U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings', D-S.C., idea for a better-balanced military, blind to racial and economic discrimination, certainly does have a strong argument ("Bill would mandate service requirement," SN 2/3). Rangel said, "All who benefit from our society must share the burden of defending it."

But perhaps what these legislators ignore is that, unlike the Israelis and others they admire, Americans do not live with an uninterrupted history of constant violent assaults and an intense undying patriotism.

Although I do love my life and would not want to live anywhere else in the world, I do not agree with much of what our government does militarily. I am patriotic, but I do not have undying support for the foreign relations we have. I would not give my life for a cause I do not support, and I am not alone.

We have a large military; one of the largest in the world. The people who support military action and are most mentally fit to join the service are often the ones who join. When a war with Iraq arrives, people will enlist because they wish to serve their country for a cause they support. Those people who are much more skeptical and unfit for the military will not enlist. This is efficient, isn't it?

Does the military need to be perfectly balanced economically and racially in order to be efficient? I think we are simply looking for an ultra-patriotic symbol of American support in a time when that support is desired. I think these legislators might see things differently years from now, when the United States is at peace.

Making it a requirement to enlist after high school would dramatically change the attitude of this country and would kill the freedom and dreams we are so lucky to have at a young age; not all of us are willing to die for our country under any circumstance, so don't make us.

Carl Seidman
finance senior