Oddly enough, Rangel believes that remilitarizing society is the best way to keep America from getting involved in future wars. "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel recently told the Associated Press.

Well, maybe. But we had a draft in the 1960's and that didn't stop U.S. politicians from getting involved in Vietnam. One could argue that having a few million extra troops on hand and ready for combat would make a future president more likely to engage in foreign policy adventures, not less. The actual impact of a draft would depend on the circumstances.

One thing is certain: most legislators view the draft as political poison. When Rangel introduced a draft measure in 2003, the House defeated it 402-2. Don't expect the vote on Rangel's latest draft proposal, which he plans to introduce early next year, to be much different. That's a shame because the United States needs a draft badly.

The last draft ended in 1973, when the U.S. began relying an all-volunteer military. This pleased everyone: the military got high-quality troops while America's elite, safe from the threat of the draft, quickly lost interest in the vagaries of American foreign policy. To date the all-volunteer military has acquitted itself well in several small wars and police actions. However, sometimes numbers matter. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as smaller actions around the world have severely strained the military. There are serious questions about whether the U.S. has enough troops at present to fight a conflict with say, North Korea or Iran, not to mention China. This knowledge emboldens our enemies.

For the past 30 years, the U.S. military has attempted to use technology to compensate for reduced troop levels. This line of thinking led to the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) doctrine promoted by recently-ousted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

In Rumsfeld’s RMA, there would be no more wars like those of Korea, Vietnam, or even the Gulf War. As Army General Tommy Franks, a true believer in the RMA who devised the Iraq invasion plan, states in his memoirs, “The days of half-million-strong mobilizations were over.” Rapid maneuver, highly accurate firepower, and attacks from many directions, all empowered by new technology, were supposed to substitute for large numbers of troops and equipment.

It hasn't quite worked out that way. Our enemies responded to the invasion of Iraq by launching a guerrilla war, killing innocent civilians, stoking ethnic divisions and picking off our troops with snipers and roadside bombs. This type of asymmetric war can only be defeated by boots on the ground and human intelligence, not B-2's and spy satellites.

In the near future, events may well demand that the U.S. attack and occupy several additional countries in the Middle East. And by "attack" I mean "reduce to rubble," the way we dealt with Japan and Germany in World War II. Once U.S. cities start going up in smoke, Americans will have neither the time nor the inclination for expensive, touchy-feely nation-building exercises. When that day arrives, it would be best if we had a large army of conscripts already in place.