Women and the Draft

Shane, it is because people are unclear on what the APFT actually is.

The PT test simply measures a minimum level level of fitness for all soldiers.

It is designed to test effort, not ability.

This effort is graded using the same standards.

In the Army, men need 180pts to pass, women need 180pts to pass, 50 year old colonels need 180pts to pass. You accue points over 3 events, as long as you meet the minimum in each.

In other words, EVERYONE needs the meet the same level to pass the test.

It is true, the raw reps are weighted, so that 18 year old men need X amount to hit the target, while women need Y amount to hit the target, while 50 year olds need Z amount, etc..

However, this is not true for every event. Sit-ups, for example, are weighted the same.

One of the complaints about the ADFT is that it doesn't directly translate into real world activities.

Does the fact that a man can do 80 sit-ups mean he is more capable than a woman who only does 60 sit-ups, but she runs faster?

What if it was reversed, but the man did twice as many push-ups?

What battlefield skill is tied to sit-ups?

It isn't designed for that though. It is simply a yardstick which is used to promote a certain level of fitness.

 

This is an interesting debate. I personally don't think women should be on the battlefield.

In scanning this thread I saw some people who were saying that people like me were anti-women and women's rights. I'm not. Men and women are different. Equal but different.

 

Mr44, I don't have a problem with that then.

I mean, there are 18 year old track runners at my local high school who could out run me, regardless if we had a pack on or not.

All I'm suggesting is we shouldn't have different performance levels for same age men and women.

There are women who could lift more weight and lug it around than me and other guys...great. They should make it in and I should not.

I just think there should be one standard for each age group.

If there is one standard, then that's great.

 

It is designed to test effort, not ability.

I am not sure what to think about this. Are you saying if a person is in very poor shape but gives 100% effort, then that is good enough? I am not being facetious, I am really not sure what your point is.

Or are you saying that there is a known disparity between the physical ability between men and women and women can only hope to achieve Y amount of effort compared to the man's X amount (Y being less than X)? Of course, the same argument goes for age.

I have been thinking about the age differences in the physical fitness standards. I guess it is a necessary evil. As people get older, usually there is a decline in physical ability. There are some exceptions, but on average, as you get older you get slower. At least after a certain age (around 35 years). I am not a doctor, so please do not jump on me to support this claim. Let us just say I am older than 35 and most of my friends are older than 35 and 99% of us are now slower than we were at 18 years.

So why is it a necessary evil? Well, as you move up in rank in the military, you get older. I hate it, but it is a fact of life. So, if you demand a 35 year old to maintain the physical fitness of an 18 old, you may end up discharging a lot of combat experienced NCOs and Officers. So it is an exchange; you give up some fitness for experience. It may not be fair, but it is reasonable.

 

I am not sure what to think about this. Are you saying if a person is in very poor shape but gives 100% effort, then that is good enough? I am not being facetious, I am really not sure what your point is.

No, you say you were in the military as well, so you shouldn't be a stranger to the APFT.

The test is simply used to gauge a minimum level of fitness. That is, one has to meet the minimum passing requirements.

It has nothing to do with ability. Rambo himself could come in, do the minimum, and get his 180pt passing score.

It certainly wouldn't reflect his ability as a soldier, nor indicate his true potential.

Because that is not what the military uses the tests for.

Just like weapons qualification. Everyone has to get a minimum score to pass. Someone who shoots a perfect 40 is an excellent shot, to be sure, but does it mean he will be a better soldier than someone who shoots a 29?

For example, many schools use the LSAT for law school admissions.

Just because you score a 165 on the LSAT doesn't mean you will be a better lawyer than someone who scores a 149.

Because there are factors such as determination, hard work, etc.. that come into play as well. However, everyone still needs to meet the minimum to get accepted.

I would rather serve with a female who is dedicated and understands tactics, but only does 40 push ups, than a male who can do 80 push-ups but is dumb as a box of rocks.

The APFT, weapons qualification, skills testing, are all indicators that are taken together, which are added into who the person is.

So why is it a necessary evil? Well, as you move up in rank in the military, you get older. I hate it, but it is a fact of life. So, if you demand a 35 year old to maintain the physical fitness of an 18 old, you may end up discharging a lot of combat experienced NCOs and Officers. So it is an exchange; you give up some fitness for experience. It may not be fair, but it is reasonable.

Which is exactly my point. The military overlooks experience for push-up ability, which makes sense.

However, how many females have been excluded simply for the same reason? They have different experiences as well..

It is the exact same concept.

 

Thanks, I just wanted some clarification on your thinking.

You make some interesting points. I changed my mind, women should be eligible for the draft.

 

Well, in general, there would be problems with drafting anyone, men or women.

People who don't want to be there, don't make the best soldiers.

Secondly, I always agreed with your point that any transition would have to be undertaken with the cooperation of the branches it affected.

The last thing we would need is to open Special Forces, for example, when the entire command didn't want it.

However, one of the greatest strengths of the military is the ability to view everyone as "green." That's why, for example, the military was desegregated a decade or so before the rest of the country.

Because, as a standards based organization, the military has the ability to allow anyone to meet, and exceed the standards.

Shoot a perfect 40, and you get an award, regardless if you are man, woman, white, black, or purple.

If one of the requirements for the Green Berets is to complete a 20 mile road march in full pack, then whoever completes it should be given a shot.

I just don't think females should be disqualified on the basis of something like a single PT test, when the rest of the military uses the "whole soldier" concept.

 

However, one of the greatest strengths of the military is the ability to view everyone as "green." That's why, for example, the military was desegregated a decade or so before the rest of the country.

absolutely. it's somewhat unfortunate that it didn't happen just a little bit earlier, though, because WW II was a major shared experience for most white men of that generation, and it smoothed over massive regional and ethnic conflicts which had plagued the country before that point (North vs South, Irish vs Italian, Catholic vs Protestant, Gentile vs Jew, etc), but black soldiers were still serving separately at that point. i think a lot of the struggles of the civil rights movement would have been unnecessary if black people had served along whites, too.

sadly, i just don't think the country was there yet at that time.

Because, as a standards based organization, the military has the ability to allow anyone to meet, and exceed the standards.

Shoot a perfect 40, and you get an award, regardless if you are man, woman, white, black, or purple.

this is true. the military is one of the most integrated employers in the country, with larger percentages of minorities in positions of authority than pretty much anywhere else. it's an exceptional success, of which they are deservedly proud.

 

Interesting topic. I'm 100% against the draft. If a democratic nation has to draft soldiers to fight a war, it doesn't sound to me like it's a war the people are behind, so... let's go over that "democracy" concept again.

That said, I've always maintained as long as we have the stupid thing, you can't just apply the draft to men. It's not fair, and that's all there is to it. (I'm female, since some may find that relevant.)

I'm not sure how each of the armed forces measure fitness, but I believe they hold women to an equal standard while accommodating the facts that men have more upper body strength and women have better balance, and so on. Marksmanship tests, for example, are the same for either. I got into a debate about this years ago, and an Army guy said recent tests had shown women are generally better fighter pilots than men - better center of balance and less tendency to back out of dropping the payload at the last minute. I'd say both genders have things to offer.

Because I just saw this thread for the first time, I'm still laughing at some of the stuff on page 1. Yes, maybe most females and males are raised in stereotypical ways, but there are SO many exceptions it just ain't worth mentioning. More and more moms are teaching their daughters the concept of self-reliance and fighting for themselves for the express purpose of NOT having to rely on men. Plenty of women would a lot rather carry a gun than a baby.

I mean, I could just as easily argue that since women are generally better strategic thinkers, they should just be instate as generals and order the men onto the battlefields. Generalizations (no pun intended) can really be a bitch (again, no pun intended).

I would not advise taking on a female Marine in a dark alley. Really. I'm saying this out of love.

PS - why is there a Navy ad on top of the screen right now? They can hear us, can't they? The conspiracy is everywhere!

 

That ad was brought to us by the Illuminati-Freemasons of the Golden Sun black helicopter squadron.

 

Unfortunately Cyprusg is right about most women. Most. Most women want careers that do not require much heavy lifting. I wish I could make a good argument using women's modern day roles as examples but I cannot. But what I can say from experience( I am very experienced might I add) is that muscle mass is very useful for lifting things but when it comes to combat I've been through many men that weigh almost 5 times as much as me ( I weigh approx. 115 lbs. at 5'2) and let me say that muscle or weight does not matter.
Yes. Men up to 575 lbs. They were Sumo wrestlers. Do not ask. If the opponent knows very little about self-defense then obviously a 200 lbs. man with arms as thick as his thighs would have no trouble. But unfortunately muscle makes you very lacking in agility and flexibility which is needed in battle. And most likely that man will be dealing with another man who isn't quite as muscular but making up for it in understanding of combat.
I do carry an extremely fit body which I've found is quite uncommon in women these days even with all those diets. But nonetheless, I am one of a medium-sized community of women that can fight with as much finesse as men and if put up against tremendous foe could win. The only reason why women warriors are not common is because of such a restricting culture. But a few manage to get by those irritating brain-washing messages. The same would happen if men were to be restricted. So, to the little quote of " men are meant to be warriors and women are meant to look good and bear children" is quite inaccurate. Both species are supposed to defend themselves when under attack...naturally. And both are capable. The only thing hintering women is a lack of courage and they're a bit brain-washed. Which is very disppointing.
And by the way, Cyprusg, from the way you discuss, and your ignorance on the issue of battle I can imagine you've never been against a brute and you probably have very little contact with self-defense. If you have, then I am quite surprised for I see no knowledge of the beautiful art of using an attacker's moves against them. As a friendly suggestion I suggest you never try to fight someone with log-sized arms and thighs (especially the arms) because if you try I'm afraid you will find yourself as a log in The Darwin Awards.
I do hope eventually you will find yourself and accept yourself the way you are instead of using silly, pointless excuses such as muscle mass and "gender roles" to justify your own insecurities. Do not think I am angry, either. Why should I be? I have no interest in war unless it happens to be in my line of work ( which is very unique to the careers that most women possess). And I have no interest in whether you think I should be out doing the violent job I have or at home in the kitchen making dinner.
Also, another suggestion is not to be so sexist. You'd be surprised to know that without a woman you wouldn't have been born to be the warrior you are. And men are mostly invulnerable to a little talent women have: seduction. And if you have hit a woman it has been a weak one. But as a result of your argument I'm sorry to say I do not hold you in the highest regards and for your sake I hope we never meet. For if you were to start anything I would be forced to finish it for you.

So to give in my opinion, yes women should be drafted although I hate to say most would die quickly due to being so weak-minded. Most.

 

And by the way, Cyprusg, from the way you discuss, and your ignorance on the issue of battle I can imagine you've never been against a brute and you probably have very little contact with self-defense. If you have, then I am quite surprised for I see no knowledge of the beautiful art of using an attacker's moves against them. As a friendly suggestion I suggest you never try to fight someone with log-sized arms and thighs (especially the arms) because if you try I'm afraid you will find yourself as a log in The Darwin Awards.
I do hope eventually you will find yourself and accept yourself the way you are instead of using silly, pointless excuses such as muscle mass and "gender roles" to justify your own insecurities. Do not think I am angry, either. Why should I be? I have no interest in war unless it happens to be in my line of work ( which is very unique to the careers that most women possess). And I have no interest in whether you think I should be out doing the violent job I have or at home in the kitchen making dinner.
Also, another suggestion is not to be so sexist. You'd be surprised to know that without a woman you wouldn't have been born to be the warrior you are. And men are mostly invulnerable to a little talent women have: seduction. And if you have hit a woman it has been a weak one. But as a result of your argument I'm sorry to say I do not hold you in the highest regards and for your sake I hope we never meet. For if you were to start anything I would be forced to finish it for you.

This is a thread I swore I wouldn't touch because of all the moronic replies, but I can't just let someone insult me, especially when they're completely oblivious to everything I've said.

First of all, internet threats are lame. We'll never meet and if we did, you wouldn't do anything let alone say anything. I'm 6'4" 250lbs and never lost a fight in my life, I come from a family of fighters (dad was a boxer) and I never back down when it comes to a fight. But what does it matter? You don't know me, and I don't know you, your threats are ridiculous and immature.

Secondly, did you even read my posts? I'm not sexist and I've never said or implied that women can't do the same job as men can. In this day and age women can be just as effective in combat as men can, and I support women's rights to hold any military position they're fit to. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

This is just a waste of my time, you obviously didn't read my posts or you're just not mentally capable of understanding them. Which is it? Take the time to read all of my posts before you spew more ridiculous insults.

 

An interesting question just occured to me and that I'm going to put out to the gentlemen who read this.

Would you want a woman in a foxhole next to you during major combat?

 

If she can help keep the enemy off my ***, sure.

Going through this subject, I see a lot of irrelevant stereotypes about either gender thrown out, and I see a lot of irrelevant responses. Either way, does it really matter? Women can play a role in war - even in combat roles, and IMO the ban on women in combat positions should be lifted - and in the name of equality why shouldn't women be drafted along with men?

 

What do you all think about the Army's plan to recall 5600 veterans back to active duty? IMO the recall of retired or recently discharged personnel is a backdoor way to draft men and women back into service.

MR44, your military experience seems more up-to-date than mine (I have been out for 10 years), do you know what the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) obligation is for recently discharged service members? From what I recall, and I may be wrong, service members have a 10 year obligation to the military. So if you have a 4 year hitch and get out, you can be called back any time in the next 6 years. But I am not positive about this. I know that when I got out I volunteered for a 5 year IRR obligation. At the end of that time I was asked if I want to extend my IRR time, but I declined. [So, I think that means that, despite the fact that I was in one of the Army's needed essential specialties, I should not be receiving a call up notice]

I think retired service members have a different IRR obligation, does anybody know what that is?

So, I guess many women veterans, especially those that were in the Military Police field, may be getting Military Recall letters (**Cough, cough- Draft notifications- cough**) sometime soon in the mail.

 

How is calling someone up from the IRR any different than activating a National Guard unit or Reserve unit? Are those a form of draft as well?

The only difference is that it is on an individual basis. However, those in the IRR made a commitment to serve should they be requested to, just like the National Guard and Army Reserve are a commitment to serve should your unit be requested.

If they made a commitment, then they should honor it.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: From an article I read on this:

Any former enlisted soldier who did not serve at least eight years on active duty is in the Individual Ready Reserve pool, as are all officers who have not resigned their commission.

 

AG88,

I understand, I have about 2.5 years left for my IRR status as well.

But that is just it, just like you back then, I volunteered for the IRR, because I wasn't ready to completely sever my ties. On the flip side then, it shouldn't be held against the military for drawing from the pool of eligibles.

It is difficult to cry "foul" when it is something I did willingly.

True, some people have a remaining service obligation, but that is all explained when you enlist.

(if you have long completed your status, I wouldn't worry about it. It is not not if you ever served, the military has dibs on you for life.)

Regarding retirees, I'm not sure..There is a grey area period where you can be recalled as well, but I don't know the specifics for retiree status.

BTW-MR44, your military experience seems more up-to-date than mine (I have been out for 10 years)

Going back to the previous topic of women and the Physical test, it dawns on me that you might have gotten out before the updated test was fielded.

The new test tightens the disparity between men and women, and balances out some criticism. (Push-ups are even the same now) So the raw score is not as wide as before. That's why the updated test is used to measure equal effort.

 

Thank you K_K for clearing up my IRR question. The military obligation is 8 years. Thank you.


On the flip side then, it shouldn't be held against the military for drawing from the pool of eligibles.

No, it is completely logical. I was just curious on what the pro and con draft people thought about this, because, in a way, it is a form of the ?Draft?. At least, more so than calling up reservists or having a stop-loss of Active duty soldiers (IMO). In the case of IRR people, you may have a person who completed a two-year stint in the Army (do they still have two-year tours anymore?), was discharged, went to college or started a business or family and then 5 years later?. SUPRPISE?. drag out that old uniform, grab your sun block, you are off on a fun-filled vacation in Baghdad!

True, some people have a remaining service obligation, but that is all explained when you enlist.

It is? I know it was over 20 years ago when I first signed on the dotted line, but I am pretty sure my recruiter failed to mention an 8-year IRR commitment to me. I suppose it was somewhere in the small print of my contract.

Oh, I am sure he mentioned it...after all, we all know recruiters do not lie, exaggerate or conveniently omit information from recruits (Where are the condos?) I am joking. I do not need a bunch of irritated recruiters sending me hate mail.

Going back to the previous topic of women and the Physical test, it dawns on me that you might have gotten out before the updated test was fielded.

The new test tightens the disparity between men and women, and balances out some criticism. (Push-ups are even the same now) So the raw score is not as wide as before. That's why the updated test is used to measure equal effort.

I did not know that. The push-up standard is the same!?! Well, I am impressed! You are right; I was out of the service before these changes were made. I am also sure the old standards did affect my opinion on women being drafted into combat positions. When I first joined, I think women only needed to do 18 pushups on the APFT while a man the same age needed to do at least 40. Please remember, this was over 20 years ago, so don't jump on me if I got the numbers off a bit. The point is there was a BIG discrepancy. And despite the apparent lax physical standards for women, many, not all mind you, but many had difficulty achieving them.

Because of these experiences, I had a couple problems with civilian women being DRAFTED into the Infantry. First of all, if the AVERAGE woman draftee was anything like the majority of women I saw in basic training, I doubt they would perform as well as their male counterparts if they were FORCED into the infantry. I did not think this would be fair to the women or the men.

Please remember that I do not have any problem with women being drafted. Well, I personally do not like the idea of the draft for men or women, but if men are to be drafted, then why not women? I also think women make excellent soldiers. I found them often more duty conscience then the men and less apt to get into trouble. Of course, I have no statistics to back this claim up, just my experiences. Let me put it this way, I never received a call at 3 AM from the cops saying any of my female soldiers were in jail, I never had a call from an irate shop owner saying my female soldier just bounced a $300 check, I never had to recommend an Article 15 for a female soldier because of fighting or AWOL. I did have these problems with men. Of course, the men out numbered the women 10 to 1, so I guess the odds were against them.

I guess your next question would be what do I think about service women being able to volunteer for infantry duty? Well, now that I know that the Army has increased its physical expectations of women?I do not know. It would mean some major restructuring of those units. There would be many problems in the beginning. But the military would survive. As you said, they took on desegregation way befor

 

The push-up standard is the same!?! Well, I am impressed!

heh...heh That was a typo... I meant sit-up


We were debating push-ups, so I must have typed it out..It shouldn't change the illustration though.

Honestly, for a while, there was debate over getting rid of the APFT completely.

Instead, a test that measured field skill was being developed. (in place of the timed run, there would be a road march..in place of push-ups, a pack and weapon drill, etc...)

The idea was that it would be less sterile. I never heard what happened to the idea though.

Who knows, maybe it will be implimented in another 5 years?

 

heh...heh That was a typo... I meant sit-up

Oh sure, get me to write a huge post based on inaccurate information. As Dark Helmet would say "Fooled you!!"

Just kidding, its no problem.

 

First, regarding the whole self-defense argument above on this page: isn't it strange how everyone on the internet either is built like the Rock, has "ninja mad skillz," or is a former Green Beret? I mean, I personally am a bad-ass uberstealthy gutter fighter but someone's gotta be a paunchy, defenseless nerd living in his parent's basement, right?

Just sayin'...

Would you want a woman in a foxhole next to you during major combat?

I'd rather she were on top of me. *ducks* Sorry. I should probably take that to the YJCC.

I know it was over 20 years ago when I first signed on the dotted line, but I am pretty sure my recruiter failed to mention an 8-year IRR commitment to me. I suppose it was somewhere in the small print of my contract.

That's an excellent point, and relevant to the "backdoor draft" observation I think made in another thread.

 

isn't it strange how everyone on the internet either is built like the Rock, has "ninja mad skillz," or is a former Green Beret?

Yes, I also found that intriguing. I also found it interesting that there are so many women who can carry 70 pounds of equipment, run 10 miles and then fire their weapon. I am not saying people are lying, but I doubt people really realize the level of difficultly of the task described. I honestly do not know any men who could do that.

I had a friend that was training for the Special Forces. He was running two or three miles a day with a 80 pound ruck (he filled it will barbell weights). He actually fractured his leg while training -- just from the stress! He did not fall or have any trauma. The human body can only take so much.

 

This post is for Cyprusg who requested it:

This is a thread I swore I wouldn't touch because of all the moronic replies, but I can't just let someone insult me, especially when they're completely oblivious to everything I've said.
And you are completely correct. I read only your first few posts. So I apologize for that.
First of all, internet threats are lame. Indeed they are and I was not threatening you. We'll never meet and if we did, you wouldn't do anything let alone say anything. Probably not. I am not a social person. I'm 6'4" 250lbs and never lost a fight in my life, I come from a family of fighters (dad was a boxer) and I never back down when it comes to a fight. And I respect you for that. But I highly doubt that you have never lost a fight. Everyone has at one point. I have before. That's how you learn. But what does it matter? You don't know me, and I don't know you, your threats are ridiculous and immature. Indeed threats are just that but let me say again that I was not threatening you. I was giving you an idea of how willing I am, as a woman, to take life if that life is threatening my own. But unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier, women in this day and age are so weak. You hear about it everyday. A woman getting killed or raped. They give up. But I am, of course, being very general.
I'm not sexist and I've never said or implied that women can't do the same job as men can. In this day and age women can be just as effective in combat as men can, and I support women's rights to hold any military position they're fit to. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Ah, but you have. Or atleast you seem to have. Please prove me wrong if I am. Here are some of your statements: There are very logical reasons why we have these different roles. For one, men are far more aggressive and have a lot more physical abilities than women. If when we're growing up boys are naturally attracted to the "violent" toys and the action cartoons. That tells me it's something deep in our psyche that we're born with. Which is quite common but I'm sorry to say in battle these boys will be dealing with violent toys that shoot out grenades or shoot out metal bullets that tear through every organ. And they have to deal with opponents that would kill them as if they were flies. It's a very shattering concept to learn and that is why so many people end up with emotional disorders. Have you ever been shot? A spontaneous question, perhaps. But perhaps not... On the other hand women are far more nurturing and far less aggressive. I'm very doubtful on that. Modern women are quite aggressive and many don't want to have children. They don't have the physical abilities that men do and they also aren't drawn to the violent toys or action cartoons or movies as boys are. You are building all of these arguments off of "muscle wins" when this is simply untrue. This is a society issue, though. Women are told that dolls and tea parties are their toys. So they play and the little gossiping girls enforce this. I must concur with this on a societal level. Women are taught to be soft and sweet. The only reason why I would mention that is because I believe it's our natural instinct that attracts boys to those types of toys, even 2000 years ago boys played with the equivalent of today's G.I. Joes (Gladiator toys). Yet again a societal thing. In Roman times women were killed for being raped. They were suppressed and all that jazz. Even if you take a look at the animal kingdom, their gender roles are defined in the same way, the males are the warriors while the women are the caretakers. Quite untrue. A woman can give birth to children and as a result they take care of them. But lionesses, for example, hunt for the food. The lions sit around all day unless they must defend. The tigers are solitary but a female tiger is just as ferocious as a male tiger. But a female tends to try and sort things out peacefully and this makes her wise. And if you journey into the aquatic world you'd realize that sharks are very unnurturing, period. Dolphins live equivalentally capable live

 

The 'Enter' key is your friend.

Seriously.

 

From the Washington Post:

Why We Need the Draft Back

By Noel Koch
Thursday, July 1, 2004; Page A23

As a speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, I wrote the legislative message proposing an end to the military draft. The president sought to end the Vietnam War in a way that would advance what he regularly called "a full generation of peace." In the late 1960s, America's cities were set aflame by the civil rights revolution; in the early '70s, the campuses of the nation's universities were in similar peril. The draft was a target of antiwar protests. The president made a tactical retreat, ending it. He later regretted the move, urging that the draft be restored.

The subject has surfaced since Vietnam but never, until now, with much force. In fact, there are few good arguments against the draft and a surfeit of good ones for restoring it. The most obvious is that we do not have enough men and women in our armed forces. Reliance on reserves and the National Guard is creating strains along the socioeconomic spectrum and is not an endlessly sustainable expedient. If we are to fight elective wars, as we are told we must, we need more men and women on active duty.

But there are other good reasons to return to the draft. I joined the Army in 1957. Members of my family had served in every conflict since the Civil War, and service was expected, as was getting a job, getting married and having a family. We were lower middle class and uneducated. I left high school without a diploma. College was not something to which my family aspired. It never occurred to us that we could go.

The draft shattered class distinctions. It mixed high school dropouts with college graduates, rich with middle class and poor. To be sure, the draftees weren't happy to be in the Army, and they were even less happy to be rubbing shoulders with those of us who volunteered. There was friction from basic training through advanced training and, with lessening heat, into assignment to our permanent duty stations. Name-calling was a regular feature of our lives: We were "lifers," "losers," "GIRBs" (GI rat bastards), etc. We had our own names for the draftees. But the educated learned to value those without college degrees, and the uneducated, helped along by the GI Bill, discovered that higher learning might be within reach after all.

This homogenizing process didn't end with education. It extended to the broadening of cultural horizons. I learned to appreciate Bach and Handel listening to the records of a draftee friend. He enjoyed my rendition of "The Duke of Earl" down the center of our hooch near Tan Son Nhut Air Base.

Class lines blurred and so did racial lines. The military did more to advance the cause of equality in the United States than any other law, institution or movement. Not for nothing did "Bro" come into common usage in the Vietnam era: "Who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother."

The draft furthered the work begun during the Civil War. It advanced the business of making us one people. The draftees may not have liked being pulled away from the careers that awaited them and being thrown in with people they probably wouldn't have associated with otherwise. But over the two-year span of their service, there were sea changes. The disaffected became the committed, became leaders who demanded the best of others and especially of themselves. They saluted with a snap indistinguishable from any other.

When they took their discharges and went home, they had an investment in America not shared by those who did not serve. Try to find a draftee who regrets his service to America. After a time they were not "draftees" at all; they were American soldiers -- part of the fabric of the nation, committed to its values and their preservation.

The resurrection of the draft, so vitally necessary to restore the depth of ready manpower we need in our force structure, is self-justifying despite the arguments of a succession of defense secretaries who feel obliged to defend our