SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RUMSFELD

His

STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT

During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked

my views on the old military draft system. Although not

eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as

follows:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought

in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the

civilian manpower market, because they were without choices.

Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in

college, people that were teaching, people that were married . .

. And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked

into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went

out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States

Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of)

the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of

effort in terms of training and then they were gone."

Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and

others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to

mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not

true. I did not say they added no value while they were

serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss

of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no

intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that

impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served

over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded

and still others killed.

The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the

service of those draftees. I always have had the highest

respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any

veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who

may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted

to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.

The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for

some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers

for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men

and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer,

and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the

peak of their skills and knowledge.

It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose

words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so

unfortunately misinterpreted.

It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly

outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past

and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense

would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would

not.

I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served

those who are serving, and their families.