This is an update of an article I wrote several years ago:

Since President Carter announced the resumption of draft registration back in 1980, the draft registration form -- both the original, blue and white cardboard form found at Post Offices across America as well as the newer, online registration form on the Internet -- has had some notable flaws, and these flaws have contributed to persistently high levels of non-compliance with Selective Service legislation, by an estimated twenty million young Americans to date.

With compliance rates as low as 60 percent in states that do not automatically register young men upon applying for a state driver's license, it is obvious the Selective Service System has been broken since its restoration in 1980. Most young men register under coercion of lost financial aid, denied opportunities for federal employment, or sometimes by merely not reading the fine print when applying for financial aid or their drivers licenses. This hardly instills a sense of patriotism, or measures the readiness of young people to serve. Worse, fully half the population -- the female half -- are not required to register with Selective Service at all, even though the armed forces are increasingly integrated, with women now allowed to serve on nuclear submarines, one of the last bastions of the all-male military.

Exclusion of women from draft registration is but one glaring inequality in the system that should and must be fixed. That the penalties for non-compliance, denial of financial aid for college and of future employment opportunities in the the U.S. government, is another, as these fall unevenly across society, hitting the poor where it hurts, and strangely enough denying future opportunities to serve the public to those who currently resist the broken draft registration system on religious grounds (who would in my mind make sensitive and sympathetic public servants, in contrast to so many of those who selfishly enter government expecting it to serve them with health and retirement benefits denied to most of their countrymen, and who govern with a sense of entitlement.)

Foremost among the flaws in the current draft registration system is registration form's absence of a Conscientious Objector's (CO's) check box and/or a "Statement of Conscience" field enabling registrants to notify officials of their philosophical, moral, and/or religious opposition to conscription, or to express their specific objections to current war policy. Most draft resistors are not cowardly "draft dodgers" as portrayed by their critics, but brave moral warriors who are in fact exercising their deep convictions; they don't register because doing does not enable them to assert their conscientious objection or religious views on war. In generations past, draft registration forms included a check box allowing COs the opportunity to declare their intent to pursue CO status if and when drafted; this made registering for the draft compatible with their beliefs, and in essence allowed them to register for peace.

Such a mechanism of inclusion helped Selective Service achieve higher compliance rates while welcoming participation even of those who are opposed to war. Its absence is one of many reasons for the chronically low compliance rates with the current system introduced by President Carter and continued half-heartedly ever since in its broken but eminently fixable condition. By modifying the current design of the registration form, compliance rates will surely rise, as registering for the draft will likely once again be seen to be less a moral compromise or betrayal of one’s conscience, and more a moral affirmation of the registrant’s beliefs and principles. Knowing who is, and who is not, opposed to military service in advance is also an asset for the administrators charged with organizing a future draft: drafting an army of passivists will only field an army short of resolve and lacking courage under fire, and so it is in the nation's interest to help ease the process of determining who is selected for military and alternate service.

Interestingly, the Selective Service System has itself made one exception to its general refusal to allow a statement of conscience on the draft registration form, allowing one draft resister, Steve Schlossberg, to indicate his intent to seek conscientious objector status on a special registration form after he was indicted for non-compliance two decades ago -- a compromise that allowed prosecutors to withdraw their criminal charges against him, while allowing him the opportunity to register in good conscience. It is my belief that the “Schlossberg solution” should be made a permanent part of the draft registration process. Such a solution is presently being negotiated between the Department of Justice and the current generation's most prominent draft resistor, Tobin Jacobrown. The appeal of this solution to the DOJ, then and now, suggests the relative ease of operationalizing the Schlossberg solution so all those conscientiously opposed to war can participate in Selective Service and serve their coutnry proudly and without moral compromise.

I myself, when weighing the morality of draft registration in 1980 and 1981, created my own "Statement of Conscience" using a black magic marker -- printing in bold, block letters all around the perimeter of the draft registration form's front side, and on the back side as well, my beliefs as well as my policy objections to the wars then being fought in Central America -- where it would turn out the White House had deceived Congress by illicitly funding an illegal war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, in direct violation of both the intent of Congress as well as the law of the land. (Sadly, this would not be the last time that the White House chose deceit in pursuit of its war aims, committing America's soldiers to waging conflicts without the full backing of the American people -- as we all would sadly learn two decades later.) Not content to simply file my "Statement of Conscience" knowing it would likely be discarded by a data-entry clerk, I wrote a lengthy and passionate treatise to the Director of Selective Service, Thomas Turnage -- then in residence at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government -- hoping to persuade him to renounce violence and his complicity in a system riddled with so many moral compromises, and follow a more nonviolent path. (He never wrote back, but I have always hoped he considered my perspective and that of America's young during the years immediately following the Vietnam tragedy.)

I was torn then, knowing that conscription to fight in an unjust war is itself an act of tyranny, inherently un-American, the fielding of a slave army uncommitted to victory, and a recipe for military defeat as proven in Vietnam; while at the same time, conscription to fight a just war, ensuring the military obligation falls equally and fairly across the whole of society -- and not just onto the poor while the rich evade service as we tragically saw happen at the start of the Civil War over a century ago and leading to the infamous draft riots -- is a long cherished democratic institution dating back to the time of Herodotus, giving democracy its resilience in the face of an aggressive tyrant time and again, even when greatly outnumbered by the forces of darkness and tyranny. The democratic spirit has proven to be a feisty and combative spirit, achieving battlefield victory against the most ominous of foes, as seen when just 300 proud Spartans held off a  Persian invasion force numbering over one million at the Battle of Thermopylae. Or consider the rag-tag militia of the Mujahideen, which nimbly defeated the conscripted force fielded by the Soviet Red Army, revealing how free will when empowered can defeat a mighty military foe.

The trick, for America, is figuring out how best to prepare its citizenry for war in a manner consistent with its principles, and that means reforming Selective Service so it is no longer broken. The dilemma for young Americans has been and remains: which is the greater threat of tyranny, the foreign adversary of our government, or our government itself -- which too often misleads our nation into war on false premises? During the Vietnam War era, Americans rightly feared the tyrannical nature of our own government, its secret wars, and its fabrication of the casus belli during the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident, as they did again in 2003 when the White House spun a web of lies to justify an unnecessary war, leaving the real threat to American security, Al Qaeda, unfought and unbeaten in their mountain sanctuaries along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Young registrants are owed the right to register their opposition to such policies if and when our country is engaged in unjust or illegal wars. But at other times in history, external adversaries have been the greater threat to liberty, as we saw during World War II, when our nation proudly fought against the darkest of human forces. Selective Service, as a system, has endured wars just and unjust, but the system itself has not adapted to the changes in society that have made America so proudly democratic. Its continued exclusion of women, and its refusal to enable COs the opportunity to "register for peace," should and must be addressed. Registering for the draft has become a barometer of sorts, with fluctuations in compliance pegged to popular support for, and discontent with, America’s foreign policy. After 9/11, draft registration compliance levels briefly soared, only to fall back again after the War in Iraq turned into a moral and strategic fiasco, and as evidence mounted that the White House had again led the country to war on a tapestry woven of lies and deceit.

Defending America from an external threat, and participating in a just war, is something nearly all but a small of Americans would accept without question. By including a statement of conscience on the draft registration form, young Americans could register for the draft even during a time of rising anti-war sentiment as experienced during the Vietnam War, and again during the Iraq War, when its casus belli turned out to be false; while at the same time fulfilling their moral obligation to resist unjust wars, unprovoked wars of aggression, or neocolonial foreign policy adventures that favor the economic interests of America’s elites while violating the philosophical, and indeed the constitutional, principles of America.

Another flaw in both the current draft registration form and the Selective Service System itself -- which reflects a fundamental flaw in America's approach to conscription -- is the absence of choice in how young Americans may serve their country in time of war. Currently, it is up to the Selective Service System to classify registrants as to their suitability to serve in combat positions, and the onus is placed on America's young people to argue before a Draft Board for special designation, such as recognition as a Conscientious Objector. As seen during the Vietnam War, those opposed on political and not religious grounds to America's perpetuation of an unjust war against a poor, developing nation fighting for its unification, were denied C.O. status; to be so declared, young Americans had to prove they were conscientiously opposed to all war, not just unjust wars. That enabled the Selective Service System to become a tool of tyranny, forcing young Americans to either become war refugees in Canada, or to submit to the injustice of being sent to fight an unjust war. That choice should never be surrendered to the government, and must always remain with the individual.

In other democratic nations that still use conscription to man their armed forces, young people are given the choice to freely select military service or alternate, non-military service -- such as aiding veterans, the elderly, or educating the poor. As in the case of Germany, which is one of Europe's last remaining nations to conscript its young men, military service requires a 9-month commitment, while alternate civilian service requires 18-months. This is widely considered to be fair since military service, especially in this time of war, is notably more dangerous.

Were America's War on Terror to escalate, or were another crisis to emerge that forced America to reinstate conscription, allowing young people the choice of how they serve would prevent an abuse of power. If the war were just, most young people would be prepared to participate in an overseas military deployment. Were it widely perceived to unjust, based upon a web of lies and the deception of the public, our young people would be free to opt-out of military service, and serve the country another way, rather than be labeled as criminals, as draft-dodgers, or forced to go underground, flee the country, or submit to imprisonment for their refusal to participate in an unjust war.

There are many ways one can serve our nation, even in a time of war. Frontline combat duties are essential, but so are non-combat duties in the rear, or overseas public diplomacy activities such as those performed by the Peace Corps. At home, there are many vital needs that can be addressed by national service, from caring for wounded veterans to taking care of our elders, and helping to alleviate domestic poverty through programs like Ameri-Corps. Why not let our young people choose, freely, how they will serve? If they are prepared to fight, then we will surely find the popular will to achieve victory; and if they are not, then the government will know that it has lost support to continue along the path of war.

In addition to the lack of a CO checkbox, and the absence of empowering the individual registrant with the choice of determining whether their service will be in the military or instead alternate service, since 1980 the draft registration system has one other notable flaw: it excludes females, and yet at the same time, the integration of women into America's armed forces has been dramatic, with women playing important frontline combat roles in the current War on Terror and rising to the highest positions of leadership in our armed forces. Women have proven themselves to be able fighters, contributing their sweat and blood to the nation's defense.

To continue to register young men and exclude young women does a deep disservice to America, and insults women by questioning their equality. In the event of a major conflict, drafting men and not women would not only weaken America's military response to that conflict, but would continue to perpetuate this most obsolete form of discrimination based on gender. Men and women both love America equally; men and women should equally serve America in a time of crisis. Whether that service is combat-related, or not, should be left up to our young people to choose, with the length of their term of service reflective of the risks and dangers inherent in their choice.

Currently, the draft registration system in America remains broken, as it has been since 1980. While over two dozen states have now adopted an automatic draft-registration process that is integrated into the driver’s license application process, nearly half our country still relies on individual acts of registration, with varying degrees of compliance. This division between states where registration is automated, and those which require more pro-active action, also fosters a divide, between those where conscious plays a role and where it is absent. A system that more fully integrates the human conscience through a more thoughtful process of selection would in the end make for a stronger nation.

Ed Hasbrouck, the famous draft resister of my generation who was among the handful of idealistic young people selectively prosecuted during the 1980s and imprisoned for his moral defiance of this broken and unfair system, estimates that over twenty million young Americans have, in one way or another, not fully complied with their Selective Service obligations to date -- and the Selective Service System has itself admitted that were a call-up required, it would unlikely be able to reach the entire pool of draft-age Americans, owing to the persistence of non-compliance, particularly when it comes to keeping Selective Service updated with one's current address. As Hasbrouck has written on his website: "For 25 years, noncompliance with Selective Service registration and address update requirements has been sustained continuously at rates many times higher than the resistance at the peak of the Vietnam war or any earlier war or draft in the USA. Mass direct action (noncompliance with registration) has prevented, and continues to prevent, reinstatement of the draft, and has rendered registration completely unenforceable."

Since 1986, the government has stopped trying to prosecute non-registrants, instead using softer forms of power to encourage young people to register, such as tying proof of registration to their eligibility to receive financial aid for college, or to work for the federal government. The Solomon Amendment requires applicants for federal student aid to certify that they have complied with draft registration, either by having registered or by not being required to register. But for students denied financial aid for college for their draft resistance, however, there is the Student Aid Fund for Nonregistrants, which was established in 1983 and is now administered by the Mennonite Church. In recent years, integrating the state driver's licensing process with the draft registration process has also helped to boost compliance levels, but overall, the system is still imperfect and that would mean, in a time of conscription, the system would fail to ensure fairness. Indeed, until the Selective Service System started working with state DMVs, its primary tools to increase registration compliance were economic, unfairly impacting the poor. Wealthy students who did not require financial aid did not need to worry about the economic consequences of non-compliance, while the poor did. And, most ironically, those idealistic young men who oppose draft registration on moral or religious grounds are denied the opportunity to work for the federal government later on -- even though these young activists would, as a result of their deep commitment to political action, make able and ethical civil servants.

It is my belief that the place to start repairing this broken system is with the draft registration form. Allowing a statement of conscience and restoring the CO checkbox would transform the draft registration process into a more moral act; no longer would draft registration exclude the opportunity to declare one's conscientious objection to all war or one’s more specific objection to a current war. Nor would it suggest to registrants that their act of registration was in essence an endorsement of specific government war policies, such as the War in Iraq, since it would welcome the views of the young who, later on, might be called up to serve.

Right now, young people opposed to that war more likely than not will simply choose not to register for the draft, even though they would likely support America in a truly just war. A statement of conscience would allow our most conscientious, our most moral of young people to comply with their Selective Service System obligation, by providing them with the opportunity to express their dissent with unjust war policies, and formally acknowledging their religious, moral, and philosophical principles. And as registrants’ views evolved over time, they could update their statements of conscience accordingly: just imagine all the statements of conscience that would have been modified after 9/11, when life-long antiwar activists understood, for the very first time, how their parents felt after Pearl Harbor. And then again, as evidence began to surface of the deceit that paved our way to War in Iraq, the trend would surely have reversed, as Americans spoke out when registering against a government willing to lie and manipulate the very public that empowers it. Such statements would provide our political and military leadership with an effective barometer of public will -- helping them to chart the limits of national power to wage war. And it would give our young people a greater say in the decision-making process, so if they were called to serve, they would know their views were not discounted or ignored.

Additionally, enabling young people to choose their form of service -- overseas combat, overseas non-combat, and alternative civilian service as well as declaring their willingness or unwillingness to participate in overseas combat operations -- would help to transform the draft registration process from a tool of state tyranny that otherwise could oppress the freedom of our young people, into a tool that celebrates their freedom, while at the same time facilitating the implementation of a fair, and just, national service program. No more need to go before a Draft Board to argue desperately for C.O. status, a process that showed tremendous class- and racial-bias during the Vietnam War period; just a simple choice that would be respected by the government in time of war on how one chooses to serve. What could better embody the very freedom that young people might be asked to defend?

Serving one's country need not be a nullification or a renunciation of freedom; it can, and in many countries with more humane and flexible national service programs, has been an affirmation of freedom. With just a small number of modifications to the draft registration form, and the underlying draft registration laws, America can make a giant leap in the direction of both fairness and freedom. And by fixing the broken system that now exists, we will become better prepared to meet future challenges and threats.

A mockup of a revised draft registration form, reflective of the proposed changes outlined above, follows: