Although Congress is unlikely to follow calls from a top Democrat to bring back the military draft, the United States does have a plan, if necessary, aimed at inducting millions of young men for service.
The Selective Service System, an agency independent of the Defense Department, says it’s ready to respond quickly to any crisis that would threaten to overwhelm the current all-volunteer military.
“We’re the fire department,” said spokesman Pat Schuback at the service headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.
“We’re prepared to do the mission with whatever time period we’re asked to do it in. Our current plan is 193 days and that was based on manpower analysis.”
If needed, the U.S. Selective Service System says it’s ready to pull the trigger on a new draft. According to the Selective Service, here’s how a draft would happen:
A crisis occurs that overwhelms the current all-volunteer military, forcing Congress and the president to authorize a draft system.
Selective Service starts a lottery, based on birth dates, beginning with men age 20.
Those with who are assigned low lottery numbers are “ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service,” according to the Selective Service’s Web site.
They have 10 days to claim “exemption, postponement, or deferment,” that would excuse them from service.
Compared to the Vietnam War era, any future draft would allow “fewer reasons to excuse a man from service,” according to the Selective Service.
If Congressman Rangel’s planned introduction of a bill reinstating a mandatory draft provokes debate — it’s achieved what checks and balances are all about.
Rangel’s draft idea needs to be taken in context: “Young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools (or) in hospitals,”. It’s not just service, i.e., going to war. Who would want to go to war with a guy by your side that did not volunteer? The army has plenty of need for personell in non-combat work. Plus, I’m sure many kids nowadays could benefit from some discipline and would gain a fresh perspective on things. Finally, how about the chickenhawk warmongers who dodged service or don’t want *their* kids to go to war, but fully support and encourage it? It would be a different ball game if their kids were on the chopping block too.
What Congressman Rangel is trying to propose is that if a President wants to start a war, there has to be a draft. In order for troop levels to be what the administration wants, there has to be more troops. We do not have the numbers for Bush’s “Stay the Course” strategy. If there was this law, that mandates a draft, when we are at war, the President would also think twice, along with members of Congress, about starting one.
Yeah, that really slowed them down in Vietnam.
A draft would put protesting kids and parents in the streets, yelling at the warmongers (Bush, et al) to stop the damned war. I was among the protestors during Nam. We were effective. A close friend of mine from UCLA went to prison rather than go to Nam. Many did. It took courage to stand up for what was right then. A new draft would bring out the same kind of courage today.
Shanobill
Well a crisis is not going to insue, because we are going to hand iraq over to iran and syria soon aka Shiite so the war will simmer down soon. So i dont think there is any chance of the draft coming about.
#1
You know what I could benefit from? You and the government not telling me what to do so I can stay on course for a master’s degree of engineering. That would be great.
Ya! What these kids need is to do menial labor just like they will for the rest of their lives! Who started this education crap anyway?!
#3 – Well, yeah, it kind of did. As the draft continued and the body bags began to pile up a whole lot of middle class Americans started feeling the pain and (at that time anyway) when the middle class starts getting restive the politicians start snapping to attention.
I would not support a new draft. Having seen the quality of draftees during the latter part of the Viet Nam police action I would not want to put the lives of real warriors at risk with a bunch of draftees.
How about changing the law that if you don’t serve (in some way) you don’t get to vote and for those that do serve you get to vote and if a military veteran you get a 50% reduction on your federal/state income tax.
Nobody,
Yeah, giving ONLY veterans the right to vote will solve things. What about handicapped people? What about conscientious objectors? What about people who are medically unfit to serve in the military? Would your proposal be fair to them?
Ahhh.. Rizzo.. spoken like a true dildo. There are other ways to serve than the military, hence the (in some way) comment. CO’s and disabled should be required to serve in some way to EARN the right to vote.
Shades of “Starship Troopers” (The book, not the movie)
J/P=?
#8
“How about changing the law that if you don’t serve (in some way) you don’t get to vote… ”
This reminds me of the line “Service guarantees citizenship!” from the movie Starship Troopers.
Another memorable exchange:
Jean Rasczak: All right, let’s sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven’t, therefore called citizens and civilians.
Jean Rasczak: [talking to a student] You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
Newsreel announcer: They’re doing their part. Are you? Join the Mobile Infantry and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship.
I’m seeing a bit too many similarities with our current administration and the government portrayed in Starship Troopers for my comfort level .
See more at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/quotes
Steve
I’m seeing a bit too many similarities with our current administration and the government portrayed in Starship Troopers for my comfort level .
Read the book. It’s not only MUCH MUCH better than the movie (as usual) the political diatribe makes sense. RAH is by far the biggest influence I’ve ever had, philosophically and politically. (Not sexually, I might add… he was kind of a perv in that respect.)
I would rather just limit the vote to people who had a net tax liability for the year to help mitigate the effect of political vote buying.
Wow, you guys still don’t see this as a ploy, do you?
while the selective service is something that all males over 18 are forced to join, i dont forsee it being used – and I for one wouldnt show up, i’d rather die in the streets of this country than the streets of another.
Tall wookie
Couldn’t agree more.
There isn’t going to be a draft, calm down. And the way that the selective service pulls troops they go for people under 23 first…so a lot of us readers are fine.
Oh and the guy who is back in school for his masters in engineering, I think they have some kind of “I’m in college I can’t go” thing. Like Bush used to avoid the war.
Trust me, we are solid. And if they do start calling people; give me an M4 and some MREs and a Beretta.
I’ll support a draft when they assign combat positions based upon their parents income. If anyone has a parent making more than $80,000 thousand, then their children should be placed in a 1st or 2nd tiered combat position. If anyone makes more than $100,000 dollars their children irrespective of how many they have in service should be placed directly in the front lines. Of course there would no, ie zero, allowance for defered service, no matter how smart or how important knowledge or research or sexual orientation or what their sex might be. All would go and all would fight, except those in mental hospitals and even these could contribute as we’ve seen with the muslims.
Before you begin to think this is not a resonable solution, think about all the support from the different fractions this would lend to any conflict. Think about all the careful considerations that the different fractions would put into starting a conflict or joining a Global system.
Really, by putting the future leaders between the cross hairs of chance we might very well improve our own chances of remaining a free people.
John: The draft is slavery; it is utter evil. Rangel is not to be commended for suggesting it, because it provokes debate. He is to be excoriated for suggesting something no one in a property society would ever consider.
#20.
First, John didn’t post this story.
Second, the draft is not slavery. (And neither is jury duty, in case anyone is wondering!)
Third, it may be utterly evil at times but it also may be utterly necessary at other times.
Fourth, if you refuse to fight or kill for religious or philosophical reason, you won’t be drafted.
#1 – Rangel’s draft idea needs to be taken in context: “Young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic…
…Plus, I’m sure many kids nowadays could benefit from some discipline…
…Finally, how about the chickenhawk warmongers who dodged service or don’t want *their* kids to go to war…
Excerpts from a comment by Arpie — 11/21/2006 @ 7:10 am
I am not going to pretend that you, I, or especially the government knows what might be good for kids… But a system of mandatory service that doesn’t neccassarily mean military service and places value in education is one that I might be able to get behind.
#6 – You know what I could benefit from? You and the government not telling me what to do so I can stay on course for a master’s degree of engineering. That would be great.
Comment by The other Tom — 11/21/2006 @ 7:47 am
I respectfully submit that folks would find politics far more satisfying if they’d get past this notion that “the government tells you what to do.” The government isn’t some nefarious entity that rules over humans. YOU and I are the government. To weild you power, you need only get involved.
However, I think that the best use of our resources would be to allow you, in fact to help you, complete your masters. Any conscripted service plan I’d support would have to allow for folks like you to either defer service or even opt out as long as you were actively in college. Also, any service plan I’d support would have to have education benefits not dissimilar from those of the military to defray or eliminate your finiancial burden. Finally, any plan I’d support would use your specific talents, were you to not opt out and instead serve, so you’d gain real and valuable experience and the nation would most benefit from your service.
National service is a good idea. It’s a better idea if it benefits the conscript, and empowers individuals.
#8 – I would not support a new draft. Having seen the quality of draftees during the latter part of the Viet Nam police action I would not want to put the lives of real warriors at risk with a bunch of draftees.
How about changing the law that if you don’t serve (in some way) you don’t get to vote and for those that do serve you get to vote and if a military veteran you get a 50% reduction on your federal/state income tax.
Comment by Nobody U Know — 11/21/2006 @ 8:54 am
I agree with you that a draftee army is less effective than a volunteer army. Drafting a military should only be a last resort move in the face of a grave danger. And if we ever do need to draft people into service, we need to ensure than we don’t, as in Vietnam, jeopardize the lives on conscripts by offering them substandard training.
But I cannot get behind any idea that creates a military ruling class. Military service doesn’t make anyone more competent or qualified to make political decisions, and I’ll offer controversially, it doesn’t make any one more deserving of authority.
Vietnam, in particular, was a national embarrassment. It was a political failure… not a military failure… I was to young then to be involved, and I’m not entirely certain that I understand what was going on in the national zietgiest which resulted in the poor treatment of the military soldiers, which was shameful… but the porotest movement that stood up to the White House and the Congress was doing the right thing. Civil disobedience is patriotism too
#20 – John: The draft is slavery; it is utter evil. Rangel is not to be commended for suggesting it, because it provokes debate. He is to be excoriated for suggesting something no one in a property society would ever consider.
Comment by Stephan Kinsela — 11/21/2006 @ 8:28 pm
A property society? There are days when I feel like I am the property.
He’s right to bring it up. He’s right to point out in such a grand way that it is the poor and who make sacrifices while the wealthy continue to get drunk on the blood of the exploited working class.
Wealth should not be a get out of harm’s way free card.
Representative Ron Paul’s (R-TX) position on the Draft:
“To many politicians, the American government is America. This is why, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.”
Paul is 100% correct!!!