by Sari Krosinsky
Daily Lobo columnist
Here's a unique idea: propose a draft to oppose a war. That's exactly what U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel appears to have done.
According to press releases issued on Jan. 7 and Jan. 10, Rangel proposed the Universal National Service Act of 2003 for two reasons. First, he says that Congress members will take decisions about going to war more seriously if their children might be on the front line, so a draft could potentially avert a war with Iraq.
It's an interesting idea, but not a historically sound one. Past drafts haven't stopped past wars. Past drafts have typically just led people in power to find ways to keep their kids out of service or to get their kids stationed out of harm's way.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Rangel's second reason is that low-income people and people of color are disproportionately represented in the military. "Minorities comprise 35 percent of the military. . .well above their proportion of the general population," he said. Given the above stated tendency, a draft would hardly solve that problem. More middle class people might end up postponing college for military service, but a draft wouldn't lead to "the affluent," as Rangel puts it, "doing their share."
But a lot has been said about this act. What does the act have to say for itself?
Currently, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and has been referred to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Forces.
If passed, the act would require that all citizens -- both men and women -- between the ages of 18 and 26 serve either in active or reserve military service or in mandatory civilian service -- that is, conscripted volunteerism. There is no exemption for college students, but there is an exemption for students completing a high school diploma up through the age of 20. The minimum term of service is two years.
Most concerns in implementing the act are left to the president's discretion. This includes, among other things: determining grounds -- aside from voluntary enlistment -- for early termination of service; determining how conscientious objection will be dealt with; determining how many people will be called up for military and/or civilian service; and determining what constitutes civilian service and how it will be compensated.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have Bush telling me where and how I have to volunteer. More importantly, since the president could simply choose not to draft anyone even if the bill is passed, the whole point of the act -- assuming Rangel is serious -- would be moot.
Another provision of the bill is that it would require women to register under the Military Selective Service Act. I don't object to women being subject to the same expectations as men. I object to anyone being forced to register with the Selective Service, period.
In a Jan. 7 release from the American Forces Press Service, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that a draft is unnecessary because the military operates more efficiently and effectively with an all-volunteer force. If even the highest military officials think the draft is a bad idea, why force people to register with the Selective Service in the first place?
Apparently, I'm not the only person asking that question. Another bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services calling for the repeal of the Military Selective Service Act.
There is more in this issue to object to than a congressman wasting money on proposing a draft bill just to make a statement. If I were actually necessary to the defense of this country where all of my loved ones happen to reside, I would make no objection to losing my privileged status as a woman and a college student. But even those who have volunteered for military service don't deserve to have their lives wasted in any war that is neither wise nor necessary.
To do your own legislative research, go to www.congress.gov. To kvetch at Sari Krosinsky, e-mail michal_kro@hotmail.com.
