|
Date Last Reviewed: 1/31/03
Pending Military Conscription Bills: Legislative Update
SAY NO TO RESUMING THE MILITARY DRAFT. On January 7, the first day of the 108th Congress, Rep. Rangel (NY) introduced the "Universal National Service Act of 2003" (H.R. 163), legislation which would resume the military draft and require a two-year period of national service for all men and women aged 18-26. Specifically, the proposal would "provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security." Reportedly, Rep. Rangel's office has been receiving many inquiries and expressions of support from other members of Congress. Current cosponsors include Reps. Abercrombie (HI), Conyers (MI), Lewis (GA), Stark (CA), and McDermott (WA). Sen. Hollings (SC) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate (S. 89).
ACTION: Please contact your representative and senators. Urge them to oppose the "Universal National Service Act."
MESSAGE: Military conscription is an integral part of the war system, whose ultimate intent is the destruction of human life, and compulsory national service is a form of involuntary servitude. Both are deeply abhorrent to our religious values. The military draft is not the way to bring about the end of war. Instead, we believe the tremendous human and material resources now devoted to war and preparing for war should be redirected to address the root causes of violence, to build cooperative, international institutions to peacefully prevent deadly conflicts, and to advance human security in all its dimensions. Further, we recognize the importance of service to our communities, and we encourage all to serve. But it must be voluntary and an expression of individual conscience-not compelled by the state. Compulsory national service would threaten our basic liberty and undermine the very principle of voluntary service to community.
BACKGROUND: Rep. Rangel is concerned that Congress and the American people are being too cavalier about supporting the President's plans for war against Iraq. He notes that only three members of Congress have children in the military, and only one of those is in the enlisted ranks. The ranks of the all-volunteer military do not reflect a true cross section of American society. Rep. Rangel introduced this bill because he wanted to stimulate a more sober consideration of the importance of shared sacrifice. He hopes his bill will provoke a deeper and broader public debate about current U.S. foreign and military policy.
The Rangel bill would require everyone aged 18 to 26 to give national service -- either in the military or in the service of homeland security -- for two years. Women, as well as men, would be required to serve. Conscientious objectors inducted into the military would be required to train and serve in the military in non-combatant roles unless transferred to another national service program, subject to the discretion of the President.
We at FCNL share Rep. Rangel's concern that the public is being led into war by the Administration without a full public debate about the true costs of war in blood and treasure. The Administration has done little to promote a sense of shared sacrifice. In fact, the President's proposed tax cuts, combined with the Pentagon's commitment to the "all-volunteer" military would make a war in Iraq seem virtually cost free for the average American today.
This is troubling. It should be difficult for a democracy to go to war, not easy. A seemingly cost-free, risk-free war lulls the general public into disengagement from the actions of its elected leaders on crucial issues of war and peace. It makes it easier for the government to wage war.
However, resuming the military draft is not the answer to the problem of how to prevent a war. The Administration is already rushing to war against Iraq while this bill is moving slowly, at best, and the Selective Service system is dormant. It would take at least two years to get the system up and running and complete boot camp for the first draftees. It would take longer still to arouse the public through this method. Thus, as a tactic to prevent imminent war, this bill is too late. If we want to prevent war, we need to use other, more immediate and direct methods. Congress must rescind the war resolution, among other things.
Further, resuming the military draft may not even be a good way to promote shared sacrifice. Throughout history, persons of privilege have always managed to get the deferments, exemptions, or special placements they wanted for their own. During the Vietnam war, the ranks of draftees were filled by men from poor and minority communities in gross disproportion to the race and class composition of American society at the time.
Most observers believe that it is unlikely that this bill will get very far. The Pentagon is strongly opposed to resuming the draft. The Pentagon says it has met its recruitment and retention goals with volunteers for each component (active, reserve, National Guard). Further, the Pentagon is concerned that a draft with limited service (e.g., two years) could create morale problems and dilute the quality of its high-tech force.
On the other hand, as the war in Afghanistan drags on, as the Administration prepares for war with Iraq, as the conflict with North Korea intensifies, and as the war on terror expands to dozens of countries around the world, the armed forces may begin facing personnel shortfalls. An indication of this was seen on January 14 when the U.S. Marine Corps imposed a "Stop Loss" order barring from leaving the service all active and reserve duty Marines who were scheduled to leave the service between January 15 and September 30.
Will the other armed services soon follow suit? Will requests to increase troop strength soon follow? Will enough volunteers come forward in a time of war, or will a military draft be needed to fill the ranks? We at FCNL will continue to monitor the situation in the months ahead. However, for now, everyone needs to keep their focus on preventing war with Iraq and reducing the scope and duration of the war on terror.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(331 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
