John Costa, editor-in-chief of The Bulletin, should be commended for writing favorably about the quality and commitment of the men and women entering our armed forces, and the value of the experience of serving your country. I served 20 years in the U.S. Army Reserve and the Oregon National Guard and wouldn’t trade that experience for anything.

Costa also raises the legitimate question whether a democratic republic remains healthy if defended by only a few of its citizens and, not surprisingly, provokes suggestions that America reinstate the military draft. However, a new draft would be a terrible mistake.

Historically, nations adopt national conscription — the compulsory enlistment of people into military service — when they need large numbers of men trained in the military arts either on active duty or in reserve to be called up as needed. Conscription has been around in some form since antiquity. However, the United States fought its first wars with only a small regular army and militia regiments raised by the states. America didn’t adopt a wartime draft until the Civil War and then again during World War I. We didn’t have a peacetime draft until 1940 as the nation prepared for World War II. Conscription continued after the war through most of the Cold War until it was abolished in 1975 by President Gerald Ford.

Conscription works in the United States when two conditions exist. First, most people must believe the nation is threatened and conscripting (mostly) young people into national service is necessary. Second, people must believe the federal government is administering conscription fairly and equitably. Neither of these conditions exists today, and a new draft would create havoc in the military and in society.

If most people believed most of us should serve in the military, including themselves and their children, the military services would not need bonuses and college payment plans to attract recruits. Parents would be encouraging their sons and daughters to serve, either right out of high school or after college. That this isn’t happening tells you most Americans prefer someone else’s son or daughter defend the nation.

If the draft is re-established, people will demand deferments for their “special” situations and Congress will oblige. Take your pick: critical civilian occupation, enrolled in college, married with children, conscientious objection. The list will be endless. Soon, the system will be seen as corrupt, where only the poor, the less educated and those with no political connections actually get drafted. Just like during the Vietnam War, those who are drafted will be perceived as losers and society will be divided between those who must serve and those who escaped having to serve.

Politicians, again responding to public pressure, will never require draftees to serve more than two years. However, today’s modern military needs recruits longer. For example, the Army needs 13 weeks to train an infantryman and more weeks to integrate that soldier fully into his unit where he trains for combat as part of a team. More technical fields — for example wheeled vehicle mechanic, jet engine mechanic, combat medic, communications specialist, etc. — can take much longer. All that training is expensive. It would be a gross waste of resources to train recruits for a year, then discharge them 12 months later.

One of the great strengths of the all-volunteer military is that everyone volunteered — they want to serve. Conscripts, typically, don’t want to be in uniform, complain constantly about everything, resent not getting a deferment and make it clear they can’t wait to return to civilian life. Our military doesn’t need such.

Costa believes military service is an honorable and noble calling and so do I. If you agree, promote it to your friends and neighbors. Encourage young people (including your own children) to enlist or apply to a service academy. Explain why it is right. Let’s not destroy the excellent military we have today by drafting those who don’t want to serve.

— Jonathan Kahnoski lives in Sunriver.