Not at all. People from lower socioeconomic groups have also had strong feelings of being sent off to war. I just know of several cases in the past where the wealthy children had parents pull strings for them so they wouldn't have to serve, or if they served, it would be in non-combat roles. The purpose of this plan is to lower costs by shifting contractor work to civilians. It also will shift moral hazard somewhat to citizens who too easily want our country to go to war, but will never fight themselves. However, almost all of the roles for people conscripted will be non-fighting roles. People simply will have a greater connection with the troops in that you'll work alongside them rather than fight with them. In the end, we save money, our infrastructure can be rebuilt, and people get a college education like the GI Bill did for millions of veterans after WW2. I'm not saying it will become a non-combative military: there are already non-combative jobs in the military, and civilians can do those jobs. How familiar are you with military life? Not everyone fights. There are people who work in IT, the cafeteria, public relations, lubricating equipment, etc.
Regardless. The draft will NEVER be re-instituted in this day and age. The draft is extremely unpopular and will likely incite full scale riots if implemented, not exaggerating. What the internet did again SOPA/PIPA? What the working class activists did against Wall Street? Those are going to look like diminutive compared to the scale of opposition against a potential draft. People don't like being obligated to do things already. You've seen the opposition to the healthcare mandate. Its just not a realistic proposal. Unless of course we were in a situation like South Korea's where a trigger happy enemy sits just at our borders.
Well I was against the Vietnam War and just about any other war we have ever fought except for WW II. I think having a draft keeps us from fighting unnecessary wars and this is very important. My father told me that during WW II he and the other military guys who were in dental school were constantly told that they should not drop out and go fight and must not be ashamed to be in the states as the military needed doctors and dentists. That was a real war. Sure it would be a hassle for our kids to go or resist like I did, but I think it teaches you something important regardless of what you decide. Doing unnecessary or elective wars in which your country is not actually attacked should be highly divisive.
Excuse me if I misinterpret your post as typical bumper sticker deep "libertarianism" If it isn't, it could be an interesting topic.
Though I am not in favor of bringing back the draft, I do think as an argument it holds practical benefit, particularly against those quick to advocate militarism overseas. When push comes to shove, interventionists adopt such postures knowing conveniently that they themselves are unlikely to be affected by the very wars they argue for. Historically, conscription did not prevent the US from entering foolish wars (see Vietnam). What conscription did do, however, was impact public support for such wars, which made it nearly impossible to sustain enduring military campaigns for years on end. Last year, Matthew Levendusky at UPenn conducted a study on the topic and came to what is probably an obvious conclusion about conscription: When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, the level at which society has been shielded from these conflicts is unprecedented. For the past few years, Afghan War coverage has hovered around 4-5% of all media coverage. Iraq War media coverage constituted roughly 2% of all media coverage in 2009 and only 1% in 2010. Compounding the problem of limited media coverage has been the nature of the media coverage. Censorship of war casualties is a common practice amongst media outlets, and contributes heavily to shielding the public from the reality of war. Additionally, the few media outlets that do cover the war tend to do so from hawkish vantage points, which is expected given the fact that establishment media outlets are primarily occupied by interventionist liberals or fanatical neocons.
Why even bring it up if you knew that certain feelings about compulsive military service are not restricted to a certain socioeconomic group? If you want to reduce the general public's mood for war then change the way the media sells it, change the minimum age for military service to something like 25, get along with your neighbors, etc.
Of course there would be opposition, that's the whole point. The point is that when you have to be involved even in the most minuscule way, then you will start to make decisions with your head. As George Carlin said, war is a bunch of old guys sending a bunch of young guys to go die for a cause that the owners believe in. Time to change that fundamental structure.
