The tightrope of military conscription

America’s tightened conscription laws may raise questions about their necessity

By YUENJO FAN — opinion@theaggie.org

In early April, Congress announced a new conscription law to be implemented nationwide by December 2026. It requires all males, ages 18 to 25, to be automatically registered for the Selective Service and considered for conscription in the event of a draft. Before this change, states' registration laws were either enforced through self-registration or via adjacent registration during driver’s license application. By the end of the year, the Selective Service System (SSS) will start cross-referencing federal data sources to identify all men eligible for conscription. It will not be limited to U.S. citizens, but will also include male green card holders, refugees and undocumented immigrants. 

Wartime conscription has been a longstanding part of American military and social culture since the nation’s creation. It has been utilized in six prominent American conflicts: the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. On a grander scale, public opinion about the draft has differed over time. Traditionally, the idea of enlisting was viewed as a civic duty for young men and attracted little controversy. During World War II and the Korean War, public opinion polls hovered between 60% and 80% approval, indicating that most surveyed Americans were relatively tolerant of the military draft. 

Yet, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Vietnam War sparked a mass departure from the age-old idea of duty and service, as Americans began to question the reasons for military intervention. From racial inequalities in conscription to the lack of military success, Americans began seeing holes in a system that had not been previously questioned. Draft dodging methods, such as draft-card burnings, medical exemptions and fleeing the country, significantly increased during the Vietnam era. The implementation of the draft became so controversial that within a generation, the sentiment surrounding conscription completely flipped. 

Throughout some of America’s most grueling and toughest hours, we’ve never implemented an automatic registration system for conscription until now. It is likely that these unprecedented changes are no coincidence, and that the new conscription law was passed with specific intent. As the United States continues its intervention in Iran, the American war machine has geared up in preparation for further conflict, whether in the Middle East or beyond. Earlier this month, the administration proposed a historically high defense budget of $1.5 trillion, and Pacific bases that have been unused since World War II have recently been revived and refurbished for further use. Even the Department of Defense has rebranded to the Department of War, signaling the military’s shift toward a more hawkish, war-prone stance.

If the nation were faced with another existential crisis, such as fascism in World War II, it would be legitimate to use the Selective Service System to recruit soldiers for the sake of national freedom. Take Ukraine, for instance, whose sovereignty is still surviving in part due to conscription of young men in defense of their country. South Korea also provides a prime example of how conscription has helped protect its way of life by deterring aggression with the presence of a large, able-bodied military. In times of crisis, young men have a responsibility to defend their country. But in America’s case, its conflicts today are less about defense than offensive intervention. The recent expansion of Selective Service registration shows the dark side of conscription, serving to support aggressive U.S. foreign policy rather than protecting America from a direct threat. 

Hence, the justification for widening conscription laws depends on a case-by-case basis. Whereas one may have supported the World War II draft, it is equally reasonable to have opposed the Vietnam draft. Only the situation at hand can determine its legitimacy, as compulsory service can be utilized for both good and bad causes. Thus, advances in the military’s ability to conscript young men must be proportionate to the threat faced by the country. A defensive war to protect a nation’s way of life is a justifiable cause; an offensive war that lacks such substance is not.

The new automatic registration for the Selective Service System risks putting a generation of young men at the forefront of wars that are widely dissimilar from the arguably heroic triumphs of the past. Gone are the days of valiantly fighting for freedom against existential threats of evil. Instead, the rationale behind new conscription laws and warfare has continued to drift away from impartial reason and toward ambiguous motives. 

Written by: Yuenjo Fan — opinion@theaggie.org

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.