The Draft of June 2005. Is it really coming?

Someone emailed me the following note and link. I'm sorta new so I dunno how to add it as a link, so you can copy and paste it in your browser See below Anywho, I'm just curious to see how people feel about this. What would you do if you or a loved one was forced to go to war? This is an amicable thread please. Just state your opinion or feelings without fighting

VOTE THIS YEAR

If you have a son, brother, a nephew, cousin or a any important young male in your life between the ages of 18-26, this could be their future. Please read and pass on and take action. There are no more way-outs for people who don't want to or who wish to be in the (a) war. College can't help them (they'll get pulled at the end of their current semester if called), Canada is no longer an option (they have an agreement with America now to avoid dodging) and even being an only child or only male child no longer helps. In New York they even passed a law in 2002 that the Department of Motor Vehicles cooperated with them that won't issue a drivers license to any male between the ages of 18-26 who isn't registered with the Selective Service. Below is the official Congressional site for the Selective Service and Draft and even they are warning us. Please click the link below.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

anyone see that

'including women" in there???

This is very interesting to me. I'm completely against war in this day and age, especially preemptive wars. I think that most issues can be resolved by other means. However, I do realize that there are cases where war may be necessary.

Basically, I'm a no-war type of guy. Use our brains instead of our braun.

Anyway, about the draft. I've been really thinking this over and I think I've come to an answer that I (personally) am OK with.

I am for it. Odd, that I would think this, but here's why:

I think that there is some validity to the argument about evening out the burden on all families, not just 'some' of them. I cannot help but think that if the draft had been in place before we invaded Iraq, our Congress women and men would have thought a little longer before making their decsion. If they knew that one of thier own were going to have to share the burden, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

Yes, Alana, unfortunately women now as well may be a new source of the draft.

Juro.....excellent point about how it would even the playing field if those who make these decisions. Unfortunatley, I am sure those in power or who have the utmost wealth will send their children out of the country other than Canada. But who knows. Still a good point you made.

Strange indeed. How can you oppose the "war" by supporting the draft?

The fact is that we're already in Iraq. We're already busy sticking our noses in other people's business. If sending more people to the fronts gave any of our elected officials pause, they wouldn't be talking about it in the first place, so it's not like having a draft is going to slow things down once it's in place.

It's just absurd, political thinking. It's like saying that you can cut down on forest fires if you cut down the forests. Yeah, you probably could, but it would be self-defeating to do so, since you'll end up sacrificing the very thing you're trying to save.

This is not a war of self-defense. We've gotten into Iraq and Afghanistan, and we did it in such a way so as to alienate our potential allies and to polarize the Arab world against us, so that we're stuck doing it alone. And now that we're overwhelmed, the stupidity of the endeavor is souring the entire situation, and instead of thinking, "Gee, maybe we're in over our heads," our elected officials are thinking, "Gee, let's throw more bodies at 'em!!!"

I mean, it's stupid, just stupid. War makes no sense. You throw bodies at each other until one side or the other has suffered so many losses of lives (and behind every life, there lies a dream, a family, a person, never forget that) that they just can't go on, utterly destroyed.

I am a believer in the fundamental liberties afforded us by our constitution, and nowhere in those core beliefs, in those core statements about what constitutes an individual's obligations to the state, nowhere among them do I find the requirement that we lay down our lives to serve the specious goals of an idiotic administration atop a massively out-of-touch, corrupt government.

Afghanistan, despite the Taliban's noteworthy faults, never attempted to destroy the US. Neither did Iraq; and now, the debacle there has morphed into a surreal conflict with the Iraqis themselves, who fight against their occupation even as we attempt to bestow upon them something we call "democracy" (although what we actually are seeking to bestow upon them is something else altogether, we might call it "Democracy Lite". We are at war with two nations we've attempted to "free." And with a draft, these conflicts will become even more intractable.

If we had focused upon those who had manifested a clear intent to do the United States direct harm -- namely al-Qaeda -- we would have had more than enough resources as well as the continuing support of the world's nations, including much of the Arabic world, which does not consist entirely of so-called "Islamic fascist" states and which has as much to lose as we do from the unchecked behavior of a reckless network of suicidal terrorists. No draft would ever have become necessary, and nor would it ever have been feasible, because al-Qaeda's most effective opponents are not legions of hastily-conscripted, half-hearted recruits but highly-trained operatives and intelligence specialists.

But no, we apparently need a draft now. You know what other country has compulsory military service for its citizens? Israel. And we've seen what a wonderful job Israel has done in achieving and maintaining peace with their conscripts. Compulsory military service in Israel has meant the jailing of conscientious objectors, increasingly cruel treatment of the Palestinians by the terrorized and anonymous soldiers, which only perpetuates the circle of violence, and most importantly, more violence, which I'm sure is what we can expect ourselves, if we hope to make Iraq into a big Palestine that will follow our rules and bow to our leaders while pressing its bloody thumb to a ballot we could care less about.

But now... now... we're increasing the military budget while planning to cut money for schools. We have 40 million people without health insurance and 2 million in jails and prisons. And we, dear citizens, are supposed to be the paragon of truth and beauty and liberty. We, dear citizens, are supposed to be the ones to lead the way to the future. But all we can seem to get done in this country is start wars with countries on premises that are only temporarily important, so that when they become inconvenient later on, they no longer matter to the majority of Americans.

Which is the reason why, if this happens, I will be out in the street protesting it and in the mean time, I'm off to join the local democratic party and knock on doors . . .

Z

Heh. Oddly enough, it was the Democrats who proposed the idea of reinstating the draft in the first place. It took a Republican supporting it for people to start getting uppity about it.

But I'm with you. I'm not much of a Democrat, but getting Bush out will be a good first step to mending the rift we've managed to allow to separate ourselves from the rest of the world.

I suppose, if there is anything good to come of this, a draft might convince all those young Republicans I've read about to reconsider their political convictions. Not that they should be Democrats, but that there may be other parties out there more ideally suited to their convictions...

Last I heard the pentagon doesn't want the draft reinstated. It's easier to work with folks who volunteer to be in the military than those who are forced to be there.

?!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!!!?!??!?!??!?!!?!!

......... alls i can say is.. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You do realize that if Clinton hadn't cut the military in half, there wouldn't be a need for a draft, right?

.... sends a request to transfer to Canada.... Oh.. right.. Canada, isnt an exception.. 0.o..

Yes Phineas... it is strange, that's why I said so. I didn't claim my thinking made sense, rather I was sharing my opinion. I *can* be against war and *for* a draft you know.

Grim: as for your comment about Clinton cutting the military in half: If Bush hadn't sent us to war, we wouldn't need a draft either!

I still think that politicians will think twice about engaging in war if a draft was in place. Who do you think is enlisted in the service now? Who really enlists? It's mostly under-privelaged Americans: the poor and minorities. How many rich white kids are voluntarily sign up? Not many.

I haven't checked the link yet, so I won't say anything about that now....but this line really caught me off guard. I grew up in a town that was fairly wealthy and predominately white...and after high school graduation, about 40% of the men I went to school with joined the military(and there were quite a few women too). Where exactly do you get the idea that only minorities and the underprivlidged willingly sign up for service??

edited to add: Ok, I've now read the article from the link and I am speechless. Does anyone really think this could pass? I have my doubts...but you never know. Either way, it's a scary thought. I'm going to have to do some more research on this before I make a conclusion and take a side...but as of right now, I'm not thinking it's such a good idea. Doesn't it make more sense to have people fighting who want to? I dunno...like I said, I'm speechless.

I'm not exactly thrilled with that comment, either, Juro. Considering I spent 8 years in the Army myself.

I saw what the Clinton drawdown did to the military. From the inside. It's the main reason I'm no longer in the military.

And if we'd been allowed roll on to Baghdad in '91, there'd have been no reason to do it last year.

And the military was short-handed before we went into Iraq. If the military hadn't been downsized so badly, there wouldn't be more reservist interrogators in Iraq than active duty.

I call shenanigans. This "article" wasn't made with any authority, if you examine the website it's obvious that someone unaffiliated with congress and probably any news organization posted it. The link to the two bills doesn't work.

I have serious doubts about the veracity of this "article."

Ha! I wish more people would call Shananigans!!

But alas, what this site tells us is true. Yes, it's not a government website...but hop on the site for either the House or Senate and do a search on the bill numbers (HR 163 for House and S 89 for Senate) and you will see that this is indeed a real thing.

Princess.. I had watched a program on PBS a few months ago (I'll see if I can find any info on it) that was talking about the types of people that were enlisting. In it they mentioned a disporportional rate of low income and minority individuals were enlisting.

On a more personal observation, I spent high school years at 2 very different schools. One was a broad cross section of low to upper-middle class white folks in MT, while the other was predominantly middle to lower middle class with white folks making up only about 20% of the population. From both schools, there were a pretty good number of kidss that enlisted, but almost all were from the lower end of the financial spectrum. The two responses for enlisting that I heard over and over: needed the money and wanted to serve.

Anyway.. just my opinion. I still think we should enlist the draft again.

Very interesting Juro! I'd love to get some more info on the show if you can find it.

Check this link out. It is the Population Representation in the Military Services Fiscal Year 1997.

While it's little outdated, the charts in there show some interesting info regarding the disproportional rates of minorities. Be sure to look at some of the charts comparing avg. education levels of enlistees vs. civilians.

I'll see if I can find more, as this doesn't cover the income aspect of the enlistees.

OMG.....113 pages and no index or table of contents!! Ok Juro, gimme a day or two to check that out.....I just don't have the energy now.

Thanks for the link!!

Actually these two bills do exist. Go to congress.gov and look up "draft bill" and you'll find the links. Although both bills apparently are promoting a "civil service" option as well and it applies only to men & women from the ages of 18-25. I guess all I can say is that a lot of European countries require some kind of civil or military service of their young people and the way the bills read to me, this proposal is similar. Still, it scares the crap out of me.

Not because I'm such a raving democrat, but because Bush is clearly the larger of two evils. That is, IMHO.

Z

Looks like there is more than a grain of truth to all of this, snopes.com is not ruling out that the draft is coming in 2005...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

-Bone

Juro,

I don't mean to discount the statistics that to you make the case of reinstating the draft reasonable, but there's a key distinction you're missing.

No matter how many minorities or poor people are volunteering in the army, the fact remains that they are volunteers. And I don't know about you, but I feel more comfortable having a volunteer army populated with people whose recent ambitions and training were devoted with the realities of modern warfare than one bloated with would-be accountants and engineers whose only real goal is to survive the crapshoot in mostly one piece. While I would rather have none of them die in my name, I am more comfortable with sending in soldiers who understand that death is a possibility of their chosen profession than with sending in soldiers who have been forced by law to forfeit their civilian dreams and aspirations.

I mean, yeah, it sucks that for a disproportionate number of poor people and minorities, the military is a kind of crapshoot for a better life. "Risk your life for a shot at one." It sucks, but I don't think that can be mitigated by forcing people to give up their lives across the board. How does it serve the plight of the poor or minorities who are pressured to join the military by filling the ranks with wealthy people? Will minorities and poor people be any less inclined to join the military? Will we have removed the pressures that drive them there in the first place?

The answer is, of course, NO. So stop spouting off about the disproportionate distribution of class and race in the military like you actually care. If we wanted to give these people a chance outside of risking their lives in the military, the answer would not be more people risking their lives in the military, but more scholarships, more equitible distribution of money in schools, more social programs, and on and on.

Okay. So maybe your point isn't about the poor or the minorities. It's about the war. You figure if Senators had to face the prospect of sending their own kids to war, they wouldn't vote as much for the war as they do. Well, sure, sounds nice and strategic. Too bad it's so stupid.

I mean, what you're saying is essentially that we should reinstate the draft so as to render it unnecessary. Your goal isn't to send more people to war, but rather to make the human cost of war so overwhelming that no politician can reasonably support it any longer. This notion is stupid for several reasons:

1) The military situation in Iraq is as it is. Now, I will be the first to speak up for the so-called "insurgents," which our media tend to paint as "terrorists" but whose rhetoric -- if you've ever read al-Sadr's "polemic," for example -- is actually a lot more reasonable and truer to our own democratic roots than many are willing to admit. So I think that the need for a US presence in Iraq is a little bit exaggerated -- we don't need people over there grabbing every military-aged male off the streets for a round of torture, abuse, and questioning. But still, it's undeniable there's a contingent of terrorists fighting in Iraq, terrorists whose detachment from the people of Iraq is made evident by their targeting of Iraqi and third-party citizens -- these aren't freedom fighters, these are people attempting to create chaos so as to facilitate a primitive coup.

I doubt the Iraqi police force is up to the task of pursuing and subduing those truly subversive terrorist elements in Iraq, and they need the help of someone's military, and I figure we owe them at least some support seeing as how we've gotten the ball rolling in the first place.

The strategy of encouraging a draft so as to shut down the war essentially infers that a complete pullout is the intended goal. I don't think a complete pullout is called for or responsible at this point, at least not without some back-up plan.

2) The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be allowed to come home. For a while. For a long while. Republicans arguing for a draft recognize this; they feel that drafting citizens to fill in will help stop some of this stop-loss stuff that's been happening regularly since we got involved in Iraq.

Those who oppose the war, however, have no intention to relieve those soldiers; they intend to bring them home, to be sure, but they don't mean to send anyone back. But they want to do so by threatening to send even more over on the gamble that the nation will buck the call.

This is haphazard. I believe, as I stated in 1), that a continued military presence at some level is probably still necessary in Iraq. A complete pull-out is unlikely to ever happen, so to support a draft with the intent to effect a complete pull-out is to do so in the face of reality. You know good and well Congress won't bring those soldiers home when faced with the possibility of sending their own kids to the Iraqi front. They'll send us over and redouble their efforts to create loopholes for their own children to slip through. And don't pretend that they won't do it, either; they are, after all, the ones in charge.

3) The reasonable person acknowledging the veracity of both 1) and 2) might object: Well, by pulling out our troops, we force UN to take a more proactive role in Iraq. More volunteer troops from other nations will be compelled to fill the gap, they might argue.

They might. But then, why do we need a draft to bring this about? Part of the reason other nations are reluctant to get in the game is because the US is unwilling to loosen its grip on the military situation in Iraq and the amount of control this grip allows in its development as a nation. As I've stated before, I remain completely flabberghasted how Bush could have overthrown a well-hated dictator in the region without the support of his neighbors. The problem of our deep involvement in Iraq has less to do with the size of our military than it does with simple international diplomacy.

What the US needs to do now is transition out of the Iraq by ceding control to powers who may have conflicting opinions about how Iraq ought to develop as a democracy, or more precisely, to powers who may have a greater respect for the opinions of Iraqis themselves.

There is some cost to this option, of course. It will make the US seem like a big brat, going in and causing trouble and then attempting to enlist the world's armies in cleaning up our mess. I believe many Europeans, for example, would be quite happy to see us struggle under the weight of our unwise decisions and quite happy to stay out of the mess, which is typical of them. I believe that, in order to convince nations like those of the EU and the Arab League to come in and to help, we will have to own up to our mistakes in an unprecedently forthright way, and we will have to, for once in our much be-smudged history, effect some level of humility in our dealings internationally.

Funny, I feel that way about Kerry. ESPECIALLY if "the party" actually chooses Bill Clinton to be his running-mate!

We'll just have to agree to disagree Grim. I haven't heard that Bill Clinton is up for running mate status at all and I highly, highly doubt that he would be -- it would be sort of political suicide for Kerry to bring out that can of worms, dontchathink? I imagine he'll pick someone steady and with a good reputation -- and someone who is generally scandal-free.

And I've met Bill Clinton (look at my location!). He's actually a nice guy and is truly very intelligent -- he just, like many men, has an issue keeping it in his pants. But apparently, so does Schwarzennegger . . . he who is without sin . . . as they say. . .



Z