(6 of 6)
The draft certainly has enough inequities for everyone, but it is about the best method available for filling the nation's present manpower needs, which include troop commitments around the world as well as in Viet Nam. The only reasonable alternative is universal military service, which might take practically every youth for about a year and use him for various military and nonmilitary tasks, including learning skills, serving in the Peace Corps or joining work camps. The trouble with U.M.T. is that it would be far too expensive and inefficient, would produce more young men (about 2,000,000 a year) than anyone could possibly use—and would still force officials to make a choice between who would fight and who would merely train.
Going into the Army is not the ideal of many, but it is no longer what it used to be even as recently as the Korean War. Military training, equipment, facilities and officers have all become far more sophisticated than ever before. The loudmouthed drill sergeant has largely disappeared, and the Army has worked hard to give a sense of personal dignity to its soldiers. For those with limited schooling, there are countless opportunities to learn valuable skills; for those with college degrees, there is something to be learned from sharing in the experience of their generation. The ambiguous nature of the war in Viet Nam—and the war's peril to life and limb—requires a higher duty quotient than usual of those who are called to serve. Still, ever since the city-states of ancient Greece first summoned their youth to arms, young men have responded to—and frequently found satisfaction in—what General Hershey calls "the privilege and obligation of free men" to serve as soldiers. A nation that offers its youth as many opportunities as the U.S. does can hardly expect less.