It's that old bugaboo called the draft, which has been on the shelf since 1973. And if Rep. Charles B. Rangle of New York has his way, the draft would be reinstated in the name of "shared sacrifice," where the sacrifices of war are borne equally by all segments of society.

Hip, hip, hurray, I, along with millions of other veterans would say to the idea of no longer providing the children of America's elite with an escape hatch for avoiding serving their country in the form of college deferments, and leaving the fighting and dying for the working class kids. As congressman Rangle said, policy-makers aren't much concerned about sending professional soldiers into battle since they don't know them. Plus, with only one of the 535 congressmen's sons currently in the service, why should they worry.

Now, I had enlisted in the army, not because I was bursting with patriotic pride or felt obligated to do my part to stop the communist aggression in Korea (heck, I didn't even know where it was on my globe), but because it offered a break from the monotony, a chance to "spread my wings" and see some more of the world and perhaps find a little adventure.

From what I've read about the history of the draft, it's been around ever since all able-bodied men were required to serve in the armed forces of the ancient Greek city-states; and that by the 3rd century BC, the invincible, legions of Rome's mass infantry units were made up mostly of citizen- conscripts.
Here in America, the armed forces of the American Colonies consisted mainly of local militias, with the colonies passing conscription laws that applied to their respective forces. And during the Civil War, the draft was used to swell the ranks of the Confederated and Union armies. However, for $300 a Union draftee could buy his way out of the service, which provision of the draft laws was largely responsible for the bloody, anti-draft riots that broke out in New York City in July 1963.

In World War 1, of the 4,735,000 men who served in the armed forces, 2,800,000 had been drafted. During World War 11, the military drafted 200,000 men a month, 80,000 a month during the Korean War, and about 29,000 a month in the Vietnam War.

It was in the Korean War that the conscription law had been drawing up in such a way as to allow for a variety of deferments, or conditions, under which otherwise eligible men were excused from serving, a la pursuing a college degree or finding certain kinds of employment that exempted them from the draft, which remained in effect throughout the Vietnam War.

Personally, I'd be in favor of universal conscription patterned after what Israel has. There, all physically fit men over 18 must serve in the armed forces for 36 months; and all unmarried women between 18 and 26 must serve for two years, unless exempted on religious grounds.

I recognize that most Americans would never accept being apart from their loved ones for such a long duration. So, by reducing the period men over 18 must serve to 18 months (with 10 years in the active reserve), and to one year for single women between 18 and 24 (with 5 years in the inactive reserve), might make it more palatable. I'm sure law enforcement agencies would wholeheartedly endorse it, for the sharp reduction it would bring about in the crime rate, not to mention the money it would save the states from having to incarcerate so many of 'em in that age bracket. Also, the services would, unquestionably, help make them more responsible citizens. It just makes so much sense, doesn't it? That, of course, is why it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of being taken seriously by our lawmakers..