What a concept-calling for a return of the military draft of 18- to 26-year-olds as an anti-war tactic.

That’s exactly what happened three weeks ago when Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York), a staunch anti-war advocate and decorated Korean War veteran, introduced legislation to revive the draft. His bill would require two years of “compulsory service” for men and women 18 to 26 years-old. Unlike the draft that ended in 1973, the current proposal would not allow deferment for college students.

In press conferences and on Sunday morning talk shows, Rangel likes to point out that of the 535 representatives and senators in Washington, D.C., only one, Sen. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), has a child in the military. Then, he says, “I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve–and to be placed in harm’s way–there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.”

Rangel said that bringing back the draft would “ensure shared sacrifice” among Americans of all ethnicities and incomes. He believes minorities will be represented disproportionately in battle, much as they were in Vietnam. He says the poor and blacks should not be required to shoulder the burden of ousting Saddam Hussein, that the obligation should be shared across classes.

That’s a legitimate concern, but the draft doesn’t really address it. Draftees wouldn’t be ready for battle for at least a year. It’s doubtful that a war with Iraq could go on that long.

And joining the military will always be more attractive to young adults from lower-income families than to those whose parents can pay for their college education or those who don’t need a secure job upon graduation. Whenever this country goes to war, people of means aren’t the first to pay with their lives. It is one of the prices society pays for an all-volunteer army.

Besides, military observers agree that our current “professional” military recruiting system produces more highly skilled and motivated troops. Today’s volunteers want to serve. Nor is the military strapped for human capital. More than 2.5 million people are in the armed forces, about half of which are on active duty.

Rangel’s proposal has less to do with beefing up the military and spreading the pain of sacrifice, and more to do with upping the ante in a high-stakes game of political chicken.

Rangel’s idea is both cynical and dangerous. A draft is a last resort, a decision a country makes reluctantly because it genuinely needs bodies to fight a war. Forcing young men into military service is not something one does merely to make a political point.

Even Rangel seems to understand this, and has backed off a bit. Last December he called for military conscription, but his January bill allows for other options, including civil service.

If a draft is ever needed again, it obviously should be done fairly. But reviving it when it’s patently not necessary to create a fictional sense of shared sacrifice, or drum up opposition to a possible war, corrupts an awesome government power. Someday we might really want the option, and citizens need to be able to believe the government’s call is real.

Breath easy, gentle reader. Capitol watchers think Rangel’s idea will likely die a quick death in the House of Representatives. It should.