Posted on 10/10/2004 8:46:33 AM PDT by SmithL
Candidates deny it, but the issue keeps coming up
The notice arrived on a hot August afternoon in 1967, bringing with it alternating waves of relief and trauma.
For young men between the ages of 18 and 26, the notice needed no expanded definition. Officially, it was Selective Service System Form 252 and was titled "An order to report for induction." It began with these sobering words: "From the President of the United States: Greeting."
The relief came because, after parrying with the system while holding a full-time job and trying to complete a graduate degree — and being single — at least I knew what I would be doing for the next couple of years. The trauma hit because, well, I knew what I would be doing for the next couple of years.
For the record, like many young men who had been drafted or were facing that prospect, I enlisted. An extra two years doing a job I was capable of doing beat two years of taking my chances. I knew there were no guarantees going in, and the needs of the Army trumped all else.
My notice shares file space with the honorable discharge that came several years later when the government no longer was sending draft notices to young men. By the early 1970s, the Defense Department was committed to all-volunteer armed forces made popular by the acronym VOLAR. The draft shifted to a lottery; then in 1973, under President Nixon, it stopped.
Now, after 31 years, the draft is emerging as the stealth issue of the 2004 presidential campaign — stealth because no candidate in his right mind would announce that he favors reviving military conscription. That would be akin to a pledge to raise taxes.
Both Sen. John Kerry and President Bush deny they plan to resurrect the draft. For the Bush administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — two of the all-too-few veterans in the administration — have issued denials. Rumsfeld even got into hot water earlier for disparaging remarks about draftees during the Vietnam era, namely, the time required for training and the constant turnover of personnel.
Yet, the rumors and the stories persist.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, last year introduced a bill in the House to revive the draft. Rangel, an opponent of the war in Iraq, sought to make the military more representative of the nation, with limited exemptions for the affluent who presumably would serve alongside the less affluent. A Senate bill was introduced by Ernest Hollings, D-S.C.
On the Republican side, Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran from Nebraska and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said earlier this year that the United States should begin talking about reinstating the draft as part of a broader effort to ensure that all Americans "bear some responsibility (and) pay some price" in defending the nation.
Hagel has a point. Not dealing with the issue of the draft now could be costly later.
Nevertheless, the House last week shot down Rangel's bill resoundingly, 402-2, but far from producing a national debate on the topic, discussion of the measure degenerated into partisan rancor. Republicans accused Democrats of fomenting the issue as the "hoax of the year" and blamed Internet chatter for frightening young people of draft age.
"We're not trying to scare kids," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, "This president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country."
And the spokesman for one Internet site, Rock the Vote, denied that the possibility of a draft was a rumor. "Young people in America deserve an honest and open debate about the possibility of a draft," said Jay Strell. "Neither side has offered up what they're going to do to meet the current and future military needs."
A public debate also is the central idea offered in a Newsweek column by Jonathan Alter. American forces are stretched thin in Iraq, especially the Army, the National Guard and Reserves. With Iran and North Korea acting out, can we rely strictly on smart bombs and light infantry to keep them under control?
As Hagel noted, "This is a steam engine coming right down the track at us."
Alter writes in the Oct. 4 issue, "If we need, God forbid, to occupy another country that truly threatens the United States, we will either do it with the help of our allies or with the conscription of our kids."
The August issue of GQ magazine also takes up the draft, noting a plan for reviving the system similar to the one under which about 1.7 million of us were drafted during the Vietnam era, stretching from 1965 to 1973. Other publications have reported plans to include women in the draft and to extend the top end of the draft-eligible age from 26 to 34.
Various Web sites offer information on the draft, including the Selective Service's site and a couple of sites strongly opposing the draft.
While Bush might have no plans to bring back the draft, as Alter notes, he or a future president could be forced into it by events. Such is our post-9/11 world and our general acceptance of the belief that the nation's fight against terrorism will be an ongoing battle for the foreseeable future.
Yet the draft — while generally accepted at times — has never been popular. Even in World War II, there were some who preferred prison to induction and possible combat.
At its best, the draft represents an industrial nation's call for the citizen soldier — the individual who in former times left his plow or his shop to help defend his community or his state from attack. After his service, he returned to his work, to his community and to his family.
In this respect, the draft is predicated on the belief that all have a stake in the welfare of our society and protecting the nation from its enemies is a duty for all, regardless of status or ethnicity.
On the other hand, some see the draft as the worst form of intrusion into one's personal life. Following Hagel's call for a discussion of the subject, the Ayn Rand Institute issued a reminder of Rand's belief that the military draft was a statist violation of individual rights:
"It negates man's fundamental right — the right to life — and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
Five years ago, with American forces in the Balkans, Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, expressed the same sentiment. In a lengthy article titled "Fixing What Ain't Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription," Bandow concluded that reviving the draft would deal a serious blow to the preservation of individual liberty and "would destroy the very values that it purports to save."
And there is the anti-draft cry from the protest days of the 1960s: What if they gave a war and no one came?
Those opposing lines of argument well might set the tone for the debate that is sure to come with America's continued and troubling presence in Iraq and its determination to fight terrorism on a global scale.
Only if Dems prevail.
Will there be another major war?
The draft is only one of those secret plans Kerry keeps saying Bush has but is actually a Democratic scam to scare people into voting for Kerry. They bring it up but didn't say that fellow Democrats were the ones that placed the bills on the agenda. They tried through spin to make it look like a secret Republican plan. President Bush needs to say that there is no plan to bring back the draft and that he'll veto any bill bringing it back.
Kerry is planning on reinstating the draft.
I am a vet with two tours in Nam in my history. Personally, I do not have objection to the "draft" because it provides the manpower needed to the President, and it assures that the Baker's son and the banker's son work together and build a mutual respect. That is a healthy thing. However, I disagree with "deferments' of any kind. When you number comes up, you serve if qualified, full stop.
The Draft, however, will probably never be seen again since we are unlikely to be engaged in a "set piece" engagement involving large armies in the future.
So, it is probably a "non-issue, and shouldn't be allowed to cause anyone to get their knickers in a twist.
Maybe a modified version of the Draft could be considered. That would identify "selectees", but not admit them unless they met all the highest physical and mental standards of the service.
A Draft is a "fair" way to tap the energies of young men when you are talking about National Service - PROVIDED THERE ARE NOT DEFERMENTS. NONE AT ALL.
The problem with the "all volunteer" service is that is already becoming a "mercenary force". You do not want people serving their country to get "benefits". You want them serving their country to fulfill their solemn duty to defend it. If you bring them into service we all owe them class A equipment, training, and pay. But select on lottery to spread the wealth among all the classes of society, not just the up from the bottom types.
Hogwash!
Charlie "I'm a Korean War Vet" Rangle is a pot stirrer. No more no less.
Like many in the Congress, Charlie has found a lifetime occupation feeding from the trough, much like a farmers pigs.
Unlike these porkers in Congress, the pig is a valuable commodity and his feeding is relative to his worth. It also terminates when he is slaughtered for food.
How would you like your Congress critter? Rare, medium, or well done?
While I agree a man's rights are fundamental, people have to form unions and nations of like minded people before they will be respected.
Take these highminded principles to North Korea and explain to Kim Jung Il that you demand your rights. You'll be dead before sundown.
The actual issue is are you willing to fight to defend those roghts for yourself as well as for your fellow citizens. That is the real choice it isn't as if we chose to be attack by islamic terrorists, the chose is whether or not your willing to defend your Constitutional Rights for yourself and others or not. Because those rights won't buy you anything but dead with islamic fascists or communist dictators.
not under gw bush
As a resident of Knoxville, I can tell you that this is one of the most Liberal leaning papers I have ever seen. Their star columnists are Molly Ivins and Don Williams, a true left wing nutcase! They search the LA Times and NYT daily to run there worst Bush hating articles they can find, and they load their letter to the editors sections with ranting and raving from every left wing cause they can find. The fact that they blanket the community with "Free" copies begging for subscriptions is a testament to how many people won't take this papear serioiusly. I believe that probably half the people get the paper just to keep up on the UT football news. GO VOLS!!!
No mention of what HR 163 actually was (UNS).
Here's an updated summary.
__________________________________________________
The Draft Hoax of 2004 - edition 2004-10-10.11:15
Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
We have here a case of the
"Reverse Big Lie"
Not only is the "secret Bush draft" a lie,
the truth is a secret Kerry-Edwards draft.
The Kerry camp coordinators have fired up a series of scare
ads on the draft. As is usual for "progressives", accusing
their opponents of what they themselves are doing.
Kerry has accused Bush of having a secret draft plan, based
on no evidence at all. Kerry himself has been trying to
cover up his own statements. What would a President
Kerry be likely to do?
Before getting to the details, it's important to note that
this issue is not primarily about a military draft. It's
about Universal National Service (UNS). Stealing two years
from every life, then 3, and heck, why stop there ...
And National Service is less about service than about
indoctrinating the slaves by controlling the agenda of
the approved forms of service.
But make no mistake about it, if Kerry is elected, they'll
also need a draft to meet military manpower requirements,
because voluntary enlistments and re-enlistments will drop
to near zero. The National Guard is already seeing signs
that people are waiting to see who will be the next
President.
Furthermore, it will be very dangerous to be in a Kerry
military. Apart from more Mogudishu disasters, expect
the troops to be exposed to random war crimes tribunals.
The Bush Administration has done zero to move toward a
draft and does not support it.
The only bills submitted are by Democrats.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:
The House forced a vote on HR 163 in early October,
and it was defeated by a massive 402-2 vote. Even
its own sponsor (Rangel) voted against it. Yet the
draft hoax continues. Let's look a bit deeper.
HR 163 (aka SB 89), bears the title:
"Universal National Service Act of 2003"
it includes the provision:
"...or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the
national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
... and for other purposes ...
This was way more than a military draft bill.
It was conscription for completely undefined and
arbitrary purposes - involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery,
doing whatever bidding the ruling class might prescribe.
Fear the ruling class that advocates mandatory national
service.
Bush has said he'd veto HR 163.
Kerry has said exactly nothing about this bill specifically.
Although Kerry and Edwards are on the campaign trail
promising to oppose a "draft", they in fact support
UNS, but are hiding that. And even if they were to
oppose UNS, you already know what a Kerry promise
or position is worth.
Where have they been on this issue?
Kerry has removed pages, formerly at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice and
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/communityservice_high.html
A copy of the latter was saved from the memory hole here:
http://www.mcgath.com/kerryslavery.html
"As President, John Kerry will ensure that every
high school student in America does community
service as a requirement for graduation. . . ."
The current K+E National Service is more watered down:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/
Apparently, the older position was too honest.
And Edwards? Go see:
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/issues/educ/service.html
Under the Kerry plan, of course, we can expect
exemptions for the children of rich politicians.
The Selective Service System is already in place, and
could be reactivated in the event of some unforseen
emergency (Canada threatens to invade us :-). If Kerry
is defeated, the SSS, unneeded since Vietnam, is most
likely to remain right where it is today - dormant.
> This scare is getting to people on the college campus.
> It has to be responded to, not minimized and disregarded.
So share what I've written with them. Have them read
the legislation and check out the sponsors. Tell them
to do their own research on what Bush people have said,
and what Kerry & Co. have historically advocated. Tell
them to look at which faction is more likely to stick by
their historical positions.
Someone is lying. The only question is who.
Kerry is leading the naive into a trap. He's opened
a "hide out from the draft" shelter and invited the
kids to come in.
After it's too late, the sign will be pulled off to
reveal a new sign:
Universal National Service Processing Center
Sorry for the incorrect spelling, I was up late last night celebrating the big win. Haven't had my second cup of coffee yet.
Damn we need to keep from having "events". What the &%$#@* is that supposed to mean? What a semantically meaningless and useless statement. Republicans should hammer the Democrats on this issue. We should be seeing ads stating that the Democrats want to have the draft reinstated and point out that in only the last week a bill sponsored by the Democrats to reinstate the draft was introduced in the House. Let 'em stew on that from now until election day.
There is no need for a military draft, because as Mr. Bush pointed out on Friday, there is no need for two year cannon fodder these days; by the time you get them trained, their time's up.
What they really want to do is punish "The Rich" by attempting to force their children into the military, for the usual reasons of unreasoning hatred for anyone who has five cents that they believe is rightfully theirs instead ... and the idea of using the military as punishment ought to be repugnant to anyone who stops to think.
And as far as the government having the right to grab all young people out of their preparation for productive life, at any time, is guaranteed to keep people from marrying, starting a business, going into technical training (particularly medical school), and most tellingtly, from having a family. How long will it be until we have the stories of pregnant Heather and Jasmine forced into service digging sewers for the ghetto?
The one thing that the people so fixated on punishing people for being well enough off to have choices invariably miss, is that they are well enough off to have choices. All the wealthy people who don't want their children drafted will simply send them to another country for the duration. Remember the short-lived punishment tax on yachts, that merely caused people to buy their yachts in other countries and decimated the American boat building industry?
I understand your statement. And if you and I can find out this information, one would think a medium sized city News paper would know better than to fill a whole page of their Sunday Edition with a useless scare story about the draft. Especially after what President Bush said in the Debate Friday night.
The issue of a national draft was brought before Congress this past week. For some time, this bill HR163, languished in committee. Recent talk of a possibility of a draft was brought up, so the bill was voted out of committee and put up for a floor vote. The bill was DEFEATED, 402-2.
The President has no AUTHORITY to call for a draft now, and from all appearances, the House of Representatives would not now give the President the authority. President Bush is PROHIBITED from calling a draft, no matter how desperately some may believe it may be needed.
Democrat constituents everywhere are safe from a draft as long as Bush remains in office. Of course, if a President Kerry would need a draft to fill the ranks on the expanded army he would put in the field, it may be necessary to reconsider similar legislation.
All this talk about a renewed draft is DemonRat Barbra Striesand. Clinton reduced the active Army by nearly 50% at a time when the Army was all volunteer. Before that, President Reagan built up the Army and the rest of the armed forces in the 80's entirely with voluntary recruiting. Thus, we could nearly double the size of the Army by increasing our voluintary recruiting, if that becomes necessary.
The last war we won had a real draft without the Canada or National Guard opt-outs. The real question is will the war on terrorism be over quickly after election day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.