Monday, 18 October 2004

Military draft becomes a campaign issue

Military conscription has become an issue in the Presidential campaign -- even though neither Bush nor Kerry has done anything to put their claimed opposition to the draft into action.

Campaigning around the draft includes television ads being broadcast this week, Web-based appeals to student voters , an ad in the New York Times today raising questions about the draft from students, and a media campaign by Vietnam veterans and others.

But as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman points out today in Feeling the Draft , the issue isn't whether Bush or Kerry claims to oppose a draft, but what they are actually likely to do, after the election, if the military can't get enough of the soldiers they want, with the skills they want, without a draft.

Will they then support a draft? Or will they limit or reduce the size of the military, and adjust their military policy to respect the limits imposed on it, and on them, by the (un)willingness of the people to fight the Pentagon's and the White House's wars?

The reality, as is gradually becoming more widely recognized, is that today's young people (not to mention health care workers ) are even more opposed to the draft than the Vietnam generation. Results of a poll commissioned by Newsweek and released yesterday found that 29% of young voters would resist a draft . As the song says, "It's up to you not to heed the call-up.... You don't have to act the way you were brought up."

An editorial yesterday by the Philadelphia Daily News calls on Bush to end registration and Selective Service , and asks exactly the right question: "If we don't need a draft, why have registration?"

[Addendum, 23 October 2004: Another newspaper in swing-state Pennsylvania joins the editorial call: "The Bush administration could put the wild rumors to rest -- and save taxpayers nearly the $30 million a year it costs to administer the Selective Service?s draft registration program -- by asking Congress to terminate draft registration. If Democrats really are worried about a renewed draft, then they should agree to fast-tracking the necessary legislation."]

If he's really ruling out a draft, Bush could end draft registration today, with the stroke of a pen, by Presidential proclamation. But he hasn't done so. As a U.S. Senator, Kerry could have, and still could, introduce or endorse legislation to abolish the Selective Service System and eliminate Presidential authority to order registration. But he hasn't done so.

The Republicans who control the agenda in Congress, who have been complaining that questions about whether they might enact a draft after the election are unjustified, and who were able to bring a meaningless bill for reinstatement of the draft to a vote and defeat in a matter of days, could have, and still could, bring a bill to abolish the SS and eliminate authority for registration to a vote, and passage, just as quickly. But they haven't done so.

Any of these things could still happen before the election, if the public demands that the candiates suit their actions to their claimed positions on the draft. We'll see if that happens, or if the "debate" about the draft remains limited to partisan posturing.

The fact that health care workers would be the first to be drafted is also beginning to get some notice. The New York Times , quoting some of the sources they found through my FAQ on Health Care Workers and the Draft , has a long feature today, U.S. Has Contingency Plans for a Draft of Medical Workers .

Since they weren't available anywhere else online (they were published in 1989, and the Federal Register isn't available in electronic form that far back), I've scanned and posted the Selective Service System's Proposed regulations for the Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS), including the complete list (on the last page of the proposed regulations) of more than 60 job categories potentially subject to the draft under the HCPDS.

Link | Posted by Edward on Monday, 18 October 2004, 22:32 (10:32 PM) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Where would I get the name of a draft counselor?

Posted by: , 25 October 2004, 10:53 (10:53 AM)

I am not in favor of a draft in the traditional sense as I feel that we will be forcing unwilling people into hazardous duty and that will end with dire circumstances.

However, I am in favor of a modified draft that will address military personnel shortage issues as well as immigration. We should take illegal immigrants and make them instant citizens with the caveat that they perform a minimum of one (or two) year(s) military service.

Here's how it would work: Send them to 3 months of boot camp (the normal amount of time) and provide along with the physical and military indoctrination training an intensive English language program.

Outcomes are that we will address military personnel shortages, we will address illegal immigration issues, and we will have a motivated, hard-working group of individuals who, when they return from service, will have the language skills and experience to become very productive members of the American culture.

This will do one of two things - it will work as I indicated above or it will stem illegal immigration; both good outcomes.

Posted by: Drew Cotterman, 27 December 2006, 10:56 (10:56 AM)

Would you please provide applicable military operant conditioned behavior references? Thank you.

Presented are the first two paragraphs of a three page, 16 References, RIGHTS DENIED document. The complete three pages are available on request.

DHM


A RIGHTS DENIED CONDITIONED BEHAVIOR?

In 2008 still ignored is the U.S. Senate's, "The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given."[9] These experiments are now, and have been, conducted on THE U.S. SENATE'S STATED "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS" OF THEIR DESIGNATED DOD "GUINEA PIGS".[9] They are accomplished under the diverting "national security missions" [13] cover of our nation wars. For active duty military personnel and veterans it is an operant conditioned matter of trust, i.e., not questioned is experiment implementing behavior. [??]

Still not given back are those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep. [6] That they are ongoing on thousands more is proven by the latest 2008 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) [14], of their prior 1993, 1994 & 1997 [5, 7 & 10] Reports, the ignored U.S. Senate 1994 Report [9] and the to-date negative response to the 1953 Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary's NO experiments, without the subjects knowledge and consent, Memo [3]. Deliberately avoided are their evidence and victim notification issues! In 2005 and 2006 Congress failed to pass the, "Veterans Right to Know Act"! Three (3) years before the 1953 order was the U.S. Supreme Court FERES the DOD "incident to service" DOCTRINE. [1] The U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY Case was an investigational drug experiment. [4] STANLEY functionally expanded the FERES coverage from the accidental "incident to service" to the deliberate, DOD can do no "designed to harm" [9] wrong. In 2008 Congress still ignored is the U.S. Senate's 1994 correcting, "The Feres Doctrine should not be applied...". [9]

Posted by: David H. Marshall, 9 July 2008, 12:33 (12:33 PM)
Post a comment









Save personal info as cookie?