Lawmakers Push For End To Draft Registration In US
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two lawmakers are waging a little-noticed campaign to abolish the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that manages draft registration.
They say the millions of dollars the agency spends each year preparing for the possibility of a military draft is a waste of money.
Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., say the Pentagon has no interest in returning to conscription due to the success of the all-volunteer force.
The Selective Service has a budget of $24 million and a full-time staff of 130. It maintains a database of about 17 million potential male draftees. In the event of a draft, the agency would mobilize as many as 11,000 volunteers to serve on local draft boards that would decide if exemptions or deferments to military service were warranted.
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_DRAFT_WOMEN_SELECTIVE_SERVICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-25-09-29-44
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)
I'd surely hate to see a need to return to the draft (and I can appreciate that in all fairness, women ought to be included, should there be one), but I really can not imagine this to be a wise move.
I have no personal issues with DeFazio, but Coffman is a RW POS,whose "military" experience has been used to justify all kinds of ugly Bush-era policies and thus is of no relevance to me. 
AverageMe
(91 posts)I totally agree. we NEED to have draft, even if it is only a few thousand people a year, so that every family in America has an interest in finding peaceful solutions.
colorado_ufo
(5,734 posts)did not prevent Viet Nam OR Korea. And let's have a reality check: The offspring of the rich and influential will not serve (Cheney, Romney, Bush, etc., for a few starter examples) whether or not there is a draft - they will get multiple deferments. If that is the intent, to threaten those in power with sending their sons and/or daughters to war, their true reaction would be to laugh at the idea.
We need to work as much as possible to have elected officials who truly support the concept of peaceful resolution of conflict and who have a global view that extends beyond commerce.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)A draft will do NOTHING to prevent needless wars. The well connected will simply have their son or daughter protect the skies over Texas (and go AWOL with no consequences), do missionary work in France, or obtain a multitude of deferments.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, in 1968 that support went from over 50% to under 50% for the first time, and by the end of 1968 Johnson was already pulling US troops out (Nixon would expand on this in his "Vitalization" program). The reason for the withdraw was that support had dropped below 50% and more and more mothers wanted their sons BACK HOME. Thus the US could NOT keep its troops in Vietnam to much after it lost 50% support for the war.
Please note, support for the rapid movement into Afghanistan was quite high, but they was never more then 50% support for the war in Iraq. Thus both wars were only possible with an all volunteer army, a draftee army would have deteriorated rapidly if it had been used in either conflict for reason set forth below.
The same thing happened in the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, support for the war fell even as the Communist pushed their agenda in the Soviet media why the Soviet Forces had to go. Thus the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan after just under 10 years of fighting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
American forces were in Vietnam just over eight years, 1965-1973 (I am talking about direct ground forces, "Advisor's" were in Vietnam from the 1950s to its fall in 1975, just as Soviet Advisor's were in Afghanistan from the 1950s to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
US Forces in Afghanistan is now in its 12th year, two more years then the Soviets in Afghanistan and four more years then US involvement in Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%93present)#Islamic_Republic_and_NATO
Why has the US been able to keep forces in Afghanistan but could not do the same with Vietnam? The biggest single reason is that the US forces in Vietnam were subject to the Draft, and thus many young people (and their parents) saw themselves as potential cannon fodder and objected to the war given its lack of any clear goal (The actual goal of Vietnam from Truman onward was to prevent its fall during their administration, they all knew it would fall, for a clear majority of the people of Vietnam supported the Communists, but none of them could afford leaving another country fall to the "communist yoke", thus vague reasons were given for no one wanted to say, they just wanted to delay what will happen. More to do with US domestic Politics then anything to do with actual reasons to be in Vietnam).
Korea was a little bit different, the strategic goal was clear (but became muddle after the US decided it was better to settle for the 38th parallel as a border then risk expanding the war in Manchuria, which was a huge risk if they took North Korea).
Now, in Vietnam and Korea, the Majority of Americans supported the war (while no longer true for Vietnam after 1968, was the rule between 1965 and 1968). The rapid deterioration of the US Army (followed by the Navy and the Marines) after 1968 had more to do with this decline for support for the war in Vietnam then any other single reason (the US Joint Chief of Staffs did a study in the early 1970s, which said the draft was the better option then an all volunteer force, given the Man power needs of the US Military at that time).
Anyway, the US government leadership, not only wanted a Military that could defeat the Soviets, but also wanted a military to support expeditionary forces to other areas of conflict. The problem became clear as the 1970s progressed, the all volunteer service was failing, but the greater dependence on the German Military (and its draft) more then compensated for the decline, A Soviet attack in Europe became less and less of a threat as the Chinese and the Soviets diverged, thus the US decided to concentrate on its Special forces and other elements of expeditionary type units (including airborne units), that were NO affected with the overall decline in the average enlistee of the time period. These Special and Elite forces had always depended more on volunteers then draftees, thus less affected by the general decline in the typical enlistees of the 1970s and 1980s.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US Military declined about a 1/3, which permitted the Military to be more selective about who it would enlist, thus improving the pool of enlistees. There was some concern about a lack of enlistees as employment went to its lowest level in the late 1990s, but that reversed with the War on Terror (Which increased overall enlistees) and the subsequent increase in the unemployment ranks (Which lead to more people opting for the Military).
Remember the Military of the post 9/11 period was only 2/3 of the size of the Military under Reagan when it came to actual people needed, and even then by 2004-2007 period the Military was only able to get enough recruits by lowering standards (i.e. permitting more GED students to enlist as the number of High School Graduates declined).
The above is supported by the study of other nations, when a war has support from the people of a nation, the nation will revert to the draft and people will serve well, even if they are drafted as opposed to enlisting. On the other hand, if the people do NOT support the war, the draftee army will go into quick decline and have to be withdrawn. In the US the US Army had declined so much between 1968 and 1972, that it had to withdraw from Vietnam or faced collapse. These same soldiers would have fought well if the Soviets had launched an attack on Western Europe. It was so bad that as time went on more and more troops in Vietnam were technically "volunteers" but they were even affected by the overall decline in the Military.
The main reason for the decline is the enlistees knew they had support of the people back home as support for the war declined (and at the same time, would fought well against a Soviet Attack, for there was massive support in the US for such a defense).
When, support for a war declines in a Nation that uses Volunteers, such decline are slower and harder to see. The first set of declines is that people who would have enlisted before the war, stop enlisting (this was seen in the African American Communities, huge source of recruits before 9/11, but clear and significant drop since 9/11, thus today's Army is much more Rural Based then it was in the 1990s). A second set of changes are people NOT reenlisting (a problems "Solved" with how people had enlisted since the 1970s, you now enlist for 8 years, of which technically you agree to active service for 3-4 years, but can be called up for service for the rest of the 8 years if the military decides it needs you, thus many soldiers who wanted out after 9/11 found themselves given a choice, re-enlist with a huge bonus, or get called back into service and serve the same time period without the bonus, what a "Free Choice" that was).
Now since the economic collapse of 2008, you no longer hear of the problems of finding recruits or having people re-enlist that you heard before 2008. The ending of the war in Iraq helped reduced the need for so many enlistees and those soldiers who wanted out, the Military can now afford to leave for Iraq was the big consumer of troops (Afghanistan also "consumes" troops, but not as many as Afghanistan, the US has more Allies to pull troops from in Afghanistan and with the withdraw from Iraq, those troops are now free for use in Afghanistan). Thus the problem of finding recruits seems no longer to be a major problem, but again more to the drop in the need for troops more then the effectiveness of finding new recruits.
The big advantage of the Draft over an All Volunteer forces, is seen between the US involvement in Vietnam, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and the present US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, once support for the war drops below 50% of the people, the ability to fight the war soon ends. With a volunteer army, that decline can be delayed 5-10 years. The decline will still occur, but not to the extent as with a draftee army and not as quick. That is the lesson of these three wars and the differences between a draftee army and a all volunteer army.
AverageMe
(91 posts)As our constitution requires. Every war will then be a necessary war, with the support of the American people, and one we can win.
Old Troop
(1,991 posts)Mexico, Spain and WW1 come to mind as declared wars that were wrong.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)
alp227
(32,029 posts)
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Cannot be changed by a mere act of Congress. Bad idea anyway.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)He didn't turn out so bad.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)He was a civilian but witnessed WW I in France in that position. Of course it would have stopped Obama.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)their own, then you would also believe they won't vote to go to war.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)MSM news, maybe. But even MSM often does not bother covering wars. In many cases the war machine is just another corporation doing it's thing.
pampango
(24,692 posts)political insurance against unnecessary wars is appealing. I do feel somewhat hypocritical since I am expecting others (young people) to pay the price for this political insurance.
When I was 18-year old during Vietnam I remember the draft being a much less appealing form of political insurance. (I am phrasing this very politely. That's not how I expressed it back in the day.) I suspect that today's 18-year-olds have similar reservations.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)
sofa king
(10,857 posts)
Fearless
(18,421 posts)We've just not had any legally defined wars since Vietnam. Nor a shortage of people looking for sub-minimum wage jobs and crappy health care.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that it would make no difference.
Consider how much smaller the military is since the last time we had a draft (Vietnam) and also how much bigger the manpower pool becomes once women are added.
There will still be many people willing to serve voluntarily so when you put it all together, there are not many billets available for draftees. Only a tiny portion of potential draftees would actually serve which immediately raises fairness issues for those unlucky few, especially considering that the military could continue to meet all its man power needs through voluntary enlistments.
Are you proposing a massive expansion of the military make the draft fair?
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)cases, address.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The minimum age is raised to 35 and the maximum 65, no exemptions or deferments for holding political/civil office or government staff job. If medically disqualified for combat, they can take on support roles just behind the combat zone.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I find this caveat intriguing. What is your reasoning?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)and has a bad back he got in the military and get 10% disability on it and it has gotten worse over the years. He also has a bone spur on his hip. What good would he do? He works in a department store now and hardly can walk. I just think 65 yrs old have is at the retirement age.
James48
(4,436 posts)35 years olds are far less likely to do something which endangers their future. More maturity to control and restrain when to use force.
I like the idea. I also think many of our advances in technology means that we don't have to have 18-21 year olds any more for many, many jobs in the military. Sure, there will always be a place for young people, but there are also roles for more mature people to play today besides brute force.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)uses young people in their teens or barely out of them. These people are easily deceived, have little understanding of their own mortality, are still conditioned to obey adults with little question. I submit that you cannot have fully understand what you are getting yourself into when you "join the army/navy/marines/air force" at that age because you have yet to learn how much people lie, how they use other people for their own ends, and how war is not a "black & white" thing where we are automatically the good guys.
Most people do not become politically aware until the reach their 30s/40s and thus have little political say about acting as pawns for old men's schemes. People 35-65 have a MUCH greater appreciation for their own skin, are far less trusting of following people blindly, have a better sense of right and wrong, and when they vote are likely to be damned unhappy with politicians who lie them into wars.
The people who routinely vote for war-mongering, jingoistic politicians generally have no skin in the game. Once its is THEIR ass getting shot at, especially when politicians can be pulled out of office and dropped into a combat zone, there will be a far greater desire to settle disputes diplomatically rather than militarily. When you have CEOs of defense contractors on the receiving end of their own products, it will give them greater perspective about their future product planning.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Again, lots of incentive to avoid war.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Seems like a lousy way to reduce Social Security and pension costs to me (by killing off the elderly).
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)who voted for wars when not only is the heaviest voting demographic pissed off at them (55+)? If Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice were subject to combat deployment, how enthusiastic would they be to start a war?
I have as much sympathy for Rush Limbaugh dying of a heart attack in basic training as he has for the suicide rate of soldiers returning home who get no mental health, i.e. none at all.
My point is, once the extremely white, extremely conservative old white men face death in combat along instead of our children, you will hear a LOT less sabre-rattling.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)They wouldn't vote out the warmonger Rapeuglicans, they'd vote out the draft-supporting Democrats.
I wouldn't vote for anyone who supported a draft of any kind.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and making sure that EVERYONE has skin in the game is the only way to stop these BS corporate wars of imperialism. Otherwise, we are just using the poor as cannon fodder. We have economically rigged the system so that only the poor are forced to serve in order to afford an education (provided they survive). For some people it is the military or the street.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)No draft. End stop loss. Allow recruits to leave the service if they have been a victim of deceptive recruiting practices.
The beast is gonna go on a bit of a diet anyway. The Sequester is coming.
There won't be any money to train and equip all those draftees.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)(like Iran) and that will be the excuse for more money and more war, sequester be damned.
Again, the only way to turn the military away from war is to make sure the CEOs and their lapdog politicians can find themselves on the front lives getting shot at for $1500 a month.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because right now the military is the smallest it has been in a very long time - where are you going to put all these draftees? There will still plenty of volunteer enlistees so there won't be that many billets available for draftees.
How do you make a modern draft fair? So few people would actually serve that it can't possibly do what you want it to do.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)1) Don't expand the military at all, simply use the draft to replace soldiers as they are discharged.
2) Tie it into a national service project where you can recruit 18-24 year olds, but for national service, not military deployment, i.e. make it a jobs program.
3) You make it fair by pretty much eliminating all exemptions. Unless you are profoundly disabled, a job can be found for anyone. Have a heart condition? Fine, you will have access to medical care, nutritious, healthy meals, and regular execise. Seems to me you will come out of the military better than when you went in.
The only way we will EVER turn from constant war-mongering is to assure that the very people demanding war have skin in the game.
hack89
(39,171 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)war mentality in this country change immediately.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and appreciation of their own mortality who vote are NOT going to be in a hurry to pack off to some country 9,000 miles away to play target for decrepit old men trying to get erections.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)people to serve in the military, because everyone should not bare the pain, suffering and horror of serving in the military during war times. I've had some democrats tell me similar.
Frankly, I was speechless. Their perspective, let's have war, good profits, but let someone else go get maimed and/or killed. Frankly, this mentality is horrific, but yet many do cling to it ... that it's fine as long as someone else is doing it ...
As with many things in the US, we need to get a new perspective on just WTF are we trying to do.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)At least with my system the slave masters can wind up beside me in the foxhole. once that becomes a reality, then you will see damn fewer people anxious to start any goddamned wars.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)You still have RIGHTS as a "wage slave".
You can quit your job.
You can join a union or organize one.
You can strike for better pay or working conditions
You have many other rights as a worker under State and Federal law.
You have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
You lose ALL of those rights if you are drafted.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)The SSS is an agency that would enforce discriminatory sexist and freedom-trampeling policies, but for now does nothing but waste tax dollars. Time to can it. Let's go the way of Canada.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Ready access to cannon fodder only makes the pols more trigger-happy.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)and no mandatory military service programs this aint Israel.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)States and Federal gov...republicans and democrats spend piles of taxpayer money hashing out voter ID issues..when here America has a much less expensive system in place that IDs Americans for the draft.
pampango
(24,692 posts)China and India.
I think the largest countries that still have a draft are Russia and Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Countries_with_and_without_mandatory_military_service
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Those that have medical problems get some sort of alternative service. I have a former student who has some kind of problem with one of his ears and he is instead doing his service in the police.
On China, there is no conscription per se but instead students (both male and females) have to attend a two week training either before or at the start of college. I worked in China for 10 months and often talked with my students there about it. What a hell hole of a place.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)for EVERYONE.
NO exceptions.
And those that wish to serve in a military capacity could.
The choice is theirs.
NEVER before has there been so many who don't give something back.
JFK would be mortified.
Ask NOT what your country can do for you
ASK WHAT you can do for your country
and two years with free college after sounds great to me.
(Plus- all those kids would NOT be taking jobs from adults, nor would they be bored in the streets, and the crime rate would most likely drop 75%.
Give the kid a dream, and after that, anything is possible.
A little respect for oneself and the place where one lives is not a bad idea.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Non-military conscription is often offered as a way to make a draft more acceptable.
Those who propose it are neglecting the people now doing the work the conscripts would do.
Public employees and their unions are under the most severe assault in recent memory.
Imagine how much worse it will get for them if they have to compete with cut-rate
conscript labor that can't strike or bargain, essentially having no rights at all.
Imagine what someone like Governor Walker would do with a weapon like that.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)All the jobs would now be free for someone else to have them
If all whatever age between 18 to 21 year old's were called, in some form of military or national service
those would not be jobs that are open now, they would be different jobs
so how in the world would that make sense what you are saying?
And what does a Gov. have to do with it?
It would all be federal, NOT state. Out of the hands of politicians.
(and it would be ALL, male and female).
But it would be giving 1 or 2 years delay for those people entering the work force after high school.
(BTW, with FREE college. The entire education system should be changed and the culture of education changed, to make it fair and equitable for every person, including all those who shortly will be getting amnesty/visa's and citizenship. Those people are already working and working hard, and should be included in the system.)
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Presumably states would be submitting proposals for what would be done with all this cheap conscript labor.
Governor Walker and the red state governors to fire a bunch of workers and then submit proposals to have conscripts do the work those workers did. They would claim, truthfully, that the work is not being done now (because they just fired all the workers) and that these are new positions (because they eliminated the old positions and created new ones).
If you could come with the funding to pay for what you propose and not be displacing other workers, you could run it as a completely voluntary program and get plenty of takers.
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)I have that quote framed, but that was also fifty years ago. Back then, Dad usually worked one job for thirty years, which paid for a modest house and fed the family, and then received a pension when he retired. Today, which of their four contract, benefit-less, part-time jobs would you like people to quit so they can do for their country? Will you or the government pay the difference when quitting that fourth job means the rent can't be paid or the bills go underwater?
At that time, there was an implicit understanding that your country would take care of you as long as you put into it. Now, your country is busy shipping your job to China, dumping your retirement and social security into the stock market for banks and hedge funds to guzzle, and beating you with a truncheon for trying to attend a town hall event.
There are things to be fixed before we can start talking about doing for your country.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)You are sounding a bit too much like Mitt Romney here.
How do you know who is giving back what and where? I don't see how you can quantify such a thing.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you sure are quick to name call aren't you?
read my response to your other post.
BTW, patriotism is liberal, not conservative.
The entire tea party, libertarian party and republican party has never given back anything
to start off with.
as JFK said
Ask not what your country can do for you
ask what you can do for your country
Even getting involved in the political system would be a wonderful way to have as time served in a national service.
Imagine if George W. Bush or Dan Quayle had after high school been forced to do something constructive for 2 years (instead of his imaginary National Guard service).
That way goofing off wouldn't have cut the mustard.
madokie
(51,076 posts)they don't want their kids to even have a smidgen of a feeling like Duty to the country. As long as they keep a ready supply of poor people they don't have anything to worry about.
Wolf Frankula
(3,601 posts)let there be NO EXEMPTIONS for anything save mental or physical incapacity. This incapacity MUST be severe enough for disability, no boils on the butt or shitting your pants. Also, there MUST be NO deferments for ANYTHING, not college, not religious or philosophical beliefs, not sole surviving son, NOTHING. Women MUST be included. Anything else is discrimination.
Also, if 18 is the age of service, then 18 year olds MUST be given all the privileges and rights of adulthood. There are cruise ships that will not allow a person under 21 to be a passenger, (Odd the Navy has no trouble allowing 18 year olds on their ships.) 18 should be the age of majority for ALL matters.
And if we are to draft bodies, we should draft money. Raise taxes on the rich to cover the cost, tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as earned income.
Or maybe the US should just mind its own business, and cut the war establishment to a reasonable level.
Wolf
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)No deferments, no special treatments, everyone's primary MOS is infantry and you must serve at least one tour as such before you can get a secondary MOS. Special cases for Congress critters and Senate creepers, their children must serve in the front lines or at the front, no mollycoddling or unequal treatment. Yeah it could be done. Not necessarily that way but if done the right way it would end most incursions into foreign countries. Hey it's just my opinion so get over it. OTOH if you like having a mercenary military then that is what we are headed for.