As U.S. forces prepare for war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has fired up a national debate over a military draft. It's an important issue and should be revisited from time to time. However, the congressman has a few facts wrong.

Rangel's bill would reinstitute conscription, this time for men and women ages 18 to 26. They would go into the military or alternative civilian service. The only deferments would be to complete high school — no exemptions to attend college or graduate school.

Rangel knows his bill won't pass, but he has two other goals in mind: to underscore his opposition to a preemptive attack on Iraq, which President George W. Bush threatens if Saddam Hussein doesn't come clean on weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, and to highlight the fact that few administration leaders and few members of Congress, who have endorsed a war with Iraq, have sons or daughters in uniform and therefore have little to risk from another Gulf War.

Rangel is not being unpatriotic, not in the least. Despite confident pronouncements by military leaders that U.S. forces are ready, they must have reservations like the rest of America. Many servicemembers and their families certainly are uneasy, not only about the risks of war but also its aftermath. How long will U.S. forces have to stay after Saddam is defeated? Will victory in Iraq advance the fight against terror, or will it only inflame more hatred toward America across the Arab world?

A fresh debate over the draft rekindles these issues. It also turns a welcome spotlight on those now serving. But in making his points, does Rangel accurately describe the all-volunteer force?

"The disproportionately high representation of the poor and minorities in the enlisted ranks is well-documented," he says.

Don't just turn the spotlight on, Mr. Rangel. Use it to educate America about its all-volunteer force. Maybe learn more yourself about what an extraordinary institution it has become. You'll find almost all enlisted are high school graduates, and many have college degrees. Most have families. Most are expensively trained.

Are wealthy families from Ivy League schools underrepresented? You bet. That's too bad, because many of them will be government and industry leaders some day. But when hasn't this class been underrepresented in uniform, except perhaps during the world wars?

Are the poor overrepresented? Not according to military population studies. High school dropouts, kids denied a proper education, and youth lacking in basic aptitudes have a tough time getting into the military. Indeed, a truly representative force would mean a drop in quality.

The latest socioeconomic survey of the military shows that based on parents' education, employment, occupation, and home ownership, today's armed forces are "primarily from families in the middle- and lower-middle socioeconomic strata." In other words, it's a cross section of Middle America. The burden of defending the nation is not falling more heavily on the very poor.

What about race? A military population study released last February concludes that "African Americans [are] equitably represented in the military overall." They are overrepresented among enlisted, underrepresented among officers. In 2000, for example, 20 percent of non-prior-service recruits were black versus 14 percent of recruit-age Americans. This imbalance will exist as long as the military offers better opportunities to African-Americans than are available in the private sector. Hispanics were underrepresented, 11 percent versus 15 percent of comparably aged civilians, and Asian-Americans slightly overrepresented.

A conscripted military isn't unusual; most nations with armies have one. Rare is the volunteer force. One of such quality as ours is unprecedented. It thrives not only because America is a great democracy, but also because we spend enough to attract and keep good people, then we arm them with the best equipment available.

With war approaching, Rangel is right to examine whether minorities and the poor could die in numbers disproportionate to census data. We all benefit if our leaders take one more look at the impact of another war on our nation and the world. But Americans should come away from that debate confident and proud of this force.

Tom Philpott is a freelance writer and syndicated news columnist. His column, "Military Update," appears in 48 daily newspapers throughout the United States and overseas. His book, Glory Denied: The Saga of Jim Thompson, America's Longest-Held POW (W.W. Norton & Co., 2001), now is available in paperback (Plume, 2002).