Why the Military Exists

Danielle Allen made some interesting observations regarding the demographics of those who serve our nation in the armed forces ["Red-State Army?," op-ed, Dec. 15]. It is certainly true that our service members and veterans represent a smaller portion of the nation's population than they did in 1970.

But Ms. Allen's analysis and conclusions are reminiscent of the hand-wringing that emerged from some corners in the 1990s about the growing rift between the "right-wing" military and our larger society. It seems to me that those who express such concerns are mistakenly giving special consideration to the fewer than 30 years between the end of World War II and the end of the draft in determining a baseline from which to judge civil-military relations in America. Is a large, standing armed force, composed mostly of draftees even in peacetime, consistent with the totality of the American experience?

And whatever social or cultural benefits may have been gained from the conscription-based military service model of the pre-1973 Cold War era, our armed forces exist to fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea. While weaving "a fabric of shared citizenship" is certainly not without merit, helping young people "understand each other" is not, by itself, the primary reason we maintain our armed forces.

EDWARD R.W. TAYLOR

Oceanside, Calif.