Restoring the Draft: No Panacea

[M2]

Interesting article...

Restoring the Draft: No Panacea

By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON

Sat Jul 21, 12:00 PM ET

Even as there's talk inside the Pentagon of extending the troop surge in Iraq well into 2008, the U.S. military remains in a vise, crushed between the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have made recruiting more difficult. Right now, there are only two real ways to extend or even increase the surge: call up more reservists - always tough to do in an election year - or extend active-duty combat tours from the current morale-wrecking 15 months to an even more painful 18 months. But Marine General Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reassured GIs in Afghanistan this week that 18-month combat tours are not, as has been rumored, in their future. "An 18-month tour has zero, zero, none, nada, squat, nothing, no validity, OK?" he said. "I want to make sure you got that."

So then what about the third, most controversial option - is it time to reinstitute the draft? That option has a certain appeal as the Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15%. It is the second consecutive month the service's enlistment effort has slipped as public discontent grows over the war in Iraq.

Bringing back mandatory service has been the refrain of many who want to put the brakes on the Iraq war; if every young man is suddenly a potential grunt on his way to Baghdad, the thinking goes, the war would end rather quickly. It's also an argument made by those who are uneasy that the burden of this war is being unfairly shouldered by the 1.4-million-strong U.S. military and no one else. But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week makes clear that resuming the draft would be no panacea.

The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.

"Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.

The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.

If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs.

But if it happens then the law that prohibits women from being drafted will have to be repealed. It does not make sense that females would be excluded from having to serve. I understand not letting them in certain career fields, but those are few and far between and there are plenty of other jobs they can fufill. Hasn't that been proven already?

Cheers! M2

[PapaJu]

Interesting article...

But if it happens then the law that prohibits women from being drafted will have to be repealed. It does not make sense that females would be excluded from having to serve. I understand not letting them in certain career fields, but those are few and far between and there are plenty of other jobs they can fufill. Hasn't that been proven already?

Cheers! M2

The draft issue has just been an election season scare tactic to me--I don't see it coming back. Though I agree with your point, women should be subject to it too.

[Guest waxgoblin]

yeahh, and if they really want it to be "fair", they can draft enough women to make the military 50-50...

[Guest Jimmy]

Pretty useless unless you sign a bill that freezes the assets of draft dodging pricks who coincidentally relocate overseas when their number comes up.

[pawnman]

So...where are we going to get the money to pay these new "recruits"?

[Guest waxgoblin]

So...where are we going to get the money to pay these new "recruits"?

It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers.

see. its almost as convenient as owning slaves. sweet!

[M2]

Oddly enough, I was on the Selective Service web site getting info for my periodic reinvestigation (security clearance update), when I came across this little nugget of info...

BACKGROUNDER: WOMEN AND THE DRAFT IN AMERICA

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Women who served in the past, and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers, all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

After America’s draft ended in 1973, the Selective Service System was maintained in a standby status, just in case a return to conscription became necessary during a crisis. After March 29, 1975, men no longer had to register and Selective Service was placed in "deep standby." But then, in 1980, President Carter reactivated the registration process for men in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in reaction to reports that the standby Selective Service System might not meet wartime requirements for rapid manpower expansion of the active and reserve forces.

Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DOD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DOD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women.

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DOD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

In 1992, a Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces reexamined the issue of registration and conscription of women. In its November 1992 report, by a vote of 11 to 3, the Commission recommended that women not be required to register for or be subject to conscription. The Commission cited the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upholding the exclusion of women from registration as the basis for its recommendation. The Commission also discussed enacting existing ground combat specialties exclusion policies into law to provide an additional barrier to the amendment of the MSSA to provide for the conscription of women. However, an appendix to its report suggested that public opinion was divided on the issue. The appendix, which included the results of a random telephone survey of 1,500 adults, showed that, in the event of a draft for a national emergency or threat of war (and assuming an ample pool of young men exists), 52 percent of respondents indicated women should be drafted, about 39 percent of respondents indicated women should not be drafted, and 10 percent responded they did not know.

In May 1994, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to update its mobilization requirements for the Selective Service System and, as a part of the effort, "continue to review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women from registration now that they can be assigned to combat roles other than ground combat." In its subsequent report, the DOD position remained "that the restriction of females from assignments below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, provides justification from exempting women from registration (and a draft) as set forth in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)." However, the report also recognized the vastly increased role being played by women in each of the Armed Services who, in Fiscal Year 1994, comprised 16 percent of recruits. "Because of this change in the makeup of the Armed Forces," the report observed, "much of the congressional debate which, in the court’s opinion, provided adequate congressional scrutiny of the issue...(in 1981) would be inappropriate today." While maintaining that it was not necessary to register or draft women, the DOD review concluded "the success of the military will increasingly depend upon the participation of women."

In 1998, at the request of U.S. Senator Charles Robb (D-VA), ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) addressed a variety of questions related to gender equity in the military. Included was a budget and resource examination of the impact of requiring women to register with Selective Service. The GAO report* did not address the pros and cons regarding the exclusion of women from ground combat positions or from the Selective Service registration requirement, nor did it make any policy recommendations. Instead, GAO simply described the DOD position that there is no need to register women as "being consistent with its policy of restricting women from direct ground combat."

GAO examined the issue from Selective Service cost and staffing points of view, recognizing that registration of women would require legislative action and operational and budgetary changes. "Selective Service System could register women if its authorizing legislation, the Military Selective Service Act, is amended to allow registering women," the report stated. The report provided cost estimates for expanding the registration program to include women, and included an historical summary providing perspectives on women and the draft since America’s transition to an all-volunteer military in the 1970s.

(Complied and Edited by The Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, Selective Service System,July 1998)

*Appendix I of the GAO report is entitled, "Historical Perspectives on Women and the Draft." It provides an excellent chronological summary about this issue and nearly all of it is incorporated, verbatim, in this paper.

Nice to know being "equal" doesn't apply in all situations...

Cheers! M2

[M2]

Getting that registration number for your paperwork, huh?

Yep, from over 26 years ago. Funny thing is the entire time I was enlisted and overseas, I kept getting letters asking for address updates (this before the Internet, kids!). I sent replies with my APO address, explaining that I didn't think I'd get drafted as I was already in. A few weeks later I would get a ncie form letter thanking me for updating my address. I hope the system is run better nowadays...

Cheers! M2

[usaf36031]

conscription + nature of war in the 21st century = REALLY bad idea

[Login Name]

Yep, from over 26 years ago. Funny thing is the entire time I was enlisted and overseas, I kept getting letters asking for address updates (this before the Internet, kids!). I sent replies with my APO address, explaining that I didn't think I'd get drafted as I was already in. A few weeks later I would get a ncie form letter thanking me for updating my address. I hope the system is run better nowadays...

Cheers! M2

it is definately not. completely different agency but....i'm on the terrorist watch list for when i fly commercial airlines. everytime i have to use the counter and wait in the line so they can clear me through their computer system, i give them my military id to speed up the process...there is always a good chuckle with the counter girl about the irony of the list. i've submitted the request to be removed from the watch list, stating i'm an officer in the AF and i should surely pose no threat. included a pic of my id and passport as requested. i get a nasty gram back from dhs stating they'll be looking into my request but i will not be removed from any list. apparently there is an ira member out there with my name. no big deal though, just more hassle that i really want to deal with everytime i fly. but it does give me a chance to talk to the cute airline girls behind the counter.

[PapaJu]

it is definately not. completely different agency but....i'm on the terrorist watch list for when i fly commercial airlines. everytime i have to use the counter and wait in the line so they can clear me through their computer system, i give them my military id to speed up the process...there is always a good chuckle with the counter girl about the irony of the list. i've submitted the request to be removed from the watch list, stating i'm an officer in the AF and i should surely pose no threat. included a pic of my id and passport as requested. i get a nasty gram back from dhs stating they'll be looking into my request but i will not be removed from any list. apparently there is an ira member out there with my name. no big deal though, just more hassle that i really want to deal with everytime i fly. but it does give me a chance to talk to the cute airline girls behind the counter.

That's pretty funny. Didn't know the government cared about mostly defunct terror organizations that don't pose a threat to the US.

[zrooster99]

The draft issue has just been an election season scare tactic to me

Gooood point... It finally occured to me just how tightly a lot of dude's butts pucker at the thought they might have to put in a little sacrifice for their country...I bet a lot of folks piss themselves at the idea of spending a year in Iraq (asuming most draftees go to the Army).

[dmeg130]

I'm not really sure how reinstating the draft would be any more equitable: everybody rich (politicians) got their kids exemptions for college, Guard jobs (oops! not so safe now!), or tickets for Canada/UK. Only "benefit" to drafting dudes is people who really don't want to be there with access to firearms and lots of civilians and their own officers to shoot at. Oh yeah, didn't we have kind of have a drug problem last time we did that too?

We're not a sociology experiment. We terminate with extreme prejudice. That's not for everyone. If they really want to make a change, how about we draft people randomly for Congress?

Sidebar: You obviously aren't familiar with Seamus McLoginname, the inventor of the Irish Car Bomb. The drink, not the actual IED, but IRA nonetheless.

[Guest momann]

That's pretty funny. Didn't know the government cared about mostly defunct terror organizations that don't pose a threat to the US.

The terrorist is always a terrorist, regardless if we aren't in their cross-hairs. Their actions may and will eventually affect us, the US. I believe that's why we keep tabs on them.

[M2]

The terrorist is always a terrorist, regardless if we aren't in their cross-hairs. Their actions may and will eventually affect us, the US. I believe that's why we keep tabs on them.

Are you serious?

Cheers! M2

[Guest momann]

Are you serious?

Cheers! M2

Absolutely. I think of the domino effect. Examine a fictitious scenario where the IIRA trains or work with another terrorist group whose objective changes because of one of any of our policy changes in the future. Now that terrorist group targets us, won't you agree that they help make them a threat that's now focus on harming us. Even yet, what if the IRA doesn't like a future policy and can't be resolved diplomatically, won't it be most likely that they could result to the force they know best and are accustomed to.

I'm not saying that can or could happen. But we also have a policy not to deal or negotiate with terrorist. That alone justify them being monitored by our government.

[Herk Driver]

Absolutely. I think of the domino effect.

Like the domino effect that was going to take hold if South Vietnam fell to the communists?

[Guest momann]

If you are oppose to the US monitoring the IRA and feel strongly about it, then elaborate why we shouldn't. Give me reasons (no, just a reason) why we shouldn't be monitoring the IRA.

Edited July 24, 2007 by momann

[Herk Driver]

If you are oppose to the US monitoring the IRA and feel strongly about it, then elaborate why we shouldn't. Give me reasons (no, just a reason) why we shouldn't be monitoring the IRA.

You give me one reason why we should besides what you wrote below.

But we also have a policy not to deal or negotiate with terrorists.

Fixed.

I assume you know that Sinn Fein is the political arm of the IRA. If you haven't noticed, Sinn Fein is a major party in the Irish government. So we don't deal or negotiate with Ireland?

On second thought, how did the cease-fire between the IRA and the UK come about? Didn't the US chair the talks between the UK and IRA? IIRC, former Senator George Mitchell served as the intermediary between the UK and IRA that resulted in the Belfast Agreement, aka Good Friday agreement, in 1998.

Monitoring the IRA is nothing but a distraction from the GWOT. We have our own homegrown terrorists that we need to be watching. You think the UK gives a d@mn about monitoring the IRA right now. Nope, they have their hands full monitoring UK born, radical Muslims that want to blow up everything in the country. So let's keep wasting our time instead of pursuing more important things like border security, shipping container security, and helping to build allies capacity to help prosecute the GWOT.

A simple question: Do you think that the US should normalize relations with Libya?

Don't get me wrong, I always like a good game of dominoes.

[Guest momann]

I assume you know that Sinn Fein is the political arm of the IRA. If you haven't noticed, Sinn Fein is a major party in the Irish government. So we don't deal or negotiate with Ireland?

That has always being controversial. My thought: I might be wrong, so educate me here. If they were political, then why did they target and bomb indiscriminately.

Monitoring the IRA is nothing but a distraction from the GWOT. We have our own homegrown terrorists that we need to be watching. You think the UK gives a d@mn about monitoring the IRA right now. Nope, they have their hands full monitoring UK born, radical Muslims that want to blow up everything in the country. So let's keep wasting our time instead of pursuing more important things like border security, shipping container security, and helping to build allies capacity to help prosecute the GWOT.

A simple question: Do you think that the US should normalize relations with Libya?

Look I agree that we need to secure our border, make recourses available to inspect 100% of containers entering out ports and definitely supports enabling our allies to defend themselves and assist us in prosecuting the GWOT. This needs to be our focus. I guess my point is why shouldn’t we monitor every known terrorist group or any group that'll not diplomatically resolve the differences except through terror or any group the exhibit terror like attributes.

[Guest Jimmy]

Mo, when's the last time you saw a bunch of red headed Catholic blokes hijack a plane or declare a holy war with purpose of harming the United States?

I guess my point is why shouldn’t we monitor every known terrorist group or any group that'll not diplomatically resolve the differences except through terror or any group the exhibit terror like attributes.

Because even if you hired every single illegal Mexican in this country, you wouldn't have the manpower to do it. Considering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it's all a bit hard to even define which type of paramilitary organization can be considered terrorist on the world scale. There are many militias in many parts of the world that conduct guerrilla and covert insurgency warfare, which any skilled propagandist can either call freedom fighting or terrorism, depending on what is most advantageous for his political aims in the region. Remember, the King of England would have declared the revolutionists as terrorist scum, if the words existed in his vernacular, for conducting guerrilla warfare against his troops, for targeting his economic and military assets in the region etc. Your thinking of this issue in completely black and white terms is oversimplifying dozens and maybe even hundreds of social, political and economic factors that are the reason these groups function in the first place. The only thing you can do is determine exactly which of these organizations have social, political, or economical aims that would cause them to use force against us and catch them with their pants down before they have the chance to harm your country, its citizens, or its assets. Giving every single group the same kind of surveillance and attention as Al Qaeda or any of its ideological offshoots regardless of the aforementioned factors only diminishes the quality of intelligence that is available on organizations that have the means and motive to actually hurt is. In short, you need to prioritize. Quality, not just quantity.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Jimmy

[Guest momann]

Mo, when's the last time you saw a bunch of red headed Catholic blokes hijack a plane or declare a holy war with purpose of harming the United States?

Because even if you hired every single illegal Mexican in this country, you wouldn't have the manpower to do it. Considering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it's all a bit hard to even define which type of paramilitary organization can be considered terrorist on the world scale. There are many militias in many parts of the world that conduct guerrilla and covert insurgency warfare, which any skilled propagandist can either call freedom fighting or terrorism, depending on what is most advantageous for his political aims in the region. Remember, the King of England would have declared the revolutionists as terrorist scum, if the words existed in his vernacular, for conducting guerrilla warfare against his troops, for targeting his economic and military assets in the region etc. Your thinking of this issue in completely black and white terms is oversimplifying dozens and maybe even hundreds of social, political and economic factors that are the reason these groups function in the first place. The only thing you can do is determine which of these organizations are specifically out there to get you, keep tabs on them, and catch them with their pants down before they have the chance to harm your country, its citizens, or its assets. I'm not saying that these groups are guiltless and not implying that it is not in our best interests to conduct surveillance and pursuit of those who wish to harm the USA, but take a biiiiiiiiiiiig step out of the box and you'll see that there are a lot of groups that have nothing to do with the USA (IRA being an example), and that putting them in the same category and giving them the same attention as Al Qaeda and its offshoots is not a sound proposition, even if only for logistical reasons. In short, you need to prioritize. Quality, not just quantity.

Now, there is a voice of reason and logic that brings some clarity to this discussion.

I accept your analysis that I over simplify this issue. And you're right about one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist and that we can’t keep tabs on all such groups. Also, that the IRA has never target the US, its citizens and assets is correct from what I know and remember.

What got me going was the fact that we accept (or at least, it seemed acceptable to us) some of these organizations as freedom fighter, while we categorize and condemn others. If some group uses force, fear, intimidation, violence, etc to get their point of view across, aren't they a terror organization? Killing and terrorizing people is killing and terrorizing people and these people are terrorists. Now that was my point and that was why IRA was mentioned. However, the IRA doesn't fit that profile anymore and deserve much credit now since that they did decided to pursue a more diplomatic and democratic path to getting heard.

Thanks Jimmy for putting things into perspective.

And sorry if this discussion hijacked the thread. Let’s get pack to the thread's topic.

Edited July 24, 2007 by momann

[The Kayla]

Ok, some one made a comment about women getting drafted:

Yes, I don't think it's fair the only get got/get drafted, it should, in some way be equal.

That being said, this won't make sense, and will probaly piss off some women(and men) on here:

I'm not a feminist.

I do not agree with the statement "A woman can do everything a man can.".

And I sure as hell don't want to be drafted. Call me a pansy, a bitch, a whimp, anything you want. I'm OK with that. If I wanted to join the military, I would. Simple as that. I have high respect for people in the military-no matter what branch- But, it's not for me. I think that if the draft was to include women, fine-- Make the Chicks that think "I can do everything that a man can" go first. Make all the feminist go.

[Beaver]

I'm all for drafting women should the need for a draft arise. The Air Force is full of chick jobs. Personnel, finance, towel hander-outers, MEO advisors, IG people, squadron adjutants, anyone in the Med Group. You don't have to be a butch bra burner to do that stuff.

[Scooter14]

I'm all for drafting women should the need for a draft arise. The Air Force is full of chick jobs. Personnel, finance, towel hander-outers, MEO advisors, IG people, squadron adjutants, anyone in the Med Group. You don't have to be a butch bra burner to do that stuff.

Easy on the Med Group. We've had a lot of our own small clinic rotate through the Balad hospital and have seen and done some amazing stuff.

I see your point, though.