I appreciate the response of the Macalester community to my article on the draft, but would like to clarify my "dumbfounding logic" for Daniel Sword. Sword misrepresents what I said and makes simplistic generalizations that make his stance problematic. I hope that with this letter, and possibly a slightly more thorough analysis of what I said, things will be clearer.

1. In terms of the draft specifically, my whole point was that it would involve a conscription where no one, no matter his income or educational level, could defer. (I didn't and wont tackle the issue of whether women should be drafted.) My point in using Civil War and Vietnam analogies was not to suggest they were good examples of how to go about another draft, but to show what has been wrong about them in the past. Again and again, Sword comes back to the point that the rich would not be drafted. But, my whole argument is that we need a draft where everyone would be eligible, which would fundamentally change the way decision-makers in this country wage war.
2. Sword contends there is no evidence that a draft would prevent wars. Again, he misses the point. I propose a draft different from those in the past, where kids like us cannot defer, where a George W. Bush cannot join the Texas National Guard, and where all income levels have to register. There is no evidence because there are few combinations of equitable drafts and questionable wars from which to draw examples from.
3. Although I respect that Sword is a pacifist, I think any absolutist position, no matter how well intentioned, is problematic. I realize there have been many times when the United States has used military might where it shouldn't have, with horrible consequences. But, saying any United States military action has been to "preserve the power of the most privileged U.S. citizens" is simply wrong. What selfish aims were there in sending troops into Somalia, which had no resources, just starving people? Should we have not fought the Civil War or World War II? (Personally, I think there are times that it is our moral responsibility to send our armed forces into other nations. I think it was morally repugnant that United States did not send troops into Rwanda, where 800,000 people where murdered by machete. There, 5,000 heavily armed United States troops could have stopped the whole thing, yet we did nothing. Pacifism, of course, is subject for another debate altogether. But, being as it is clearly intertwined in Sword's analysis, it must be addressed in some way.)
4. Sword talks about the financial benefits of the draft, and how forcing poor kids into the military without pay would be even more inequitable. This is somewhat minor, but drafted people still get paid, and in times of a draft people can still volunteer.
5. Although I am cynical in many respects, I do not share Swords bleak outlook on democracy and seemingly life in general. Saying that "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders" seems to me too convenient a way of throwing up on our hands in disgust, locking our doors, and not worrying where the military goes next. Here, I think, is where Sword and I fundamentally disagree. I think we can change things by making all citizens responsible; he does not. And while Sword may look to Hermann Goering for nice quotes on democracy and consent, I refuse to believe that our only option is a lesson taught by the author of the "final solution" for the Jews in World War II.
   
   Does reinstating the draft come with risks? Of course it does, and it is not something I endorse lightly. But, given the alternatives, I think it is the only viable agent of change in United States foreign and domestic policy.