Quaker House

[UPDATE-Early 2004: The original article which describes the underlying factors which are building pressure for a return to the draft is below this update, posted in early January, 2004.]

One other continuing task here at Quaker House has been monitoring the growing strain on the US military, a force that’s being stretched too thin in an ugly, pointless war. As casualties mount, the stress on military families is intense. One unintended result is among other things an increasing prospect of a return to the military draft. Other groups have recently commented on this overstretched condition, including the Century Foundation at www.tcf.org

Government officials insist that a draft will not be needed; but there have been so many falsehoods emanating from official quarters about matters of war and peace, that the credibility of such pledges, in our opinion, is not high.

To illustrate this growing pressure, we created what we call the DRAFT-O-METER, a graphic measure of our sense of how close we are coming to a return of the draft. Before 9-11, for instance, the odds were very low. Since then, they have begun to rise.

Almost every time I visit a group to talk about peace work, some persons ask about the draft — is it coming back? When? My answers to these twin questions have been: I think so, to the first; but a guarded, I don’t know, to the second. (If I really knew the future, I’d be in the stock market.)

But in the past month, various items of data have combined to bring this process into sharper focus. the outlook.

Here’s what I now foresee:

In the near future–

1. if we’re still bogged down in an Iraqi guerilla war. (And/or involved somewhere else as well.) And

2. If the current US regime has been returned to power in the 2004 election, with similar or stronger support in Congress;

3. Then I predict the push to revive the draft will come in the 2005 legislative session.

Why? Because for a second term president, the first year of that second term is THE time to propose actions that will be the most difficult and controversial.

(For those who remember or have read about it, Lyndon Johnson rammed through all his major legislative programs in the parallel year of 1965, after his election to a full term.)

2006 is a congressional election year, so that won’t work. (Lyndon Johnson’s activist drive stalled out in 1966.) And after that, lame-duck presidents in their last two years typically lose leverage with Congress and the public rapidly, especially if there are cumulative scandals coming to fruition (and the current regime has many such that are slowly ripening).

And by then, the stress on the existing US military will be at the breaking point, or beyond. It’s not far from that even now, as we hear every day at Quaker House.

And should we add to this scenario two more IFs, namely: 1. a further terror attack (real or imagined) on US “homeland” territory; or 2. A new invasion or war with another country (Iran? North Korea? Some other nation?) Either of these would measurably increase the odds favoring the renewed draft scenario.

For those (Friends or others) who oppose a return to the draft, I propose that they/we begin work NOW to make a “pre-emptive strike” against it, working quietly to gather other supporters into loose alliances which will prepare to wage all-out political warfare against it in the campaigns leading up to 2005 (demanding that congressional candidates go on record against it in advance, etc.).

If we permit ourselves to be caught unawares in the 2005 crunch, I fear it will be too late.

History says the prospects of effective political opposition are substantial. The World War Two draft bill passed the House by a single vote. Even in 2005, with a re-elected president riding high, a return to the draft will be highly controversial; so the fight will be worth it.

But keep in mind this caveat: even if 2005 passes without a draft, the threat will still remain. The US military will still be overstretched. The pressure to close the gap between the “supply” of troops and the available soldiers will still persist. Further, the draft is an issue which does not cut cleanly across party lines: In the past, Democrats voted for the draft, just as did most Republicans. Under the pressure of war hysteria, why wouldn’t they do so again?

And then if the draft returns, the same groups can turn almost on a dime to revive the large-scale campaign, involving Quakers and others, of draft counseling, and the smaller but important underground railroads smuggling rebel draftees out of the country. These were among the high points of peace-antiwar witness in the Vietnam years.

It would also be a good idea for concerned Friends and others to read up on the experience of COs/resisters in the Vietnam era, which I think is the most useful model. Here are two books of particular value:

Friends in the Vietnam War, published by Pendle Hill, edited by your humble servant. There are many amazing and instructive true-life stories here.

Second, In the Service of their Country, by Willard Gaylin, Viking, 1970. Gaylin, a psychiatrist, conducted in-depth interviews with many imprisoned Vietnam-era war resisters, to chart the effects of this form of resistance on them and their communities. (The upshot: strong personal/community support made all the difference.) Excellent, sobering stuff.

My conclusion: if you are against the return of the draft, the time to get ready to stop it is NOW.

---

[NOTE: The article below was first written in early 2003, before the second U.S.-Iraq war began. While much has changed since, recent events have only reinforced the basic points and the forecast presented here.]

 

 

I

 

There was another flurry of press interest in the possibility of a renewal of the military draft over the Christmas season at the end of 2002.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York announced he would introduce a draft bill to ensure that there would be “shared sacrifice” in the event of new wars. Rangel bill, the text of which is not available at this writing, joins one introduced in 2001 by Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan. Smith bill is HR 3598, The Universal Military Training Act of 2001.

Smith and Rangel make a very odd congressional couple: Rangel a black urban Democrat; Smith a white Republican from a farming district. But their rationales are remarkably similar: Rangel asserted that only one member of Congress today had a son in the enlisted ranks of the military; Smith noted that the percentage of Members of Congress with any military experience is diminishing rapidly. Rangel added that he hopes a draft which affected the sons of politicians would make them less cager to support new wars; Smith hoped it would provide young Americans of diverse backgrounds a unifying common experience.

Does such a parallel effort by two so different congressional figures portend an early return of the draft, which ended thirty years ago, in the near future?

By itself, I don’t think so: Rep. Smith is a baekbencher, and his bill has gone nowhere. Rangel is better known, but as part of the Democratic minority, he likewise carries little weight with those who move legislation.

But that not the end of the story. Indeed, as far as gauging the prospects for a return of the draft is concerned, I think Congress is one of the last places to look for useful insights.

 

II

 

A better place to search for clues to the prospects for a draft is away from Capitol Hill, across the Potomac River toward the Pentagon. After all, the Defense Department is the agency which would run the draft, and make use of the conscript soldiers. And if the draft is to return, it will be DOD lobbyists who do the heavy lifting.

But do the masters of the Pentagon want the draft back?

The first answer appears to be an emphatic NO. At least that the word from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “Absolutely not,” he told interviewer Larry King in December, 2002, in one such declaration. I believe he was and is sincere in this declaration. There would appear to be a number of reasons for this antipathy:

For one thing. Rumsfeld believes draftees aren’t necessary. He appears supremely confident that the US military forces are currently large enough not only to fight two major wars at once, but also to carry out lots of smaller covert missions as well.

For another, draftees are both expensive and a lot of trouble. Rumsfeld doubtless remembers the Vietnam-era difficulties that were sparked by draftees.

On a philosophical level, Rumsfeld is an anti-big-government Republican, at least in theory. And big government doesn’t get much bigger than the draft. (Before you sneer at this, remember that it was Republican Richard Nixon who ended the draft the last time.) And more quietly but just as sincerely, Rumsfeld, like the rest of this administration, will stay far away from any program that would intrude on the privileges of its key constituency of affluence. The egalitarian “sharing of sacrifice,” which advocates like Rangel and Smith would hope to achieve is the farthest thing from this administration mind.

This last is not, however, merely a partisan jibe: the nation is now on its second draft-dodger administration, and Bill Clinton was no more interested in such a hazard to the sons of his peers.

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld NO to the draft is not the end of the story either.

Why not? Because of the persistent forces of supply and demand. For all his bluster and swagger. Rumsfeld does not control them, and they are diverging ever more sharply.

 

III

 

This divergence can be illustrated by the following simple chart, below:

 

 

The grey line on this chart approximates the supply of US troops over time. In all services, they total about 1.4 million. Fully augmented by reserves, they could go up to about 1.8 million; but such an increase would put severe strains on the military system, strains that are already evident. Thus this increase is marginal, and the line is close to flat.

The solid line is a projection of the growth in demand for US forces over time. It assumes that each potential new major military threat, combat operation, or occupation in the “war on terror,” will increase the demand for these forces significantly.

Such threats not only include foreign operations (wars in Iraq, Korea, or elsewhere), but also responding to domestic attacks, and the need to secure the innumerable points of “critical infrastructure”: ports, dams, borders, airports, nuclear plants, etc. This demand is already quite close to the supply, and in my view is likely to outstrip it in the not-too distant future.

This increase in demand will also be affected by overall US strategy. As enunciated by the administration in the fall of 2002, America has declared its intention not only to defend its short-term interests, eradicate terrorist enemies, and export its values, but also to act to prevent the emergence of any potential rivals.

No matter how you slice it, such a program of U.S.-enforced world hegemony and domestic security portends huge military undertakings. My guess is that we are only beginning to get a sense of its scope and implications, not to mention the cost.

Moreover, the Pentagon and White House are setting off on this new imperial venture with a force that is substantially reduced from the early 1990s. From the perspective of anti-militarism advocates, it was a signal achievement of the Clinton presidency that it cut US military troop strength by close to forty per cent.

Clinton made these cuts, however, without any parallel reduction in the extent of American military commitments, which were already world-wide. the result was what labor union organizers would call a “speedup,” requirements for the troops to do more and more with less and less. One result was a dramatic rise in the stress on military personnel and their families. The stress drove many GIs out of the military, making “retention” a constant struggle.

There is other fallout of this condition, such as very high rates of domestic violence in the military.

Now, of course, the Bush administration has ratcheted up the demands on the forces several notches, in both defensive (e.g., anti-terror, “homeland security”) and offensive (world hegemony) terms. But Rumsfeld has thus far adamantly resisted proposals from within the military to increase troop strength. That why, in terms of our chart, the divergence between demand and supply seems likely to widen steadily over time.

Predictions about the future are of course speculative; but none of these concrete factors is imaginary, or unfamiliar to the Pentagon leadership. So what are Rumsfeld and company going to do about them?

Preparing For the Draft: FAQ

from Quaker House

Posted October 2004

Q. Will the military draft return?

A. We don’t know the future. What we do know is that the current US. military is seriously overstretched, with no relief in sight. We also know that the military is trying various “quick fixes” to close the gaps, and they don’t seem to be working. (For more on this, go to the Quaker House website: www.quakerhouse.org/draft-return.htm) Many military professionals have also raised alarms about how over-stretched the “volunteer” US military now is, and how this might point to the draft’s return. Two such sources are: www.optruth.org/ or a new report from The Century Foundation — www.tcf.org)

Q. If the Draft returns, how can we prepare?

A. We are often asked what can be done now to protect you or your children from being selected in the event of a draft.

Because there is no draft today, no one can say exactly what the rules and procedures would be. However, it seems safe to assume that a future draft would not call up persons who are currently unqualified or unacceptable for military service.

So what a person can do now is to create a file documenting any problems or restrictions, so if the draft returns they would have necessary paperwork ready and complete on short notice.

Q. What about medical/health conditions?

A. Many medical conditions will keep people out of the military. Research them online as Standards of Medical Fitness. Collect and copy all medical files, and get a thorough physical exam with special attention to any problems that could interfere with service. Make sure previously unexplored aches, pains, and injuries, are examined and noted.

Keep a history of psychological problems or treatments and medications. Note periods of stress such as difficult times in school, parental divorce, or death of a loved one. Seeking counseling for any current problems can create a paper trail where one might not otherwise exist.

Q. What if I’m gay, lesbian or bisexual?

A. The military currently excludes open gays. Discuss any homosexual or bisexual orientation with someone you have confidence in, yet who could still credibly attest to your orientation if necessary. For instance, a trusted pastor would likely be more credible than a teenage best friend.

Q. What about Drug Use/Criminal records?

A. We do not encourage either illegal drug use or lawbreaking. But if you have a history of either, they have kept many people out of the military. Here too, having complete records will be important.

Q. What if I want to be a Conscientious Objector (CO)?

A. Today, the only formal CO regulations are for persons already in the military. The key sections of these military regulations demand that CO claimants not only explain their pacifist beliefs, but also document a track record of acting on them. As the Bible says: “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.” (James 1:22)

Q. How can I establish a CO “track record”?

A. Again, there are no formal regulations for future CO claims. But our advice is to document carefully your religious or philosophical objections to war and violence, and your actions for peace. Speak with a sympathetic pastor or mentor, one who could vouch for you later, about your antiwar beliefs. Express them in letters to the editor or other forms of dated publication. Register them with your meeting or church, or a national CO registry like the Center for Conscience and War in Washington DC (www. nisbco.org). Collect news articles, flyers, or photos from marches, vigils or prayer services attended, and other related documents.

As sources to support CO claims, medical professionals, public officials, religious leaders, school guidance counselors, and current and former military servicemembers (the higher ranking the better) generally have more credibility. Non-family members are considered less biased. Parents and family can still be good sources, but better to include statements by these others when possible.

Q. What if I don’t want to register with Selective Service?

A. There are automatic federal and state penalties for declining to register (Info at: www.sss.gov ). Registration is also automatic in many states (32 at last count), when you get a driver’s license. As this shows, in today’s no-privacy electronic society, the Selective Service could likely find almost anyone if it went looking.

Q. If I do register, can I claim CO status then?

A. Not in the legal sense. There is no line on the SSS registration form to state a CO claim. But here is something a young man can do.

1. Write a phrase like, I AM A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR on blank spaces on the registration form, in clear block letters.

2. Make copies of the form, then mail one copy to yourself, and another to someone who has agreed to receive it.

3. Do not open the envelopes with your copies when they arrive. Keep them with your file of CO-related documents.

4. If the draft returns, this copy, and your file, should help substantiate your CO claim. (But remember: there are no guarantees!)

Q. How can I keep up with bills to restart the draft?

A. Beware of vague rumors spread on the internet! The Friends Committee on National Legislation (www.fcnl.org) will track such proposals carefully and accurately.

– Steve Woolford & Chuck Fager

Please Print Out, Copy & Post