As some politicians argue the need for more troops in Iraq, a few government officials proposed a solution that is a politically sensitive issue for baby boomers: Using the military draft.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested reviving the draft as part of an effort to include people from different economic backgrounds in the War on Terror.

Hagel, who spoke to the committee April 20, told the Washington Post his main interest in the draft is considered so “the privileged, the rich,” as well as the less affluent, bear the burden of fighting the War on Terror.

He doesn’t expect the bill to be passed, but he thinks with American forces stretched thin and the Iraq conflict apparently continuing indefinitely, “this is a steam engine coming right down the track at us,” he said.

He’s not the only one who thinks more troops are necessary. Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said 20,000 troops due to come home in June will have their tours extended by 90 days, according to Associated Press.

ISU students believe reinstating the draft would ignite a political tinderbox.

“As far as I know, it would be a very bad time politically,” said Daniel Snodgrass, senior in computer engineering. “The Republicans wouldn’t do this right now because that would doom any Middle East involvement. If it would happen, the morale wouldn’t be nearly as high if there were a draft.”

Other students said they thought reinstating the draft would sever the already fragile links between Republicans and Democrats. Marcia Purdy, senior in women’s studies whose brother served in Vietnam as an enlistee, said it would further polarize the political parties.

“I think our country is very divided right now, and I think there’s a lot of hostilities between two main parties,” she said. “Something like [reinstating the draft] would be a very explosive thing to do.”

Hagel’s suggestion was controversial, but he doesn’t stand alone. In January 2003, Sen. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced a bill titled “Universal National Service Act of 2003,” which would require all men and women between 18 and 26 to serve a designated term in the military.

The bill probably won’t materialize into a law, since it was sent to a committee last year and hasn’t gained any momentum. Nevertheless, it’s strongly opposed by Iowa senators. Republican Charles Grassley has said he believes the most effective army is a volunteer one, not a compulsory one.

“[Sen. Grassley] would never use it unless it was for the defense of our country,” said Beth Levine, Grassley’s press secretary. “He feels this is the best way to have a military: a military of volunteers.”

Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin could not be reached for comment.

If the United States mandated compulsory military service, it would join 51 other countries that already do so. Youth in other countries serve as little as six months (Romania) or as much as three years (Cambodia).

A draft usually isn’t necessary unless there’s a severe shortage of troops on the front lines. During World War I, enough volunteers filled to ranks to make the draft unnecessary. However, a great need for troops could easily change the situation, said Charles Dobbs, professor of history.

“It’s been very difficult throughout history to meet huge manpower needs when there’s a huge conflict without having some kind of mandatory system to acquire soldiers,” he said.

He added the draft provide the bulk of soldiers in the Vietnam War.

“Most of the army men in Vietnam were there because of the draft,” he said.