BP Totty: as always, you raise good and thoughtful points.
Squeak: the difference between a compulsory draft and a volunteer military (as exists in the US today) is that the existence of a volunteer military indicates that the nation’s needs are met by a volunteer forces – stated differently, there is no pressing need that requires the type of call-up as was necessary in WWII – those want to serve, serve, and those who don’t, don’t. But once the gov’t comes calling and says, “We need all able-bodied men between the ages of 20-35” (or whatever range is determined), then in that case it’s a little sketchy to try to wiggle out because while a lot of folks won’t want to serve, they recognize that they must serve.
Another difficult question is implicated by the Wolf’s discussion of WWII and Vietnam – the moral implications of the former were clear; the moral implications of the latter perhaps less so. I do not fault anyone’s interest in self-preservation, and that feeling may be amplified when one’s personal opinion of the war changes.
But, if the government has a standing policy to exempt theological students (of all stripes) from a draft, then I don’t disapprove of any bochur’s use of that exemption. I just find the notion of manufacturing an exemption based on falsified medical (taking pills to alter one’s blood data) or other conditions (feigning ignorance of the language) to be distasteful. If you don’t want to serve, then say so. But let’s be truthful, and not use mistruths to escape service.
I end this note with respect for others who have contributed thoughtfully to this difficult discussion.