Some women are equal to men in this arena, but not all. Although only men have to register, all those men and women who serve do so voluntarily. And the percentage of women who serve is miniscule. It is unreasonable to suppose that a small percentage of women who serve in the military are representative of all women, and that as a result, all women should register.
1
True equality! And other position, one carving out women as not needing to serve, is rank hypocrisy. Of course, the military is supposed to fight wars and win them...heavy weapons, explosives, dirt, death, enemies, etc. are part of that scenario. Which calls into question the wisdom of saying women should serve in ALL military MOSs (Military Occupational Specialities). If I had the choice of fighting a platoon of women vs. a platoon of men I know exactly who I would prefer my opponent to be!
I'll register for the draft when there are as many women in military leadership as there are men.
I'll register for the draft when there are as many women in military leadership as there are men. It's amazing an inspiring to me that there are women brave enough to volunteer for military service since they contend not only with the risks of war, but with the risk of sexual assault. The military needs to set its house in order before asking anyone to "pay the price" for equality. The rush to exact that price betrays just how much work must be done.
2
I agree with this. If women want the benefits that come along with being a combat veteran (greater pay, promotion opportunity), then they should be forced to register just as men are. You can't demand rights and then refuse the responsibility that comes along with them.
The draft is what can finally set women on the road to true equality in this country.
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Thus it would become unlikely that, as with our recent wars, those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. In addition, by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular, as those who are opposed yet face the draft will be moved to get off the couch and do more than twitter their opposition.
Let us remember that it was the draft -- especially when it reached into the middle class. -- that really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned the tentative opposition of a few into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual.
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Thus it would become unlikely that, as with our recent wars, those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. In addition, by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular, as those who are opposed yet face the draft will be moved to get off the couch and do more than twitter their opposition.
Let us remember that it was the draft -- especially when it reached into the middle class. -- that really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned the tentative opposition of a few into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual.
3
But for the draft of the 40's - 70's, children of the rich, poor, urban, rural, north and south might never have rubbed shoulders, talked to each other, or realized we're equally responsible for solving our nation's problems.
Following the demise of conscription, America has been fracturing into an increasingly contentious nation, incapable of compromise or governance.
Restoring the draft (including a national service option), and ensuring that EVERYONE is included (even current firebreathers with former heel spurs) would have several benefits:
1. we would only fight necessary wars, and end them quicker;
2. our youngsters would meet everyone, and realize how diverse America is;
3. they would to learn how to cooperate;
4. slackers and sufferers of "affluenza" would get a dose of reality; and
5. our crumbling infrastructure would get affordable, needed repair.
When EVERYONE'S children are equally at risk to war (and we have a guaranteed war tax surcharge) chickenhawk superpatriots who would lead us into unnecessary wars will be dismissed for the destructive fools they are.
Following the demise of conscription, America has been fracturing into an increasingly contentious nation, incapable of compromise or governance.
Restoring the draft (including a national service option), and ensuring that EVERYONE is included (even current firebreathers with former heel spurs) would have several benefits:
1. we would only fight necessary wars, and end them quicker;
2. our youngsters would meet everyone, and realize how diverse America is;
3. they would to learn how to cooperate;
4. slackers and sufferers of "affluenza" would get a dose of reality; and
5. our crumbling infrastructure would get affordable, needed repair.
When EVERYONE'S children are equally at risk to war (and we have a guaranteed war tax surcharge) chickenhawk superpatriots who would lead us into unnecessary wars will be dismissed for the destructive fools they are.
3
It's time to not only bring back the draft, but to mandate that the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of EVERY elected federal official be placed at the head of the draft list, with NO deferments except for serious medical issues.
Then we'll see what kind of stomach the posturing politicians who have never served have for war.
Then we'll see what kind of stomach the posturing politicians who have never served have for war.
7
Why is actual registration required for anyone as opposed to alternative ways to get names and addresses of young people for possible military service in emergency? In the late 1970s I was working at a Pentagon think tank that had regular speakers on all sorts of topics related to military issues. At one point they had a senior speaker from the vestigial Selective Service System which administered the system that is basically the same as we have today.
One of my colleagues asked him why the government had such a registration program when it looked like passive analysis of Social Security and bank account information could generate such data quickly, cheaper, and with comparable completeness. Surprisingly the speaker agreed but pointed out it was a political problem! When you have a specific registration requirement you get most 18 year olds and the missing are primarily affluent middle and upper class kids. When you try to develop the same data from Social Security and bank records records you tend to miss poor and mostly minority kids. But he said that their estimate was that the fraction listed in both cases was about the same, I believe in the 80% range. The key difference is who isn't listed. At the time in the late 1970s he thought the political process was more accepting about missing affluent kids than about another option where the missing kids in the lists were poor.
This discussion made me cynical!
One of my colleagues asked him why the government had such a registration program when it looked like passive analysis of Social Security and bank account information could generate such data quickly, cheaper, and with comparable completeness. Surprisingly the speaker agreed but pointed out it was a political problem! When you have a specific registration requirement you get most 18 year olds and the missing are primarily affluent middle and upper class kids. When you try to develop the same data from Social Security and bank records records you tend to miss poor and mostly minority kids. But he said that their estimate was that the fraction listed in both cases was about the same, I believe in the 80% range. The key difference is who isn't listed. At the time in the late 1970s he thought the political process was more accepting about missing affluent kids than about another option where the missing kids in the lists were poor.
This discussion made me cynical!
1
"...and that capacity will itself help to maintain peace and to prevent conflict in the region of the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia.” Well, that sure worked out! I have a better idea: rather than requiring women to register for the draft, end the requirement for men. It's proved useless anyway.
1
For those who all too often urge "boots on the ground" they now need to consider all sizes of boots. Now that women are allowed to be part of all military units then they should have the opportunity to grow and succeed just like men. In the past serving in combat situations has resulted in advancement, and women deserve the same opportunity. A universal draft is thus logical, and if we choose to launch military endeavors then we should draw from a draft not just the reserve units as we have done in the Middle East wars.
1
One should also consider if a Republican is elected it's increasely likely that a draft will be implemented. How else can we invade, put "boots on the ground" and permanently occupy every Muslim country they assert we are threatened by? :(
3
Okay: I want a statement TODAY from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that there will be no draft registration requirement for women until women are equal under the Constitution of the United States of America.
I require no statement from the Republicans because they are too busy sticking their noses into women's ladyparts, passing laws on abortion and contraception, and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Republicans already have a war to fight: It is the "War On Women".
No 'equal draft' until there is equality!
No drafting daughters until they are EQUAL!
I require no statement from the Republicans because they are too busy sticking their noses into women's ladyparts, passing laws on abortion and contraception, and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Republicans already have a war to fight: It is the "War On Women".
No 'equal draft' until there is equality!
No drafting daughters until they are EQUAL!
4
Why is it even a question in this era? Equal participation in all things is always a good idea. Most of the supporting reasons outlined by other commenters on both the left and the right have validity.
Since there is currently no draft, this is largely symbolic. However, in light of equal rights, women's rights, combat arms now open to women, etc., it's only right & fair that females should have to register for the draft just as males are. I've been saying this for years. It's about time.
2
First thing that needs to be done is end college draft deferrments - utilizrd by such war hawks as Chaney and Trump during the height of the Viet Nam. My three brothers and I served in the military because we could not afford college. When the draft converted to an "all-in" lottery the more affluent soccer moms said "not my kids" and the war ended shortly thereafter. As to woman being drafted, it seems reasonable, but I suspect we would see a lot more woman getting pregnant.
3
Be careful what you ask for.
2
If women want to be equal, the must be equal in all things.
4
Including the Constitution, Mark... right?
2
Stop America's involvement in wars, reinstitute the draft.
7
...and have 50-70 year olds go first!
3
If the generals want to revamp the American draft, let them do it right.
All Americans should be required to sign up 18-
Then let the 50-70 year olds know they will be the first to be called up.
Who knows... we might see less "war-ing"!
All Americans should be required to sign up 18-
Then let the 50-70 year olds know they will be the first to be called up.
Who knows... we might see less "war-ing"!
2
Yes, yes, if women are in combat roles of course they should have to sign up for the Selective Service (our military likes a volunteer armed service anyway so slim chance of the draft). If we ever do reinstate the draft this will have an important consequence (one the original draft arguably should of had, but we treat the lives of our young men cheaply) - forcing the electorate to reconsider our willy-nilly foreign intervention policies and maybe we can dislodge those chickenhawks from Congress.
2
The part 'living in the United States', in regards to registration, can easily be legally manipulated by living abroad somewhere else.
Instead of deferment Buffy and Biff can go and hang at the apartment in Paris or vacation home in the Caribbean for a little while. NZ and Canada are also nice. Take some college art or cooking classes nearby.
Technically they'll be living outside of the US, therefore no need to register for the draft.
In short, the children of the wealthy will NOT be included one way or another.
Instead of deferment Buffy and Biff can go and hang at the apartment in Paris or vacation home in the Caribbean for a little while. NZ and Canada are also nice. Take some college art or cooking classes nearby.
Technically they'll be living outside of the US, therefore no need to register for the draft.
In short, the children of the wealthy will NOT be included one way or another.
3
Wait, let me be sure I understand: rich people are going to send their kids overseas at immense expense because of a draft that hasn't happened since the Nixon years, and in an era where the time of massive armies has passed?
I'd at least keep the kids local until there's some event that makes a draft worthwhile.
I'd at least keep the kids local until there's some event that makes a draft worthwhile.
Hypothetically when and if the draft is instituted. Yes, then there will be an exodus of the children of the people who can afford it.
Do you not understand the underlying premise that wealthy people don't send their kids to war?
Ask the families whose sons and daughters come home in body bags or severely maimed or injured.
They are the ones who sacrifice their young, loved ones blood upon foreign soil in illegal wars.
And mostly they come from rural or urban poverty.
Do you not understand the underlying premise that wealthy people don't send their kids to war?
Ask the families whose sons and daughters come home in body bags or severely maimed or injured.
They are the ones who sacrifice their young, loved ones blood upon foreign soil in illegal wars.
And mostly they come from rural or urban poverty.
1
If a man doesn't sign up for selective service,He can't get college loans or grants! So I say it's about darn time for women who claim they want equal rights to sign up NOW so they can get their Equal rights just like every male in this country.It's the fair thing to do?Sooner than later too!
5
I registered for the draft over thirty years ago, three days after my 18th birthday. Walked from my high school to the local post office and filled it out and put it in the out of town slot. Uncle Sam never called. At the time, most slots in the armed forces were not open to women, now they all are. We should extend it to women. No reason not to, really.
1
Every able-bodied American citizen should be expected to navigate the same challenges and be eligible for the same benefits as every other American citizen -- in the military. In terms of civilian careers, my seven years on active duty with an honorable discharge put me behind my cohorts when being considered for jobs and promotions. I have an advanced degree, but my degree is tainted because I wasn't a traditional student who graduated high school and then seamlessly completed graduate school. In other words, I was seven years behind everyone else in academics and credentials, and then I "aged out" of the workforce at 57 when I was (and I still am) more than fully qualified to do the work of most of the people who've interviewed me. So, you see, military service paid for my education, but it also colored me as too different to be considered for meaningful work. Men and women should be required to experience the same.
2
My question about this is, what would happen if a man and woman who had children together were both drafted into service? Would the DOD take that into account when sending the mother and father into combat roles? What would happen to their children in that scenario? I am curious to know what the plan would be for those parents/children. How do other countries handle this?
4
The draft is what can finally set women on the road to true equality in this country.
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become unlikely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned those preliminary efforts into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft, especially when it reached into the middle class.
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become unlikely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned those preliminary efforts into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft, especially when it reached into the middle class.
5
But you are forgetting that traditional-minded women across the country, led by Phyllis Schafly helped stop ERA for that very reason, that when feminists were confronted with the question of the draft, they were forced to say that if they wanted equality, they had to stand for the draft. For a nation still reeling from Viet Nam, that was not an effective strategy. Elite women who wanted to be like men were trying to drag along women who didn't see themselves as having any role in any of that, serving in the military, and so the more conservative women refused to support them.
I've wondered what happens, what are the rules, if a woman soldier in either combat or up for the draft is pregnant or breastfeeding.
5
The end result of this will be OUR soldiers killing female enemy soldiers. Are we ready for that?
1
How does one reconcile draft in a country that guarantees individual liberty and freedom? One can certainly see that it is natural in a theocratic or a totalitarian state.
4
It should be National Service, and it should be required of all citizens, whether in the military or elsewhere in various communities. One of the very few things I like about Israel. All of us should have a vested interest in the welfare of our nation.
7
That's fine, as long as it's retroactive for every non-veteran under 65. Don't just push stuff onto the kids.
Well at least a national service lottery would force the political conversation every time someone says "boots on the ground" without contemplation the cost in blood to the families of this nation.
This will create a more fully participating democracy if you have life and family at risk. Just because someone is beyond draft age doesn't mean they have zero stake in our nations foreign policy. Older people have nieces, nephews, children, and extended family subject to this requirement as well.
There could be a quota system of % volunteers vs draftees.
This will create a more fully participating democracy if you have life and family at risk. Just because someone is beyond draft age doesn't mean they have zero stake in our nations foreign policy. Older people have nieces, nephews, children, and extended family subject to this requirement as well.
There could be a quota system of % volunteers vs draftees.
The generals are spot on; to not require women to sign up for the draft as men now do is hypocritical, given that all combat roles are required to include women (which was the only reason they were exempt from the draft in the first place.
3
Yes, women should absolutely have to register for the draft, as long as men do. We should all have to face equal risks in this situation.
3
Why? The women of this country are not equal - No ERA, no equal risk.
2
There might be some women who are all gung-ho about going into combat (or combat roles) because it's the only way to advance in a career in the military but overall I'd think that most women are not particularly interested in doing so. Making women sign up for a draft because of these vocal few is ridiculous. If they want to put themselves in that kind of danger and frankly that environment with all the sexual predation we know is going on in the military, be my guest, but my daughter shouldn't be forced to participate (in the case of a draft being reinstated) because of these women's military career ambitions.
6
But a man should? Believe me, most men would prefer not to be in the military, either.
3
Why your daughter, but not someone else's son? Besides, the signing up for the selective service doesnt necessarily mean you will be called in to draft, its a lottery, one with plenty of exceptions if you do get called in (I imagine you intend for your daughter to attend university? There is one). Regardless, your comment illustrates why a universal 17-24 draft is so necessary - it forces members of the WHOLE electorate, not just members who have sons, to consider the cost of going to war.
3
MEMO TO THE GENERALS:
You've overstepped your bounds and confused your "volunteer army"with a military obligation from all citizens.
Your "volunteer army" has been just that: voluntary.
No one has been drafted since 1973.
Now you want to switch your "volunteer army" back to "mandatory draft".
Point: I will remind you just why you dumped that "draft" way back when.
Does "Hell no, I won't go!" ring a bell, Generals?
You had to dump the draft because this nation was erupting with anti-draft rallies and riots. Everyone, even the grannies, were out in the streets to end that free-soldier pipeline to Vietnam.
Moreover, over in Vietnam, those draftees forced to go fight that undeclared war were "fragging" their superiors in their tents, refusing to go out on patrols to get their legs blown off just so the ONE-PERCENTERS could have their "tin and tungsten" as Eisenhower pointed out.
You were FORCED to end that draft.
And don't tell me that you see "men and women" in your "volunteer army" the same. The year is 2016. You still don't see them the same. You have the Helms and Hyde Amendments for the military. You're not demanding that women be made equal under the Constitution - you're just saying, Draft them, who cares if they're not equal?
You want to use women to give you free-access to more men, that's all this is.
Smarten up, Boys.
You are endangering your "all-volunteer-army" by trying to make it "mandatory" again.
It didn't work then.
It won't work now.
ERA NOW!!!!
You've overstepped your bounds and confused your "volunteer army"with a military obligation from all citizens.
Your "volunteer army" has been just that: voluntary.
No one has been drafted since 1973.
Now you want to switch your "volunteer army" back to "mandatory draft".
Point: I will remind you just why you dumped that "draft" way back when.
Does "Hell no, I won't go!" ring a bell, Generals?
You had to dump the draft because this nation was erupting with anti-draft rallies and riots. Everyone, even the grannies, were out in the streets to end that free-soldier pipeline to Vietnam.
Moreover, over in Vietnam, those draftees forced to go fight that undeclared war were "fragging" their superiors in their tents, refusing to go out on patrols to get their legs blown off just so the ONE-PERCENTERS could have their "tin and tungsten" as Eisenhower pointed out.
You were FORCED to end that draft.
And don't tell me that you see "men and women" in your "volunteer army" the same. The year is 2016. You still don't see them the same. You have the Helms and Hyde Amendments for the military. You're not demanding that women be made equal under the Constitution - you're just saying, Draft them, who cares if they're not equal?
You want to use women to give you free-access to more men, that's all this is.
Smarten up, Boys.
You are endangering your "all-volunteer-army" by trying to make it "mandatory" again.
It didn't work then.
It won't work now.
ERA NOW!!!!
5
Rosa, The Selective Service Act of 1980 (signed by Carter) reinstated registration for the draft, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Selective Service Act had lapsed in 1973 (under Nixon) as a result of the controversy of the Vietnam War. It is ironic that President Carter also pardoned all those that evaded the Vietnam draft in 1977. Prior to 1973 the United States had a continuous Selective Service registration requirement since 1917 (WWI). Prior to that, conscription was done ad hoc and Selective Service was instituted to make the system more organized and fair. With the exception of 8 years out of the past century, young men have been required to register for the draft even though there is no current conscription campaign and hasn't been one since Vietnam. It follows then, that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, women should also be subject to the Selective Service Act of 1980. If they are not subject then they are not receiving equal protection under the law since they are treated differently than other legal persons -- men. Quite to the contrary of your position, equal rights for women are already granted in the Constitution (this same clause was recently used to grant marriage equality to all persons) and women's rights groups are free to file lawsuits citing that clause in any given case of discrimination. Women should welcome this and not resist being treated as equal under the law.
4
This is symbolic. There will probably never be a draft. The point is that this moves women closer to equal treatment. To disagree with that is to say women should be treated differently under the law.
From, The 14th Amendment never applied to women, otherwise there never would have been the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to VOTE. They would have had the right to vote 50 years sooner. Instead, the women who showed up to vote after the 14th were smacked around and jailed.
In fact, if the 14th had applied to females there never would have been an Equal Rights Amendment.
Got it?
In fact, if the 14th had applied to females there never would have been an Equal Rights Amendment.
Got it?
3
Require young women to register for Selective Service just as young men have had to do, simply because they are men. It's way past time to fix this inequality and sexual discrimination; mollycoddling women is a carryover from the era of male condescension (which is still rampant in Congress). Next step is to require tough-talking war mongering lawmakers to put their money where their mouths are; send them to the fronts, regardless of age. The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois joined the Marine Corp (and was wounded) during World War II at the age of 51. Bronze Star and 2 Purple Hearts. Wearing a US Flag lapel pin isn't enough.
1
You don't want us "molly-coddled", but you don't want us equal, either.
Sorry, Doc. You're not going to get it both ways.
Sorry, Doc. You're not going to get it both ways.
2
So this is the fruition of the Women's Movement--the military draft? Equality in the 'chance to die'? Where's a right-to-Lifer when you need one.
3
The draft should have applied to both genders for a long time, and it is a good move.
It's an incongruent justification, though, to mix this into the debate regarding combat roles being open to women, and that it is about equality. The armed forces, like society in general, have been unequal in significant regards. There have been separate, and lower, physical standards across the board for women ever since they've been in the service. And it's fair to say that women have been somewhat complicit in this in that there is not groundswell demand to be held to the same standards as men in these areas.
I'd say this raises considerations similar to Title 9 demands to equal funding for women's athletics, while concurrently maintaining that there should be separate leagues for women's sports. On a certain level, I'd say if you want full equality you need to be willing to compete directly with and against the men.
But it's a special case in the military. If you're held to a standard of physical strength and speed that's 30% lower than your male comrades, you simply cannot count on the enemy to fight you with 30% less vigor, and chase you at a more leisurely pace.
The draft should be universal. If someone wants to fight us, they should fight all of us. Which roles are open to whom, though, is a debate with more nuanced considerations and it's far from settled.
It's an incongruent justification, though, to mix this into the debate regarding combat roles being open to women, and that it is about equality. The armed forces, like society in general, have been unequal in significant regards. There have been separate, and lower, physical standards across the board for women ever since they've been in the service. And it's fair to say that women have been somewhat complicit in this in that there is not groundswell demand to be held to the same standards as men in these areas.
I'd say this raises considerations similar to Title 9 demands to equal funding for women's athletics, while concurrently maintaining that there should be separate leagues for women's sports. On a certain level, I'd say if you want full equality you need to be willing to compete directly with and against the men.
But it's a special case in the military. If you're held to a standard of physical strength and speed that's 30% lower than your male comrades, you simply cannot count on the enemy to fight you with 30% less vigor, and chase you at a more leisurely pace.
The draft should be universal. If someone wants to fight us, they should fight all of us. Which roles are open to whom, though, is a debate with more nuanced considerations and it's far from settled.
4
The "Titles", otherwise known as the "Jane Crow Laws", do not give "equality". For that you need a Constitutional statement like the ERA which was thrown out by Ronnie Reagan and the "Moral Majority". They decided that women in this country were not worthy of Constitutional Equality.... and I'm not hearing the Generals calling for an ERA. All they want is a draft... and that's not the same thing.
1
The ERA failed of ratification. The president has no role in the amendment process. Congress gave the states, in the text of the amendment, seven years. That expired in 1979. In a move of dubious constitutionality, Congress extended it three years. That didn't get the amendment passed either.
But it had nothing to do with Reagan. Talk to the legislatures of the fifteen or so states that would not ratify.
But it had nothing to do with Reagan. Talk to the legislatures of the fifteen or so states that would not ratify.
The proof is in the pudding, Here, in your statement of "seven years" to get ratified.
Really? A time-limit on human rights? Sorry, but I don't recognize such a concept.
In fact, neither did Congress, as proved by their passing the XXVII Amendment. Yes, it was passed, but it wasn't on women's Constitutional equality: It was on when the Senators and Representatives would be paid.... and that was a proposed Constitutional Amendment that had been kicking around for 204 YEARS!
Got it. A time limit on the majority of the population's human rights... but no limit on when The Boyz get their bucks.
How utterly shameful, sly and nasty.
My 'rights' may be 'dubious' to you, but they weren't to Reagan and the Religious Right. They were in a dead panic it would pass.
Shame on all of you.
ERA NOW!
Really? A time-limit on human rights? Sorry, but I don't recognize such a concept.
In fact, neither did Congress, as proved by their passing the XXVII Amendment. Yes, it was passed, but it wasn't on women's Constitutional equality: It was on when the Senators and Representatives would be paid.... and that was a proposed Constitutional Amendment that had been kicking around for 204 YEARS!
Got it. A time limit on the majority of the population's human rights... but no limit on when The Boyz get their bucks.
How utterly shameful, sly and nasty.
My 'rights' may be 'dubious' to you, but they weren't to Reagan and the Religious Right. They were in a dead panic it would pass.
Shame on all of you.
ERA NOW!
1
I know! Let's stop the draft but in keeping with a guiding principal of government, control and subjugation of the people, let's require all male citizens to run around in a circle for 20 minutes, quack like a Duck and then file the appropriate official 4 part form to be processed by the appropriate Department staffed by highly paid government employees - that must receive periodic continuing education and training in the best Las Vegas resorts.
1
This is a no brainer. If men have to register then women do as well.
2
Why? We are not Constitutionally equal. You get my 'equal' taxes. You'll have to be satisfied with that.
3
A slight clarification - although Selective Service registration was not required from 1975 to 1980, when President Carter reinstated it the registration requirement only reached back part way into the cohort who had not previously been required to register - so men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from registration.
1
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Being forced to die for your country is incompatible with the above. Period.
Being forced to die for your country is incompatible with the above. Period.
2
Yes, J.R. Freed, and especially if you are NOT a MAN and NOT included within those sentiments.
When they said "men" they meant "men" and that holds to today, 2016.
We would have needed the Equal Rights Amendment for such words to apply to the women of this country.
Instead, we have the Republican's War on Women, the Hyde and Helms Amendments and this back-door attempt to get back the draft.
When they said "men" they meant "men" and that holds to today, 2016.
We would have needed the Equal Rights Amendment for such words to apply to the women of this country.
Instead, we have the Republican's War on Women, the Hyde and Helms Amendments and this back-door attempt to get back the draft.
2
This quote is from the Declaration of Independence. It is not the fundamental basis of US law. If it were, we'd immediately have trouble since it is clearly impossible to enforce that passage and furthermore, it is not true in any event. It is very nice prose and poetic, but clearly all three of those "rights" are granted not by a creator, but by governments to one degree or another depending on their laws and how they are implemented. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read some history and take a look around at what situations exist all over this planet. It's a recitation of the enlightenment philosophy of Locke on "natural rights" -- a progressive 1770's perspective written down by a white slave owner -- Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote this, "men" was interpreted very narrowly as landed gentry. It has now been proven that the man who wrote this had an African American concubine -- whom he personally owned as chattel property.
2
FromWhereIStand: Actually, Jefferson was cribbing from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, though Mason was undoubtedly influenced by Locke.
We should return to the draft. The country needs a program for national service though it need not be entirely military in its nature, and it should include all sexes. In my experience, the draft brought many men from all walks of life together in a common cause. We shared common goals. We might not have liked giving up a couple of years of our lives for the good of the nation, but we accepted it as our responsibility as citizens.
4
This is such a passive-aggressive move by the generals.
A draft is not inconceivable, because we don't know the future. Imagine women were drafted same as men. Who will watch the country's kids then? Women are still the primary caretakers of children, on average. The vast majority of elementary school teachers are women. Imagine your kid's first grade teacher were drafted and sent somewhere. That's 25 little kids left hanging.
Draft cannot be gender-blind until all civilian activities are gender-equal, which is not reality. So, this is not a good-faith proposal by the generals. It is amazingly passive-aggressive.
A draft is not inconceivable, because we don't know the future. Imagine women were drafted same as men. Who will watch the country's kids then? Women are still the primary caretakers of children, on average. The vast majority of elementary school teachers are women. Imagine your kid's first grade teacher were drafted and sent somewhere. That's 25 little kids left hanging.
Draft cannot be gender-blind until all civilian activities are gender-equal, which is not reality. So, this is not a good-faith proposal by the generals. It is amazingly passive-aggressive.
5
Your comment displays an amazing lack of knowledge of the draft. First - the draft is a random lottery - merely being signed up for the Selective Service does not mean you will be drafted. Second, the draft is only for a specific age range, those most likely to have kids (women over 24) would not fall into that category. Third, even if drafted there are many exceptions to serving including being enrolled in university and health reasons. Pregnancy would most certainly excuse you as probably would having a young child.
And yet, where is the gender equality in only calling up men to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives? What if more of those men had the opportunity to stay home and watch the kids without being looked down upon for "shirking" the role of primary breadwinner? What about the sexism of stigmatizing men who want to work with children? One cannot expect equality to bend only toward her interests. You're insisting that we shouldn't make the draft gender-equal because there's not enough gender equality yet.
I see nothing passive-aggressive in the observation that with equal rights and opportunities come equal responsibilities; it seems you'd rather hold out indefinitely for equal outcomes, without accepting any sort of equality that might adversely affect you. If you really want to see the structural changes that are required to achieve a truer form of equality, you'll end up having to lose a few of the benefits society confers upon women through benevolent sexism and rigid gender roles. We won't get there by cherry-picking only the bits and pieces of equality that are most appealing.
I see nothing passive-aggressive in the observation that with equal rights and opportunities come equal responsibilities; it seems you'd rather hold out indefinitely for equal outcomes, without accepting any sort of equality that might adversely affect you. If you really want to see the structural changes that are required to achieve a truer form of equality, you'll end up having to lose a few of the benefits society confers upon women through benevolent sexism and rigid gender roles. We won't get there by cherry-picking only the bits and pieces of equality that are most appealing.
1
As a women who spent 7 years in the combat arms as an infantry officer, commanding a rifle platoon (in a country that has allowed women in combat roles since the early 90s), I can confidently say that I doubt there would be any resistance for women in combat roles to be drafted. The reason we fought for these roles in the first place was to participate and not simply train.
What we need to do is convince some that women, especially in leadership roles, make excellent combat officers. We take criticism better, respect the chain of command and are much less egocentric than our male counterparts. And, there because we really want to be in these roles. The roles are not all that masculine when broken down. To not allow women in these roles would be a waste of talent.
What we need to do is convince some that women, especially in leadership roles, make excellent combat officers. We take criticism better, respect the chain of command and are much less egocentric than our male counterparts. And, there because we really want to be in these roles. The roles are not all that masculine when broken down. To not allow women in these roles would be a waste of talent.
5
Well heck yeah! Thank you, old white men. Who woulda ever thunk it? Now time to bring back the draft. It should be every person's responsibility to serve. Have the 1% slog it out and live side by side with the working class during formative years.
1
Pass--and enforce--a law requiring that women receive equal pay to men.
Once that's in place and working, and women no longer earn on average 77 cents to a man's dollar for the same or equivalent work, THEN go ahead and require women to register for the draft.
If we want men and women to be required to make equal sacrifice, we should make sure men and women are treated equally, first.
Once that's in place and working, and women no longer earn on average 77 cents to a man's dollar for the same or equivalent work, THEN go ahead and require women to register for the draft.
If we want men and women to be required to make equal sacrifice, we should make sure men and women are treated equally, first.
3
Pass an ERA and make us utterly equal under the law. "Equal Pay" is part of the piecemeal solution. Hold out for the full package.
2
I have to assume those Generals are anti women in the military and Senator McCaskill should probably have her daughter register, if she has one. We all know that only poor and minority women would be sent to fight for this country, and the privileged and well to do would not.
1
Uh, yeah, duh.
Women should be eligible for the draft. Of course.
Yay, equal rights!
Women should be eligible for the draft. Of course.
Yay, equal rights!
The draft for women may be a good idea, but then men should become equal in parenting. As that is unachievable in practice, then we need to do the next best thing, compensate women for being parents if the draft is ever resumed (or if it's not). Otherwise women could have two burdens, military service and parenting.
1
So sad, so tragic and ultimately infuriatingly ironic. I saw what Vietnam *did* to my generation and how it fully destroyed it. I still have the draft cards and 'passport' ( long since expired ) that I carried around for years with me as the draft closed in and my days were numbered. I was facing 4 years in Federal prison if I refused to go, or denouncing my American citizenship and fleeing the country.
Our friend who went wrote letters back and strangely the military censor didn't delete the parts of how our friend 'Had to go up on to the hill today....to pick up the body parts in bags.....we dropped a 500 lb bomb on our own troops. Then it became worse...and I could not read it.
The wealthy or very smart did not go off to this war nor will go to any others. Just for reference, one young bar tender here ( very smart but immature emotionally ) told me he wanted to go to Afghanistan, but finally decided against it. Reason? He saw his own friends return in coffins and figured "It was too dangerous". No wonders the military wanted to *hide* all of these recent returning caskets and body bags and did! Still many people are either slow learners at very tender ages, confused and or *desperate* for money and will go. Sick, sick, sick.
One final thought equally ironic and galling, and everyone in the MIlitary brass and White House knows this -- bring back the draft and *all* of these wars at present would be over with in two weeks time. End of conversation.
Our friend who went wrote letters back and strangely the military censor didn't delete the parts of how our friend 'Had to go up on to the hill today....to pick up the body parts in bags.....we dropped a 500 lb bomb on our own troops. Then it became worse...and I could not read it.
The wealthy or very smart did not go off to this war nor will go to any others. Just for reference, one young bar tender here ( very smart but immature emotionally ) told me he wanted to go to Afghanistan, but finally decided against it. Reason? He saw his own friends return in coffins and figured "It was too dangerous". No wonders the military wanted to *hide* all of these recent returning caskets and body bags and did! Still many people are either slow learners at very tender ages, confused and or *desperate* for money and will go. Sick, sick, sick.
One final thought equally ironic and galling, and everyone in the MIlitary brass and White House knows this -- bring back the draft and *all* of these wars at present would be over with in two weeks time. End of conversation.
4
Ephemerol, you're spot on. Especially, "- bring back the draft and *all* of these wars at present would be over in two weeks time."
I look at the photo of these "Generals" and they all appear younger than me.
Too bad they have forgotten, or never knew, about the draft protests, the Quakers in the streets, the C.O.'s, the one's who bugged out to Canada or Sweden, or the officers who were "fragged" in their tents.
That was Vietnam, circa 1970, back when all those corn-fed boys from Iowa turned on them.
They want a draft today? This is 2016 and those days are long gone.
So sorry that the Generals have mis-managed their "all-volunteer-military", but using non-equal women to try to slip back their draft isn't going to cut it today.
Thanks for your comment. It's a good one.
I look at the photo of these "Generals" and they all appear younger than me.
Too bad they have forgotten, or never knew, about the draft protests, the Quakers in the streets, the C.O.'s, the one's who bugged out to Canada or Sweden, or the officers who were "fragged" in their tents.
That was Vietnam, circa 1970, back when all those corn-fed boys from Iowa turned on them.
They want a draft today? This is 2016 and those days are long gone.
So sorry that the Generals have mis-managed their "all-volunteer-military", but using non-equal women to try to slip back their draft isn't going to cut it today.
Thanks for your comment. It's a good one.
2
I have always been amused to watch the call of feminism through the course of the last 3 deacades. 'Equality, equality' is always being called. "Not enough women in the boardrooms" etc.
Strange thing though: I never saw women garbage collectors, plumbers, gas attendants, truckers, tractor drivers or subway drivers...Except in Soviet Russia.
You want equality? That's fine. But you can't pick and choose, have your cake and eat it too. It's about time that women stopped trying to hand pick their equality, and also join the ranks of the army, just like the men they love to complain about.
Strange thing though: I never saw women garbage collectors, plumbers, gas attendants, truckers, tractor drivers or subway drivers...Except in Soviet Russia.
You want equality? That's fine. But you can't pick and choose, have your cake and eat it too. It's about time that women stopped trying to hand pick their equality, and also join the ranks of the army, just like the men they love to complain about.
1
I am too old to be registered for the draft, so I don't think it is fair for me to say how I might feel about being drafted as a young person today. Any of us who are over 26 should think about whether it is fair for us to have strongly held opinions about what is right for youth.
I do agree that we need to clean up our military and make it the kind of force we can trust, one that any of us would be proud to join.
But I used to pay to take martial arts classes and so on when I was a teenager, and it would have been cool to get the message that it was okay for a girl to like such things. I don't know how I would have felt about being drafted, but I would have been overjoyed to be trained like the girls were in Israel for their army. I understand that they learned things like how to take apart and reassemble an automatic weapon in the dark- so cool.
I think the art of war has changed enough that it would be more productive to have discussions about martial education/ job training than about drafts. It doesn't do much good to talk about dragging unprepared people in off of the streets and handing them guns- the equipment is far more sophisticated now and there is a learning curve for the art of modern warfare.
Better to approach it as an educational exercise for both genders, I would think. But, again, I am older and decrepit enough now that I would be afraid to even get arrested at a protest- the young people are doing the protests for us, too. God bless them.
I do agree that we need to clean up our military and make it the kind of force we can trust, one that any of us would be proud to join.
But I used to pay to take martial arts classes and so on when I was a teenager, and it would have been cool to get the message that it was okay for a girl to like such things. I don't know how I would have felt about being drafted, but I would have been overjoyed to be trained like the girls were in Israel for their army. I understand that they learned things like how to take apart and reassemble an automatic weapon in the dark- so cool.
I think the art of war has changed enough that it would be more productive to have discussions about martial education/ job training than about drafts. It doesn't do much good to talk about dragging unprepared people in off of the streets and handing them guns- the equipment is far more sophisticated now and there is a learning curve for the art of modern warfare.
Better to approach it as an educational exercise for both genders, I would think. But, again, I am older and decrepit enough now that I would be afraid to even get arrested at a protest- the young people are doing the protests for us, too. God bless them.
1
Really, draft women? At least in the military the pay is, you know, EQUAL!
1
Why should anyone register for the draft? The draft hasn't been used since the 60's. The wealthy 1% will NEVER allow the draft to actually be used. Their pampered children may actually have to serve.
Were the draft to be eliminated it could save the government a lot of money.
So, as the saying goes,
Either use it or lose it.
Were the draft to be eliminated it could save the government a lot of money.
So, as the saying goes,
Either use it or lose it.
I find the idea of a draft of any kind as un American because it robs people of their choice. Whether or not you serve your country via the military should be a choice, not an obligation.
But what I find most egregious is the age. If you are going to require men to sign up for selective service then actually require men. Men ages 25-32 should be required to sign up for selective service, not boys age 18-25. Men who can better handle the psychological effects, and men who are more capable to make life altering decisions. I have always had an issue with sending kids. Sending an 18-25 year old has always made me embarrassed to be an American. We are pushing the responsibility of war on young people who are least represented in congress, who have less to gain from victory, and who have the most to lose in life if something goes wrong in battle. Time to stop sending kids to war.
But what I find most egregious is the age. If you are going to require men to sign up for selective service then actually require men. Men ages 25-32 should be required to sign up for selective service, not boys age 18-25. Men who can better handle the psychological effects, and men who are more capable to make life altering decisions. I have always had an issue with sending kids. Sending an 18-25 year old has always made me embarrassed to be an American. We are pushing the responsibility of war on young people who are least represented in congress, who have less to gain from victory, and who have the most to lose in life if something goes wrong in battle. Time to stop sending kids to war.
12
I agree all should register, but would go further. We should have a system of national service. Such service could be in the military or in non-military areas (national parks, teaching, community service areas). It is our country, yet we ask little to nothing of most of our citizens (many, maybe most, don't even bother to vote). So very many of our citizens are good at proclaiming their "rights," so let's say clearly that those rights come with responsibilities.
23
When women of this country are equal within the Constitution and not holding just that one "right", the "right to vote", then we shall talk "rights".
Not until.
Moreover, I don't confuse public service within the borders of this country with military action outside of our borders.
Nor do I confuse a "volunteer army" with "mandatory draft".
Not until.
Moreover, I don't confuse public service within the borders of this country with military action outside of our borders.
Nor do I confuse a "volunteer army" with "mandatory draft".
1
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become likely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned those preliminary efforts into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft, especially when it reached into the middle class.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become likely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned those preliminary efforts into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft, especially when it reached into the middle class.
20
Thank you for your recognition that women of this nation are not equal under the Constitution.
Remedy that and then we'll talk "equal draft".
Not until.
Remedy that and then we'll talk "equal draft".
Not until.
2
A draft might be the answer to defeating ISIS, supplying fresh troops and engaging everyone in defense of our country. Is there any politician who might suggest this?
2
I doubt sending more kids over there will solve the 1000 year old Middle East crisis, of which Isis is only its latest flavor. It will only create more American and Islamic martyrs and inflame hatred of the US by them and Islam by us.
6
I didn't mean to address ISIS specifically but rather our politicians'appetite for war. If there were an actual draft, men and women alike, would the same sword waving politicians be willing to engage our conscripts as readily as they talk about it n ow.
2
Yes, a national draft should be reinstated for ALL high school graduates and drop outs but it should not be just a military draft. It should be a mandatory national service draft - no exceptions for income, family business, college or any other reason - that allows young people to train for a career and/or attend college while serving America in some way. Young people would be required to serve in an area exactly the opposite of the place they grew up and/or live to experience how others live. It would give young people an opportunity to grow up with housing, meals and small stipends and would be funded with one-half the ENTIRE budget now dedicated to the military. Time for America to turn in our world-police badge.
39
As a former draftee of 1968, I can state that conscription is a tax. Perhaps General Neller is unaware that such things should not be spoken of during a presidential election year. If there must be a draft a suitable cohort could be found in the general's age range. The years 18-26 are too valuable to be spent sitting around with glum faces at a boring hearing.
3
If women really want Equal Rights then they have to accept
Equal Responsibility.
Personally, I don't think all Combat Roles should be open to women
but if they are, then having to Register for the Selective Service seems
to be a public obligation women will have to accept.
Equal Responsibility.
Personally, I don't think all Combat Roles should be open to women
but if they are, then having to Register for the Selective Service seems
to be a public obligation women will have to accept.
23
Oh, yeah, First up, go into the military.
Maybe, maaaaaaabe then we'll talk equal pay in the private sector.
Maybe, maaaaaaaabe, then we'll talk about your body being your own and not some state regulated walking talking womb.
Equality. In skanik's opinion, clearly fighting for the country beats being treated equal by the country.
Very republican of him.
Maybe, maaaaaaabe then we'll talk equal pay in the private sector.
Maybe, maaaaaaaabe, then we'll talk about your body being your own and not some state regulated walking talking womb.
Equality. In skanik's opinion, clearly fighting for the country beats being treated equal by the country.
Very republican of him.
5
it is an obligation they should demand
1
One of the greatest, if not THE greatest, problems in our world is violence to women. We do not need more of it by drafting women into mandatory combat duty.
24
Did you know that domestic violence is about 50/50 for men and women? Please google a domestic violence shelter in your area for men.
12
Men are victims of homicide 5 to 1 over women, both in the US and globally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
2
So, if there is a war, and we need a draft, only our young men should be required to serve? What is equal about that?
1
Before hailing this notion of a co-ed draft, we should probably take into consideration the DoD's inability to defend women from their colleagues and superiors or obtain justice for women victims in the event that they are assaulted. As it is, precious few assaults result in convictions of the assailant while 90% of reporting victims are eventually discharged involuntarily. No woman should be compelled to serve in a military such as ours, where there is a greater risk of being raped by an American in uniform than of being felled by the designated enemy.
44
This is a very good point.
1
Melissa: If women can't even protect themselves from our own male soldiers--who are on their side!--how safe do you feel entrusting out country's defense to female soldiers? The enemy is going to be WAY harder on women soldiers than their male colleagues are. Female war captives will experience a level of sexual violence and depredation that will make anything they experience domestically or from their military peers pale in comparison. You just made the best argument I have yet to hear for excluding women from all combat roles.
1
Women in the military are less likely than women on college campuses to be sexually assaulted. By your logic we should not encourage women to go to college. Also, most victims of sexual assault in the military are men.
A huge mistake was made several decades ago, when the Equal Rights Amendment was almost passed. Had the Women's Movement at that time called for a draft of all, including women, it is likely the amendment would have picked up the few more states needed. People understand viscerally that genuine equality means not just an equal chance to be President or a C.E.O., but an equal chance to die serving one's country.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become likely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned them into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft reaching into the middle class.
In any case, this country needs a draft for practical reasons as well as reasons of fairness and justice. Only by having a draft will we ensure that almost everyone has some skin in the game when we go off to war. Only by having a draft will it become likely that those who have never served will send other people's kids off to die, while their own are sheltered. Only by having a draft will we guarantee substantial opposition to wars that are not really popular.
Let us remember that what really crystallized anti-war efforts during the Viet Nam War and turned them into a mass movement that disrupted business as usual was the draft reaching into the middle class.
9
Retry that last bit. The draft was reaching into the upper middle class and higher. By the way I was #255.
2
Your points are well taken. Perhaps some issues might also suddenly become more important than a "pink tax" and manspreading on a subway, if the stakes were higher.
4
Yes, Ryan. That's why they ended the draft. They were running out of poor men to ship over.
1
uh oh. My son was supposed to register at 18? This article made me google it and the answer is yes. How was I supposed to know that? Don't trash me please. I read everything but I didn't know this.
9
Well, if you were born after 1961 I would expect you to know this, as you had to register for the draft yourself, and it was a really big deal for the first few years because of the political opposition to registration, and the massive amount of resistance to registration (refusal).
If you were born before 1961, and you have an 18 year old now, then your child was born when you were 38 or older, which is statistically unusual.
All of the high schools pass out information about registration, the federal government sends out junk mail about it, the Financial Aid Form asks about it, and the colleges cannot legally grant financial aid without it, so I would say you would need to be a pretty highly committed academic to have missed the information.
On the other hand, back here on Planet Earth...
If you were born before 1961, and you have an 18 year old now, then your child was born when you were 38 or older, which is statistically unusual.
All of the high schools pass out information about registration, the federal government sends out junk mail about it, the Financial Aid Form asks about it, and the colleges cannot legally grant financial aid without it, so I would say you would need to be a pretty highly committed academic to have missed the information.
On the other hand, back here on Planet Earth...
10
@Anonymous,
Trash you? That's the last thing I'm going to do. I think the idea of forcing anyone to sign up to potentially die for war (profiteering) is unconscionable.
2-3-16@1:02 am et
Trash you? That's the last thing I'm going to do. I think the idea of forcing anyone to sign up to potentially die for war (profiteering) is unconscionable.
2-3-16@1:02 am et
10
haha... I was born before 1961 but I am female. Your math is wrong Mr Academic. He was born when I was 36 and he is still 18 years old this year.
He may have filled out the very short form without my knowledge. It is possible. Haven't talked to him about it. But I didn't know a thing about registering.
Why are you so hostile-- and full of assumptions? (and such poor math skills!)
He may have filled out the very short form without my knowledge. It is possible. Haven't talked to him about it. But I didn't know a thing about registering.
Why are you so hostile-- and full of assumptions? (and such poor math skills!)
9
Eliminating the draft was the worst thing Nixon did.As another commenter said if we still had the draft Iraq and Afghanistan would not have happened.Draft men and women if needed and keep those deferments to a minimum.Look at all the chicken hawks in congress.They all wangled their way out of being drafted during the Vietnam war.
27
It's no coincidence that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, being ratified in 1971, and the ending the Draft in 1973. With only a few hundred draftees inducting in 1973, mostly hold-overs from the previous year. So, unlike the times we've had the Draft in the past, today's draftees can VOTE!
1
But the problem with this idea, that women and men are equal for combat purposes, at least close quarters combat, is patent nonsense, as was recently demonstrated by the mere two women of all those who tried who successfully completed the Army's Ranger combat training. The failure rates for women, in both of the publicized attempts for women to complete Ranger training, were orders of magnitude higher than the failure rates for men. I know, because I looked it up, and I did a quick off the cuff calculation of the means and standard deviations, which showed that, at even the 95% level of confidence, men and women constituted different populations of differing typical ability with respect to Ranger training, with women, on nearly every category, being far inferior to men, which is a position that the Marine Corp. held until very recently.
What we have here is just another instance of command influence, i.e., President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, interfering with the candid assessments of our senior military commanders to pursue their own political agenda and their own values. However, while the Commander-In-Chief may be able to get general officers to bend and defer to his values and politics, neither he or any subsequent President will be able to change facts on and of the battlefield.
What we have here is just another instance of command influence, i.e., President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, interfering with the candid assessments of our senior military commanders to pursue their own political agenda and their own values. However, while the Commander-In-Chief may be able to get general officers to bend and defer to his values and politics, neither he or any subsequent President will be able to change facts on and of the battlefield.
10
Differences between men and women are more than battlefield readiness it just took some thing like this for it to become PC for us to say in this day and age. Men and women are different, they will have different experiences and interpretations for everything, no matter how much legalese is used to try and change that fact.
8
Bon. A minute ago you were writing "why is a women's life more valuable than a man's? Why should men only be forced into battle to kill or die like chafe in the wind?" - apparently meaning you were in favour of women taking their chances on the battlefield alongside men.
Now you're not? Which is it?
Now you're not? Which is it?
1
Actually, most drafted people would fill logistics or service positions, which are the vast majority of military jobs. Combat roles take very high skill levels these days, for even ground soldiers. But logistics and service people come in right behind combat, so they are exposed to danger. For medics it can be greater.
This is nothing more than an empty hypothetical.
The US will never have a military draft in the future.
The public won't tolerate it, and a conscript Army is of little value in modern war.
The US will never have a military draft in the future.
The public won't tolerate it, and a conscript Army is of little value in modern war.
4
This is not an empty hypothetical. Currently men must register for the draft to earn their right to vote. We get all frothy at the mouth when we mention bringing an ID to the polling station yet some how this is ok. If women are capable then they should sign up.
7
It's nearly an entirely and empty hypothetical. No one's been drafted since 1973! I'm old enough to have had to register for the Draft during a time of a VERY unpopular war, where the draftee's fought the brunt of that war. Those draftees weren't even old enough to vote and had no say in the political process that was sending them to fight a stupid war. Registering for a Draft during a time of peace and where nobody has been drafted in decades, and the draftees can vote & participate in the political process, is an entirely different scenario!
2
There are also many federal and state programs for which are ineligible if they fail to register.
1
Did anyone see the 2012 documentary film 'The Invisible War'?
Can these Generals guarantee the safety of women in the military from their own peers and superiors? This dysfunctional area of our armed services has to be seriously addressed first and foremost before young women are told they must sign up for potential sexual assault and worse.
Can these Generals guarantee the safety of women in the military from their own peers and superiors? This dysfunctional area of our armed services has to be seriously addressed first and foremost before young women are told they must sign up for potential sexual assault and worse.
36
All citizens should register for the draft barring significant permanent disability. What happens if we actually have a draft can be decided if we ever have a draft again.
5
I have long felt that universal service for all American men and women, say, for one or two years, should be mandatory. We could call this a "draft" if we like, but one's service obligation could be performed not only in the military services, but also as a teacher, a doctor or nurse, or public health outreach worker, a park ranger, or in government services of myriad kinds, who knows, maybe even laboring to rebuild our crumbling highway infrastructure
Fundamental to a sense of citizenship is the giving of oneself to the greater good; yes, this is an idea long out of vogue, but nonetheless an eternal part of the Founder's view of what it is to be an American 'citizen'. It's time we brought back a sense of (and even a requirement for ), participation and engagement in our great civil enterprise, that experiment that made us so exceptional in the first place!
Fundamental to a sense of citizenship is the giving of oneself to the greater good; yes, this is an idea long out of vogue, but nonetheless an eternal part of the Founder's view of what it is to be an American 'citizen'. It's time we brought back a sense of (and even a requirement for ), participation and engagement in our great civil enterprise, that experiment that made us so exceptional in the first place!
70
And in requiring this service in other than the military, radically cut its budget. To something less insane, like 35% of revenues, from 55%.
8
Yes!
1
The obligation of a good citizen is to do his or her job well and honestly, pay taxes, go out and vote, and abide by just laws.
So how about we stop with the moralizing and let people decide what they want to do with their life, instead of mandating we we think others should do with their lives.
So how about we stop with the moralizing and let people decide what they want to do with their life, instead of mandating we we think others should do with their lives.
1
I think this stance by the Generals is cynical and mean spirited. Enlisted women want to be "equal" in the military. I say go for it. But the big boys - want all women to have to pay for this eventuality now because - they don't like it they're the ones who have the ball.
2
There is a human rights' issue here. Only one sex is being demanded to fight and die at the state's request. This is an issue of gender equality. One type of life should not be seen as disposable with another type of life is protected. Surely anyone concerned with social justice will recognize the inequality.
12
Yes it's mean spirited when men point out that women only want the benefits of society but balk at the responsibility that comes with said benefits.
5
Sadly, I have to agree with James. It's equally horrible to contemplate sending young men to their deaths. Just completely equally sad and awful, no worse no better.
Steven Pinker has said the world is becoming less war like. I think and hope the US is learning something from our mid east wars (and Vietnam). I did notice thay China isn't the least bit frightened of Iran and is trading with Iran. What's going on with that? Could China have something figured out we haven't ? Or am I being naive? Who imagines young Chinese women fighting and dying in Syria? And if not, why not?
Steven Pinker has said the world is becoming less war like. I think and hope the US is learning something from our mid east wars (and Vietnam). I did notice thay China isn't the least bit frightened of Iran and is trading with Iran. What's going on with that? Could China have something figured out we haven't ? Or am I being naive? Who imagines young Chinese women fighting and dying in Syria? And if not, why not?
We cannot afford to be tone deaf about the draft and just debate the supposed gender of the draftee . . . These generals want to soften us up and get us comfortable with the idea of drafting young Americans to fight more of these endless and senseless wars. More than a decade later those who still believe terrorism can be stopped with troops, tanks and planes, and young American lives must want to end it with tactical nuclear weapons. A wayward candidate even suggested turning the dessert in the Middle East into black glass . . . We've got to stop the madness, now.
44
"These generals want to soften us up and get us comfortable with the idea of drafting young Americans to fight more of these endless and senseless wars."
If we had had a draft in 2002, and therefore a military whose members were drawn equally from throughout our society, we would never have had a war in the Middle East.
The lack of a draft has been the number one factor in promoting the pointless and destructive wars of the last decade and a half, because members of the "influential" portion of society have been content to just send "them" to "do it."
We need universal conscription, like the European countries used to have, where every young person spends a year or two in the military, in some role, and anybody's son or daughter is at risk of being sent to fight.
If we had had a draft in 2002, and therefore a military whose members were drawn equally from throughout our society, we would never have had a war in the Middle East.
The lack of a draft has been the number one factor in promoting the pointless and destructive wars of the last decade and a half, because members of the "influential" portion of society have been content to just send "them" to "do it."
We need universal conscription, like the European countries used to have, where every young person spends a year or two in the military, in some role, and anybody's son or daughter is at risk of being sent to fight.
14
Eric is correct. If you want to end the wars create a universal, gender blind, no deferral draft. The influential with full support of the American people will insure that wars end quickly when everyone has skin in the game.
Sorry, John. The Generals like a professional volunteer military, and they, more than those who have never been in war, know war and military action ought to be a last resort, used to protect the country and when diplomacy has failed, and not just one more diplomatic strategy. Whether a professional volunteer military is good for the country is, however, debatable. It has created a warrior class--1% of all Americans--that sees itself as superior to the average American (we haven't even earned the right to call ourselves "citizens"), a populace of disconnected from policy making and free to ignore its results, and a political class that can threaten or instigate war knowing the average American will have to reason to care.
The women could do all of the support jobs and not fight anybody. I bet if it came down to it, women could make up more than half of the Air Force.
2
Actually, with the amount of support jobs there are, women could make up more than half of any branch of the military if it came down to it. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic during World War II. If I could do it again, I would join the Air Force after high school.
7
why is a women's life more valuable than a man's? Why should men only be forced into battle to kill or die like chafe in the wind?
6
It has nothing to do with a woman being more valuable. Men are better at fighting. End of story. The average man is about 50% stronger than a woman. You could let women do the fighting, but you would risk losing.
All men are required to register for the draft in order to be eligible for federal student loans. If needed to serve in the military, Congress would have to pass a law reinstating compulsory service. In the event the draft were reinstated during a time of national emergency, the country should be just as able to require service of women as men.
30
I have a better idea: Eliminate the draft entirely. Given how specialized most tasks associated with the armed forces have become, we'd be consigning draftees to the role of cannon fodder. That is as immoral as it would be unwelcome. Want to see a mass exodus over the border? Restart the draft.
23
Now we consign almost only the poor--who look to the military for careers--to being cannon fodder. Men should not be the only ones required to serve if there's a draft.
1
If both men and women had to register for the draft, no deferments, and taxes had to be raised to pay for a war, we would not have been in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place.
The majority of Americans supported this war, even though most want to pretend this is not so.
How many would have if they or their children and grandchildren were the ones to go?
How many if their taxes would be raised?
People support many things, as long as they know they will never pay the price.
The majority of Americans supported this war, even though most want to pretend this is not so.
How many would have if they or their children and grandchildren were the ones to go?
How many if their taxes would be raised?
People support many things, as long as they know they will never pay the price.
69
If it's time for this legislation then it's high time to first pass the Equal Rights Ammendment.
52
Please name a single right that women do not have. How would it stack up to the apparent right women have to not be drafted and slaughtered in industrial warfare?
12
Exactly, Ed.
1
James - are u serious? How about females not having control over our own bodies? How much more basic can it get?
1
People talk about fundamental human rights. I say the most fundamental human right is that to not serve in a military and be forced to kill.
31
There is still a "conscientious objector" status afforded to anyone who professes a sincere and deeply held belief that killing is wrong; and that he/she will refuse to take up arms against any living creature.
11
"CO" status is NOT easily obtained in any non-voluntary military draft, and is fought vigorously by the Selective Service. All through history, those who received the designation were often subject to various forms of mental torture - such as spending four years in a hospital receiving victims of catastrophic brain injuries, crushed bodies and worse (my best friend's case). Then they were also subject to severe job discrimination as well. The right not to serve in a military has never been granted
11
"Against any living creature," presumably including mosquitos and suchlike. I don't think that people should have to prove that to acquire "conscientious objector" status. During the Vietnam War, the requirement was not that onerous; absolute opposition to violence against any human being was enough. But the decision whether to grant the status was in the hands of the military-controlled Selective Service, and the decisions were utterly arbitrary.
The most fundamental human right is the right not to be sent to kill people living in a country invaded by a foreign army. Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, both in 1965, come to mind as two examples of these acts of naked aggression, but there have been many more such classic imperialist wars fought for control of markets, resources and cheap labor markets, Iraq being only the latest.
The most fundamental human right is the right not to be sent to kill people living in a country invaded by a foreign army. Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, both in 1965, come to mind as two examples of these acts of naked aggression, but there have been many more such classic imperialist wars fought for control of markets, resources and cheap labor markets, Iraq being only the latest.
3
The generals are correct.
23
There seems to be an assumption among some that being a man is all gravy and being a woman is all bad. Like all things, it's more complex than that and there's benefits and drawbacks on all sides - and everybody's biased to their point of view. For all of time, men have been the disposable drones we (among other things) send to fight and die in wars. The draft is largely symbolic - I hope, as a registered draft-age male - but it would be a notable example of 'obligation equality' to make it universal across all genders. Just as someone shouldn't get penalized for their gender, they shouldn't benefit. That's equality.
14
We're 15 years out of a century that required millions of men to sacrifice their lives for the state, whether or not they agreed with the cause. Do you really think that it won't happen again?
At times of global warfare and crisis, men have been treated as disposable cannon fodder, as you say. I am not so certain that we really live in a different world in 2016.
At times of global warfare and crisis, men have been treated as disposable cannon fodder, as you say. I am not so certain that we really live in a different world in 2016.
21
As someone who recently remembers signing up for the Selective Service when I turned 18 and thinking about the possibility of going to fight for my country, I feel that this is a great point of distinction between Bernie and HRC. In 2002, Bernie displayed excellent judgment in considering all of the implications of the Iraq War, and in fact lead the opposition in the House. Contrast that with Hillary, who on October 11, 2002 voted in favor of the war, and in 2007 defended her vote in New Hampshire. My point is, who do you want making these kind of decisions, someone who will go with whatever is popular at the time or someone who is willing to carefully and thoughtfully consider the facts in matters of sending people to war?
50
Until there is true equality for women in protection under the law (especially in the southeastern and northeastern U.S.), in pay, in employment AND political opportunities within and outside of the military, this is a grotesque and premature proposition by those of numerous still-male-dominated institutions.
19
Please google the gender pay gap myth. As far as politics, women are the majority. Vote.
12
Every able-bodied person should serve 2-3 years in any branch of the military. The best time to serve is immediately after high school. If a high-achieving teen desires college and is accepted to one, military service can be deferred until after the undergrad degree.
The military turns kids into adults.
Been there, done that. Forever a veteran, and proud of it. I was in the last WAC Officer Basic Course. Fortunately for us, in 1972, the WAC was deactivated and we had the great privilege of choosing JAG, Engineers, Quartermaster, Civil Affairs, Finance, etc. The military has a place for everyone.
The military turns kids into adults.
Been there, done that. Forever a veteran, and proud of it. I was in the last WAC Officer Basic Course. Fortunately for us, in 1972, the WAC was deactivated and we had the great privilege of choosing JAG, Engineers, Quartermaster, Civil Affairs, Finance, etc. The military has a place for everyone.
12
The military places zero value on the life of the individual. I stayed far away and there is zero chance that I would let my kids serve.
20
Perhaps your kids will decide for themselves?
8
"The military places zero value on the life of the individual."
Oh, just like the rest of the real world, then.
I think you've just made UltimateLiberal's point for her.
"... there is zero chance that I would let my kids serve."
To echo Irene: You're not a big believer in young adults' autonomy, are you?
Sounds suspiciously like... um... I don't know... the military!
You don't happen to make your kids pick up cigarette butts when you notice they're not busy... do you?
Oh, just like the rest of the real world, then.
I think you've just made UltimateLiberal's point for her.
"... there is zero chance that I would let my kids serve."
To echo Irene: You're not a big believer in young adults' autonomy, are you?
Sounds suspiciously like... um... I don't know... the military!
You don't happen to make your kids pick up cigarette butts when you notice they're not busy... do you?
2
Why not? Then every person of a whole generation will be killed and who cares about that right? It will be like Russia where whole generations are missing because everyone fought per government order. Why not children to, lets kill and or scar everyone?
5
Well, not every person, only those who 1) Are called in the lottery 2) Have no disqualifying features (health reasons, attendance at university, etc etc) and are 3) Placed in a direct fire combat role (in todays age of drone warfare, plenty of opportunities to not be).
Either way, it will force people like you to more gravely consider our foreign intervention policies. Not so gung-ho about jumping into forays in the ME if it means Susie Q AND Jimmy D down the street might have to go huh?
Either way, it will force people like you to more gravely consider our foreign intervention policies. Not so gung-ho about jumping into forays in the ME if it means Susie Q AND Jimmy D down the street might have to go huh?
1
Give us equal pay first.
45
You have it already. Equal pay is guaranteed by law. Equal pay for "equal" work/experience. Not equal pay for "similar" work.
7
It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
3
Equal pay and opportunities for women and other minorities for equal work is still an illusion that male-dominated institutions like Medicine and U.S. Defense Contractors would like you to believe. I know from personal experience with my current, major DOD contractor employer that Caucasian males are the ones ones in key control and budget positions, period.
9
I did not agree with putting women in combat because I did not think it made the service better. Making it fair is not the point. But now that women are to be in combat roles, they should also have to register for and make themselves available to be drafted.
19
Agree completely.
2
Yes. And they need to make maternity and paternity leave equal.
26
As soon as men get pregnant, they can take medical leave.
7
Why do that? Because only then will this country start taking the military and military policy seriously again. If we're all equally likely to have to be the one shouldering the rucksack and carrying the rifle in the combat zone, then perhaps we'll actually give the decision to go to war the kind of reflection and thought it deserves.
Don't like the sound of this? Consider it a duty of citizenship, like paying taxes, obeying the law, serving jury duty, and -- in an ideal world -- voting and participating in your own democracy. If Americans as a whole aren't personally willing to fight a war -- as is the case of the majority of our fellow citizens today -- then it's not a war worth fighting.
Let's de-professionalize the military, reinstate the draft without possibility of deferment, and start taking our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy, to include its defense, seriously. Otherwise, just elect Trump (or someone like him) dictator for life and be done with the charade that we actually want to rule ourselves, because by all measures we talk a good game about democracy but we sure aren't interested in actually being a part of it.