Insult to Injury

Over a year ago, a plan for universal military service and training began its tortuous route through Congressional channels. Legislators have mutilated it to an extent that could be appreciated only last week, when Representative Carl Vinson's Armed Services Committee voted to accept the plan's remains, and held them up for the public to see.

Originally, this plan outlined a full universal military service program, one that would require all eighteen-year olds to serve two years on active duty and several more in the reserves. Because it called for inducting all young men by age group, it would have meant the end of Selective Service.

UMST went to Congress in the form of two bills. In the first, the House watered down the original plan almost beyond recognition, and passed what was left "in principle" only. The second bill, which was intended to implement the first, merely completed the damage. As it emerged from this process last week, UMST had been thoroughly altered.

Congress had transformed it into a mixture of Selective Service and Universal Military Training; UMS had been altogether purged. Now called UMT (as opposed to UMST), the new version would give all eighteen-year-olds six months of training and put them in the reserves for seven and one-half years more. Beyond this point, army-raising would operate at it does now. The Armed Forces would induct reservists as well as men in the nineteen to twenty-six age group by means of Selective Service.

This program can be criticized from several different perspectives. From the Pentagon's point of view, UMT would be worse than the present system, largely because it would cut down the standing armed forces and replace them with half-trained reservists. There would be a dangerous wait after an emergency developed before the military could prepare an adequate force to meet it. Only inducting veterans--as was done when the Korean War broke out--or using green troops, shipped to the danger area fresh out of the reserve, could shorten the delay.

Nor is UMT any more desirable for the country's young men. Selective Service would remain to plague them with rapidly shifting quotas and deferment standards, and local draft boards would still have the power to compound the confusion. Whether they were reservists or not, students and other potentially deferable young men would still be unable to predict their status from year to year. And this uncertainty would continue to make it impossible for them to plan their careers intelligently.

UMT would not only fail to benefit young men in any way, but it would deprive them of six months, which they would have to spend in training. This would be particularly inconvenient for students, for it would mean a full year delay in their education.

Even from the viewpoint of the Congressmen who support it, UMT would be a failure. Its passage would accomplish nothing but the alienation of many votes.

UMT's main fault is that it is a compromise between necessity and the demands of vociferously anti-UMST voters. Originators of the first UMST bill, who drew up their project without pressure from emotional constituents, had the only solution to the current draft muddle: elimination of Selective Service and institution of UMS.

Requiring every eighteen-year-old to serve on active duty for two years would satisfy most of the Pentagon's needs for a backlog of fully-trained soldiers. UMS would also allow young men the certainty now made impossible by Selective Service. Because they would know exactly when they would have to serve, only a global emergency could disrupt their plans. As for Congressmen, they cannot expect to improve their political position by sponsoring a UMS program, but at least they would be accomplishing something useful.