McNamara Sees Lottery As A Way To End Present Draft Injustices

In his only on-the-record appearance this week, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara suggested Monday that a national lottery "would be one of the means of eliminating the deficiencies" of the present Selective Service system.

He pointedly avoided any commitment to the proposal, insisting that he would save his specific recommendations until December, when the President's Commission on the Draft will release its report. "It would be tactless of me to comment before they report," he explained.

But, in answer to a question about the feasibility of the lottery, he said that such a system would perhaps end both the uncertainty and inequity of present draft methods.

During the interview, conducted jointly by the Crimson and WHRB, the Secretary also:

A tape of this interview with Secretary McNamara will be broadcast at 7 p.m. Thursday on WHRB (550 AM, 95.3 FM).

* urged that the Army be charged with rehabilitating more of the men who are now rejected on mental and physical grounds.

* chided college students for the "lack of a feeling of obligation" to perform service for their country.

* criticized the country's failure to provide sufficient funds to meet needs in education, health, and conservation, and recommended "tax increases at state and local levels" to provide the revenue.

In reforming the draft, McNamara recommended "work on two fronts simultaneously: one, building the feeling of obligation, and two, making it much easier for individuals to find opportunities that fit their skills or interest" whether in the military or alternative service.

Current draft methods are clearly unsuitable, he said, because they have led to uncertainties and inequities -- uncertainties because "we draft the oldest first. It's never clear exactly at what age one will be subject to the draft and this makes very difficult the planning of one's personal life."

As evidence of the inequity, McNamara pointed out that only 30 perment of young men with less than an eighth grade education and roughly 25 percent of those going on to graduate school ultimately serve. But about 70 percent of the men who attain some level of education between these two groups see military service.

A lottery, McNamara said, would require that every young man take his chance with the draft at some time, most likely at age 19. "Every 19-year-old would be subjected to it," he explained, but deferments could continue for educational and other reasons. Thus, after drawing at 19, every man would know precisely where he stood.

Any deferment, however, would carry with it an obligation for the man to throw his name back into the pool at the end of the deferred period -- thus eliminating the inequity associated with the present 2-S deferment.

Any proposal for reform must be based on what the Pentagon has gradually learned about its manpower supply, McNamara insisted. He divided the 1.8 million men who reach eligibility for service each year into three parts.

"One-third are required normally for the military," he said. "An additional third are capable of serving, but not required, and the remaining third have been thought, in the past, incapable of serving for either medical or physical reasons."

The Pentagon's first consideration is selecting "the one third that we require from the two-thirds that we consider fit for service." But what to do with the two-thirds that remain is a problem that has been ignored too long, he said.

To deal with the one-third unqualified for military service according to present standards, the Secretary urged that the military expand its facilities for training and rehabilitation. "By selecting from these men those who can benefit from military service, putting them through the military, using them for military service," he explained, the government can incidentally equip them with "skills and attitudes that will turn them into productive members of our society."

One major disadvantage of expanded remedial training in the military, McNamara said, is the possibility of "so diluting the strength of the Army as to reduce its military effectiveness." This can be avoided, he thinks, by "careful selection" and "careful application of remedial training."

McNamara dismissed the argument that using the Army for such rehabilitation might overweight the importance of the military in American society. "We don't make any effort to militarize a civilian" while he is in uniform, he said.

As for the other one-third -- those mentally and physically able to serve but not required by the military -- McNamara said "My personal feeling is that they do have an obligation to serve."

Although he suggested in a speech in Montreal earlier this year that the government create possible alternatives to military service, McNamara emphasized that such service must be voluntary.

"I don't think the service should be required," he affirmed. "I do think it should be encouraged -- that was the theme of Montreal. And obviously, the choice I'm talking about would not be possible for people who have already been called up."

Asked about the feasibility of universal one-year military service, McNamara said "professional soldiers do not consider it practical -- and neither do I." The large number of men provided by this system are not required, he explained. "And I think it would degrade the military capability of the service."

McNamara seemed most concerned with the men who fail to meet the "very low" requirements for service. "It means that the public school system has failed," he emphasized.

This country, he continued, has the resources to meet problems of education and health, while maintaining its foreign commitments. "The question is do we have the will power and I don't think we do," he said. "We haven't demonstrated it to date. And I'm afraid we're not going to demonstrate it in the future."

Revenue for these domestic programs is not being diverted to defense needs, McNamara contested. Defense expenditures in 1966, including those for Vietnam, were less in relation to Gross National Product than in four of the previous five years.

To raise the necessary funds for domestic programs, McNamara emphasized that "you can't rely on the President alone, you can't rely on the federal government alone. Much more remains to be done at the local level and the state level."