May 25, 2004

Is it just me, or do you feel a draft?

So I just got a bulk email from one of the secretaries in my office, who normally forwards silly joke emails along the lines of "Here are some commonly observed differences between men and women, stated in a humorous fashion."

So when I started reading it, I thought it was a joke at first. But it's about reinstating the draft, and it appears to be for real. Which is scary.

I'd heard murmurings about reinstating the draft, but I wrote it all off as a grim joke. I certainly didn't know legislation was already in the works.

Click below to read the article in its entirety. Does anyone who's monitoring the legislature more diligently than I am (Colin?) know more about this?

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$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. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Click here to view the SSS annual performance plan for 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.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 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.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. 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 U.S. Homeland Security director, 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 current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.

Posted by Shippy at May 25, 2004 11:06 AM
Comments

The bills in their entirety: (Senate 89 and House 163)

How is it that these bills were introduced in January and we're only hearing about them now? Have all the lefty bloggers been asleep at the wheel? What about Salon? Where was the news item about this? COTUS, you sneaky bastards.

I did some quick math, With a start date as soon as June 15, 2005 I (and some others on this board too) will still be 26 and technically eligible. All you accursed oldies, well, looks like you're safe.

It makes sense that they'd be putting this in motion, there just aren't enough soldiers in the volunteer services to wage war with the whole damn world for all nasty time.

Posted by: ade at May 25, 2004 11:51 AM

I remember this stuff. Why you don't is another question... It is supported by democrats too. Part of the idea is that if everyone is required to go, then we won't go to war. I think the whole thing is fubar. If they reinstate the draft, Bushy won't be able to help hisself anymore... he'll be forced to start wars... Don't want all those fine young people standing around with nothing to do!

Posted by: Graver at May 25, 2004 12:06 PM

well, i think we can all agree i'll be 4-F. and when the draft comes back, i'll teach you to be full of panic attacks and neurosis and afraid of florescent lighting too!

Posted by: lw at May 25, 2004 03:45 PM

Don't worry lizz, there won't be any fluorescent lighting where you're going... and panci attacks won't be so strange. everyone will be panicked all the time. They don't really care if their cannon-fodder is a little tweaky. You'd have to be murderously psychotic. Oh wait... they like that too.

Posted by: Graver at May 25, 2004 04:02 PM

I think most of us will be exempt due to our age. However, many of us do have siblings and (ahem) significant others who are below the 26-y.o. cutoff.

Posted by: Shippy at May 25, 2004 04:54 PM

WTF mate? I too am flabberghasted at having heard NOTHING of this. I've often fallen into a 'what if there was a draft' reverie, especially after reading A Prayer For Owen Meany' and from this tome, you may wish to know that if you are missing two joints from any finger (or one from your trigger finger) you're ineligible. Whether this is true or not, I'm still eyeing the skilsaw at work.

This on top of school debt makes me want to fake my own death.

Posted by: sundaykofax at May 25, 2004 06:20 PM

you could always say that you have a habit of firing upon your own men.

Posted by: lw at May 25, 2004 06:25 PM

Or say you're gay.

Posted by: Shippy at May 25, 2004 09:39 PM

Well, I'll be 27 by then and hopefully too old. But if I was young enough to be drafted, I'd get the hell out of the US...out of the Americas....

It seems interesting (put on your tinfoil hats now) that I read about this just after I read an article on CNN about Hillary Clinton and some Republican senator wanting to increase the size of the Army.

Conincidence? Mayhaps....but it's not coincidence that I balance a bottle on my door when I'm gone. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Posted by: colin at May 25, 2004 10:40 PM

Hell, I might not feel bad at all about turning 30 this year now.

I gotta say if they ever tried to draft my ass for some Bush war mongering I would be drinking some Molson and bitching about how cold it is up in Canada. I would willingly and proudly go if I thought there was an actual threat to family, friends, and country though. I am not just categorically opposed to war. I don’t think anyone would argue that we should not have gotten involved in WWII. Sometimes people gotta kill people.

Here is what pisses me off on this entire thing and it is mildly off topic but definitely applicable. The whole reason the middle east has any potential as a threat is because they have money. Where do they get that money? Oil and nowhere else. So why is it that we do not have some serious tax cuts for people who put solar cells on their house? Or for people who buy hybrid cars? And why do we not have a team of ill scientist types making us some cars and such that run on some renewable resource produced locally and then make the car companies conform? Hell cut all NASA budgets for 4 years and put it all into green power research I bet we have something to show for it. (That would be around 60 BILLION towards research btw). Cut off the funding to the middle east from oil exports and they will not be a threat very long as they hemorrhage money for food and such. Instead we continue to let the oil company SIG's lobby for short term goals of profitability on their behalf instead of a big picture long term legislation for what is best for all and the dumb ass politicians are just happy they are getting rich.

Posted by: Keester at May 26, 2004 11:25 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about laying off everyone at NASA, even if it is just for a few years. It'd take a very very long time for them to recover when their funding returned, with even more wasted money. Just a thought.

Posted by: Graver at May 26, 2004 11:35 AM

Canada's not an option, ever since the US and our northerly neighbors signed a "smart borders" act in 2001 that would prevent hippie peacenik assholes from enjoying free health care and very expensive beer in Canada.

I am seriously curious about the gay angle, though. Wouldn't drafting an openly gay man/woman contradict the don't ask/don't tell policy, thereby creating a paradox and causing the universe to fold in on itself?

Posted by: Shippy at May 26, 2004 11:47 AM

What if:
1. The decision to go to war was decided democratically, that is, by a majority vote of citizens. (This is assuming that we could find a method efficient enough to make such a decision in times when we need a quick response)
2. Those who vote "yes" are put on the first-priority draft list. Those who abstain are put on the second-priority draft list. Those who vote no are not drafted.
3. We would still, at all times, have a standing army and rules for responding to attack and immediate threat, but for long term conflict, a vote must be held.

Posted by: ae at May 26, 2004 11:56 AM

sadly, keester, the people in power -- especially the cheneys and the bushes and their oil cronies -- still stand to make insane amounts of money from these conflicts based on their oil interests alone. plus the car companies and lobbyists woo them enough so that they don't have any incentive to help us become self-sufficient.

plus, many of bush's fundamentalist advisors are insistant that our involvement in the middle east will bring on the rapture, and they all get to go to heaven. there was a big article about it in the village voice last week or the week before.

so my point is this, the government hates us. and by us i mean the peacenik hippie liberals who would rather invest in self-sufficent hybrid cars and solar panels and alternative forms of energy. hell, we might as well vote for carter b/c he put a lot of money into that in the late 70s to avoid another energy crisis. and reagan's group killed most of the funding for alternative energy as soon as he got into office. when i get enough money (ha ha ha) to get my own car, i'm buying a hybrid even if it's a few thousand more than a corolla, just because i know my dollars mean more than my voice and eventually it'll pay for itself in gas costs. 55 miles to the gallon city. mmm mmm mmm.

Posted by: lw at May 26, 2004 12:24 PM

I'm gay and brown. If I go over there no one will know which side I'm on, regardless of what I'm wearing. Plus I will try to fuck everyone, which makes me completely useless.

Posted by: the homosexual at May 26, 2004 01:12 PM