[Peace-discuss] New Draft
Morton K.Brussel
brussel4 at insightbb.com
Tue Apr 6 16:39:36 CDT 2004
Another reason why the draft is problematical for this administration
is that it may greatly increase opposition to Bush's policies; during
the Vietnam days, the students were foremost among those against the
war, for it concerned them directly. That could occur again, as the
administration is no doubt aware.
On a more philosophical basis, the draft is a form of servitude, and
making that servitude egalitarian (which I doubt would be achieved)
does not make it less obnoxious. Moreover, it would give this
government greater freedom yet for its hegemonic agenda; as is they are
strapped for manpower.
MKB
On Apr 6, 2004, at 3:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I think a general draft might be one of the quicker ways of ending the
> Iraq occupation, so I don't think the Bush administration will do it --
> although they have been talking about a "skills draft," whereby they
> can
> avoid some of the problems a general draft would produce (e.g.,
> drafting
> women) and still deal with some of their staffing problems -- which are
> great. Most of the US military is in Iraq, on the way, or on the way
> back.
>
> But neither the administration nor the Pentagon want a general draft, I
> think. (That's why at least some of the sponsors of this bill put their
> names on it.) The US found in Vietnam what the French had found out
> there
> before -- you can't fight a colonial war with a conscript army. The
> revolt of the US military in Vietnam is an untold story from more than
> 30
> years ago, but it was a principal reason that the war ended as it did
> --
> and why the Pentagon was so happy to go to a "volunteer" army.
>
> The volunteer army is of course an economic draft, as we know, but
> then so
> was the draft. (See the famous "channeling memo" from the head of SSS
> during Vietnam.) Any US government moves toward a draft (which are
> unlikely, I think) shouldn't be opposed so much as the current use of
> the
> military should be condemned -- "end the occupations" should be the
> response to the Bush administration war policy. And then of course no
> draft would be necessary. --CGE
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Alfred Kagan wrote:
>
>>> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
>>> From: Frederick W Stoss <fstoss at buffalo.edu>
>>> X-Sender: fstoss at callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu
>>> To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l at ala.org>
>>> Subject: [SRRTAC-L:13247] New Draft
>>> X-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>>> Reply-To: srrtac-l at ala.org
>>> Sender: owner-srrtac-l at ala.org
>>> X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
>>> information
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>>
>>> Fred Stoss
>>>
>>> PLEASE REPOST THIS IN YOUR BULLETIN BOARD SO THAT EVERYONE READS
>>> THIS!
>>>
>>> This is an important message. It is about the efforts being
>>> undertaken in
>>> Washington to reinstate The Draft-conscription of US men and women
>>> for
>>> compulsory service. Read this and share this with those you think
>>> need to
>>> be informed.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> House sponsors are: Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr.
>>> CONYERS,
>>> Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the
>>> following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed
>>> Services.
>>> Senate Sponsors are: Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill;
>>> which was
>>> read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services
>>>
>>> ALL DEMOCRATS!!!
>>>
>>> Why would they fall into Bush's trap like that! He can now say it was
>>> introduced by the democrats and he had nothing to do with it. I can
>>> see it
>>> now: VOTE FOR KERRY AND REINSTITUTE THE DRAFT.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't' come out, Bush WILL jump on it if he is reelected.
>>> This is
>>> TERRIBLE.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> See Pete Stark's letter of support below:
>>>
>>> Supporting H.R.163 the Universal National Service Act of 2003
>>>
>>> January 8, 2003
>>>
>>> Mr. Speaker:
>>>
>>> I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Universal
>>> National Service Act of 2003 (HR 163), which would reinstate a
>>> national
>>> draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation. I
>>> ardently
>>> oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant
>>> sending our nation's young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I
>>> believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism.
>>>
>>> Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq
>>> whatever the cost. Thanks to the President's brand of hotheaded bully
>>> diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real
>>> question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and
>>> willing to
>>> bear the cost?
>>>
>>> I commend my colleagues Mr. Rangel and Mr. Conyers for their wisdom
>>> in
>>> authoring this bill. I'm honored to be an original cosponsor.
>>>
>>> This bill requires all young Americans men and women between 18 and
>>> 26
>>> to perform a two year period of national service in a military or
>>> civilian
>>> capacity as determined by the President. For those who
>>> conscientiously
>>> object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not
>>> include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no
>>> deferments,
>>> no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military
>>> service for their country, as did our President.
>>>
>>> Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will
>>> ensure
>>> all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a
>>> universal
>>> draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the
>>> poor
>>> the disadvantaged and minority populations.
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and
>>> the
>>> 100 members of the Senate, only one-only one-has a child in active
>>> military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we
>>> ourselves
>>> will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won't be us
>>> mourning
>>> the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress
>>> would
>>> think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may
>>> be
>>> sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?
>>>
>>> If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans
>>> share
>>> in the sacrifice of war. It is time we truly comprehended the
>>> consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft
>>> which I
>>> believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my
>>> colleagues.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
>>> by Adam Stutz Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM
>>>
>>> The current agenda of the US federal government is 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!
>>>
>>> Reinstatement of the draft
>>>
>>> Dear Friends and Family,
>>>
>>> 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 "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 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 eliminate 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
>>>
>>> Don't believe it yet? Go to
>>>
>>> www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/
>>> legislative_home.htm
>>>
>>> and search for "S 89", then later search for "HR 163" where it says
>>> "By
>>> Number" and you'll find the articles. I would link you to the
>>> articles
>>> directly but that doesn't work for some reason.
>>>
>>> ---end of message---
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Al Kagan
>> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
>> Africana Unit, Room 328
>> University of Illinois Library
>> 1408 W. Gregory Drive
>> Urbana, IL 61801, USA
>>
>> tel. 217-333-6519
>> fax. 217-333-2214
>> e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list