System. This registration creates a pool of potential recruits if conscription were to return. In 2016, lawmakers rejected a proposal that would have allowed women to register for the draft. The issue arose after Defense Secretary Ash Carter decided to allow women to serve in combat roles for the first time. The proposal had backing from military leaders and women's rights organizations.

Volunteer Military Superior

Since the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. all-volunteer military has been involved in numerous conflicts, including the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today, there are 1.4 million active-duty personnel and another 850,000 in reserve, deployed worldwide to handle tasks ranging from confronting North Korea to fighting terrorists in Syria, Iraq, and other areas of conflict.

The all-volunteer force has proven successful by most measures. For instance, less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population serves in the armed forces, compared to 12 percent during World War II. The military structure has also saved taxpayer money. The Pentagon's budget now represents 20 percent of the government's total, down from 45 percent during the peak of the Vietnam War. Moreover, everyone serving in the military does so by choice — no one is conscripted.

Gropman and others assert that the result is a military force unmatched globally. A 2015 study by Credit Suisse, an international financial firm, supports this claim. Their research institute ranked the U.S. military as the top in the world, even though it has downsized and reduced its budget. The study evaluated each country on six criteria: active personnel, aircraft, tanks, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers, and submarines. The U.S. outperformed nations like Russia, Israel, South Korea, and Egypt with conscripted forces.

Unlike armies of conscripts, which often represent the lower socio-economic classes, the U.S. all-volunteer military now mirrors a diverse range of American society. Volunteers from various cultural and financial backgrounds tend to serve longer, fostering more advanced training and reinforcing unit cohesion. Additionally, the military maintains high standards for intelligence, health, and behavior, unlike draftee-based armies.

However, there are challenges. The military's eligibility requirements mean that only 20 percent of Americans qualify to serve, making recruitment difficult. During periods of conflict, there may not be enough soldiers to fight. This was evident during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where the military had to rely heavily on reserves and National Guard units to handle the majority of the fighting. Many units were deployed for multiple tours.

One reason why some people still argue that the U.S. might be better off without a volunteer army is because of the viewpoint shared by Joseph Epstein, a former draftee who served in the Army from 1958 to 1960. He told The Atlantic that reinstating a draft or mandatory military service would distribute the responsibility for fighting wars more evenly across society. This would involve the nation more directly in military conflicts, creating a more democratic engagement. Epstein believes that if the military truly represented all social classes, it could influence politicians and voters to be more cautious about which wars to pursue and how much to invest in them.