Experts see military draft as inevitable
Anti-war activists fear revival of selective service
Delaware News Journal | February 18 2005

There may come a day when Uncle Sam wants Wayne Flenniken for the U.S. Army.

In many ways, he's an ideal candidate for military service. At 15, he already has finished high school and is enrolled at Delaware Technical & Community College studying Spanish and English. There is a problem, however. Wayne doesn't want any part of Uncle Sam's Army - or anyone else's, for that matter.

"I don't believe in war and I don't like the military in any way, shape or form," he said. "I don't think anyone should be forced to die prematurely."

That's why he went to a draft resistance training session Friday in his hometown of Newark. It's why Wayne has begun building his case as a conscientious objector.

The United States no longer has a military draft and hasn't since 1973, when it converted to an all-volunteer military.

But some anti-war activists say it's only a matter of time before the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress bring it back. Meanwhile, conservatives and moderates outside the administration have taken a hard look at America's military commitments and are urging Congress to beef up the Army and Marines.

Many elected officials say there is no way the draft will be brought back any time soon.

"Our current all-volunteer force is highly effective, well-trained, well-disciplined and capable of handling our global and national security commitments," said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. "[Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have continuously stated their opposition to reviving the draft and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected such a proposal last year. I personally oppose it."

Others aren't so certain.

"I don't see the need for a draft, but we need to prepare now in order to avoid having one forced on us in the future," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. "We can reduce the stress we are placing on our armed forces by increasing the number of ground troops in the Army and Marine Corps and bringing the size of our military in line with our expanded responsibilities in a post-9/11 world," he said.

Looking for help

A few believe, however, that the White House should get other nations to share the burden in Iraq.

"We have 12 [combat] divisions and 10 are locked down in Iraq, either coming or going," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "Our ability to have any flexibility with ground forces anywhere else is diminished. If we had to move into Iran, Syria, North Korea or anywhere else, we'd be in real difficulty."

In addition, he said, "we have absolutely spent, exhausted, and in some instances misled the National Guard and the reserves. I've been in Baghdad and Fallujah and I've spoken with them. When they enlisted in the Guard, they never anticipated being sent for two tours of duty in Iraq lasting a year or 18 months. We can't keep asking citizen soldiers to do that."

In a highly critical memo on the use of Reservists, Lt. Gen. James Helmly said virtually the same thing late last year. Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, said that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could result in a "broken force."

Biden co-sponsored legislation with Republican Sen. John McCain and others that allows the Army to increase its active duty strength by 30,000 troops. The Defense Department said earlier this month that it expects to meet that goal by 2007.

Anti-war activists agree with Biden and Helmly that the military needs additional troops.

"We already have our troops stretched to the limit," said J.E. McNeil, executive director of the Center on Conscience & War. The Guard and Reserve cannot continue to provide about 40 percent of the nation's combat troops, Biden said.

As a result, McNeil and other anti-war activists such as Sally Milbury-Steen, executive director of the Wilmington-based peace organization Pacem in Terris, said they think a draft is on the horizon.

"I think there's a very good chance of a military draft in the next two years. We have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and now they're heating up the rhetoric on Iran. Where else will the soldiers come from?" Milbury-Steen asked.

Peace activists aren't the only ones thinking seriously about compulsory military service. In a well-publicized letter sent to congressional leaders in late January, conservatives and moderates said flatly that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume."

In that letter, retired military leaders such as Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey joined with defense analysts such as Michele Flournoy and political commentators such as William Kristol in asking Congress "to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. ... it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."

They do not call for a draft but anti-war activists say they see no other certain way to boost military strength.

"The most probable way they will start is to do a selected draft of medical people, those with specialized computer skills, and those with Arabic language skills and let it spread further," Milbury-Steen said.

'Everything is in place'

If a new draft law is enacted, the government could start sending new recruits to military training very quickly. The reason: Former President Jimmy Carter put the framework of the current Selective Service system in place in 1980. Although Carter never activated it, as part of the framework, young men must register with the government when they turn 18.

That means, Milbury-Steen said, that new recruits could be sent to boot camp within two weeks of the draft law's passage.

"Everything is in place, ready to go," she said.

Charles Pena, director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, does not see a military draft in the future. Instead, he said, the federal government is more likely to require compulsory national service.

"We won't have a draft like we had in the Vietnam era," Pena said. "There are two important stumbling blocks to bringing that back. First, what do you do about women? They weren't drafted before but are now an important part of the military.Second, what happens if someone who is drafted says that he or she is a homosexual?"

Discussion reflects support

There is no groundswell for national service legislation now, Pena said, but it is being discussed by lawmakers and at policy seminars throughout the nation's capital.

"It's lurking right below the surface. There are enough people willing to get behind it on Capitol Hill that it's something that could be done. Right now no one's pushing for it, but just as importantly, no one's pushing against it," he said.

Under national compulsory service, no one would be exempt, he said. People could join the military or perform some other form of community service, Pena said.

Newark resident Jane Curschmann isn't sure there will be a draft. She went to last week's anti-draft training because she has a 13-year-old son and wanted to be better informed about his rights. Judy Butler also attended the session. She doesn't know if there will be a draft but is suspicious of the Bush administration's forceful denials that there are plans to reinstitute one.

"I have a problem with credibility with this particular administration," she said.

Wayne Flenniken's father, Eric, a former Army Reservist, went to the draft resistance training with his son because, while he doesn't have a problem defending the country from enemies, he has a problem sending his son to fight in Iraq.

"I used to be gung-ho when I was younger but this war in Iraq, it all boils down to oil and oil interests. You want to send my son to Iraq to defend Enron? No," he said, "I don't think so."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That homosexual line caught me by surprise. I never imagined that would be used as a wild card if a draft were to be reinstated. If the Cheney Administration really wants to go into Iran or Syria, where will they get these troops?

It still amazes the fuck out of me that homosexuals aren't allowed in the military in the year 2005.

they are, its just "don't ask, dont tell."

the thing that cracks me up is all the people saying this stuff, except for maybe 2 in the article, are anti-war activists. of course the anti-war activists are going to use this to drum up support for their cause, duh

Bush, can we let the homosexuals volunteer before you start drafting people?


Eh, what do I care? I'm too old to be drafted, aren't I?

One of the most hard-core republicans I've known just joined the army this winter to fulfill his duty to his country. At least there are a few 'honest' pro-war people still...

As for the topic, though, no, I don't fear a draft is inevitable. I think even Bush knows that he couldn't get away with it.

IEB + something military related + "experts" = simple schoolboy's raging skepticism



I still love you man, I've just heard too many claims of imminent draftage.

*blows IEB a kiss*

i was thinking it was like 25 or 26 to be to old, but im not positive

I think it is 25.

My take?

The same as the current stance by Rumsfeld (imagine that?!), which is it is far better to have a professional army than a conscript army. One of the hallmarks of our policy against the Soviets during the Cold War was "quality" versus "quantity". The Soviets had far more manpower and hardware than all of the western militaries combined, and yet in proxy wars, simulation, and according to experts on both sides of the argument, the technological and professional quality edge of the west did enough to stave off the Soviet threat (but most likely would NOT have conquered it). It was a matter of defense, and did a hell of a good job in doing so. Our aircraft and soldiers were highly successful against Soviet aircraft and soldiers, even when heavily outnumbered (such as in the skies of Korea, Vietnam, and when utilized by Israel against Arab threats).

Professional soldiers...highly skilled and highly trained are far better at getting the job done in the most effective and efficient means possible than conscript soldiers. There are VERY few military experts that would disagree.

Now, the modern-day threat is obviously different. Cold War ideas do not always correlate well with the terrorist and terrorist regime threats of today. However, when used PROPERLY and in the CORRECT SITUATIONS, our professional military is highly capable of defending the nation against such attacks. The trouble, is when it becomes over extended.

I see a need to keep the military professional, but also keep it very well equiped, well trained, and given the best technology to utilize. I see a demand for a better focus on defense rather than pre-emption, with pre-emption ONLY utilized when threats become inevitable (which should be the rarest of situations). Not every threat demands pre-emption, as would be the case with North Korea and China for example. Syria would be a different situation.

But LONG before we are able to cope with problems arising elsewhere in the Middle East, and in Asia as well, we need to finish what we are doing in Iraq. Yes, I do believe the Iraq war was ill-timed, but now that we are there we need to get this done in a quick, but successful manner, so as to regroup and replenish the military for our defense. As you can tell, I am big on defense, but cautious on pre-emption. I think the militaries that Eisenhower and Reagan built were outstanding, and the military Rumsfeld envisions is risky (the smaller, mobile military which is finding the going a bit tougher in Iraq). This is where I depart from Rumsfeld's view on the military, and favor one envisioned by Powell, Weinburger, and others. I think a large and capable military is necessary for our DEFENSE (especially against superpower threat such as China), but a mobile pre-emption force as PART of that military could be developed (whether it is a combination of elite marine and CIA forces or another entirely different creation). This would effectively satisfy BOTH visions of each side.

Either way, the military MUST remain professional. I firmly believe that if the US would EVER need to draft soldiers, it would be in a situation in which we are losing the battle, and on our collective "last legs" prior to defeat following invasion of our homeland proper.

I pray that never happens.

That last post is another reminder why I respect tsunami.

If you're not too old, maybe you are too homosexual to be drafted.

You're awesome GH!

or don't do. They can't have sex at all while in the military. If they get caught they get thrown in jail. I worked in a brig in the Marines and actually had to guard men because they were gay. How ridiculous is that?

I feel safe knowing that the military is utilizing resources to protect us from the gay menace.

I hope so.

Is there anything in place that would keep a person from playing gay in order to avoid being drafted? This is the easiest out EVER!!! Thank you, President Clinton, for being totally wishy-washy on the gays in the military issue!

What if you have to prove that you're gay?

I'll have to think about that, but it's not off the table.

I've heard this mentioned before in another draft thread, and can't understand the logic. I mean, yeah I could prior to November 2nd. But now that the Cheney Administration is in for another 4 years, why couldn't they get away with reinstating the draft? What are they gonna get impeached? No. Hell, they could invade Cuba right now, and with Karl Rove workin' the propaganda media machine very well could convince half of American Castro in an imminent threat. I just don't understand why they couldn't get away with this. They've gotten away with SO much so far, this doesn't seem like to big of a hurdle for them.

Tsunami, thank you for posting that so that I didn't have to.