It's all here, in a recent Heritage Foundation study that is startlingly thorough in its analysis of the makeup of the current U.S. Military, along various factors.
It is simply a lie to say, as the current advocate for reinstatement of the draft, Rep. Charlie Rangel, that a draft is needed "as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably". A straight-up lie. Here's a particular quote on that:
...it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pentagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.
Which means the Rangel's "more equitable" request would lead to more not less poor folks. Is that what he has in mind?
Rangel is doing this to make a cynical political point; which means self-disqualifies from taken seriously about country's security and military management. This is a powerful Democrat, the soon to be chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. He said, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way..." That is nonsense on stilts; for god's sake, everyone (who is serious, that is) knows war is hell and that soldiers are killed fighting for ideas they hold noble. That is kind of how war works; that is why war is tragic.
Here's a key quote, overall:
Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional representation of income backgrounds. Whites serve in approximate proportion to their population, although representation of minority groups varies. Recruits must meet educational standards, and the military provides resources for furthering education to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to attend four-year colleges. Although rural representation is disproportional, the military offers the opportunity to gain new skills and enter industries that are not available in rural areas.
With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is representative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In contrast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq continues. Although recent recruiting goals have been difficult to meet, reenlistment is strong and recruit quality remains high. No evidence supports arguments for reinstating the draft or altering recruiting policies to achieve more equitable representation.
In other words, an all-volunteer military is working just fine, thank you. And doesn't it make sense, that the people who are serving our country are doing so because they want to serve?
National security is the most important issue, by far, that this country faces, and this powerful a Democrat is trying to win cheap points when our soldiers are out on the battlefield. Of course it is typical of politicians. But that doesn't mean it is any less disgusting.
