Relax, Mom, There Are No Plans To Reinstate The Draft

Newark Star-Ledger ^ | September 24, 2004 | Wayne Woolley

[Former Military Chick]

The phones at the Selective Service System in Washington, D.C., ring more frequently these days. And some of the callers are nothing short of hysterical.

Officials at the once little- known federal agency responsible for running any future military draft say they have been receiving thousands of calls in recent months from people who are under the impression that mandatory conscription for men and women age 18 to 26 is imminent.

Janice Hughes, a public and intergovernmental affairs specialist with the agency, fielded one from an American woman calling from Italy on a cell phone. "She heard there would be a draft of women and she didn't want to come back," Hughes said.

Hughes gave her stock reply: "It's not true. We would know. We're the entity that would run a draft if it ever did happen."

The calls keep coming even after repeated assurances from the White House, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that there is no desire, need or plan for a draft.

That may be because fears the draft will be resurrected after 31 years of dormancy continue to be stoked in Internet chat rooms and chain e-mails and most recently on the presidential campaign trail when surrogates of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland -- suggested the possibility of a draft if President Bush wins a second term.

At a campaign appearance in Oregon last week, Vice President Dick Cheney said the all-volunteer military remains America's best option and it would take a crisis "on the scale of World War II before I would think that anybody would seriously contemplate the possibility of going back again to the draft." Kerry flatly opposed a military draft at a campaign stop in Florida on Wednesday.

[Former Military Chick]

This is why kids on campuses stay quiet on Iraq? ARG

[sgtbono2002]

You should know there is a bill to re-establish the draft , It is put forward by Democrat Charles Rangel and he did it in one of his racist binges. Saying too many blacks were going into the military and not enopugh rich kids. Another Dem-Rangel Lie. It is going no where.

[QQQQQ]

That's because of the Dems shameless lies.


Found 5190 articles on that, using Google News search!

Some of them are so full of lies, it's hard to believe.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=military+draft&btnG=Search+News

[builder]

But I heard that Bush has a "secret plan" to draft Black People and Dairy Farmers and Botox Injectors and Non Texans send them off to be killed in an illegal war so he can save social security by killing everyone!

[Billthedrill]

Major email disinformation campaign going on by the Dem "plumber" squad. I think it's a little too soon, myself - it's easily debunked and my experience has been that when the folks who were panicked by it find out the Dems are pulling their chains they get reeeeeal ticked off.

[crazyhorse691]

I first saw this urban myth in a Native American newspaper for June and July which means they got it clear back in May. Never saw it in any other papers. The first attempt at dispersal must not have had the desired effect if its coming out again.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

I don't think you can refute this simply by denying it's true. The complete lack of evidence is the surest proof the conspiracy is working.

Tell the kids that Bush's "secret plan" includes a provision that they won't draft you if you are hopelessly stoned. However, Kerry's secret plan to draft people contains no such loophole.

ALSO, Bush will only draft people who live in states that vote for Kerry. So if they want to avoid the draft, they should make sure their state goes for Bush.

[SandRat]

There are in fact two bills, S.89 and HR.163 both proposed by DEMOCs. In fact all 14 of the DEMOCs on the house bill are members of the SOCIALIST wing of the DEMOC party.

Here is a list of self-proclaimed Socialists in American Government: http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/socialists_in_congress.html

Note that the Democrat LEADER in the House is among them. They are all members of an organization called the Democrat Socialists of America. They even have a website: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Here is their mission statement:
"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics...

"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives...

"The Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up of 58 members of the House. The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics."

You can't make this stuff up... it's a fact.

[68skylark]

I'm sure you've seen this flyer but maybe some other freepers haven't. The left is quite pleased with this. They're distributing it around schools.

[Old Enough To Know Better]

I did a little digging soon after Sep11 to see how my son (and daughter) might be affected if the draft were reinstated. Here's the basic info that I found:

Under current procedure, a call-up would start with men who turn 20 within the calendar year the draft is activated. Next would be 21-year-olds, and on up the age groups. The Selective Service says 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds would probably not be drafted.

The student deferment of the Vietnam era is gone, although college students could get postponements (until the end of the current semester, or in the case of seniors until the end of the academic year). High school students younger than 20 would be allowed to graduate first.

Of course, all is subject to change.

If Congress passes a law to reinstate the draft, they could pass all kinds of conditions as to how they want that draft reinstated.

But here's what may surprise you:

-The Selective Service Training and Service act (CREATING the Selective Service System) was signed into law in 1940 -
by Franklin Roosevelt - a Democrat.

-Men were drafted into service continuously from the 1940's right on through 1973 when the draft was ENDED -
by Richard Nixon - a Republican.

-Mandatory registration for the draft was ENDED in 1975 -
by Gerald Ford - a Republican.

-Mandatory registration was REINSTATED in 1980 -
by Jimmy Carter - a Democrat.

-And now who's clamoring to draft young people AGAIN? -
the Democrats!

[Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Senator Fritz Hollins (D-SC) have introduced legislation to reinstate the military draft; co-sponsers include John Lewis (D-GA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Ref: H.R. 163 and S.B. 89, the Universal National Service Act of 2003.]

[David]

There is no reason for the Selective Service Administration to exist if the Bush Administration does not intend to implement a draft. There was no reason for the Bush Administration to cause Selective Service Administration to undertake a crash program to fill vacancies in local draft board absent an intention to use Selective Service to fill military manpower needs.

"We are just trying to be prepared for eventualities?" More nonesense. We geared up a draft from scratch in 180 days in WWII without computers or modern telephone system and without information about prospective draftees readily available from driver's license banks today. If we had no Selective Service; we could create one from scratch and deliver draftees within 60 days from a partial system and 90 days for a full system.

So why did the administration fire up the process in July? Because Department of Defense intends to propose and enact draft legislation after the election--no other reason.

Stupid political move. Recognized in early September at which point the effort to fill vacancies came to a halt and we are now trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug until after the election. Well and good.

In the modern world, there is simply no excuse to have the Selective Service Administration and registration legislation in place unless the Political Establishment intends to use it for Military Conscription of young Americans under circumstances where the military objective does not have sufficient appeal or merit to sustain itself without coercion.

But lost in the political miscalculation by the dems over their promotion of the draft bill is that fact that it was clearly Department of Defense that initiated the effort to gear up the Selective Service Administration and that would not have happened without a purpose.

[68skylark]

Good information.

This whole topic bugs me because it's really just a way for cowardly young men to overstate their own importance -- they imagine the military wants their reluctant services. But in fact, the military doesn't support a draft and wants nothing to do with young people who don't choose to serve.

[68skylark]

...Department of Defense that initiated the effort to gear up the Selective Service Administration and that would not have happened without a purpose.

So what's this "purpose" you mention?

I've read that the pentagon might consider certain types of a draft -- like drafting medical people for service within the U.S. if we were hit by WMD's (especially nukes). Is this what you have in mind? Or are you saying we're going to go back to the old-fashioned days of drafting young men for overseas combat duty?

[ApplegateRanch]

Spike this in a hurry by putting a Reoublican Leadership amnedment in it saying that ILLEGAL ALIENS also must register; and that they will be given a special "First-Call" status; and that upon Honorable Discharge, get a Green Card.

Watch Rangle & crew bail!

[David]

" So what's this "purpose" you mention?

I've read that the pentagon might consider certain types of a draft -- like drafting medical people for service within the U.S. if we were hit by WMD's (especially nukes). Is this what you have in mind? Or are you saying we're going to go back to the old-fashioned days of drafting young men for overseas combat duty?"

The fairy tale is that certain kinds of specalties: medical, computer, and foreign language, might be needed in foreseeable contingencies. They already have the power under existing legislation to appropriate these people, probably without pay. Further, as to the computer needs, there are excess people out there with these skills who are unemployed and who would find a government paycheck attractive.

As to the foreign language skills, they have needs that are not met in the free market--but for the reason that there are no employables out there. Not many people have the skills; many of the people who do have the skills are sufficiently unreliable politically and otherwise, that they are not of use even if the military had them. The only excess personel out there with these skills are educators who are teaching others the skills that are required. So the government is not going to draft those people either.

The special skills draft explanation does not fly. Further, this story came out after the effort to recruit people to restaff the draft boards as part of an effort to deflect the political heat from a bad political decision.

The real explanation is that the administration embarked on an effort to gear up Selective Service because its personel needs, occassioned by the Iraq conflict, are not being met with volunteers. The Bush-Cheney Administration intends to initiate draft legislation and implement a draft as early as possible in 2005. I don't see any other explanation.

I don't think a Kerry-Edwards administration would do anything different--it might take Kerry a little longer to implement a draft but FDR promised in 1940 to stay out of war and not to implement a draft and Kerry will have no more trouble forgeting his campaign promises that Roosevelt did. So far, we have not seen either Bush or Cheney commit that they are not going to implement a draft--they are making fun of the politically inept charge that they intend to do so but they have not said they won't either.

Now I also agree with those here and elsewhere who argue that the administration, like Lynden Johnson and Jack Kennedy, underestimates the probable consequences of doing this. By itself, a draft may not result in a revolution. But it might.

Conscription is a workable solution to manpower needs in a situation under which there is a clear viable direct threat to the US. But under the present situation, where we have troops scattered all over the world on peace keeping, nation building missions, and doing police duty in Bosnia; where we have an easy non-military answer to the Iraq requirement which is to break the country up into five manageable political areas, compulsive government service is not going to be acceptable to any part of the younger generation.

It will also be difficult to see another Mohammadan attack on North America as justifying conscription. Defense of the domestic US is also a requirement that admits of a fairly direct solution which is to close the borders, identify all non-citizens who are in the country, and kick most of them out unless they are here serving some purpose which is in the long-term US interest.

We need some kind of effective domestic security institution and the FBI was been largely irrelevant and counterproductive in responding to the attacks on the World Trade Center, TWA Flight 800, the Oklahoma City bombing and other similiar incidents.

But these are the real political questions that are at issue in the present election and they are the issues that ought to be the subject of the national debate. Don't hold your breath.

[68skylark]

Well I don't want to say anything dismissive or disrespectful to a long-term freeper like yourself. Let me just say I respectfully disagree 100% that a military draft is likely. And I also disagree with anyone who thinks the draft would be beneficial (rather than harmful) to our overall military.

I know a lot men who were draftees and bless them for their important service. But times have changed. Today we have to opposite of a draft -- only a fraction of the people (about half) who want to join are allowed to sign up. This makes our military exponentially more lethal than in the past. We'll keep it that way.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Selective Service Training and Service act (CREATING the Selective Service System) was signed into law in 1940 - by Franklin Roosevelt - a Democrat.

Are you saying that it wasn't the right thing to do?

[David]

"Well I don't want to say anything dismissive or disrespectful to a long-term freeper like yourself. Let me just say I respectfully disagree 100% that a military draft is likely. And I also disagree with anyone who thinks the draft would be beneficial (rather than harmful) to our overall military.

I know a lot men who were draftees and bless them for their important service. But times have changed. Today we have to opposite of a draft -- only a fraction of the people (about half) who want to join are allowed to sign up. This makes our military exponentially more lethal than in the past. We'll keep it that way."

In the first place, you should feel perfectly free to attack me on any of these issues in any fashion you deem appropriate--I have a very thick skin.

I agree completely with your comments regarding the need for a professional military rather than an amateur assembly of conscripts.

However I am very troubled by the current administration practice of extending time on the existing commitments under circumstances where there is a clear manpower requirement well in excess of existing force capability. As McCain pointed out last night to Paula Zahn, we need a larger military force. His comments seemed to assume we could get one by improving benefits and compensation--I hope he is correct but my own view is that in the context of necessary enforced extensions of duty, he is probably wrong.

It may be that by reassigning existing personel from the 183 or 185 locations around the world where they do not have a military objective, we could meet those requirements. I approve of the Bush Administration decisions on redeployment--no reason we should have troops stationed in Europe under circumstances where the Europeans are not willing to make a contribution for their own defense. Same is true of Bosnia and most of the other places where we have military around the world. I can't tell whether or not that is enough.

But I am increasingly of the view that the overall foreign policy military commitment is wrong and I further believe that most of America shares my view.

The decision to invade Iraq was justified and proper. But by April or May we should have had the country divided up into separate entities and left them all off to take care of their own affairs. Maintain your military base in the desert to keep your forces in the region but keep it separate from the rest of the country. Sorry about Turkey's objection to giving the Kurds their own country--if Turkey had been more supportive of the overall effort, we might have to pay some attention but they weren't and we don't.

I think the situation under Kerry would be worse because the existing professional military is scared of him and many of them will leave if he is elected and he is sufficiently indecisive to leave us required to defend without adequate manpower to force him to a draft.

Whoever wins will impose a draft. Neither side is really in touch with the people on this issue and the result will be catastrophic.

I think it is a reasonably good bet that Kerry will win--he might not get a majority of the popular vote but he is well positioned to win the electorial majority. If he is smart enough and able enough, there are real problem issues for the administration on which Bush is vunerable. Most of those issues are in regard to the economy. But issues such as open border exposure to the Mohammadan invasion and lack of an effective domestic agency to defend are troubling to everyone. Kerry ought to be able to put Bush on the defensive on these issues.

I would like to see both candidates effectively on the issue of getting rid of the Selective Service Administration, as far as the narrow draft question is concerned--then I might believe the winner.

[68skylark]

Interesting comments. We have a different point of view, and it's great to read someone who can articulate ideas that are so different from mine -- it keeps my horizons broad!

[Old Enough To Know Better]

> Are you saying that it wasn't the right thing to do?

No. The words in caps were to point out that every step toward the draft (even today) was made by Democrats, while every step away was made by Republicans.

This just highlights the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to scare people into voting Democrat to avoid a new draft.

Btw, Richard Holbrooke, who most think Kerry would appoint Secretary of State, was on Fox News Sunday and said he believes the only way to bring stability to Iraq is to send a lot more troops. The words he used were "a massive call up". Sounds to me like a Kerry administration would have to institute the draft again to accomplish this, and could possibly dig us in a whole lot deeper.