Mandatory military service?

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Well just goes to show you how these sneaky things can get by an uninformed public. Apparently this bill was introduced in December last year, and I had never heard anything about it until this morning. Perhaps I am horribly behind the times, or maybe just fasionably late.

At any rate, I am interested in what you all think of this proposed legislation.

In a nutshell:

"The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, H.R. 3598, introduced by Rep. Smith (MI) and Rep. Weldon (PA), would require all male citizens and residents to be conscripted into the military for a one year period between their 18th and 22nd birthdays. There would be few deferments and exemptions.

Conscientious Objectors would be required to go through basic training in the military, although they would be exempt from weapons training. After military training they could be reassigned to perform civilian service. Service would not be required for women, but for the first time in US history they would be allowed to register and volunteer through the conscription system. The maximum pay for draftees would be 35% of the minimum pay currently provided for new recruits."

Highlights of the bill:
- Establishes a draft: Mandatory military service for men between the ages of 18 and 22 years.
- Permits women between the ages of 18 and 22 years to volunteer for enlistment.
- The military service required would include basic training and education for 6-12 months.
- High school drop-outs would be assisted in earning a high school equivalency diploma and would be required to complete an additional 6 months of military training.
- Permits transfer to national and community service programs after completion of initial military training.
- Deferments would be available for extreme hardship or mental or physical disability.
- High school students would have their induction postponed until they complete their studies, leave school, or turn 20, whichever happens first.
- Exemptions would be available for current members of the military (or those who have served 6 months in active duty) and cadets or midshipmen in the service academies.
- Conscientious objectors would be required to participate in basic military training and education that does not include a combatant component and may be later transferred to a national service program.
- Very low pay for draftees. (approx. $340/ month maximum)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Hmmm, well I for one, as a gut reaction, am against this bill. A few reasons I am against it are, I honestly believe the military changes people, and not always for the better (though certainly sometimes it is for the better). All my friends who went into the military were very different when they came out, and I cannot say it was an improvement. Also it's interesting how we've gone from wondering if we should even allow gays in the military to suddenly being okey dokey with it. If they do institute a draft, the "don't ask don't tell" policy should be eliminated, because as it stands now being subjected to it is something that a gay man understands and accepts when he signs up for service. If service is no longer voluntary a man should not be forced to hide his sexual orientation if he does not want to.

The justification of "several other countries have compulsory military service" also does not wash with me. Just about any study of any aspect of American culture would show you that we are very different in many ways from every other country on this planet, so the idea of "everyone else is doing it" is hogwash. Just because it works for some cultures does not mean it will work for our culture.

I fear this will be pushed through without much deliberation or objections because almost the whole country is still riding high on blind patriotism. There's no question in my mind the supporters of this bill are taking advantage of 9/11, as I suspect objections to this bill would be guaranteed to be widespread before, but may not be now. Heaven forbid one appear objective.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I am interested in hearing other opinions on this. What do *you* think?

[Kitt]

My 'ever the optomist to a fault view' causes me to believe that this bill doesn't have chance in Haiti of passing, even in these times of "blind patriotism". Speaking of which, I know that you'll agree, Bootsy, but for others I want to be clear that in my view going along with undermining civil rights and losing sight of what democracy and a republic is supposed to be - vigilance against tyrany of the majority - is not patriotism it's laziness. Just the fact that something so warped as a perpetual military draft, especially in times of peace (9-11 or not we are not at war) could be considered is disturbing. I would think that the military itself would be opposed to this idea. Can you imagine what a headache it would be to have your roster filled with them who'd rather be anywhere else but where they are? Given the mission of the military - to protect our shores, put simply - I wonder how having a revolving door of amatuers could possibly be an efficient means of maintaining the readyness of the military or the dedication of it's participants. Their recruiting slogans always portend to offer something to potential recruits. Well, $340 a month is a hard sell. I'll be paying attention to detail on this in the future.

[Lynn]

This is the first time I am hearing about this. How has the media not gotten ahold of this story? I'm with kittflynn, I don't see it passing. It just seems too extreme and unnecessary. Why would this country need every male to serve for a year? It seems like a bad idea to me.

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by kittflynn
I would think that the military itself would be opposed to this idea.

From the little bit of info I've been able to find on the subject, I've read the military is against it. So is the selective service. Here's why:

"The Selective Service doesn't like it. It would require Selective Service to scrap a decades worth of planning for what it believed would be a fair draft system for something new.

The Military doesn't like it. The Pentagon currently objects to letting people out before their scheduled release date because of the high cost of training military personnel. This proposed draft would force everyone in for a period of training, and after their 1 year obligation they would get out with no obligation to return to the military."

But according to my source Here (http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/200202/notdraft.htm), "In spite of this formidable opposition, the bill is a cause for concern. First and foremost, the bill opens the door to "legitimate" discussion of the reinstitution of a draft and, in particular, a draft law with provisions that might well be saleable on Capitol Hill even if the Military, Selective Service and COs object. Because this draft would be different. It would not be a draft intended to address a military personnel shortfall, but a draft to indoctrinate young men and women into military culture."

And Liza, I am also quite disturbed that the news media hasn't caught onto this. If I hadn't decided on a whim to pick up my school newspaper today (which I haven't done in weeks) then I still wouldn't know about it.

[Kitt]

I suspected that part of the purpose of this was to "indoctrinate young men and women into military culture." I don't think it is all that unusall at this stage of the proceedings for the media to have not picked it up. Bills are bandied about all the time and the general public will not stay focused or attentive to something for very long. If it proceeds through some key channels and begins to pick up steam we'll be reading more about it. I'll find the time soon to catch up to it.

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by kittflynn
I don't think it is all that unusall at this stage of the proceedings for the media to have not picked it up. Bills are bandied about all the time and the general public will not stay focused or attentive to something for very long. If it proceeds through some key channels and begins to pick up steam we'll be reading more about it. I'll find the time soon to catch up to it.

Actually that's true. Half the time the media doesn't report on bills until it's already too late for people to write their Representatives to object to them.

Census records estimate there are about 9 million American men in that age bracket. I just don't see any point. We don't need 9 million men waiting in the wings when we're not even at war. Besides that fact those guys would likely forget or loose all the benefits of their training after being out for a few years, so they'd likely have to be trained all over again.

[Max Whittaker]

This is an outrageous proposal! If I'm going to join the military I'll do it because I love my country; Not because I become a man! There's no point!



I think we are losing ourselves...

[Liza]

Actually, the US is one of the few countries that DOES NOT have this requirement. Many European countries do have this law, I know for certain that Germany does. I certainly don't agree with it personally, but it's not a brand new idea.

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by Liza
Actually, the US is one of the few countries that DOES NOT have this requirement. Many European countries do have this law, I know for certain that Germany does. I certainly don't agree with it personally, but it's not a brand new idea.

I don't think anyone thinks it's a brand new idea. It's not even a brand new idea for the U.S., it's not like we've never had a draft before (although I guess we've never had it in peacetime).

Also, alot of the countries that have compulsory military service have it for a good reason, or at the very least an understandable and perhaps justifiable reason. Many of those countries are in unstable regions of the world, which are often war zones, such as Israel and countries in Eastern Europe. And Switzerland probably needs it to remain neutral when they are such a small country nestled right there in the mix with a bunch of big powerful countires as neighbors. And compulsory military in Europe has been on the decline. Many European NATO states have eliminated it.

Also those countries are smaller, they wouldn't be drafting 9 million people.

But anyway, another thing I was thinking about this is the whole money thing, which kitt also pointed out as being absurd. I was thinking about this, and $340/month is ridiculously low. It's well below minimum wage ($5.15 per hour x 40 hours a week x 4 weeks a month=$824/month). And there's even talk of raising the minimum wage to $6.65, so they'd be even further behind then. Now I suppose the military would be paying for housing and food, maybe, but they don't say. Even so, it's still ridiculously low.

[Jimbo]

I see no need for mandatory military service at this time. In an extreme circumstance, however, it might be necessary to reinstate the draft. For example, during World War Two, it is not an exaggeration to say that the very survival of our country was at stake.

Also, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically in recent years. The days of massive armys facing off against one another on the battlefield are drawing to a close (thank God!). Nobody wants war, nobody enjoys war, but it is naive to think that we will be living in a world without armed conflict anytime soon. As we've seen in Afghanistan, when necessary, we can unleash devastating force against our enemies using a minimal amount of ground forces. Because of this, I don't think a draft is necessary.

I agree with the point that someone else made about it being preferable to have people in the armed services that want to be there, rather than those who were forced to be there. If the military is going to attract quality recruits, however, they'd better start paying them a decent wage, and improve their quality of life where possible. We have military families today who must apply for welfare and food stamps, because they cannot survive on their pay check alone. When someone makes the decision to join the military and serve their country, they shouldn't be forced to go on welfare in order to do it.