Why we should bring back the draft

Jonathan Zimmerman’s call to bring back the draft is the kind of provocative idea that cuts through the comfortable pablum of American civic life. He’s not just talking about filling troop quotas—he’s talking about making war a shared experience again. And he’s right to point out that when the burden falls on a volunteer force, the rest of us get to cheer or jeer from the sidelines without skin in the game. The fact that he expects students to protest a draft against Iran isn’t a bug; it’s the feature. If the kids who’d be called up are marching in the streets, then maybe the politicians in Washington will actually hesitate before sending another generation into the sand. But here’s the rub: a draft is a blunt instrument, and history shows it’s rarely fair in practice. Deferments for college students, exemptions for the well-connected, and the disproportionate impact on poor and working-class communities—those are the ghosts of Vietnam that Zimmerman’s idealistic vision glosses over. He wants a civic awakening, but what he might get is a new set of loopholes and a fresh wave of anger. Still, his core point stands: if we’re going to fight wars, we should all have to look at the bill. The fact that this argument feels radical in 2025 says more about our comfortable detachment than about Zimmerman’s proposal. This is a conversation worth having, and not just in ivory towers. The Iran conflict is a slow-burn tragedy, and most Americans are barely paying attention. A draft would force the issue into every living room. But we need to be honest about the trade-offs: coercion versus shared sacrifice, equity versus efficiency, and the danger of a state that can compel its citizens to kill. Zimmerman’s piece is a useful provocation, not a blueprint. Let’s treat it as the former, and maybe we’ll finally have the national debate we’ve been avoiding for half a century.