Reinstating the Draft
In the book "Censored 2005", recommended to me by Teresa, one of the top 25 censored news stories is about reinstating the draft. Just before the election of 2004, Congress overwhelmingly voted to reject reinstatement of the draft. Nevertheless, as the book indicates, the mechanisms for the draft are being updated, fine tuned and put in ready status. The article can be read on line at http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/24.html
The Selective Service System has always been in place, but it had gone rusty in the last couple decades. Changes from near the end of the Vietnam War limiting college deferments to one semester or to one year for seniors, continue in place. But within three months of the 9/11 attacks, the US had quietly entered into an agreement with Canada to further regulate cross border traffic, including screening provisions to help catch would be draft dodgers.The Bush Administration has also quietly been filling the nationwide draft board vacancies that were previously given a very low priority.
The SSS has a plan in effect which calls for a status report to the President by the end of this coming March, with a potential draft date as early as June 15, 2005. Since 2000, a majority of the States have enacted legislation linking drivers license applications to SSS registration as a further net for catching would be draft evaders. I had to do a site search at the SSS site to find the map of States which have passed these laws, and the map I found had not been updated since 2001. The SSS does not seem to be broadcasting many of the things it is actually doing, but instead seems to be primarily interested in spinning for the Administration a yarn that no draft is in fact going to happen. I wonder if the new SSS head Bush just apointed is a more loyal spinmeister than the previous one. Other possible plans under consideration by the SSS include expanding the draft to include women and extending the draft age to 34.
The Rumsfeld concept of a small, quick Army utilizing a highly sophisticated arsenal of weaponry has been proved a failure for occupation missions. Any hope the Bush administration may have had, with regard to military invasions of additional countries, for troop support from other nations or for using indigenous troops to stabilize during a post invasion occupation, has been lost by the arrogant invasion and incompetent occupation of Iraq. Unless Bush stops further aggression, which is not entirely likely, more US troop are going to be needed for future US occupations. And even now in Iraq more US troops are needed. Recalling reserves and national guard, extending tours, stop loss orders and other devices are about used up. Dangling bigger carrots to entice new recruits is becoming less likely to succeed as the War in Iraq continues to be seen more clearly for the dangerous debacle it is. We are getting closer to the point where the draft card is the only one left to play.
Here is the SSS web site, where you can look around. You can also download the reports and plans with Adobe Acrobat.
http://www.sss.gov/
The Selective Service System has always been in place, but it had gone rusty in the last couple decades. Changes from near the end of the Vietnam War limiting college deferments to one semester or to one year for seniors, continue in place. But within three months of the 9/11 attacks, the US had quietly entered into an agreement with Canada to further regulate cross border traffic, including screening provisions to help catch would be draft dodgers.The Bush Administration has also quietly been filling the nationwide draft board vacancies that were previously given a very low priority.
The SSS has a plan in effect which calls for a status report to the President by the end of this coming March, with a potential draft date as early as June 15, 2005. Since 2000, a majority of the States have enacted legislation linking drivers license applications to SSS registration as a further net for catching would be draft evaders. I had to do a site search at the SSS site to find the map of States which have passed these laws, and the map I found had not been updated since 2001. The SSS does not seem to be broadcasting many of the things it is actually doing, but instead seems to be primarily interested in spinning for the Administration a yarn that no draft is in fact going to happen. I wonder if the new SSS head Bush just apointed is a more loyal spinmeister than the previous one. Other possible plans under consideration by the SSS include expanding the draft to include women and extending the draft age to 34.
The Rumsfeld concept of a small, quick Army utilizing a highly sophisticated arsenal of weaponry has been proved a failure for occupation missions. Any hope the Bush administration may have had, with regard to military invasions of additional countries, for troop support from other nations or for using indigenous troops to stabilize during a post invasion occupation, has been lost by the arrogant invasion and incompetent occupation of Iraq. Unless Bush stops further aggression, which is not entirely likely, more US troop are going to be needed for future US occupations. And even now in Iraq more US troops are needed. Recalling reserves and national guard, extending tours, stop loss orders and other devices are about used up. Dangling bigger carrots to entice new recruits is becoming less likely to succeed as the War in Iraq continues to be seen more clearly for the dangerous debacle it is. We are getting closer to the point where the draft card is the only one left to play.
Here is the SSS web site, where you can look around. You can also download the reports and plans with Adobe Acrobat.
http://www.sss.gov/
posted by Tom Blake | 1:26 PM
5 Comments:
Asking young American volunteer soldiers and their loved ones of any age to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their nation's interest is a serious matter that should not be done without much much thought and discussion by our leaders. But to demand that sacrifice through the mechanism of a draft must not be done unless very dire circumstances are very likely to occur if the draft is not done.
I pray that leaders of the opposition would arise to demand proof of the need for a draft when the issue arises. I have little hope that an opposition Republican will take the lead in this. John McCain seems to be in favor of a draft. That leaves us with the hope that the gutless Democrats will finally step forward. I exempt Howard Dean from the gutless category.
John from Phoenix
A CNN poll in October, 2003, showed 88% of younger Americans and 80% of older Americans were opposed to use of the draft. An ABC News poll in October, 2004, showed the overall opposition figure at 77%. Americans clearly say they do not want to draft soldiers to die in Iraq.
If the public is so opposed to the draft, then why do our leaders seem to be moving toward it? Why did Bush apparently win in 2004, when he was the one man whose decisions made the draft a possibility? Are the mainstream Democrats gutlesss on the draft issue? [John, I am saving for another day the question of why you always beat up on the Democrats while seeming to let the Republicans slide by].
All these questions can be answered by acknowledging that what the public says it opposes and what the public expects may happen and is actually willling to accept are two different things. The thought process seems to be going like this: Bush must know more than anyone about the danger from Iraq so we should let him protect us; we seem to have won quickly and without much troop loss; so maybe Bush wasn't entirely right, but it is still ok; so maybe Bush was more wrong than right, but now that we are there we need to stay and finish the job; more troops dying is bad, but they are voluntary heroes; looks like we will need more troops and maybe not get enough volunteers; if we can't raise troops any other way, then a draft is the only answer.
When I was in law school and facing the draft, I researched the legal history of conscription in America, which started during the Civil War as it dragged on and became more unpopular. Immigrants became a significant part of the Union forces as native borns avoided service. [History does have a way of repeating itself]. The draft was upheld by a decision of the US Supreme Court, but as I recall, that decision was based on law before the 13th amendment had been adopted to abolish involuntary servitude (the 19th century politically correct term for chattel slavery based on race). The draft is involuntary servitude and I believe it is in violation of the 13th amendment, which we should amend to allow military conscription if that is what we want to do. But our society, from the man in the street up to the US Supreme Court, does not want to have an honest discussion of what is a just war and a just draft.
We did not need a draft for the Revolutionary War. America needs to have a thorough discussion of our concepts of war and military service and then rewrite the 13th amendment to say either that military conscription is prohibited involuntary servitude or that it is an exception to the amendment and will be allowed. I would argue that it should not be allowed and that no war should be started or maintained if it cannot be done without a draft.
I would have worded it that we did not HAVE a draft in the Revolutionary War. I wonder if George Washington thought we didn't NEED a draft. I got the first W's biography by Joseph Ellis on tape for Xmas. Maybe I'll find out.
I've heard a new theory on why the American people voted for the second W despite the mess he has made of things. I listened to a Teaching Company political science lecture by a Profesor David Barker. He delivered the lecture early in the Kerry - Bush campaign. He didn't say who would win, but he did say that it wouldn't make any difference if the Democrats had picked Gebhardt or anyone else instead. He said that political scientists have perfected ways of predicting elections by the use of some formulas as early as June of an election year. That's before any of the major campaign events have occurred such as the conventions and the debates, and way before the polls become accurate.
He said the formulas for a sitting president have only two critical variables: party affinity of the electorate and state of the economy. Party affinity is the party you identify with regardless of your registration. It's more like rooting for the UW Huskies long after you have moved to Phoenix (bad example as I don't follow sports anymore except in the courtroom). He said despite the growing number of registered Independents, only 7% of the population are truly Independent and those are ignorant of the most basic political issues such as which party rules Congress or what is the term of a Supreme Court Justice. (These true Independents are not necessarily stupid or otherwise lesser human beings. My wife falls into this category and she is a great person, plus I get to use her vote because it's always for sale.)
Because political scientists can pick the winner before the campaign gets going in earnest, and the main varibles in picking the winner don't involve the campaign, from that perpspective the campaign doesn't matter. Including who is running! (I suppose the person running would have to appear to the electorate as a plausible President, and John Kerry did that very well.)
As Tom points out, I have been blasting the Democratic Party for picking such a weak candidate as Kerry when Bush seemed to be so vulnerable. Professor Barker says it doesn't matter who the Democrats picked or how he or she ran the campaign. Bush was destined to win. And I'm sure that is how Bush is feeling right now, being a two term President was his destiny, and he had better do some great things with it, even if the great things become as disasterous as Iraq.
Another interesting matter came out of that lecture. Professor Barker says that the polls are very accurate by Labor Day. Between June and Labor Day major campaign events occur. So, from that perspective, campaigns are important. They force the electorate to become more serious about the election, and that shows when they answer the pollsters' questions.
Since the election of 1948, polls around Labor Day have been wrong in only two elections: 1960 and 2000. Many people say that Mayor Daly stole the election for John Kennedy in 1960. And many people say the Supreme Court stole the election for W in 2000.
John from Phoenix
Let us know what you learn about George Washington's opinion on the draft. In the Revolutionary War, the English used Hessian mercenaries who were impressed into service by the Hessian ruler - supplying mercenaries was the basis of the Hessian economy.
James Carville successfully used the maxim, "It's the economy, stupid", to help elect Bill Clinton. It does seem to be a universal truth of American Presidential politics. Party affinity rather than party registration does seem to be a more accurate identification for use in election predictions.
John, you have come up with a great idea for the Democrats to use to gain more electoral power. Don't marry a Republican, like Carville did, to cancel out a vote. Rather, a Democrat should marry an independent and then bargain the spopuse into voting Democratic.
I have listened to enough of the Joseph Ellis biography to report on what he says about George Washington's (the first George W) view of the draft. In a word, nothing. But we can draw some conclusions about it (that might be dead wrong) from other things he says.
W was unlike the other founding fathers of the country in that he did not really share their ideological views. Franklin, the Adams', Jefferson, Madison, Paine and others were very much products of the enlightenment. They justified the rebellion in ideological terms: the rights of man; the power to govern derives from the governed; deep skepticism over the nature of the Divinity that undermined the Divine Rights of kings. This ideology was termed Republicanism.
W, on the other hand, only hated the English. He hated their condesention of the colonists. He hated the preferential treatment the English mercantile system gave the English elite. He showed his own rebellion early by defying an order by the Crown to give up his Ohio holdings in favor of an English family - he developed the property anyway. But he admired the English class structure and the English system of government. In particular, he was much in favor of a strong central government for the united colonies and for a standing army.
Both of these ideas were seen by the ideologues as anti-Republican. This difference in ideology did not take away from the esteem the other fathers held for W. After he took command of the Continental Army in mid 1775, he was considered the foremost of the fathers, and held this position the rest of his life and afterwards. By taking over the Continental army a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, he alone was risking his fortune and life for the Revolution.
So what about the draft? W watched his tattered army become even more destitute as the war ran on and the early war fever died. He saw that the militia system was unreliable and said so, despite being very politically incorrect by stating the obvious. He became even more convinced that a standing army was essential not only to win the war but to have a viable nation afterwards. He saw that the English system was the best in the world for maintaining a standing army.
England did this through impressment (as Tom points out above) and through a financial system that provided a reliable source of funds to support that army. So my conclusion is that, if W had been a dictator and was able to do whatever he wanted, he would merely have demanded a steady source of funds and personnel for his army and would not have wanted to get into the details of how the colonies were to provide them. But he certainly would not have had any scruples about a colony doing this by resorting to a draft.
But it is maybe his most important legacy that W chose not to be a dictator when he had a very good shot at it. (Just the opposite for the second W.) He did not want to fall into Cromwell's error, and throughout his careers as General and President he espoused civilian control of the army (as horrible as that civilian control was for the ordinary Revolutionary soldier) and for Presidential succession.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home