Military Draft FAQ
In this article, I’d like to answer a few questions that seem to routinely pop up in my discussion and correspondence with others. Sometimes they are posed as the questions they are, and sometimes they are instead thrown out as factual claims which are not quite correct or, if correct, not quite in context.
First, a disclaimer: I am not, in this FAQ, speaking as a representative of the Selective Service System. I am a Selective Service appointee — I sit on the local board which, if a draft were implemented, would hear and rule upon requests for reclassification by those who have received induction notices — but this article is my work and mine alone. It hasn’t been edited, censored or even seen by the Selective Service System. It doesn’t reflect the Selective Service System’s views, nor does it represent any official government policy. As a matter of fact there’s even a (minimal, in my estimation) possibility that writing it will result in my removal from the board.
The background material for this FAQ consists of questions — expressed or implied — I’ve heard, read or been asked, and of answers I’ve gathered from personal research into the subject.
Q: Is a military draft imminent?
A: The short answer is “no.” The longer answer depends on what you mean by “imminent.”
In order for a draft to happen, Congress would have to pass enabling legislation. The president would then have to sign that legislation. Finally, the Selective Service System would have to effectively create the draft system from scratch. There are, of course, detailed plans for doing so, but it’s not an instantaneous process. Even in the most dire emergency, Selective Service would need 90 days, give or take, to get a fully functional conscription operation up and running.
Just FYI, Congress has not passed — or even seriously considered — legislation which would enable the draft. The president hasn’t signed any such legislation (nor has he publicly asked that any such legislation be sent to him to sign). And the Selective Service System, while it is charged with maintaining a posture of readiness, doesn’t do what it ultimately does until and unless those other things happen first.
Q: Then what’s all this I’ve been hearing about new draft boards, new training and such at Selective Service?
A: It’s true that Selective Service has been busy. New draft board members have been appointed. Local boards have been put through their initial training. There’s almost certainly ongoing contingency planning for the possibility of a draft.
This, however, is not evidence that the draft is coming in the near future — or ever.
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration. In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan appointed draft board members. Those members’ terms were 20 years long, and have expired over the last couple of years. The Bush administration’s appointment of new board members was not part of a larger plan to reinstate the draft. It was part of an ongoing cycle which, as it happened, came up for action at a time when the draft was much on everyone’s mind. Old members’ terms expired. New members were appointed.
President Bush also appointed a new director for Selective Service. Nothing sinister there — appointing officials is what presidents do. Selective Service had been under an “acting director” for about a year-and-a-half. William Chatfield was confirmed by Congress and took office on November 29th, 2004.
New agency directors operate on a performance imperative: Hit the ground running. Get the job done, get it done right, and turn around as quickly as possible with real results. Director Chatfield acted on that imperative, and he acted decisively. No surprise there. He’s a long-time Marine — a man of action by inclination — and his brief included a presidential directive that he report readiness on the part of Selective Service by March 31, 2005. That’s four months to tell the President of the United States “mission accomplished.”
So, yes, Selective Service has been busy. And, yes, if Congress passed draft legislation tomorrow, and the president signed it the next day, Selective Service would be in much better shape to implement that legislation than it was four years, or even four months, ago.
There’s no reason to believe, however, that this indicates a draft is imminent or under serious consideration. I’ve seen no indication of any massive planned budget increase for the agency such as would be needed to take it beyond readiness and into action. The new director seems to be concentrating at least as much on ongoing registration programs and such as he is on readiness of the apparatus for activating the draft itself.
Q: But didn’t Congress actually vote on a draft bill?
A: Yes. Last year, US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) and US Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC), introduced legislation to reinstate the draft. The House bill, HR 163, was forced to the floor, and to a vote … by Republicans. It went down 402-2, with Rangel, the bill’s own author, voting against it. Rangel had been forthright in his reasons for introducing the bill. He wanted to highlight the possible expense of the Iraq war, to protest the likelihood that poor, black men would constitute the bulk of its victims, and to force the Republicans on record against the draft. If anything, Rangel and Hollings made a draft less likely by raising the issue in this way.
Rangel and Hollings weren’t alone. The Libertarian Party and its candidates had been raising the issue for some time as well. Aaron Russo emphasized it during his quest for the LP’s presidential nomination. Michael Badnarik emphasized it during his presidential campaign. “Down-ticket” LP candidates raised the issue as well. As a matter of fact, in early 2004, it’s arguable that Russo was instrumental in forcing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to back away from advocacy of “national service.” But more about that later.
Q: I hear the military isn’t meeting its recruiting and re-enlistment goals. Does that portend a draft?
A: This is the first really troublesome question. Yes, recruitment and re-enlistment performance is an important factor, and results over the last couple of years have been, at best, mixed. The US military has to recruit and keep adequate personnel to meet its commitments. If the level of US military troop commitments overseas remains the same or grows and recruitment/retention can’t keep up, then either commitments will have to be reconsidered or the draft will become a real possibility.
One obvious way of avoiding a draft is for the US to reduce its overseas commitments. President Bush has already indicated that he intends, over time, to draw down the US presence in Europe and on the Korean peninsula. This will make some troops available for Iraq, Afghanistan and other operations. It is not, however, an instant solution. The drawdown is a long-term plan, not an immediate one.
Another way of avoiding a draft is to increase military pay and benefits so that more people are inclined to enlist. Congress has been nibbling around the edges of this approach, looking at death benefits and such. It remains to be seen whether a substantial military pay increase will be included in the next budget.
Still a third way of avoiding a draft is to induce US allies to contribute troops to ongoing efforts. That approach does not seem to be bearing fruit. Most US allies — whose manpower contributions were negligible anyway — seem to be moving toward withdrawal from Iraq, not increased troop presences there.
Unless the US government manages to strike a balance between the commitments it makes and the manpower it has to fulfill those commitments, the spectre of the draft will continue to haunt the political discourse.
Q: John Kerry and others have implied that there’s a “backdoor” draft going on already. What are they talking about?
A: They’re talking about “stop loss,” and the characterization of it as a “backdoor draft” is hype. Everyone who enlists in the US military signs the same contract. That contract includes very specific language which allows the President of the United States to temporarily extend their service under certain conditions, and Congress to extend their service even further under other conditions. Nobody likes “stop loss,” but to characterize it as a draft is simply incorrect.
Q: What can I do to prevent a draft?
A: None of the above was intended to put your concerns to rest. It’s quite possible that the only reason the draft hasn’t already commenced is because people have made an issue of it. It’s also quite possible that continuing to make an issue of it is the only way to stop it.
The best way to prevent a draft is to make it clear to American politicians that conscription is unacceptable and that they’re expected to go, and remain, on record as opposing it.
In the 2004 election cycle, this was effective. President Bush stated unequivocally that there would be no draft while he remained in office. Congress put itself on record with the HR 163 vote. The Democrats turned tail and ran on “national service” after libertarians made it a campaign issue.
That was then. This is now. Election-year promises mean little after the votes are counted. There’s still a need for focus and activism on the issue. Those who oppose the draft need to help fashion conscription into a “third rail” issue that no politician will even consider touching.
Here are a couple of multi-partisan resources for those who want to get involved:
Mothers Against the Draft
Parents Against a Draft
The Libertarian Party owns, but does not appear to be actively maintaining, a site at EndSelectiveService.Org.
A number of other resources, representing various ideological approaches, exist. Google away. This is one issue on which you can make — and have probably already made — an impact.
