As it should be, national defense is an issue in the 2004 presidential election. Unfortunately, it is not being discussed but, rather, manipulated in a seemingly concerted effort.
Vice presidential candidate John Edwards promised a West Virginia mother on Wednesday that if the Democratic ticket is elected in November the military draft would not be revived.
During a question-and-answer session, the mother of a 23-year-old who recently graduated from West Virginia University asked Edwards whether the draft would be reinstated.
“There will be no draft when John Kerry is president,” Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation.
The current force is all-volunteer, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he opposes reinstating the draft. But the Pentagon has taken several steps that have drawn criticism.
In June, the Pentagon recalled to active duty 5,674 members of the Individual Ready Reserve, soldiers who have served specified tours of duty but have years remaining in their enlistment contracts.
Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has complained about the extent of the Bush administration’s use of Reserves and National Guardsmen and a device called “stop loss,” which prevents soldiers from leaving when typical obligations end. “They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” Kerry said.
First, tie this to the (incorrect) allegation of a backdoor draft during Kerry’s DNC acceptance speech.
Second, tie this to an email campaign started from a “Soapbox Alert” on Congress.org, a soapbox alert that has been subsequently removed and has been replaced with the message “The Soapbox Alert you’ve requested is no longer available.”
Luckily, a discussion forum I’m a member of was subjected to repeated postings of this “alert” and threads are still available. The alert read as follows:
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program’s initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 — just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public’s attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan – fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na…s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, “to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18–26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a “smart border declaration,” which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.
The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.
Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too — it’s their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!
Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren’t telling their constituents about these bills — and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they’re not covering this important story.
I looked into this and quickly was able to set up a pat response anytime this was posted: both pieces of legislation, while legitimate, were introduced in 2003 by Democrats (e.g. Rangel, McDermott, Conyers, Hollings). That President Bush is so brilliant as to be able to manipulate the Dems into submitting legislation supporting his secret plans is simply astounding.
Okay, enough of fighting the stupidity campaign with facts. Now, let’s look at Edwards’ promise.
This is simply a promise that never should be made. If unforeseen events demand a draft, the president would either have to break the promise or live up to it, cutting short our ability to respond.
Nobody wants a draft. The all-volunteer military is far more effective in its current form than it would be with a bunch of conscripts. However, it cannot and should not be promised that there will not arise a need for conscripts. Contrary to apparently popular perception, the draft wasn’t a public raping used exclusively in the Viet Nam campaign. No, the draft has a long history of being used by this country in time of need, back to the Civil War and even in WWII, despite the popular notions that these were wars fought by idealistic volunteers.
We are the United States of America. We have several advantages in our global position, militarily speaking, among which are the following:
- Nuclear capability, anytime, anywhere
- Technological superiority
- Relatively sizable population
It is my opinion that none of these advantages should ever be taken off the table. Our military is for this nation’s defense; I can honestly never see a reason to broadcast to a potential enemy that we, by policy, limit ourselves in any fashion.
I honestly do not think that the Kerry-Edwards ticket takes our national defense and the fight against Islamist terror seriously. I have spoken before, repeatedly, about wrestling with the idea of re-enlisting since 9/11. I state now that (barring disaster), this will not happen if Kerry wins the presidency.
It’s that simple. Short of disaster, I will not again volunteer to serve while John Kerry is Commander-in-Chief.
At least I’m wise enough to hedge and allow for necessity; Edwards isn’t.