In his article, “Why the Draft is a Forlorn Hope,” Second Lieutenant T.S. Allen uses my recent op-ed in The Los Angeles Times to attack those who seem to be calling for a military draft as a means to set right a number of wrongs. I cannot speak for the other authors Lt. Allen criticizes, but it is clear that he fundamentally misunderstood what I wrote. I do not and never said I support a draft. I wrote that the United States should “foster and incentivize” increased military service. I am not sure where Lt. Allen saw in my words support for a draft. Neither “foster” nor “incentivize” suggests conscription or mandating anyone to do anything. They suggest increasing the attractiveness of certain options – in this case, military service. In the final paragraph of my op-ed, I even wrote that the all-volunteer force is “here to stay”, a phrase that Lt. Allen quoted. It seems the lieutenant and I both agree that a professional military is the best option for our country.
Rather than jumping to the conclusion that everyone who calls for increased military service is advocating conscription, he may want to consider what else they could possibly mean. Perhaps it is simply for more people to seriously consider serving and for them to be encouraged to do so through a mixture of incentives. Others may think a draft is the answer, but I am not one of them.
Benjamin Luxenberg, who served in the Marines from 2009 to 2013, is pursuing an MBA and a masters in public policy at Harvard University.
Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Josh Huebner
T.S. Allen 
I am the author of “Why the Draft is a Forlorn Hope.” After carefully reviewing it and Mr. Luxenberg’s critique, above, I do not see what I “fundamentally misunderstood.”
Luxenberg never called for a draft, and I never said he did. I wrote there is “no ‘solution’ in Luxenberg’s article,” draft or otherwise.
I critiqued Luxenberg’s op-ed for justifying the draft, not calling for it. The foundation of my argument was that mass military service is not the answer to our problems, whether incentivized or coerced. The title of Luxenberg’s op-ed was “If inequality is our problem, military service is the answer.” Luxenberg’s flawed argument serves as a “forlorn hope” clearing a route to draft advocacy, such as that of Joseph Epstein, who in “How I Learned to Love the Draft”, argued that the draft is the “answer” to many of the problems Luxenberg addressed.
Luxenberg and I agree that the professional military is “here to stay” (I did not quote him, although we used the same banal phrasing). However, if the American polity comes to see the military as the solution to our fundamental problems, as Luxenberg contends, its days may be numbered.
I am the author of “Why the Draft is a Forlorn Hope.” After carefully reviewing it and Mr. Luxenberg’s critique, above, I do not see what I “fundamentally misunderstood.”
Luxenberg never called for a draft, and I never said he did. I wrote there is “no ‘solution’ in Luxenberg’s article,” draft or otherwise.
I critiqued Luxenberg’s op-ed for justifying the draft, not calling for it. The foundation of my argument was that mass military service is not the answer to our problems, whether incentivized or coerced. The title of Luxenberg’s op-ed was “If inequality is our problem, military service is the answer.” Luxenberg’s flawed argument serves as a “forlorn hope” clearing a route to draft advocacy, such as that of Joseph Epstein, who in “How I Learned to Love the Draft”, argued that the draft is the “answer” to many of the problems Luxenberg addressed.
Luxenberg and I agree that the professional military is “here to stay” (I did not quote him, although we used the same banal phrasing). However, if the American polity comes to see the military as the solution to our fundamental problems, as Luxenberg contends, its days may be numbered.