Opponents of the plan protest, first of all, that a volunteer army would cost not $5 billion but $17 billion. The latter figure is derived from the same data as Friedman's, but as one Defense Department official points out, "econometrics is an art not a science. No one really knows how to handle the data for such a long-range estimate." To this Friedman replies that the surest way of seeing who is right is to raise salaries and watch the enlistment rate. If the number of volunteers increases with salary, keep raising the salary until the draft can be ended.

Some social theorists fear the political consequences of a volunteer force. They point to the police forces in the large metropolitan centers where a "self-selective" process -- sons of policemen joining the force, the daughter of one policemen marrying the son of another -- has produced a social group relatively isolated from the rest of society. These theorists claim that such self-selection is dangerous not only in that it encourages the formation of a military elite but also because a social group gives a certain "style" to any bureaucracy it controls. Look, they say, at the difference between American police, who are recruited from groups where lawlessness had a political virtue, and English police, who were selected for certain specific characteristics -- strength and patience.

Friedman's rebuttal is that officers, not enlisted men, can become politically dangerous and that officers for a volunteer army can be recruited in the same democratic way employed now -- by an elaborate system of geographic distribution controlled by admissions officers at West Point, and by the ROTC program. "People are forever saying that a conscript army full of unwilling soldiers is a safeguard against a military take-over," Friedman says. "They forget that the army behind Napoleon was a conscript army. In fact the word conscript was coined during the French Revolution."

Tired Soldiers

The most politically potent argument for a volunteer army is a slogan: "The soldier is worth his hire." Friedman says that it is plainly unfair to punish a man by drafting him and then punish him a second time by forcing him to accept substandard wage. Again he argues from history: "Was not one of the great gains in the progress of civilization the conversion of taxes in kind to taxes in money? The elimination of the power of the noble or the sovereign to exact compulsory servitude?"

But many remain unconvinced. Military men doubt that a volunteer army will be flexible enough; it will be too difficult, they say, to beef up the army in time of crises such as the Berlin wall incident or the Cuban missile affairs. What will happen to the reserves? Reservists, almost to a man, signed up to avoid the draft. If the threat of induction is removed will the reserves, a valuable second line of defense, evaporate?

Liberals and radicals have their rhetorical questions also. Is it fair to ask the poor, who presumably will be attracted to a volunteer army, to fight our wars? Shouldn't there be some feeling of community, a desire to distribute, if not death, then the likelihood of death, among all classes in the population?

These same liberals and radicals question the influence of a volunteer army on foreign policy. A President is less likely to commit American troops in a given situation, they reason, if he fears that American involvement might force higher draft calls affecting the politically articulate middle class. Thus a professional army effectively increases a President's power. He will be able to use a moderate-sized military force without considering the domestic consequences. This argument, however, can be turned around. Once the United States does get involved in a war, the middle classes find reasons for supporting the war, and it becomes politically dangerous to admit mistakes or attempt to withdraw. It is often said that the only way we can get out of Vietnam is by changing Administraitons. A change of Administration preceded the Korean cease-fire. If this assumption is true, then it is wise to give the President a professional army because it will be easier for him to pull out American troops when he decides involvement was wrong in the first place.

Another draw-back of the volunteer army, from the radical point of view, is that such an army will swallow up the most energetic element of the ghetto. The college-trained Negro will not be interested in the army; industry is opening up to him. The poorest Negroes will not be able to pass the physical or mental tests. It is the aspiring Negro, the man who still believes he can get more than he has, who will be attracted to the volunteer army. And is that the best place for him? Should he become part of an ingrown bureaucracy, or would it be better to put him in charge of community organizing in his own neighborhood?