H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006
 

I found this legislation on GovTrack and thought for a moment about my own age and how I would feel about being drafted at this point in my life. I'm right on the edge of being ineligible under this proposed legislation but I would certainly serve in whatever capacity I was called.

The real key difference in this legislation is that the age range is being proposed to be changed from formerly 18 to 25 to newly 18 to 42.

Keeping in mind that we have an unfinished and almost forgotten war ongoing in Afghanistan, a $40B per month war in Iraq, and trigger happy KJI's missle testing that happened in North Korea just today (July 4th - coincidence?), and the Iranians enriching Uranium for "energy purposes only" (yeah right, and I'm the Pope) -- how do you feel about the selective service and the possibility that you may be drafted?

GovTrack Link

People have tabled such legislation many, many times. It has yet to build any real support, as far as I remember.

Eh, they wouldn't want me in the military anyway, as I'm gay and have a physical disability that would proscribe most military duties.

I don't support the war in Iraq, and so would not want to serve in any capacity that would support that effort.

I also find the idea of conscription to be anti-freedom. I do think that men and women should be treated equally in this regard, but I think that equal treatment should mean neither group is forced into unwanted service.

Gilda

Well with a college degree and a strong ability and background with foreign languages, I would enlist and get myself into the officer program before they could draft me.

But I don't see this as bill getting anywhere. Look at who introduced it, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). This isn't the first draft bill he has introduced. And if I remember correctly the last one he introduced recieved a grand total of 3 votes.

If they instate a draft, I will be happily serving jail time.

Nothing on this earth could make me fight the wars this administration has gotten us in to.

Which says nothing for what analog said.

I'l be gleefully posting from Peru if there is a draft. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join me. I'll bring a few extra futons, just in case. BYOB.

For those who would go to jail or move to Peru, I have a question - What if we're attacked by North Korea? Would you still skeedaddle?

If North Korea attacks us, we'd lose two-ish cities and then we'd turn the country into radioactive glass. It's pretty simple. There's no war to be fought.

Also, KJI is crazy, but he's not stupid. He knows we'd do that. I think the possibility of North Korea attacking the US proper is all but zero. This is posturing so we don't do to him what we did to Saddam. Same with Iran. Iraq didn' thave WMDs, so we invaded and took over the country. Iran and North Korea have every incentive to give us a reason (wanting to keep LA on the map, for example) to not do it to them.

Edit: I realized I posted all this and didn't answer your question. The answer to the question is I will never fight if I am conscripted. I can imagine outside chances where I would, as indicated above, use my knowledge of foreign languages and college degree to get an officer's commission. So yes, it is possible that I would serve if I felt it was appropriate. I would never fight if drafted.

If we were actually attacked by a real enemy, I would volunteer before being drafted. I will not be drafted for any reason, but I will fight to protect my country from a real foe.

This piece of legislation isn't about a draft at all. It's about obligatory national service--something plenty of other countries have. If you don't want to be in the military, you can opt into civil service instead.

As for a draft, I'm not in support of it, and it's sexist. If the government wants a draft, they should draft everyone, regardless of sex.

Rangel's just making a point: if the U.S. is going to war, every family should be prepared to sacrifice. If they're not... if they're only in favor of the war if somebody _else's_ son or husband or daugher or wife goes... maybe something like a universal draft would make help them to rethink their views.

Personally, I think universal national service is a good thing, as long as there are other avenues as well as the military for the conscripts to pursue.

This gets proposed every year... amazingly by a Democrat.

Meaning?

It's simply to scare people in not liking the war and hense Bush. No one ever votes for it.

This version specifies women also and alters the existing codes to include women. I agree that the draft should be sex neutral, but I don't think anyone should be drafted or forced to do any work against their will.

North Korea invading the US is about as likely as Bolivia invading, and no, I wouldn't fight, as I'd be worse than useless. It isn't always about the US--they may be saber rattling at South Korea, which I think makes much more sense.

Gilda

This is my answer as well. I can certainly see myself fighting an invasion to protect this country, and indeed killing if required (though I would never be the same person again, I am willing to accept this). I refuse however, to be compelled into a forced mental disorder because an old man in Washington thinks its a good Idea.
Having never been in a position to take the life of another person, I cannot say what it would do to me, but I do know it would change me in ways I do not care for. We can all look at this as some far off possibility, and play the bravado game for the sake of our collective Ego, but when it comes down to it.....Warfare means Killing. I for one, do not take even the slim chance of having to do so.....lightly.

I had a very good friend in the Special Forces. He ran many.. operations in the 4.5yrs since 9/11. I've never heard it put any clearer when talking about how killing affects you.

"However you think you'll feel, that's exactly what it feels like."

If you think you'll have no problem with it you wont. Chances are if you think it'll completely wreck you it probably will.

It's not to scare people. It's to make a point. It's real easy to be delightedly in favor of the fact that we're off to kill innocent Iraqis if there's no chance you or your kid will be forced to help out. It's not quite as much fun to think of playing Rambo if your kid is the one getting shot at.

Croatia. I hear their property rates are really low nowadays and you can get a sizeable chunk of land for next-to-nothing. And they've got very nice beaches.

Like the above have said, there's no way I'm going to fight for the ill-cocked idiocy our President got us into. In defense of an invasion, sure. But not a Bushwar.

National service is a great idea that doesn't work on a large scale. The Israelis can make it work given that they have a homogenous population that is much smaller than the US. The closest analogy to the US would most likely be Russia, and by all accounts their national service was a disaster under the Soviets and continues now. New recruits are habitually tortured, raped, assalted and robbed by "career" servicemen, with several dozen being outright murdered by their squadmates every year. There is a huge resentment between career and non-career personnel, and I don't see any reason for that kind of friction to be lacking here, given the current all-volunteer force. There's a big grassroots movement in Eastern Russia now to do away with madatory service.

From what I read, they already have.

This would be a good thing.

As it is now, there's no reason for citizens to gain much significant real world experience or maturity because mass media and post-modern culture discourage it and the contemporary workplace does not reward it.

It may even instill a sense of true individualism rather than phoney marketed "individualism." Perhaps it would reanimate a general spirit of patriotism - without which no country can survive.

I have a few scenarios that I'm curious as to what peopel think about whether they would be drafted/join depending on the case:

North Korea at tacks America. Not necessarily to invade, but they drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco or LA to hurt the American infrastructure. If we responded by invading North Korea to overthrow the government in response to the attack, would you go? Same question but with Iran.

In that case, I would allow myself to be drafted. I wouldn't join I doubt since there's far better servicemen out there than I could ever be, but if I were called on I would go.

Iraq? If Congress instuted a draft today for more troops in Iraq, would you go?

Personally, no. I support the war, I think it's a means to an end and it could have some pretty great results in the Middle East, but ultimately I wouldn't fight that war. If I were drafted I'd probably head up to Canada for a little while.

Overall, I'm against a draft in the military sense. I feel that there should be a required duty to spend 2 years doing some kind of work for the government - Depending on education I guess depends on what you'd do - And you'd have the option of joining the military reserves for 2-4 years or working a civilian job for 2-4 years part time. I'm not 100% sure how that would work itself out, but general idea that I think there should be a required time of work done for the country, but not necessarily in a military fashion.

With the trying to make you think "Huh, what if it were my children instead of some one else's child out there?" That seems like a very poor way of going about things. Nobody in the military was forced into the military with a gun to their head, it was their choice, they joined, signed up knowing that they might end up going to war. It's not like people join the military just for kicks and not ever think that "Hey, I might end up going to war..." I can still support the decision to go to war, but I don't feel I need to be in the military to feel that way. To say that you do is absurd to me.

GF, I'd need proof. If there was proof, then I'd defend my country. The bottom line is that I have no reason to trust the word of the government or news media right now, so why would I want to kill people because of their word? *If* Iran made the mistake of launching nuclear weapons on the US, and there was actually proof, then I would defend my country. If there was a sudden nuclear attack, and then Bush came on saying words like "evildoers", "terror", "9/11", and such, then I'd be skeptical. The 9/11 paper trail still hasen't even ben released (the one that Condee promised would be made public in an announcement right after 9/11). It's an issue of trust, and if trust isn't there, then trust isn't there.

I think national service at 18 or 22 (post-college) would be great, if you could opt out of military service and instead perform civil service like working in poor and underserved communities. Build houses for the poor, teach or be a teacher's aide in poor schools, work with literacy programs, whatever. Like Americorps, only mandatory. I think it'd be a great idea to expose young people to the range of need in this country, and to introduce them to the rewards of service to others.

However, it sounds like this is not a "public service" bill but a draft. Good luck passing a draft for THIS war. Or any other, really.

No, and I'm the last person they'd want in such a situation.

No, for above stated reasons.

That said, I've been in public service by my own choice my whole life. I taught public school for seven years and work for a state university now. I wouldn't support a way in any way, but I think I've done my part to support my country.

It isn't that I object to service, it's mandatory service that I find objectionable.

Gilda

Why is it that there's an assumption that draft = fight? Draft can equal supply, or intelligence or accounting or HR or legal or nursing or any number of other things. You wouldn't become a state-side resident medic and help injured soldiers? You'd rather flee to another country? For shame! It's one thing to be against killing others, it's quite another to take your anti-violent beliefs out on injured soldiers who may have had no other option. Enlist with a contract clause to never be deployed overseas. In times of need, the appropriate general officers will sign off on just about damned anything if it means more warm bodies. Sounds way better than being drafted and FORCED into something you don't want to do.

As a side note, this bill wouldn't affect me as I'm already enlisted and have done more than two years as it is. As for my boys... I'd love to see them required to be in civil service of some nature for 2 years. In fact, if I have the means by which to do so, I will make their higher education contingent on it after they graduate, even if just for one year or for summers during college (if non-military).

Well, after they graduate college, they're eligible for the Peace Corps, and they receive an educational award after finishing their tour of service that can be applied to student loans or additional education. Americorps is much more flexible in that you do not sign up for a 2-year stint, but rather choose positions to apply for, all of which have different requirements (in education and length of time). They also have an education award after fulfillment of the contract.

Make them sign up for a program such as the Peace Corps or Americorps, and they'll get more out of it--and you'll have to do less work. :)

I'm all for Americorps if that's what they want to do, as I am with the Peace Corps or the Marine Corp. Civil service is civil service, and I'm a fan of it all! :)

Perfectly stated in my mind. I will not act in a war that I cannot support, but will readily defend my country in one that I must.

The US may be fucked up pretty badly and I may not like how it is being run in the least, but somewhere near its heart there are still, though twisted and roughed up, the values that we can back... And that makes it worth defending. We would have to defend it from destruction so that we could take the time afterward to fix everything that we fucked up in the past few decades.

If it comes to it, I'll fight with that thought close to my heart.

I feel that I can serve my country in better ways that fighting in the field. I don't feel any emotion toward the prospect of a draft, as it simply won't happen. If such legislation is passed, those who voted for it will quickly learn the extent to which the electorate will hold them accountable for their decisions.

Really? The electorate? As in their constituants? Those people that don't even bother to vote? Yeah, the politicans have a lot to fear from the public these days... the grand apathetic American public. :-/

One would think a draft would... well, beat... the apathy out real quick.

A lot of people don't vote for a plethora of reasons, most likely one of them being that either way they vote them themselves won't be effected much. I could have voted for Kerry or I could have voted for Bush, but either way wouldn't have mattered a bit to me in the long run. When I am personally affected, via a draft, yeah, I think I would vote be a lot more inclined to vote. I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who feels that way.

No personal offense intended Gator, but I wish that you were. I am not eligible for the draft, but I will vote to prevent it from happening to you. I would ask you to vote in what you believe is right, whether it directly affects you or not.

I'm not qualified for any of those things. Nor is anyone in my family.

How would I be doing this? Am I harming anybody by not treating injured soldiers right now?

Well, there's high praise. I'd be a "warm body", not a person with individual worth. Then again, that would be little different than how things are now.

And by the way, I have served the people of my country as a teacher.

Gilda

That's why the government and/or military provides training. Even if you have a degree in the MOS you choose, you still go through the same training as someone whose never done it before. How many people do you think are qualified to be infantry before enlisting?

Well, statistically it's possible. Most Army and VA hospitals are in desperate need of volunteers and medical professionals. The lack thereof could be hurting someone. I'm not trying to argue that you SHOULD do one of these things, but rather that dismissing them outright seems a bit cold.

Yes, well, the kid at McD's serves his country by feeding their fat asses. My company's owner serves his country by running a business that helps the economy. There's a difference between a job and civil service. Nearly ALL jobs are important to some degree or another. Teachers, lawyers, doctors... sometimes going above and beyond your comfort zone not only allows you to better serve your fellow countryfolk (even those that may not deserve it) but also give you new space for personal growth.

Before I enlisted, I served my country, too... as a good citizen. Something we tend to lack these days. Teachers are great! Sadly, we have too many that are not qualified to be teaching their subject or grade or anyone in some cases. Gilda, aside from your posts here, I don't know you. You might be the best teacher in the tri-county area. But just saying, "I'm a teacher, so I serve my country" is a bit trite. Sorry...

I have no idea what an MOS is, but it seems both foolish and inefficient to give everyone the same training regarless of background.

Well, given that that is a job that exists solely within the military, I'd say none.

That I'm cold is how most people see me, so you hit on the obvious there.

I don't, however, see how my putting my talents to use where I'm most useful is harming anybody, or possibly could.

You do realize that public school teachers are government employees, do you not? I've done my civil service.

Absolutely. I see no connection to being forced into unwanted labor by the goverment.

This is true. I'd venture that the same thing is true of every profession, including the military. It's part of why it would be exceedingly foolish to take me from a job that I'm qualified for and good at to do a job I would hate, for which I am not qualified, and which I would do poorly.

The same could be said of being in the military, which by the way, doesn't want me or anybody in my family, regardless of our ability to serve.

Gilda

MOS = Military Occupational Specialty. It's your job you'll specialize in while in the military.

It's not foolish, and the military rarely concerns itself with efficiency. It relies on teaching everyone the exact same things, and drilling them constantly so it's second nature.

Thank you.

I disagree, obviously, and I really doubt that that is actually the case. To use Grace as an example, it would be a huge waste of time and resources to treat her and someone who has no medical training the same in a hospital setting.

Gilda

Were there a war on my own HOME soil I would fight and take as many of them with me as I could. However, I feel the good old USofA spends way too much time sticking its nose into other peoples business. Think of everything we could have fixed with all that money put into this war.

Last I checked WE fought OUR civil war, if Iraq cant fight theirs, they dont need one. Let them be opressed.

It isnt even the United Nations anymore, it is the nations that want to be protected by the big bad USofA. (Note dripping sarcasm)

Have they ever helped us? Where were they? They didnt help us fight our civil war. They ever pay us back for all the boat loads of help weve sent them?

NO!

Wanna ship food over to some third world hole? Do it yourself, let them live on charity, we have starving people here at home that would kill for a pack of ramen noodles.

Thats all I have to say about that otherwise I will rant and ramble all day long and this is a prime example as to why I stay OUT of the politics forum.

I'll respond to the rest later, I'm just in ah urry and this stood out - Is this dripping with sarcasm?

Because the last time I checked the slaves weren't the ones who started the civil war and I'm pretty sure on the scale of oppression they were the ones at the bottom, not the men from the South.