The return of the draft is upon us. As this is being written, legislation is being smuggled through Congress that would start up the draft machinery again. While the specific issue being proposed concerns only the registration of men, it is clear that this is the thin edge of the wedge for a return to peacetime conscription. Other proposals being discussed in Congress include the registration of women; initiating physical exams, classification and induction; waiving the privacy act to facilitate registration of young people by matching computer lists; and the possibility of a massive program of compulsory national service for all young people.

It goes almost without saying that anarchists and libertarians oppose these developments. To our historical opposition to State compulsion of any kind is added a specific opposition to killing or any kind of military service in defense of capitalism. Moreover, there are obvious totalitarian possibilities in compulsory national service, and a clear outcome of registration by computer would be a giant step toward the potential for a massive computer surveillance of the entire population. It is also clear that the revival of the draft is only marginally related to solving manpower problems that confront the military establishment at the moment. Rather, it seems that the revival of the draft is part of an anticipation of future military contingencies, following on the series of setbacks that the U.S. has suffered in Vietnam, Africa and Iran. The escalation of cold war rhetoric, the Pentagon estimate that 500,000 casualties would occur within the first 60 days of a European ground war, and Secretary of Defense Brown's much-publicized statement that the United States was prepared to intervene in the Middle East to assure the flow of oil all indicate that the military hawks are in the ascendency.

I think there is little question, therefore, that the return of the draft is part of a much larger military package, attempting to bolster the military forces and spirit of the United States at a time when the conservatives and many liberals perceive that the nation has suffered heavy blows in the areas of foreign policy and international economic supremacy. Indeed, many conservatives have let it be known that their support for the SALT II treaty is contingent on the Carter administration's support for a wide range of measures to increase military strength, including the MX missile and the draft.

One area that has received little attention from forces opposing the return of the draft is the relation of the present discussions to a national youth program. In addition to the military problems to which the conservatives claim the draft is part of the solution, I think we should also view the draft within the context of a perceived breakdown of institutions that have traditionally served to contain the volatile energies of young people in their later adolescence. Whatever the merits of the arguments, conservatives perceive that churches and schools have failed to do their work in this area, that the widely-publicized breakdown of the family has been accompanied by a decline in parental authority, and that there is little hope that the economy will ever have room for large numbers of young people to get jobs in the private sector. What I am arguing is that we also have to view the return of the draft as part of the growth of the New Right, and try to relate the campaign for the draft to the larger campaigns against abortion and gay rights. In these areas, conservatives have attempted to defend traditional concepts of sex roles and the patriarchal family, and around these issues have succeeded in creating a sizable political swing to the Right. I think that many of these same issues are present in the debate about the draft, and particularly in the proposals afoot for the establishment of a program of compulsory national service. Let me return to these broader themes momentarily, after briefly outlining what is at stake in the national service debate.

The idea of compulsory national service is an old one, stretching back to the First World War. At that time militarists in both the United States and England proposed what was essentially the merger of the nation's youth movements, such as the Boy Scouts, with a program of military training. National service garnered liberal credentials during the New Deal, when Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps and National Youth Administration created programs to employ millions of young people thrown out of work during the Depression. During the fifties, national service was supported by President Eisenhower in order "to promote physical fitness and self-discipline, provide remedial instruction for those who need it, and instill a patriotic sense of duty and love of country." National Service continued to receive support during the liberal administrations of the 1960s. Though Kennedy's Peace Corps and the VISTA programs of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" were voluntary rather than compulsory, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Labor proposed that during the mid-sixties that all young people be conscripted for two years of "service."

It is important to recall the context of proposals for national service made during the sixties. At that time "service" activity was a vital part of the civil rights movement and the activities of the student movement. The civil rights movement created voter registration and education proj ects, tutorial and breakfast programs. The student and anti-war movement created community organizing projects like SDS's ERAP and JOIN projects, and established draft counseling centers and the like. And the women's movement at the end of the sixties not only organized a broad range of consciousness-raising groups, self-help centers and clinics, but also helped to articulate a broad understanding of the relationship between service work and self-emancipation. The context of service work during the sixties, therefore, was not whether it should happen, but who would control it and who would benefit from it.

The context of current proposals for national service is radically different. The most highly-publicized proposal is that of Congressman McCloskey. who has introduced "The National Service Act of 1979" ( H.R. 2206). Under this plan, all young people would have to register within ten days after turning 17, and would choose among four options: enlistment in the military tor two years; enlistment for six months of active duty and five and a half years in the reserves; one year of civilian duty; or being placed in a draft lottery for six years, and if drafted serve two years of active duty and four years in the reserves. In order to encourage people to volunteer for active duty, such volunteers would receive three years of "educational benefits," compared to only a few months for people choosing other categories.

Focusing on McCloskey's bill is useful not because it is likely to pass, but because it illustrates the relation of military to national service. McCloskey has stated that the primary purpose of his bill is to channel people into military service. He believes that it would allow the military to lower service pay, thus offsetting the expected high cost (as much as $23 billion) of a full-blown national service program. The bill also hints ominously that national service conscripts might be used as strike breakers, particularly in agricultural work.

McCloskey's vision of an integration of military and civilian manpower programs for the nation's youth is reminiscent of the notorious "channeling" doctrine of the Selective Service in the mid-1960s. In a document included in a 1965 Selective Service "orientation" kit that made its way into the hands of the anti-war movement, the Selective Service maintained that the provision for occupational or educational deferments served to "channel" the energies of the nation's young people into areas of work or study regarded of national importance. While military service awaited those whose patriotism led them to volunteer, and programs like the Peace Corps or VISTA were available for those who wanted to serve their country in other ways, "in the less patriotic and more selfish individual [the draft) engenders a sense of fear, uncertainty and dissatisfaction which motivates him.. in the same direction." As the "Channeling" document noted, "the process of channeling by not taking men from certain activities who are otherwise liable for service, or by giving deferment to qualified men in certain occupations, is actual procurement by inducement of manpower for civilian activities which are manifestly in the national interest." In other words, under conditions where modern warfare allows no real difference between soldier and civilian in maintaining military preparedness, there was also no real difference between military and non-military "service."

In talking to people about national service, I have found that many people are attracted to it. They cite the problems of youth "discipline" and crime, and point to the high rate of unemployment for urban youths, particularly non-whites, and to the lack of "meaning" in most of those jobs that are available. Most interesting to me, though, is the sentiment expressed by white middle-class people that some form of national service would be beneficial in that it would put "advantaged" people into contact with "disadvantaged" people. (I confess I have heard little support for the idea of sending black young people to do community work in rich suburbs.) There is something to this; and reading memoirs of middle-class people who did service work in the sixties one finds expressed again and again the excitement that young people found in overcoming barriers that had separated them from people of other races and classes. Yet it seems unlikely that this or any administration in the near future could possibly run a national service program that would provide "meaningful" work. Far more likely are regimented make-work programs, escalating punishments for slackers or non-cooperators, and administrative chaos generally. The compulsory nature of any such national service program would almost certainly poison it through and through; and indeed when it is clear that we are talking about compulsory programs rather than establishing broad programs with opportunities for young people to enter voluntarily, I have found that support for national service drops sharply.

In opposing the return of the draft, therefore, we have to argue not only against militarism and an imperialist foreign policy, but also in favor of the rights of young people to do what they want, and not to be considered merely as a kind of national resource that needs handling and channeling. This later task means taking on the New Right generally in its attempts to revive its mythical patriarchal paradise. and as much as possible to help young people organize for their own defense.

I would like to conclude with some thoughts about what we should do if registration and the draft are re-established. In general, I think this involves not only assessing social and political forces today, but also reexamining the anti-draft movement of the 1960s to see what can be learned from the strengths and weaknesses of that movement. What follows are notes to stimulate discussion.

First, it is obvious that registration and the draft have only shaky support in Congress, and that the more discussion there is on this issue, the less support it has. It also seems likely that any program to register men only, or to conscript in peacetime, or to conscript for compulsory civilian service, would be met by legal challenge. At a minimum this would create delays in implementing conscription or national service, and would give us more time to reach people with our arguments. So I think the first priority is to work to repeal or overturn whatever registration or draft legislation emerges from this Congress.

Second, it will be important to force open as wide a legal avenue as possible for people to become conscientious objectors. Whether or not this will be possible in regard to registration or national service, and to what degree this will be possible in regard to conscription, is up in the air. During the Vietnam War the courts were increasingly inclined to support "moral" objections as well as traditional "religious" objections.

Third, preliminary investigation shows a fairly widespread opposition to even registration on grounds of general anti-authoritarianism and hatred of the state machine, and there will undoubtedly be a significant number of people who refuse to register, both on moral principles and in the hope of escaping undetected. In fact, the Pentagon study released last winter, America's Volunteers? A Report on the All-Volunteer Forces, shows that the military itself fears massive non-cooperation with any program of registration or conscription. "Enforcement is a key issue in peacetime registration," observes the report. "If most young men registered, then costs could be low and enforcement could be ignored except for isolated instances of flagrant violation such as public display of resistance. Should the registration meet widespread resistance and strict enforcement be ordered, costs could be very high." In fact, an AFSC staff worker who attended some of the hearings on draft registration, reported to the Boston Alliance Against Registration and the Draft that the main question on the minds of Congressmen seemed to be not the morality, legality, or military necessity of the draft but whether or not people would cooperate. As it seems likely that traditional pacifist or religious anti-war organizations will undertake the defense of non-cooperators who oppose registration on religious or moral grounds, I think we should be sure to provide a voice in defense of those who refuse to register because they don't want to. This leads to the further question of whether we should attempt to advocate or organize non-registration, or noncooperation generally. I think it is clear from the above that the threat of non-cooperation may be the most effective means to prevent the legislation from becoming a reality. Whether we should go on to organize non-registration after such legislation is passed is a difficult question to answer without reference to local conditions; but I think it is likely that large numbers of young people will refuse to cooperate without any advice from us, and our role will be to support them in their decision. Certainly if registration is to be done in person rather than by computer matches there will be the need for producing and distributing educational material geared to high school as well as college students.

Fourth, it seems to me unlikely that registration, conscription, or national service will get very far while excluding women. If women are not required to register as well as men in any new legislation, I think it possible that the courts will require them to do so, following the recent inclination to defend the "rights" of white males established in the Bakke and Weber cases. The liability of women to be drafted will make an important difference in how we organize ourselves to oppose the draft. Here the lessons of the sixties are mostly bad ones, for in the absence of a strong women's movement and with women excluded from the draft, male supremacy generally did its work in anti-draft organizations. Today the situation is likely to be far different, for at the moment women's organizations are probably the most political and experienced on the left. Moreover, if I am right in thinking that the return of the draft is closely linked to the sexual politics of the New Right, women will be far morelikely to provide leadership in this area. Finally, the involvement of women in the anti-draft movement will raise issues of sexual politics in two crucial areas: within our own organizations, and in the relationship between feminist organizations opposing the draft on roughly left-wing grounds and those women's organizations which oppose the draft for women on patriarchal grounds, asserting that women's traditional role should exempt them from military service.

Fifth, it seems to me that during the Vietnam War there were two separate movements, a white movement based on anti-draft work, and a black movement based on GI resistance. To the extent that 18-year-old registration will force us to organize high school students rather than college students, as was generally the case for draft resisters during Vietnam, there is a chance to overcome the racial blindspot which generally characterized anti-draft work during the Vietnam era. Still, the record of white radicals in overcoming the racial segregation of our society is not encouraging, and we have a lot to learn about this.

Sixth, to the extent that the return of registration and the draft actually encourages or allows the Pentagon to lower soldiers' wages and withdraw some of the benefits which the All-Volunteer Army is forced to offer, we can expect increasing discontent among enlisted personnel. Though the evidence isn't very clear cut on this, it seems that the greatest amount of GI opposition to the Vietnam War came from enlistees, and not draftees. If cutbacks in military pay and benefits under conscription actually do increase organized discontent in the military, the anti-draft movement will have to put a lot of thought into how we can support dissident GIs. Because so much of the anti-war sentiment of Vietnam era GIs reflected the particular nature of the war, we will have to sift through the lessons of that era very carefully.

Finally, it seems to me that anarchists and libertarians will be in a position to make an important contribution to whatever anti-draft movement emerges. However few our numbers, anarchists have given considerable thought over the years to developing a theory and practice of anti-statism, to making organizations work democratically, and to recognizing that there can be no sharp divisions in our work between "economic" issues and sexual or cultural issues. If I am right in thinking that the anti-draft movement of the future will emerge from a generalized anti-authoritarianism toward a discredited state power, that it is likely to be organized under feminist leadership, and that its main opponent will include the sexual politics of the New Right as well as the militarism of the Old Right then anarchists will be in a position to play a positive role in developing this movement far out of proportion to our numbers.

Frank Brodhead works for Resist and is an editor of Radical America.