Nearly everyone has seen the recruiting poster with Uncle Sam pointing directly at you and declaring "I Want You!" This broad patriotic appeal touches upon some very fundamental questions: Who serves in the military (i.e., everyone or only certain individuals, volunteers or conscripts)? What are the obligations of a citizen to the state? Which has a higher priority among the democratic values of liberalism and egalitarianism? The answers to these questions provide insights to how our nation decides to man its armed forces. There currently appears to be a widespread general consensus among politicians, military leaders and academics that the military draft is no longer a viable policy option for the United States in the twenty-first century. Despite this general consensus against the draft and given the questionable viability of the all-volunteer force (AVF), this monograph explores the critical question: Is a military draft still a viable manpower policy for the United States? The framework for analysis combines Professor John Kingdon's notion of policy windows and Carl von Clausewitz' "paradoxical trinity." A detailed analysis of the four major draft enactments/periods in U.S. history: Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War will show that the factors that resulted in a military draft in our nation's past are just as relevant in the twenty-first century. A brief discussion on the adoption of the AVF and recent legislative efforts to return to a military draft or creation of a national service program provide additional insights to answering the monograph's critical question. Although the external threat and the resulting perceived long term emergency to the nation were important and necessary conditions before each draft enactment, these alone were not sufficient. These threats "opened" a policy window to allow political actors-presidents, members of Congress, the military, influential citizens and lobbying groups-the opportunity to advocate and enact a draft. Perhaps due to the nature of the U.S. political system with its pluralistic society and the multiple points of access provided by our government's separation of powers, it should not be a surprise that each draft period had a different dominant actor. During these draft periods, the actors saw volunteering as a policy that was unable to meet the nation's manpower needs. For the protracted conflicts and wars in America's history, only conscription was able to supply the necessary forces. The use of conscription also spurred volunteer enlistments during every draft period. Given the success of these different actors in the nation's past, the current security environment, and the continued threat from global terrorism, one cannot definitively state that the draft is no longer a viable manpower solution for the United States. In fact, we may now be in the midst of a draft policy window for the fifth time in our nation's history and just do not realize it as of yet. Given the unique demands of the global war on terrorism, a volunteer national service program that calls for military or civilian service is needed, even though the current political climate appears to offer little chance of enactment and acceptance. A volunteer national service program could consist of four types of service: the military, AmeriCorps (taking care of the elderly, tutoring disadvantaged children), homeland security (serving as custom agents, guarding ports, or border patrols), and the Peace Corps. And should the response to this appeal to patriotism and volunteerism be limited, then politicians and military leaders would have a real crisis on their hands that they then could use to justify a mandatory universal service program. What is urgently needed now is a public discussion on the necessity for a national service program and/or a return to a draft.

ADA436143 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)