Postscript: Debating Women and the Draft in 2016

Discharged from the Continental Army in 1783, Margaret Cochran Corbin is one of a handful of Revolutionary War soldiers buried behind the Old Cadet Chapel in the West Point Cemetery. For taking a few British musket balls to her jaw and chest and arm while manning a cannon at the Battle of Fort Washington, Corbin was recognized by General Knox and awarded a military pension by the Continental Congress. Two centuries later, however, even with female candidates eyeing the White House and a national discussion punctured with debates over gender equality and national defense, no presidential hopeful has suggested her as the new face of the ten-dollar bill, much less invoked her as the role model or exemplar for the current age.

Twenty20.

This suggests a few things. In principle, we aren’t merely flattering contemporary prejudices when we invoke the long history of republican women, from Lucrecia to Portia to modern Americans, to show that civic-minded, patriotic women strengthen self-governing nations. Margaret Corbin is hardly the only American woman to have distinguished herself in service to her country. As long as our armed forces have existed, women have taken it upon themselves to serve honorably in or alongside of them, hiding their gender, seeing combat “unofficially,” or serving in support roles that have often involved bullets and capture by the enemy.

It’s heartening to think of women’s demonstrated potential both in their willingness to serve their country and their ability to do so. Should the occasion arise in future, we should hope for and celebrate women and men rising to the challenge. But neither the presidential candidates nor the nation is truly debating whether women can be called upon to serve their country.

Neither the presidential candidates nor the nation is truly debating whether women can be called upon to serve their country.

We are also not, actually, debating “The Draft”— military conscription. We are fifteen years into sustained armed conflicts or “kinetic action” abroad. Already in 2009, the Pentagon announced an end to the stop-loss policy, even in the wake of reports that the armed forces were stretched to the breaking point. We continue to reduce both the size of our military and the civilian workforce attached to it.  The army alone has announced plans to cut around 30,000 active and reserve personnel this year. Even at their peak, US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan included no more than 171,000 troops and 100,000 troops respectively. By comparison, more than 537, 000 troops were deployed at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968.

Representative Duncan Hunter has introduced legislation requiring women to register for the draft. But Representatives Mike Coffman, Peter DeFazio, Dana Rohrabach, and Jared Polis have countered with proposed legislation to end the Selective Service. Both are intentionally provocative, meant to challenge the new military policy mandating all combat positions to be opened to women rather than meant to become the law of the land. President Obama is making no vows to employ an executive order and his pen over either matter. And the American electorate at large is closely divided on whether women should have to register for the draft.

One could argue that such numbers show precisely that Americans are not so seriously interested in the matter. It’s not a substantial issue.  Like the definition of combat, it’s a political question of the day rather than a military or national necessity. That doesn’t mean that reexamining the political principles at the heart of the debate is a frivolous enterprise — if only as a reminder of the civic duties that under-gird our civil rights.