Will There Be A Draft?

Times Argus - October 10, 2004

By JOSEPH GAINZA

Despite official denials to the contrary, rumors persist that a military draft may be reinstituted. The recent overwhelming vote in the U.S. House against a bill which would bring back the draft and establish an alternative mandatory two-year national service, may lay some fears to rest but not all. A similar bill in the U.S. Senate introduced by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings still languishes in committee but helps keep the rumors flowing.

Even with assurances from members of Congress and the Pentagon that a draft is not planned and the recent statement by George W. Bush that "we will not have a draft so long as I'm the president of the United States," parents remain skeptical. Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, says, "I think it is skepticism that we have been misled so many times about this war: weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaida, a 'cakewalk.' People are clearly worried and figure 'They are just waiting until the election is over to spring the bad news on us.'"

Some people point to the fact that the Selective Service System, the body which would oversee a draft, has recently received $26 million from Congress and has begun to try and fill vacancies in local draft boards as evidence that a draft is pending. Also of concern is the move by Congress to expand the size of the Army and Marines and the efforts of the Defense Department to retain some soldiers beyond their expected dates for leaving service. Additionally the military is planning to recall to the barracks 5,600 former active-duty soldiers still in the reserves who have certain skills.

So what are we to believe? I have looked into the available evidence and read the comments of anti-draft activists and organizations. I believe that given the present situation, there are several reasons why chances of a reinstated draft are slight to none. The reasons run from the practical to the political. The $26 million dollars for the Selective Service recently approved by Congress was in fact the agency's regular budget, reduced by $2 million.

The call for volunteers to fill local draft boards is a result of the expiration of the 20-year terms of members appointed after President Carter re-established registration in 1980. Congress is very aware that more than 70 percent of those surveyed were against reinstating the draft and there is very little desire in both chambers to buck this popular sentiment; the recent vote against the draft bill in the House was 402 to 2 with Charles Rangel, the lead sponsor, voting against it. Rangel had introduced the bill as a way to protest the Iraq War and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of the fighting. The Pentagon has repeatedly said that it does not need a draft, pointing to the better qualified recruits of a volunteer military.

What is not said by anyone in Congress, the Bush administration or the Pentagon is that the memory of the Vietnam War, when there was a draft, continues to haunt policy-makers. Opposition to that war came, in large part, from students and parents who dreaded the thought of being forced to fight; as a consequence the draft was abolished in 1973.

It is a sad reality that many people will more likely ignore U.S. military interventions when there is a volunteer force to do the fighting. Their children are safe unless their economic condition makes the overtures of military recruiters seem attractive. This "poverty draft" has worked well enough to enable recruiters to meet their quotas. A reinstituted draft makes it far more likely that an aroused electorate from all economic levels will oppose future "preventive" wars. So a draft is not likely unless there is a drastic change in present conditions. Another war, another attack could change many minds. That is why the American Friends Service Committee in Vermont has been talking with draft counselors in the state about setting up a counselor training, just in case.

A peace movement must go beyond discussion of a military draft, as important as that is. We must re-frame the discussion. We must insist that there be a public discussion about what the American military is for; to what purpose it is being employed. We must raise the question about why there are over 730 U.S. military bases and installations around the world.

We must demand an accounting of the 1.4 million soldiers presently in the military. Why, with that number of personnel, does having 130,000 troops in Iraq put such a strain on the military that National Guard members now make up nearly 40 percent of those in Iraq? Where are they all? Why are they there? Why is the United States the only nation which divides the world into military commands (Central Command, Southern Command, etc.), headed by a military satrap? Why does the United States spend 47 percent of the total world budget for the military, with Japan (an ally) in second place with 5 percent, according to a 2004 study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute?

Why does the United States act as the world policeman and also demand that it be exempted from the judicial oversight which could be provided by the International Criminal Court? What community would ever allow the police to operate freely without any judicial oversight? Yet that is precisely is what is demanded of the world community by the U.S. government.

These and similar questions are not appearing in the media. A peace movement must raise them and force a response from our government as we also keep an eye on any attempt to reinstate the draft.

Joseph Gainza is the Vermont program coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.