[Peace-discuss] New Draft

Tue Apr 6 16:48:01 CDT 2004

I liked the "skills" they were looking for ... Computer Scientists and
Linguists ... as I'm the former and my partner is the latter.  I don't
think a skills draft will improve enrollment in my courses. Of course,
if they get *really* desperate, Gina & I might be cruisin' in a Humvee
with Noam :-)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken Urban
Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
Parkland College

Office: B129A
           (217)-353-2246
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> 04/06/04 3:41 PM
>>>
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