portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

Oiling up the draft machine?

The Pentagon is quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide. While officials say there's no cause to worry, some experts aren't so sure.
Nov. 3, 2003 | The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."

Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.

Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is stretched too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White House suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those spots, too.

Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.

"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft."

Rangel has provoked controversy in the past by insisting that a draft is the only way to fill the nation's military needs without exploiting young men and women from lower-income families. And, some suggest, by proposing military service from middle- and upper-class men and women, Rangel may be trying to diminish the odds of actually using them in combat. But Rangel is hardly alone in suggesting that the draft might be needed.

The draft, ended by Congress in 1973 as the Indochina War was winding down, was long a target of antiwar activists, and remains highly controversial both in and out of the military. Most military officers understandably prefer an army of volunteers and career soldiers over an army of grudging conscripts; Rumsfeld, too, has long been a staunch advocate of an all-volunteer force.

According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Peņa, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now," Peņa adds, "is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that."

The Pentagon has already had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up more reserves and extend tours of duty by a year -- all highly unpopular moves. Meanwhile, the recent spate of deadly bombings in Baghdad, Falluja and other cities, and increasing attacks on U.S. forces throughout Iraq have forced the U.S. to reconsider its plans to reduce troop deployments.

Those factors -- combined with the stress and grind of war itself -- clearly have diminished troop morale. And many in the National Guard and reserves never anticipated having to serve in an active war zone, far from their families and jobs, for six months or longer. Stars and Stripes, the Army's official paper, reports that a poll it conducted found that half the soldiers in Iraq say they are "not likely" or are "very unlikely" to reenlist -- a very high figure.

Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take into consideration military needs at home and around the globe.

"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the enlistment numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military manpower expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full impact on recruiting/retention hasn't been felt."

The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.

Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy at the Department of Defense, concedes that troop morale is hurting. "There are certainly concerns about future reenlistments. Iraq is not a happy place to be," Gilroy says. "[But] I think a certain amount of that is just grumbling. What we're interested in is not what people are saying, but what they do." So far, he reports, reenlistments and new enlistments remain on target.

Beth Asch, a military manpower expert at the Rand Corp. think tank, agrees that current retention and new enlistment figures are holding up. But she cautions that it may be too soon to know the impact of the tough and open-ended occupation in Iraq. "Short deployments actually boost enlistments and reenlistments," Asch says. "But studies show longer deployments can definitely have a negative impact."

While she thinks it is unlikely that the military will have to resort to a draft to meet its needs, Ned Lebow, a military manpower expert and professor of government at Dartmouth College, is less confident.

"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either.

"So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."

Purely in mechanical terms, a draft is a complicated and difficult thing to get off the ground. It would require an act of Congress, first, and then the signature of the president. Young men are already required to register with the Selective Service system, but if the bill were signed into law, it would still take half a year or more to get the new troops into the system. Federal law would require the Selective Service to immediately set up a lottery and start sending out induction notices. Local draft boards would have to evaluate them for medical problems, moral objections and other issues like family crises, and hear the appeals of those who are resisting the draft.

Under law, the first batch of new conscripts must be processed and ready for boot camp in 193 days or less after the start of the draft.

But if the mechanics of the draft are difficult, the politics could be lethal for Bush or any other top official who proposed it.

Already, the American public is almost as split today over the war in Iraq as it was about the war in Indochina nearly four decades ago, though not yet as passionately. But a new draft would likely incite even deeper resentment than it did then. In the last war fought by a conscript army, draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had to worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in that war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice President Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War era, college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining the National Guard.

But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After that, they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as we've seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty, too.

"If Congress and Bush reinstitute the draft, it would be the '60s all over again," predicts Lebow. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing such a bill, but then, look how many members of Congress just rolled over and played dead on the bill for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan."

New York Rep. Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced companion bills in the two houses of Congress to reactivate the draft last January, at a time when Bush was clearly moving toward an invasion. While both bills remain in the legislative hopper, neither has gone anywhere.

Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like Bandow at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it before the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he explains. "It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add an incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split the limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's denials, planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as independent military experts are. And that could explain the willingness to tune up the draft machinery.

John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in Philadelphia, says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in Iraq "because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't mean Bush would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran says. "To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a draft.

"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in place and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it," he explains.

"They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the click of a finger."

homepage: homepage: http://salon.com

There is a draft in the air 03.Nov.2003 05:47

been there

Lots of chickenhawks looking for fodder for their imperial masters and their endless wars. Remember there is no profit in peace, so says the warlords of the world.
I will not feed this death mill with my family nor will I support the endless marketing of the lies this government is spewing on the world.




For more information see  http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Military_draft_102403.htm

Not QUITE the 60's all over again 03.Nov.2003 06:19

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

And could get very interesting.

See, there is a direct connection between reinstituting a draft and the issue of "gays in the military".

The current (supposed) policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" is NOT going to work in conjunction with a draft. General social mores have changed over the last two generations. Why back in the 60's most of us didn't even KNOW where a gay bar was while these days few of us would think twice about being seen entering one to have drinks with a gay co-worker etc. (in other words, even though WE weren't gay). Especially if something as trivial as THAT qualified as evidence of gayness and disqualification from a draft.

Sorry Mike... 03.Nov.2003 09:57

Red Suspenders

Most of the folks who will get drafted will be too young to legally get in to a bar of any kind. The chickenhawks recruit and conscript 18-20 year olds becuase by the time youre 25 you have the wisdom to know youre not invincible and the world isn't black and white. HOWEVER, there are groups who assist people in avoiding and leaving military service. These folks will spring into action, and through websites such as this one be all over the world within minutes reaching these 18-20 year olds. Meanwhile, if you have any teenage friends/ relatives/ neighbors it's not too early to start lecturing them on the evils of war.

Bush and Company is the gravest threat to world peace and stability today. Do try to get the word out as much as possible...

Volunteer opportunity 03.Nov.2003 12:32

Bison Boy

Looks like a wonderful volunteer opportunity!

Perhaps we should sign up to serve on the draft boards, and try to pack them with liberals. :) If we achieve dominance on a board, we can have a say in who goes to fight should the draft ever be reinstated. And if not, we can always resign later, possibly in protest.

 http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html

Red Suspender's is right... 03.Nov.2003 12:36

it's fragging time when they draft!

Red Suspender's is quite right in that we need to begin now seriously lecturing our 18-20 year olds as to the evil of war,
and the "why" they are the ideal age grouping for the draft. May not be reinstittuted. Can't believe they'd be that damned
stupid! But...they've done other stupid things, so....while we are lecturing about evils of war, don't forget to sum it all up
with a final lecture on FRAGGING. That is their final tool to put stop to the draft. It worked in 1969-70...remember that it
did more than Nixon's "secret plan" to ended the draft and initiate the withdrawal from Viet Nam. As distastseful as it
may seem, there is a undisputable POWER in fragging.

fragging? 03.Nov.2003 16:36

confused

what is fragging? isn't that getting a kill during a computer game?

Bring Back the Draft ASAP! 03.Nov.2003 16:47

.

As I said in a previous post which these Indymedia censors removed, I hope they bring back the draft ASAP.

That way, the sons and daughters of White Elites in America will be compelled to die for the American Empire just like those non-white and poor people do now.

This is the reason that you see the White Liberals all up in arms about this issue. They don't want their pampered children to experience what colored and poor people are expected to do!

I would love to see the looks on the faces of pampered White elites and their spoiled brats when they find out they are being shipped off to "Eyerack" to die.

This is called poetic justice--no matter who how much Indymedia censors would deny its truth.

As they say, BRING 'EM ON!

Draft, Or Not-- 03.Nov.2003 17:31

kilroy

young GIs will continue to be ground up in the death mill until the U.S. withdraws from Iraq.

Draft ASAP 03.Nov.2003 18:47

ranger

Actually that is a valid point. People will start raising more hell about Iraq when their children are eligible to be drafted.

If Only We Could Decide the Criteria 03.Nov.2003 19:12

Hip O'Critical

The only satisfying kind of draft is one that will never happen . . . only old, white politicians, corporate shysters, and idle rich who inherited their money and have coasted through life would qualify. After a couple of hours of ducking grenades and dealing with angry Iraqui citizens, they'd be huddling in a corner somewhere with their underwear as brown and sticky as Wolfy's.

In Coming! 04.Nov.2003 02:30

Air Raid Warden

There are still Vietnam and Kuwait veterans around.
And veterans who are no longer with us.
Their stories should be told.
And their pictures shown.

There are entire libraries and museums dedicated to those wars.
Books, newspapers, magazines.
Real films, not made in Hollywood.

The truth is out there.
Find it.
Share it.

Make the reality of death common knowledge,
before it is drowned in the sewer of TV glorification.

'Saving Jessica Lynch' is only the Verry Flare
before the Ministry of Truth begins
saturation bombing.

what fragging is... 04.Nov.2003 10:18

GRINGO STARS

Fragging is the killing of your superior officer. It is what brought the US army in Vietnam to a standstill. Pools of cash were collected, to be paid as a bounty to the soldier who killed that particular officer. Bounties were higher the more uncaring and bloodthirsty an officer was. Soon, officers were conferring with their troops over every order, and even then the grunts would refuse any dangerous order. Occasionally bounties were called off when an officer demonstrated common sense. Eventually they stopped counting fraggings in Vietnam because they became so commonplace. Officers started killing their own soldiers at times, as well.

One flyer during Vietnam read "Don't burn your draft card! Join up and kill your CO!"

Fragging ended the Vietnam war. Read an excellent article about fragging;

THE SOLDEIRS' REVOLT
 http://www.isreview.org/pdfs/09/soldiers_revolt.pdf

GRINGO STARS you are wrong.... AGAIN 04.Nov.2003 12:47

wb

this is bullshit of the first order.

fragging occured but not as some underground movement.

it was few and far between episodes.

the reason we pulled out of vietnam were many, fragging was way down on the list, depite what the neo-coms read in their flea-rags on campus.

you are welcome to advocate murder if you want, but its the poor smuck who does that gets a life time sentence at levenworth...

wrong, wb - widespread fragging is very well documented 04.Nov.2003 13:19

GRINGO STARS

No one knows how many officers were fragged, but after Tet it became epidemic. At least 800 to 1,000 fragging attempts using explosive devices were made. The army reported 126 fraggings in 1969, 271 in 1970 and 333 in 1971, when they stopped keeping count. But in that year, just in the American Division (of My Lai fame), one fragging per week took place. Some military estimates are that fraggings occurred at five times the official rate, while officers of the Judge Advocate General Corps believed that only 10 percent of fraggings were reported. These figures do not include officers who were shot in the back by their men and listed as wounded or killed in action.

Most fraggings resulted in injuries, although "word of the deaths of officers will bring cheers at troop movies or in bivouacs of certain units." The army admitted that it could not account for how 1,400 officers and noncommissioned officers died. This number, plus the official list of fragging deaths, has been accepted as the unacknowledged army estimate for officers killed by their men. It suggests that 20 to 25 percent -- if not more -- of all officers killed during the war were killed by enlisted men, not the "enemy." This figure has no precedent in the history of war.


sources;

Richard Moser, The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era (Perspectives in the Sixties) (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1996), p. 48

Christian G. Appy, Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), p. 246.

Colonel Robert D. Heinl, Jr., "The Collapse of the Armed Forces," Armed Forces Journal, June 7, 1971, reprinted in Marvin Gettleman, et al., Vietnam and America: A Documented History (New York: Grove Press, 1995), p. 328.

Terry Anderson, "The GI Movement and the Response from the Brass," in Melvin Small and William Hoover, eds., Give Peace A Chance (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1992), p. 105

What is to be done 04.Nov.2003 23:22

Air Raid Warden

It seems we have graduated from fragging our officers in 'Nam to fragging each other in Pdx.

The task remains to inform our friends and neighbors, especially those at risk of kidnapping by the press-gangs, what war really is, before Disney fills their imaginations with jolly cartoon capers.