• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The return of the draft

severin

Thinker
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
147
I read this in today's copy of The Guardian, a reputable British newspaper. What is your take on it? (It's quite long but worth the effort)

John Sutherland
Monday May 31, 2004
The Guardian

Last Wednesday, the American public was officially instructed to panic. Attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller - brows furrowed, faces grim - took over primetime TV to deliver a spine-chilling message to their fellow citizens: "Al-qaida attack imminent."

When, where, and what form the outrage will take, is unknown. But something very, very awful is going to happen very, very soon.

Cynics will be sceptical. Was this another attempt by the administration, like those "orange alerts" last year, to divert attention from Iraq, the soaring price of gasoline, and Abu Ghraib?

On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."

He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.

There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.

Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.

All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job.

The American public just wants the war to go away. One thing that would get their attention (but not their votes) would be their children being sent off to die in foreign lands. Best not disturb the electorate until after November, seems to be the thinking. There are, after all, more important things than wars: getting your man into the White House, for example. Kerry has clearly calculated that, as president, he too may have to bring in the draft. So his lips are also sealed.

And, of course, the strategic case for the draft is overwhelming. If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging? If others follow the Spaniards, and Tony Blair goes, the US may find itself a coalition of one. What then if something blows up in North Korea?

On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death or glory.

Panic Stations (which is where Ashcroft has placed America this summer) serves two purposes. It distracts the electorate and, like any state of emergency, it sanctions tough measures - like the draft. The advice to my student? Work on the asthma.
 
severin said:
I read this in today's copy of The Guardian, a reputable British newspaper. What is your take on it? (It's quite long but worth the effort)

John Sutherland
Monday May 31, 2004
The Guardian

This is what a reputable British newspaper publishes?


We've been over this farce on the boards before The 'new' board members are not additional board members, they are replacements since the terms of the current board members are up. That likely explains the extra cash as well. Congress.org, and now by repetition, The Guardian, claims that the $28 million is budgetted for implementation of a draft bill that hasn't yet passed.

The military doesn't want a draft, the Administration doesn't want a draft, not a single Republican is a cosponsor of either the House or Senate versions of the legislation. The Democrats who are behind it have put the legislation is in committee, and it will not come up for a vote. So Democrats want a draft bill, apparently so that reputable British newspapers can write articles about how Bush is trying to bring back the draft.

Maybe Mr. Sutherland should have asked why reputable American newspapers aren't giving this story the exposure he thinks it needs...


MattJ

It seems to me that anyone who wants to can anonymously 'publish' anything they like at congress.org - Some source.
 
I found this to be very interesting an informative on the subject of the draft.
S89 and HR163 were introduced by Rangel(D-NY) and Hollings(D-SC) respectively to make a political point about their opposition to the war in Iraq. Both men know their bills will never pass.
The idea that the SSS budget has been increased by $28 million is rubbish. Look here and you can see that their TOTAL budget for FY 2004 is only $26 million. (source)

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,308,000 for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $1,982,000 below the budget request.
 
Agreed, rubbish.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force."

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said last month.

The issue of draft (Selective Service) is much more prominent on Congress.org than official government sites:

http://www.house.gov
http://www.senate.gov

Besides, only about 1% of anyone in Congress has kids in the military. They don't need the extra money. They got a good thing going.
 
Thanks, guys. Sometimes, 'reputable' means that their heart is in the right place and they use words of more than one syllable. I shall investigate further.
 
severin said:
Thanks, guys. Sometimes, 'reputable' means that their heart is in the right place and they use words of more than one syllable. I shall investigate further.


Here in a Guardian piece, Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times, gives advice to John Kerry (such as how to lie to the US public effectively) and calls him "America's first war-hero candidate since John F Kennedy" (this will be news to the folks who voted for Bush in '88 and '92, Dole in '96, or McGovern in '72.)

Whether this reflects more poorly on The Guardian or on Raines, I'm not so certain. However, where they keep their hearts doesn't impress me much.

MattJ
 
This is disgraceful. I, among others, tore that Congress.org article to pieces a week before he published that load of crap. Aren't reporters supposed to check their sources before printing lies for the world to read?
 
In a word, No.

Newspapers have followed TV journalism into the Twilight Zone of 'plausible deniabiity', and 'that wasn't meant to be news, it was entertainment' as an excuse for what **used** to be called sloppy reporting.
 
Why is it that people all over the world feel qualified to report on American society? Has John Sutherland ever been to the US? Does getting an email from an American friend make him an expert? He seems to have simply copied the article from congress.org, changed the wording a bit, and slapped his name on it. Everyone must register for the draft? Shows how much he knows. Only men are required to register. And the only place I've been able to find references to how the Smart Border Declaration will impede draft dodgers are in articles that, like this one, seem to be copies of the congress.org one, and which offer no support for the claim. As for newspapers not covering it, where has he been? It's been repeatedly mentioned. Oh, that's right. He's been in Britain, pontificating on the state of American affairs. Hey, you know what? I've never seen a British paper mention the Madrid Bombing. I wonder why that is. Oh, that's right. BECAUSE I DON'T LIVE IN BRITAIN!
 
To the editors at the Guardian

John Sutherland's disgraceful article of May 31 (“Draft Dilemma”) represents irresponsible journalism at its worst. If Sutherland had spent 10 minutes verifying his primary source of information regarding the alleged reinstatement of the draft in the United States, your readers would not have been so dreadfully misinformed.

Sutherland's article is based on an internet chain letter that was forwarded to him by a college student. This letter has proven so inaccurate that it is featured on the "urban legends" website, Snopes.com. As noted by Sutherland, the chain letter was also posted at www.congress.org, a site hosted by CapitolAdvantage, a political lobbyist group that "provides grassroots advocacy products and services" (congress.org is not affiliated with congress.gov, the official website of the U.S. Congress). The letter in question was an anonymous submission to the "soapbox alerts" section of congress.org. Such alerts can be submitted by anyone on any topic without attribution or review. If I invented a story about aliens kidnapping MPs and anonymously posted it on congress.org, it would carry the same weight of authority as the article Sutherland cited regarding the draft.

The bias and sheer idiocy of the article should be apparent to even the most obtuse:

"There is pending (draft) legislation in the House and Senate... The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now..."
Democrats Charles Rangel of New York and Fritz Hollings of South Carolina filed the bills (www.congress.gov) in January 2003 to protest the then-imminent invasion of Iraq. Each bill has languished in committee during the subsequent 17 months. Rangel, a vocal critic of President Bush, announced the proposed legislation during several nationally televised appearances last year. Regardless, Sutherland states that the Bush administration is supporting the tactics of his political enemies, and further suggests that Congressional action will be delayed “until after November.” The two-year Congressional term ends after the November elections; when the 108th Congress dissolves, all pending legislation filed during its tenure, including the bills filed by Rangel and Hollings, will die. Sutherland's assertions would be comical were they not so appalling.

"The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide..."
Sutherland states that the “SSS will be reactivated imminently.” He is completely wrong; while there is no active draft, the SSS has never been “deactivated.” The current draft board was established in 1979. The board is staffed by volunteers who serve 20 year terms; since the terms of many original board members expired in 1999, the SSS has been advertising for new volunteers to ensure full staffing.

"$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005."
As noted, the SSS has been in operation for years. The chain letter refers to the SSS annual performance plan for federal fiscal year (FY) 2004; I, unlike Sutherland, actually read it. The link is for an April 2003 SSS report detailing FY2004 budget recommendations for the President to consider while creating his budget submission for Congress. The recommended allocation for all SSS operations in FY2004 was just over $28 million:

"The SSS Strategic Goals identified in the Agency's Strategic Plan for FY 2001- 2006 are (FY2004):
1: Increase effectiveness and efficiency of Manpower Delivery Systems ($7,942,000)
2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public ($8,769,000)
3: Enhance external and internal customer service ($10,624,000)
4: Enhance system which guarantees conscientious objectors are properly classified ($955,000)."

Ultimately, only $26.3 million was approved by Congress for FY2004, representing a slight increase over the FY2003 budget amount (an increase of $28 million would have resulted in a total budget exceeding $53 million). Ignoring that the reinstatement of the draft would likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars, it is obvious that there was no $28 million budget increase in FY2004. FY2004 ends this September 30; Congress cannot and does not appropriate funds in one fiscal year based on legislation that could theoretically pass and go into effect the following year. It should also be noted that the four SSS goals listed above were part of a strategic plan created in FY2001; the FY2001 budget went into effect October 1, 2000, which means that the SSS plan was part of President Clinton's final budget.

"In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a ‘smart border declaration,’ which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in."
Unlike a treaty, declarations have virtually no legal authority. The declaration was signed by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge; only the president can sign binding treaties, which are then subject to Congressional approval. The "smart border declaration" (http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/declaration-en.asp) was a response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Even if the declaration mentioned so-called draft dodgers and was binding, the chain letter only speculates that it “could” be used to return draft dodgers.

"Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know..."
Finally, the true hallmark of a chain letter. I am surprised it did not include a promise of good luck for sending it to seven others.

At one point in his article, Sutherland notes that “all this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity.” Perhaps one could attribute the lack of publicity to a combination of the obvious falsehoods contained in the chain letter and the practice of responsible journalism. I question what it is the Guardian is guarding against when it publishes such unsubstantiated rubbish written by an obviously ignorant and uninformed propagandist. When can the world expect your detailed retraction?

Edited for typo
 
Here's a highly technical overview of the American legislative process for all you folks across the pond. ;)

There may be a surprise pop quiz, so pay attention!
 
zultr said:
John Sutherland's disgraceful article of May 31 (“Draft Dilemma”) represents irresponsible journalism at its worst. If Sutherland had spent 10 minutes verifying his primary source of information regarding the alleged reinstatement of the draft in the United States, your readers would not have been so dreadfully misinformed.

I'm not sure you meant to link to congress.gov, which goes to the Library of Congress website. Probably house.gov and senate.gov would have been better.


Excellent work, by the way.
 
aerocontrols said:


I'm not sure you meant to link to congress.gov, which goes to the Library of Congress website. Probably house.gov and senate.gov would have been better.

I went with the congress.gov for 2 reasons; to point out that Sutherland probably assumed the .org site was a congressional site, and because it goes to the Thomas site where all the legislation in question can easily be located.
 
It seems that primarily the Dems want a draft because they think it will be "fair and balanced" and so drum up opposition to the war (they didn't get to start - darn supreme court) because rich and poor alike will see their sons (not bloody likely daughters will be drafted) in the cack.

Of course we could as Senator Kennedy his opinion on the equity of a draft. After all he served four years in Korea during the Korean War. No wait that got shortened to two years. No wait his service was at NATO Headquarters (where he became a bobsled champ - way to go Teddy). No wait, it seems he only served 16 months. So yeah, I'm quite certain the rich will have their kids in harm's way.

By the way Teddy, say hi to Mary Jo for me you slimy, lieing, statist scumbag.



Speaking of abuses of power, coming back from NYC yesterday I got treated to the sight of a limo with a police escort pushing through the otherwise motionless rush hour traffic. Who he was I have no idea.
 
Yeah, those Kennedy boys, they're real draft dodgers. Especially Joe and John.
 
I emailed a link to this page to The Guardian. They may reply, they may not. I've worked as a journalist myself and it pisses me off when people don't bother checking their sources as when I was training I would have been cut into small pieces with a rusty knife by my editor if I got even the smallest thing wrong. I hope there is some explanation for the article. We may never know.
 
Agammamon said:
It seems that primarily the Dems want a draft because they think it will be "fair and balanced"

The democrats don't want a draft. They are making a political point.

Agammamon said:
and so drum up opposition to the war (they didn't get to start - darn supreme court) because rich and poor alike will see their sons (not bloody likely daughters will be drafted) in the cack.

Actually the bills do include women in the draft.
 
So sponsoring a bill which one does not support is not bad faith legislation, or hypocrisy, but "making a political point"?
 

Back
Top Bottom