[Vision2020] Do you feel a draft?
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:11:56 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_admjG2XdTe0YPL2qdwBkiA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
US PREPARING FOR MILITARY DRAFT IN SPRING 2005
By Adam Stutz
Indymedia.org
Wednesday January 28, 2004
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php
Reinstatement of the draft
---------------------
I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal
government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted
war on "terrorism."
Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163)
would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 --
conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the
administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our
action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.
If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted
with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not
have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a
change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would
among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not
exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)
Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the
aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know
-- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please
also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling
their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other
media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.
The Draft*
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS)
budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June
15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which
has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website:
<http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html> to view the SSS Annual
Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.
The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft
board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is
an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members
of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard
slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on
"terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year,
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the
common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] 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, and for other purposes." These active bills currently
sit in the Committee on Armed Services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era
remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada
and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to
keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign
Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge,
the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other
things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each
country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and
class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen
would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent
semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
*This article by Adam Stutz is from the "What's Hot Off the Press" column
of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma
State University that tracks the news published in independent journals
and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list
(more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social significance
that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the
country's major national news media. The mission of Project Censored is
"to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a
democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and
why."
"What's Hot Off the Press" includes student synopses of articles currently
being investigated for inclusion in the next Project Censored report. For
more info and/or to receive Project Censored's newsletter, go to:
http://www.projectcensored.org
or email [censored]@sonoma.edu
------------
OILING UP THE DRAFT MACHINE?
By Dave Lindorff
Information Clearing House
November 3, 2003
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant
young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s, their
membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended.
But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on
terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to
bring the draft boards back to life.
"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges. "If a
military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal
Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive
deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."
Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions
last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some
of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.
Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is an
ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing in
Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is stretched
too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and Iran
and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White House
suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those spots,
too.
Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the
Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions
and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a
draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the
Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards
is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask
Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy
assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.
Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members
of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate,
the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the
nation's military in a time of global instability.
"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in
Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. "We've failed
to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so
morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So
what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point,
we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get
them will be a return to the draft."
Rangel has provoked controversy in the past by insisting that a draft is
the only way to fill the nation's military needs without exploiting young
men and women from lower-income families. And, some suggest, by proposing
military service from middle- and upper-class men and women, Rangel may be
trying to diminish the odds of actually using them in combat. But Rangel
is hardly alone in suggesting that the draft might be needed.
The draft, ended by Congress in 1973 as the Indochina War was winding
down, was long a target of antiwar activists, and remains highly
controversial both in and out of the military. Most military officers
understandably prefer an army of volunteers and career soldiers over an
army of grudging conscripts; Rumsfeld, too, has long been a staunch
advocate of an
all-volunteer force.
According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to
reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people
around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in
services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000
active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in
Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble
military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.
"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern
Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and
some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to
terror tactics," says Charles Pe=F1a, director of defense studies at the
libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10
soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it
was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it
would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as
480,000.
"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by
the White House and the Defense Department right now," Pe=F1a adds, "is that
you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they
don't want to talk about that."
The Pentagon has already had to double the deployment periods of some
units, call up more reserves and extend tours of duty by a year -- all
highly unpopular moves. Meanwhile, the recent spate of deadly bombings in
Baghdad, Falluja and other cities, and increasing attacks on U.S. forces
throughout Iraq have forced the U.S. to reconsider its plans to reduce
troop
deployments.
Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself --
clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard and
reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far from
their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes, the
Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half
the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to
reenlist -- a very high figure.
Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves
in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops
currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's
recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take into
consideration military needs at home and around the globe.
"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the enlistment
numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military manpower
expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full impact on
recruiting/retention hasn't been felt."
The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.
Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy at the Department of Defense,
concedes that troop morale is hurting. "There are certainly concerns about
future reenlistments. Iraq is not a happy place to be," Gilroy says.
"[But] I think a certain amount of that is just grumbling. What we're
interested in is not what people are saying, but what they do." So far, he
reports, reenlistments and new enlistments remain on target.
Beth Asch, a military manpower expert at the Rand Corp. think tank, agrees
that current retention and new enlistment figures are holding up. But she
cautions that it may be too soon to know the impact of the tough and
open-ended occupation in Iraq. "Short deployments actually boost
enlistments and reenlistments," Asch says. "But studies show longer
deployments can definitely have a negative impact."
While she thinks it is unlikely that the military will have to resort to a
draft to meet its needs, Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and
professor of government at Dartmouth College, is less confident.
"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold
reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section
of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to
pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's
already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries
to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with
much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what
happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan
isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either.
"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."
Purely in mechanical terms, a draft is a complicated and difficult thing
to get off the ground. It would require an act of Congress, first, and
then the signature of the president. Young men are already required to
register with the Selective Service system, but if the bill were signed
into law, it would still take half a year or more to get the new troops
into the system. Federal law would require the Selective Service to
immediately set up a lottery and start sending out induction notices.
Local draft boards would have to evaluate them for medical problems, moral
objections and other issues like family crises, and hear the appeals of
those who are resisting the draft.
Under law, the first batch of new conscripts must be processed and ready
for boot camp in 193 days or less after the start of the draft.
But if the mechanics of the draft are difficult, the politics could be
lethal for Bush or any other top official who proposed it.
Already, the American public is almost as split today over the war in Iraq
as it was about the war in Indochina nearly four decades ago, though not
yet as passionately. But a new draft would likely incite even deeper
resentment than it did then. In the last war fought by a conscript army,
draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had to
worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in that
war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice President
Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War era,
college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining the
National Guard.
But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose
lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their
current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After that,
they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as we've
seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty, too.
"If Congress and Bush reinstitute the draft, it would be the '60s all over
again," predicts Lebow. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing such a
bill, but then, look how many members of Congress just rolled over and
played dead on the bill for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan."
New York Rep. Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced companion
bills in the two houses of Congress to reactivate the draft last January,
at a time when Bush was clearly moving toward an invasion. While both
bills remain in the legislative hopper, neither has gone anywhere.
Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like Bandow
at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it before
the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he explains.
"It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add an
incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split the
limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's denials,
planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as
independent military experts are. And that could explain the willingness
to tune up the draft machinery.
John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in Philadelphia,
says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War.
Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in Iraq
"because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't mean Bush
would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran says.
"To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a draft.
"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in place
and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it," he
explains.
"They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a spokesman for
the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the click
of a finger."
............
SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY AND THE NATION
BECOME A SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM LOCAL BOARD MEMBER
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html
The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the
community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board.
Prospective Board Members must be citizens of the United States , at least
18 years old, and registered with the Selective Service (if male).
Prospective Board Members may not be an employee of any law enforcement
occupation, not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces, and
not have been convicted of any criminal offense.
Once identified as qualified candidates for appointment, prospective Board
Members are recommended by the Governor and appointed by the Director of
Selective Service, who acts on behalf of the President in making
appointments. Each new member receives 12 hours of initial training after
appointment, followed by 4 hours of annual training for as long as he or
she remains in the position. They may serve as Board Members for up to 20
years, if desired.
Local Board Members are uncompensated volunteers who play an important
community role closely connected with our Nation's defense. If a military
draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards
throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim,
receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service,
based on Federal guidelines.
Positions are available in many communities across the Nation. If you
believe you meet the standards for Selective Service Board Membership, and
wish to be considered for appointment please visit our web site at:
http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html
Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm=
--Boundary_(ID_admjG2XdTe0YPL2qdwBkiA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font face=3D"Courier New, Courier" size=3D1>US PREPARING FOR MILITARY DRAFT
IN SPRING 2005<br>
By Adam Stutz<br>
Indymedia.org<br>
Wednesday January 28, 2004<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.p=
hp</a><br><br>
Reinstatement of the draft<br><br>
---------------------<br><br>
I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the
federal<br>
government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a
protracted<br>
war on "terrorism."<br><br>
Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR
163)<br>
would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005
--<br>
conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the<br>
administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so
our<br>
action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.<br><br>
If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were
confronted<br>
with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might
not<br>
have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have
a<br>
change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan
would<br>
among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would
not<br>
exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)<br><br>
Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all
the<br>
aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children
know<br>
-- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!
Please<br>
also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't
telling<br>
their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and
other<br>
media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important
story.<br><br>
The Draft*<br><br>
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System
(SSS)<br>
budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as
June<br>
15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system,
which<br>
has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see
website:<br>
<<a href=3D"http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html" eudora=3D"autourl">h=
ttp://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html</a>>
to view the SSS Annual<br>
Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.<br><br>
The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350
draft<br>
board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this
is<br>
an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential
members<br>
of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long,
hard<br>
slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on<br>
"terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but
to draft.<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm=
</a><br><br>
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year,<br>
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for
the<br>
common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in
the<br>
United States, including women, perform a period of military service or
a<br>
period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense
and<br>
homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills
currently<br>
sit in the Committee on Armed Services.<br><br>
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam
era<br>
remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001,
Canada<br>
and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be
used to<br>
keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of
Foreign<br>
Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom
Ridge,<br>
the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among
other<br>
things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and
departing each<br>
country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender
and<br>
class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.
Underclassmen<br>
would only be able to postpone service until the end of their
cur-rent<br>
semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic=20
year.<br><br>
*This article by Adam Stutz is from the "What's Hot Off the
Press" column<br>
of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at
Sonoma<br>
State University that tracks the news published in independent
journals<br>
and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual
list<br>
(more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social
significance<br>
that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the<br>
country's major national news media. The mission of Project Censored
is<br>
"to educate people about the role of independent journalism in
a<br>
democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News
and<br>
why."<br><br>
"What's Hot Off the Press" includes student synopses of
articles currently<br>
being investigated for inclusion in the next Project Censored report.
For<br>
more info and/or to receive Project Censored's newsletter, go
to:<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.projectcensored.org/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.projectcensored.org</a><br>
or email [censored]@sonoma.edu<br><br>
------------<br><br>
OILING UP THE DRAFT MACHINE?<br>
By Dave Lindorff<br>
Information Clearing House<br>
November 3, 2003<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm=
</a><br><br>
The community draft boards that became notorious for sending
reluctant<br>
young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s,
their<br>
membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was
ended.<br>
But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war
on<br>
terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign
to<br>
bring the draft boards back to life.<br><br>
"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges.
"If a<br>
military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and
Appeal<br>
Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive<br>
deferments, postponements or exemptions from military
service."<br><br>
Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training
sessions<br>
last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill
some<br>
of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant
nationwide.<br><br>
Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is
an<br>
ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing
in<br>
Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is
stretched<br>
too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and
Iran<br>
and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White
House<br>
suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those
spots,<br>
too.<br><br>
Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has
the<br>
Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board
positions<br>
and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of
a<br>
draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive,
the<br>
Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft
boards<br>
is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency
plan" to ask<br>
Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's=20
deputy<br>
assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.<br><br>
Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential
members<br>
of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's<br>
prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan
proves accurate,<br>
the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff
the<br>
nation's military in a time of global instability.<br><br>
"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our
presence in<br>
Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat.
"We've failed<br>
to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments=20
so<br>
morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run.
So<br>
what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some
point,<br>
we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to
get<br>
them will be a return to the draft."<br><br>
Rangel has provoked controversy in the past by insisting that a draft
is<br>
the only way to fill the nation's military needs without exploiting
young<br>
men and women from lower-income families. And, some suggest, by
proposing<br>
military service from middle- and upper-class men and women, Rangel may
be<br>
trying to diminish the odds of actually using them in combat. But
Rangel<br>
is hardly alone in suggesting that the draft might be needed.<br><br>
The draft, ended by Congress in 1973 as the Indochina War was
winding<br>
down, was long a target of antiwar activists, and remains highly<br>
controversial both in and out of the military. Most military
officers<br>
understandably prefer an army of volunteers and career soldiers over
an<br>
army of grudging conscripts; Rumsfeld, too, has long been a staunch<br>
advocate of an<br>
all-volunteer force.<br><br>
According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to<br>
reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million
people<br>
around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and
in<br>
services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about
140,000<br>
active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed
in<br>
Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble<br>
military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.<br><br>
"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in
Northern<br>
Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army
and<br>
some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort
to<br>
terror tactics," says Charles Pe=F1a, director of defense studies at
the<br>
libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of
10<br>
soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height,
it<br>
was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq,
it<br>
would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as<br>
480,000.<br><br>
"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed
by<br>
the White House and the Defense Department right now," Pe=F1a adds,
"is that<br>
you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and
they<br>
don't want to talk about that."<br><br>
The Pentagon has already had to double the deployment periods of
some<br>
units, call up more reserves and extend tours of duty by a year --
all<br>
highly unpopular moves. Meanwhile, the recent spate of deadly bombings
in<br>
Baghdad, Falluja and other cities, and increasing attacks on U.S.
forces<br>
throughout Iraq have forced the U.S. to reconsider its plans to
reduce<br>
troop<br>
deployments.<br><br>
Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself=20
--<br>
clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard
and<br>
reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far
from<br>
their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes,
the<br>
Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that
half<br>
the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are
"very unlikely" to<br>
reenlist -- a very high figure.<br><br>
Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army
reserves<br>
in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000
troops<br>
currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this
year's<br>
recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take
into<br>
consideration military needs at home and around the globe.<br><br>
"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the
enlistment<br>
numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military
manpower<br>
expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full
impact on<br>
recruiting/retention hasn't been felt."<br><br>
The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.<br><br>
Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy at the Department of
Defense,<br>
concedes that troop morale is hurting. "There are certainly concerns
about<br>
future reenlistments. Iraq is not a happy place to be," Gilroy
says.<br>
"[But] I think a certain amount of that is just grumbling. What
we're<br>
interested in is not what people are saying, but what they do." So
far, he<br>
reports, reenlistments and new enlistments remain on target.<br><br>
Beth Asch, a military manpower expert at the Rand Corp. think tank,
agrees<br>
that current retention and new enlistment figures are holding up. But
she<br>
cautions that it may be too soon to know the impact of the tough=20
and<br>
open-ended occupation in Iraq. "Short deployments actually
boost<br>
enlistments and reenlistments," Asch says. "But studies show
longer<br>
deployments can definitely have a negative impact."<br><br>
While she thinks it is unlikely that the military will have to resort to
a<br>
draft to meet its needs, Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and<br>
professor of government at Dartmouth College, is less=20
confident.<br><br>
"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They
can hold<br>
reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole
section<br>
of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try
to<br>
pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides,
there's<br>
already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other
countries<br>
to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not
with<br>
much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw
what<br>
happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in
Afghanistan<br>
isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work
either.<br><br>
"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the
draft."<br><br>
Purely in mechanical terms, a draft is a complicated and difficult
thing<br>
to get off the ground. It would require an act of Congress, first,
and<br>
then the signature of the president. Young men are already required
to<br>
register with the Selective Service system, but if the bill were
signed<br>
into law, it would still take half a year or more to get the new
troops<br>
into the system. Federal law would require the Selective Service to<br>
immediately set up a lottery and start sending out induction
notices.<br>
Local draft boards would have to evaluate them for medical problems,
moral<br>
objections and other issues like family crises, and hear the appeals
of<br>
those who are resisting the draft.<br><br>
Under law, the first batch of new conscripts must be processed and
ready<br>
for boot camp in 193 days or less after the start of the draft.<br><br>
But if the mechanics of the draft are difficult, the politics could
be<br>
lethal for Bush or any other top official who proposed it.<br><br>
Already, the American public is almost as split today over the war in
Iraq<br>
as it was about the war in Indochina nearly four decades ago, though
not<br>
yet as passionately. But a new draft would likely incite even=20
deeper<br>
resentment than it did then. In the last war fought by a conscript
army,<br>
draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had
to<br>
worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in
that<br>
war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice
President<br>
Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War
era,<br>
college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining
the<br>
National Guard.<br><br>
But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose<br>
lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their<br>
current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After=20
that,<br>
they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as
we've<br>
seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty,
too.<br><br>
"If Congress and Bush reinstitute the draft, it would be the '60s
all over<br>
again," predicts Lebow. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing
such a<br>
bill, but then, look how many members of Congress just rolled over
and<br>
played dead on the bill for $87 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan."<br><br>
New York Rep. Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced
companion<br>
bills in the two houses of Congress to reactivate the draft last
January,<br>
at a time when Bush was clearly moving toward an invasion. While
both<br>
bills remain in the legislative hopper, neither has gone
anywhere.<br><br>
Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like
Bandow<br>
at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it
before<br>
the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he
explains.<br>
"It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add
an<br>
incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split
the<br>
limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's
denials,<br>
planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as<br>
independent military experts are. And that could explain the
willingness<br>
to tune up the draft machinery.<br><br>
John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in
Philadelphia,<br>
says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam
War.<br>
Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in
Iraq<br>
"because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't
mean Bush<br>
would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran
says.<br>
"To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a
draft.<br><br>
"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in
place<br>
and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it,"
he<br>
explains.<br><br>
"They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a
spokesman for<br>
the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the
click<br>
of a finger."<br><br>
............<br><br>
SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY AND THE NATION<br>
BECOME A SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM LOCAL BOARD MEMBER<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html</a>=
<br><br>
The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in=20
the<br>
community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft
board.<br><br>
Prospective Board Members must be citizens of the United States , at
least<br>
18 years old, and registered with the Selective Service (if male).<br>
Prospective Board Members may not be an employee of any law
enforcement<br>
occupation, not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces,
and<br>
not have been convicted of any criminal offense.<br><br>
Once identified as qualified candidates for appointment, prospective
Board<br>
Members are recommended by the Governor and appointed by the Director
of<br>
Selective Service, who acts on behalf of the President in making<br>
appointments. Each new member receives 12 hours of initial training
after<br>
appointment, followed by 4 hours of annual training for as long as he
or<br>
she remains in the position. They may serve as Board Members for up to
20<br>
years, if desired.<br><br>
Local Board Members are uncompensated volunteers who play an
important<br>
community role closely connected with our Nation's defense. If a
military<br>
draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal=20
Boards<br>
throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a=20
claim,<br>
receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military
service,<br>
based on Federal guidelines.<br><br>
Positions are available in many communities across the Nation. If
you<br>
believe you meet the standards for Selective Service Board Membership,
and<br>
wish to be considered for appointment please visit our web site
at:<br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm</a><br><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html</a>=
<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href=3D"http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm<br>
</a>208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm" eudora=3D"autour=
l">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm</a></html>
--Boundary_(ID_admjG2XdTe0YPL2qdwBkiA)--