Posted on 11/28/2001 1:18:15 PM PST by krodriguesdc
Americans eye return of draft
Homeland defence puts strain on militaryJan Cienski
National Post
WASHINGTON - The war on terrorism has resurrected a subject dead since the days of tie-dyed shirts and bell-bottom jeans: a military draft.
Although the U.S. government and Congress have so far steered clear of the subject, academics and editorialists are beginning to talk about the possibility of bringing back the draft, last used in 1973.
"America needs to wake up. We're at war. We need the draft," write Charles Moskos, probably the country's pre-eminent military sociologist, and Paul Glastris in the November edition of Washington Monthly magazine.
David Broder, an influential political reporter at The Washington Post, wrote recently that the idea has merit: "The reality is that homeland defence in the war on terrorism is bound to be labour-intensive, as demanding of manpower as the big wars of the past. But we do not have the vital tool we used in those wars: the draft."
The idea would be to use draftees to help defend the country against another terrorist attack.
After the Sept. 11 hijackings, George W. Bush, who as President has the authority to call up as many as a million reservists, summoned more than 50,000 members of the National Guard, many of whom now patrol U.S. airports wearing camouflage fatigues and carrying M-16 rifles. The trouble is that those soldiers also have full-time civilian jobs and cannot be used as permanent airport security.
There is also a need for more airport screeners. New legislation federalizing airport security workers makes no provision for hiring additional staff. Yesterday, Norman Mineta, the Transportation Secretary, said he would not be able to meet a congressional deadline for screening all checked luggage within 60 days.
There are also calls for tighter security on U.S. borders, which would require thousands of additional people. Nervous officials worry about nuclear power plants, municipal water supplies, trucks carrying hazardous materials, and sports events where thousands could be exposed to attack. Protecting every one of those sites would stretch local police and the National Guard beyond the breaking point.
Although only a fraction of the U.S. military's 1.4 million personnel are directly involved in the war on Afghanistan, the effort has put strains on other commitments, such as the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The answer, some say, is to call up young men to perform many of those tasks, including peacekeeping. "Reinstituting the draft is the obvious way to meet the suddenly increased manpower needs for military and homeland security," write Mr. Moskos and Mr. Glastris.
A couple of weeks ago, academics, retired officers and officials from the Selective Service System, the body that registers millions of young men for a potential draft, met at American University to hash out the pluses and minuses of the idea.
"I think it's just a thought at this point," said Lew Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs for the Selective Service System. "America does have to look at its options, but it's more or less an academic exercise."
Opinion polls show the public is not necessarily opposed to the draft. A Gallup poll conducted just before the U.S. bombing campaign began last month found 77% supported military action even if it meant bringing back the draft.
Although Mr. Bush has called the war a "different kind of conflict," his only call for action domestically has been for people to return to their normal lives and to open their wallets to shore up the listing economy. His spokesman, Ari Fleischer, has ruled out a return to the draft.
The official opinion could change rapidly if the United States expands the war on terrorism to other countries such as Iraq and sets up long-term occupation forces to rebuild and democratize those nations.
The draft was used during the First World War and again in 1940, 14 months before the United States entered the Second World War. With the exception of 1947, in continued until 1973, when the system collapsed because of controversy over the Vietnam War and the unfairness of allowing the wealthy and well-educated to dodge the draft by attending university.
If this country had the b@lls to allow armed citizens, there would no need to have "draftees" do this work.
"Allowing" is not the question. My right to bear arms precedes the right of the state to infringe it. It is the government who is acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally by restricting an inalienable right.
I'd rather have volunteers. I would however, like to see political franchise- voting/holding office- limited to only those who have served.
You don't want to serve- don't. But you don't vote, either.
I like the concept, but in practice there is no f#cking way I would accept it. Mark my words, under these rules someone like Bill Clinton will figure out a way to get listed as a military veteran. Sure, he may have dodged the draft, but he was an ROTC cadet for 17 minutes or something, wasn't he?
Don't worry about being flamed...some of your elders agree we should be out of Kosovo and Bosnia....regardless of other considerations..:)
Or would they just serve part(y) time in the Guard like Dan Quayle and their dad?
It is going to be interesting to see the responses you get with this idea. I agree that I would prefer volunteers to draftees in the military. I wouldn't want someone who didn't want to be there covering my back. And I like your idea of tying service to the country to participation in the rights of citizenship. (But you are never going to get that vote/military connection.) So I have an alternative suggestion. We don't need everyone in the military...but I can see alot of good in a nationwide service program. Some would be in the military, others could be used in VA hospitals, forestry department, things like that. What do you think?
Our military is overextended in OVER 100 countries babysitting capable nations who should be defending themselves, in wag-the-dog wars and 'nation-building' meals-on-wheels escapades.
In short, most of our military is doing everything but defending the US. And because of all this feel-good BS, that we're the world's sugar daddy and its policeman, we're short of manpower when it's needed at home.
And because of a manpower shortage directly attributed to our chronic misuse of the military that our Forefathers warned us against, I'm supposed to willingly become a SLAVE (yes, conscription is SLAVERY!), in defiance of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude?
And some are really that incredibly foolish - no, delusional - to honestly think I'll go along with it?
HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
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.