Last week, a Democrat-backed bill to reinstate the draft was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. Thankfully, it suffered a crushing defeat of 402 to 2. A Democrat-backed bill for reinstatement of the draft? You might think that this seems odd and incongruous, but Democrats proposed the bill earlier in the year as a way to protest the war and to "spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military," as Carl Hulse of The New York Times explained.

The fact that there has been a muffled buzz about the reinstatement of the draft, which has recently come to the fore, in the form of this bill and discussion about it during the presidential debates, concerns me. The fact that one legislator actually spoke in favor of this farcical bill, startles me even more. And, the fact that Donald Rumsfeld said, "We do not need a draft. We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces," scares me most of all.

This statement implies that he is not opposed to the reinstatement of the draft based on principle, but that he would support it if there were a lack of needed military support. But, our government should be opposed to the draft based on principle and it should be able to ensure us that a draft is morally untenable and will never be reinstated.

Regretfully, this is not what we have been hearing. Rather, we have been hearing that we do not need the draft right now because we have enough soldiers, but should the need arise, we have not been reassured that a draft will not occur.

The fact that there are not enough voluntary soldiers to carry out a specific military operation should indicate to the government that the military operation does not have the support of the American public behind it, and therefore, since we are, indeed, a democracy, should not be carried out.

The willingness and availability of military forces should be a first-stage litmus test, used in order to establish whether or not our government should engage in a particular military operation. If there are not enough people who are willing and able to jeopardize their lives for the military operation, it should not commence.

Furthermore, forced conscription comes with many moral issues attached. During wartime, the killing of innocent civilians is considered immoral, yet the killing of soldiers is not. The former can be considered murder and the latter is not. What distinguishes an innocent from a non-innocent is that the non-innocent is a threat to the lives and objectives of the opposition and, therefore, may be killed in self-defense. However, an innocent is characterized by lack of choice. Because he does not choose to be in the line of fire, does not choose to be involved in the military operation and may, in fact, be opposed to it, he may not be killed with impunity.

On the other hand, we perceive soldiers as those who have chosen to be in the line of fire and have decided that they are willing to risk their lives for the cause, and, therefore, may be killed with relative impunity.

However, if a draft is reinstated, this element of choice will be removed. In essence, we will have an army of innocents. No one should ever be forced to jeopardize his life for a cause he deems unworthy. If we do reinstate the draft, we are condemning our innocents to death.

A reinstatement of the draft is a threat to our democracy and our lives. It supports the idea that our country can engage in a war without popular support. It also supports the idea that our lives are subject to the will of the government. Therefore, it is my sincerest hope that the buzz about the reinstatement of the draft remains a buzz and never becomes a reality. Indeed, much is at stake.