When Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel proposed legislation to reinstate the draft last week, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scoffed at the idea.

The resurrection of universal conscription would require men and women ages 18 to 26 to serve in the military, but exemptions would be granted allowing teenagers to graduate from high school. College students would also have to serve.

But Rangel’s proposal is not so much a feasible attempt to reinstate selective service in the United States, as it is a way to force lawmakers to acknowledge the human cost of the war.

“There’s no question in my mind that this President and this administration would never have invaded Iraq . . . 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,” Rangel said in a press release Nov. 19.

And while Rangel, who is poised to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, insists his proposal is no stunt, it is unlikely he will support his own bill if it comes to the floor for a vote.

In fact, when Rangel proposed the same bill in 2003, he actually voted against it, along with 401 other Congress members.

And with military officials convinced a volunteer army can handle Iraq, Rangel is look to moral – not practical – debate about the conscription and the war.

“The great majority of people bearing arms for this country in Iraq are from the poorer communities in our inner cities and rural areas, places where enlistment bonuses up to $40,000 and thousands in educational benefits are very attractive,” Rangel said in the press release. “For people who have college as an option, those incentives – at the risk to one’s life – don’t mean a thing.”

Rangel is right – today’s military is supported by an unjust “poverty draft” – but his argument nothing new. During the Vietnam War, the wealthy and powerful found ways to avoid service, while the poor were disproportionately shipped off to fight. Even if Rangel removes education exemptions from a modern draft, wealthy Americans will find a way to dodge it.

But Rangel’s draft proposal has a different weight than it did three years ago. Democrats will soon control both houses of Congress and Rangel, a Democrat, can no longer afford to spark moral debates with mock legislation. The Democrats now have the power to bring about real change and seriously effect policy in Iraq.

And with recruitment faltering and insurgent violence spiraling out of control in Iraq, there may soon be a real need to discuss a military draft.

“To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and special forces, to conduct offensive operations” Republican Sen. John McCain said on Nov. 5. “I believe we must deploy at least another full division. The realities on the ground are that things are not getting better.”

And Nov. 6, Bush proposed sending an additional 50,000 troops to Iraq, bringing the total to 170,000.

But how do officials plan on reaching this goal with a thinly spread volunteer army?

“America has the best military in the world,” Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin, a Defense Department spokesman, told the New York Daily News. “The all-volunteer force has served the American people well for over 30 years and will continue to do so.”

But, the truth is our troops are suffering in Iraq and many who enlisted never dreamed that they would have to fight so long or have such short breaks between deployments.

The Pentagon has “extended the combat tour of 4,000 soldiers, the second time in as many months that an Army brigade has seen its yearlong deployment lengthened,” The Los Angeles Times reported on Sept. 26.

And “Both services are far short of their goal two years between deployments,” Fox News reported on Nov. 18.

If the U.S. government has an eye on invading Iran and North Korea any time soon, how will it are able to provide the manpower without a draft?

Right now an actual draft is way out on the horizon for most Americans. But we are on the cusp of change. And as Rangel points out, there will soon be a need to discuss the merits and disadvantages of resurrecting universal conscription.

As the U.S. government comes closer to actually needing more troops around the globe, it is good that the draft debate has already begun, even if only theoretically.