Bringing back the draft?

“Tilt, I didnt say re-elect bush once.”

“Phaedrus, you dont need to have a tantrum just because I disagree with you, its not becoming. I would advise backing your opinion with facts it really presents a stronger argument. Food for thought.”

“I think I've posted the numbers on this thread that make me believe a draft is a distinct possibility, given our level of involvement in Iraq and afghanistan. It's not what the politicians are saying that makes me think it a possiblility, it's the way things are playing out.

Dismissing it as a possibility seems like burying your head in the sand to me, but I haven't looked at the recruitment numbers recently, and I don't think the've been made available. Common sense would say that they are down drastically right now, though.”

“Oh, and the tantrum was yours, I just toyed with your fragile food-ego.”

“Sorry for the long C&P

WASHINGTON - The US military may run out of national guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of existing limits on involuntary mobilizations, a congressional watchdog agency warned in a report.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the government has considered changing the policy to make members of the 1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive months.

In commenting on the report, however, the Department of Defense (DOD) said it planned to keep its current approach.

"Under DOD's current implementation of the authority, reserve component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative total of 24 months," the report said.

"If DOD's implementation of the partial mobilization authority restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces," the report said.

The guard and reserves are crucial to the US war effort because they include specialized units such as military police, intelligence and civil affairs that are in high demand but short supply in the active duty force.

The Pentagon also has turned to guard and reserve to ease the strain on active duty infantry divisions that have had to deploy repeatedly to Iraq.

More than 47,600 members of the guard and reserve were serving in Iraq as of August 1, about a third of the 140,000-member US force there. When those who are deployed in Afghanistan and rear areas are added, the total is in excess of 66,000, according to Pentagon figures.

Since September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty -- 234,000 from the army alone, according to the report.

"The Department of Defense cannot currently meet its global commitments without sizeable participation from its national guard and reserve members," the GAO said in a cover letter to the report.

The GAO said the Pentagon has projected it will continuously have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized over the next three to five years.

The Pentagon considered increasing the pool of available guard and reserve troops by changing its mobilization policy.

"Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months, sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially unlimited flow of forces," the report said.

Piecemeal policy changes already undertaken to increase the pool of available guard and reserve troops have created uncertainties among reservists that could affect retention, recruitment and the long-term viability of the reserves, the report noted.

"There are already indications that some portions of the force are being stressed," it said.

The army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004, the report said. It was 7,800 soldiers below its recruiting goal at the end of fiscal 2003.”

“Great article.

I havent got my head in the sand about a draft. Nothing is impossible. The primary reason why it wont happen is that its a death sentence politcally,pure and simple. It'll be easier to shift troop numbers around as we've seen (possible moves from korea and europe) then to suggest a draft as a viable option. The public outcry would be immense, I will predict massive social unrest if the idea is ever seriously undertaken. It just wont be. Support for the war in waning,Bush's lead is narrow at best. Even if Bush wins there is no way Congress or the Senate will push it. Its an interesting and entertaining debate to have but thats all it is...chatter.

Fraglie food-ego...now that is rich LOL!”

“I don't think that there will be a draft. Raising pay, benefits and tuition offers could probably increase numbers.

And we've seen that with the right offers of money, private companies can do a lot of the heavy lifting. Massively increased deficit spending is more likely than a draft.

But, the day Bush gets reelected is the day he no longer needs to worry about polls. He'll never run again. That's a politician who COULD push for a draft if things deteriorate further.

Birch, I'm torn. My gut tells me that things won't get better and that we shouldn't waste another life in Iraq. My brain buys your logic about the possibility in Iraq. But I think that will take ten years of American occupation. At current rates that's 10,000 lives.

Is it worth 10,000 or more lives?

I just read an article in the Toledo Blade about Pfc. Jason Sparks of Monroeville, OH. He is a hero. He was 19 years old. He graduated from High School 14 months ago. He was deployed to Iraq on Sept. 2. On Sept. 8, he was killed in Fallujah. The High school football team that he played on last year - underage teenagers - carried his casket at the funeral.

I am a high school teacher. I have former students who are in Iraq. Everything inside of me says that Iraq is not worth one of them.”

“" Common sense would say that they are down drastically right now, though"

Really?”

“Oh, and Birch, I have tremendous respect for you and your ideas on this particular issue.”

“Everything inside of me says that Iraq is not worth one of them."
reformed lurker
08:57:33 PM
09/17/04


I couldn't agree with you more RL.”

“RL, lots of good stuff here...

I agree that Iraq will be a long haul. I really wish this had been thought about more thoroughly, but here we are...After WWII it took 2 years for our "de-nazification" program to work, 450 plus americans died occupying germany at that time. That was in a nation with a complete surrender. Iraq never really conventionally surrendered so the enemy faded away. That is a much harder battle which means more time, the 10 years you mention is not unbelievable (I think longer). In Japan after WWII we had a 7 year occupation anoter total surrender there. Iraq will be tough.

The discusion as to value of Iraq VS or lives is really the key issue. If we decided that Iraq is that important we'll make it happen. If not we eat lots of crow and lose the last shred of global legitamacy we have. Time will tell. It tears me up to hear about our soldiers dying. I have tried to write a letter to every family of dead michigan soldiers as they pass. Its gut wrenching to hear of another young life lost. 33 days from today will be 1 year for my best friends death. It was yesterday.

I dont know if Iraq was worth his life. His little sister deploys in 2 months for a year minimum.

Sorry for my "non-answer".”

“Thank you, Birch.”

“Phaedrus sort of beat me to it but I was about to post the GAO report.

Here it is: DOD Needs to Address Long-term Reserve Force
Availability and Related Mobilization and Demobilization Issues (pdf file)”

“I know I'm not real excited by the prospect of having my 15 year old daughter dragged into this mess.”

“I ran some web searches, but I didn't come up with good stats for the following questions:

How many American civilian contractors have been killed/injured in Iraq?

How many non-Iraqi civilian contractors have been killed/injured in Iraq?

How many civilians, generally, have been killed/injured in Iraq?

How many news reporters have been killed/injured in Iraq?

How many people were killed/injured by Saddam Hussein in the year or two before the war?

I found that KBR lists 39 dead in the war. I saw stats anywhere from 15,000 to 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Several more questions, if anyone cares to answer: How come the news media is not reporting these numbers? How come we don't see dead bodies on the television?

I think it's an open question whether Iraq is better with us rather than Saddam Hussein. I need numbers.”

“If Bush is re-elected, there WILL be a draft. I dont think throwing more money at them will encourage enough
young people to 'volunteer'. The World has made it clear they arent going to help us if the Bush crime family are running the show. Can 1.2 billion Muslums be wrong ? All scary thoughts.
All caused by very sick men who have no business having authority over anyone. sick...sick..sick.

But Im still confidant Kerry will be elected, and the World will repsond
to it as they should. A sign of hope.”

“RL, you raise some very valid questions. Regarding their answers, who knows??? Unfortunately we only count "our" dead. I have heard similar rough estimates of civilian deaths, I doubt we'll ever know.

Gramey, did you look at the links I posted? A draft isnt imminent by any strectch. What convinces you that a draft is a certainty?”

“why do i think a draft is likely under Bush?

Because, essentially, it already exists. When troops that have finished their commitment are forbidden to leave the service in the numbers that are now happening, they essentially are being 'drafted' into continous duty. I realize that technically this is permissable under their 'contracts' of service, but i do not believe it has ever happened on the scale that is now occurring. And when the 'national' guard is no longer 'guarding' our nation but actively fighting and dying a 1/2 a world away
while many of their families go under financially, i have no hesitation calling that a 'draft' as well. This is INvoluntary
service in my mind-and that means a
'draft' to moi.”

“I think it's an open question whether Iraq is better with us rather than Saddam Hussein. I need numbers."
reformed lurker
10:48:19 PM
09/17/04

I'll take a crack at this RL.

Iraq was better off with Saddam. Heck, Cheney and Rummy felt the same way back in the 80's. At the time Saddam came to power, Iran, who had been a very western based society was crumbling into a theocracy. The new Iranian leadership was taking hostages and makeing as mess of things in the Middle East for the US. To compound this, the USSR was still waging war in Afganhistan, so the US knew that it was better to have an ally in the region who would stomp out any theocratic governemnts that might pop up.

Therefore, back a dictator, quash the religious lunatics, and provide some stability to all the precoius oil, and put a cork in the spread of communism in the area. It was win-win for Cheney, Rummy and the oilmen. During the 80's, Saddam was wasting all the religious lunies (although our press called it "ethnic"), make no doubt, he was making sure that shaws and amans would stay in line. At the time, this was great for the good ole USA. But Saddam took the shiznit too far and invaded the "dogs" of Kuwait. To cover up the mess we created, we invaded.

Fast forward to the late 90's. Afghanistan won it's war against the soviets, and guess what..... unstable middle eastern country falls to theocracy. The people are #&%!$ on, the country goes back to the stone ages, and all the theologins have to do is point and blame the west.

9/11 happens, we clean up the afghanistan mess (for now), and idiot Bush invades Iraq, taking out the plug that kept theocracy from flourishing in that country. Now, it's going to be afghanistan circa 80' - 90's all over again. We invade Iraq, eventually will leave, and the religious nuts will take over, look around, and say.... USA screwed our country for the last 30 years. Then they'll look at Isreal, and say, let's get them out of Isreal, so our palestinian brothers won't be in the same boat.

Saddam was a wild card, that Bush played all wrong. Keeping sancions on the guy kept him in power, and the religious nuts at bay. We had broad international and regional backing of the sanctions, and our beloved tough talking cowboy went and blew the cork.

Now, we are in Afghanistan of the 80's(Iraq), and more and more people will die because of it.”

“Okay, Birch, I think you've proven that current military recruitment patterns are good. Rod Powers is not exactly the most reliable source of information, but I think he got this much right.

That said, we still have the national guard doing time in Iraq and the inability to respond to a major thater crisis in another part of the world currently. A draft is still a distinct possibility should any number of things happen.

1. If Bush is reelected, the political ramifications of a draft are lessened greatly. Bush can't seek a third term and Cheney won't run.

2. Should some escalation of the Iraq conflict cause a greater need for troops, the military will have to be expanded. I think we can agree on that much, though the administration has no interest in stating such a scenario before the election. As of right now, The US does not control a number of cities in Iraq, and an escalation may be required to reach a point of stability for elections.

3. The size of the military and recruiting is currently stable, so the likelihood of a draft hinges on how thin the military is currently stretched, and how immediate a need for more troops there may be in the future.

4. Should any unforseen military action be required, I believe a draft is going to be the only option to allow the military to meet its expansion needs quickly.

So in reality, the argument comes down to this: Is the military currently large enough to handle Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever comes next?”

“CSmonitor

Globalsecurity.org

MSNBC

Yuma Sun (I know, but I read this article a while back, and this was the only place I could find it)”

“Gramey, you can call stop loss policy a draft, but its not. Scan this thread back soemtime and some good info regarding this is available. Every soldier is aware of the mandatory 8 years of service be it active,reserve,or IRR. Calling this a draft is specious at best.



Phaedrus, we agree on one basic fundamental...we are spread thin.

Can we handle another theatre,lets hope it doesnt come to that, but if it does I still doubt a draft would occur. Thats even with bush and company not running again. Senators and Congressman will run again, they wont support it. Without the congress or Senate a draft wont be a reality.

A draft isnt what should be discussed. A more appropiate discussion would be an evaluation of of global priorities,military and security needs and goals, redeployment readiness and retooling our Military away from antiquated coldwar planning to a more fluid and dynamic style of warfare. The age of massive conventional war is near gone,Iraq is a perfect example of that. The enemy doesnt surrender, it fades away. Unconventional warfare is the future and learning to adapt faster then the enemy will be our gauge of success, so far we are not doing well at that.

As an aside, training a soldier to use a patriot anti-missle system costs upwards of $1,000,000. Investing that money into a draftee would be wasteful. Modern military technology isnt the boots and bayonets of the past. We couldnt afford the turn over rate of a draftee army. Our military is a professional force with people committed to its survival, a draftee force has different motivations.

BB,Afghanistahn isnt in the middle-east, its south asian with a language more closely related to finnish than any other language, genetically Afgahns are closer to greeks then "arabs". The reason the talibhan took over was because of US money funneled through the ISI. Pakistahn was in the midst of its long battle with India and itrs leadership was rabidly fundamentalist. By giving the
kistanis the not only the money but the liberty to dictate which Afghani factions would get it was a major flaw in our clandestine operations. I address this later...The talibahn didnt necessarily fill a void as much as they were groomed and prepped by Pakistan to be aligned with their goals and this would allow Pakistan to not worry about two borders, it could contend with India only.

Regarding invading Iraq the first time, it had very little to do with
"covering up the mess we created" . I think the world community saw the invasion of Iraq as necessary...then.

You bring up a valid point about us using Saddam becuase he fit our immediate needs. This is our downfall, shortsightedness. This ties back into my case for a re-evaluation of our priorities.”

“Birch,

I agree with you for the most part.

However, many of the things that we are currently doing in Iraq are pretty low tech. The front line soldiers are truck drivers. I don't want to diminish that skill, but it could be done with draftees. There might be a higher casualty rate with draftee truck drivers, but it would fill the spot.

Also, when you look at the soldiers who are dying, there is a fairly large group of 18 and 19 year olds. They may have had a great year of training, but I don't think they got anything much more than a draftee could.

I certainly think that the army is much more high tech than before. But I don't necessarily think that a draft would be a non-starter.

Again, I don't think that it will happen, but I wouldn't altogether rule it out in a couple of years.”

“I have yet to hear about truckdrivers being used as frontline troops. Truckdrivers may be in the line of fire but the units operating in iraq (combat units) are traditional infantry and light infantry units. I think a volunteer soldier with one year of training is far more motivated and serious then a draftee of equal training would be. One wants to be there, one doesnt.”

“I just did some searching at the DoD website onder "releases". I was curious as to the ages of our dead. In the month of september 2004 we lost...

(0) 18 year olds
(6) 19 y/o
(8) 20 y/o
(9) 21 y/o
(2) 22 y/o
(4) 23 y/o
(4) 24 y/o
(3) 25 y/o
(3) 26 y/o
(2) 27 y/o
(1) 28 y/o
(4) 29 y/o
(1) 31 y/o
(1)35 y/o
(1)36 y/o
(1) 38 y/o
(1) 41 y/o

Highest rank killed was a major, lowest rank was private,the majority were specialist (e-4 grade) and up. E-4 generally takes a minimum of 2-3 years to acheive in the army.

granted this is only one partial month but it demonstrates that 18-19 year old (presumably new ,less experienced soldiers) arent taking the brunt of the burden.

The military doesnt train fodder, though it may seem as much to an outsider. Soldiers are trained to kill, not die. Remember the old patton quote...At any rate the military learned valuable lessons after vietnam about extending training times, not deploying undertrained soldiers and retention issues.

Its ironic how the publics percenption is quite different form the facts at hand.

two examples are on this thread...18-19 year olds being the ones killed and low recruitment numbers. It makes me ask how come perception and reality are so different.”

“Hmmmmm, it looks like 19-20-21-year-olds were 23 of 51 who died.

My boys are 21, 18 and 14.

Ten or twenty years from now when the entire story is known about this conflict I think we're all gonna be real sorry.

Will we as a nation be sorry enough to not let it happen again?

It's too late to have prevented this one.

The shame of my generation is that after knowing what we know about the conflict that was happening when my peers and I were draft-age, we allowed it to happen again.

Now, as then, it did not have to come to war.”

“Birch,

I will defer to you on this. What worries me is that a year ago, the draft question was completely in the realm of crackpots.

But we do have Representatives and Senators, former military and respected media who are discussing this in low tones. It is within the realm of discussable and debateable topics.

With the election in high gear, no one is talking reality about Iraq. Has either of these candidates talked about how long we'll be there? Has either discussed how many troops and how much money we'll need to fight it?

In January, I suppose we'll have a realistic assessment of the war.

But what happens if we've committed ourselves to ten years of increased troop levels? And what if things turn worse in Iraq, as they might? And what happens if the economy pulls out of recession and people can get non-military jobs?

In the absence of any plan in Iraq, I don't think that fears of a draft are completely unfounded.

But it's kind of a moot point, because lots of teens and 20-somethings are dying anyway.”

“If Dubya gets re-elected stay tuned for possible intervention in Cuba.

The administration has been tightening the screw on the Cuban people.

There are influential people who think "it's time" just because they've waited long enough .

Dubya has nothing to lose if re-elected and another low-level conflict would be a nice distraction from the goat-buggering in Iraq.”

“when the Brits reduce their forces by a third next month, who's going to pick up the slack in our wonderful 'coalition of the willing'??


where are the bodies going to come from?”

“Hey MarkO, with your sons in the prime age I can see how your perspective on this war has a deeper meaning. I can respect that.”

“I would have to counsel against participation in this conflict. Many an enlistee back in the early seventies were just waiting until Viet Nam was no longer an option.”

“Thanks Buck.

It's horrifying to think of someone with whom I read children's books just a few years ago being mangled physically or mentally........even for a good cause.”

“Marko, as a dad myself I can only imagine your concerns.

"Ten or twenty years from now when the entire story is known about this conflict I think we're all gonna be real sorry." I would tend to agree, I am hoping that someone left a lemon juicer somewhere in this pile of lemons.

Lots of good points RL, the top being a long term committment. 10 years is a long time for sure.

Fortunately in a good economy folks still enlist. Course we need a good econmy to verify that.

RL,
You've done more in a few short posts of your opinion on this matter then years of cut and pastes have done. I can definitely see your perspective much more clearly now, thanks. I dont necessarily agree with it all but thats not the point. I always enjoy talking with you about stuff like this, I admire your approach.”

“From a co-worker at my wifes school. Being the fact checker that I am, I waited to post this until I read the bill, which BTW had cleared the House and is on it's way to the Senate. Knowing how this process works, this bill has about a 15% chance of making it through at the most, however, the fact still remains that their are people, people that have been elected, that think a draft is needed. This bill is an odd one, as it also includes drafting women for the manditory sevice time as well. Please keep in mind the *open door* areas of this bill, where it states to teh effect *as teh President see fit*, or *As the President feels is nessesary*. Very broad.

I haven't heard of this thing at all, because there has been little, if any, news about this bill. To me, this is big news even if it doesn't make it past Senate Committee. Also, there is a companion bill in the Senate, which is #S89, but I have not read that one yet.

Without further ado, I give you House bill #HR 163:


Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.


(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.

(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.”

“From the Navy Times:

Not enough troops to keep pace, study says

By Vince Crawley
Times staff writer

The military doesn’t have enough people for its current pace of missions, according to an independent study commissioned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld said he won’t immediately act on the panel’s recommendations.
[...]
...Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who has strongly endorsed more manpower for the Army and Marine Corps, disclosed that Rumsfeld recently asked the Defense Science Board to study long-term troop levels.

According to Reed, that advisory panel concluded the Pentagon has “inadequate total numbers of troops and lack of long-term endurance.”

Reed said he found it “puzzling” that Rumsfeld has not supported the study’s recommendation to increase troops.

“I think we’re running off a cliff,” said Reed, a former Army officer. With increasing provocations by North Korea and Iran, he said, “we have put ourselves in a strategic position where we might not be able to respond to obvious threats.”

Rumsfeld said he took the DSB study seriously enough that he had it briefed to the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders. But he also said he supports only the current, temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers to the Army.

He said he’s certain more efficiencies can be squeezed out of the force without a large, permanent manpower increase.
[...]”

“Q
There wasn't much pr about this bill because it was being done by the Dems. No Repubs will have anything to do with it.
We discussed this some while back here on TT.
Old News.
Oh, Fox was about the only news outlet reporting it. That may be why you haven't seen it before.
Look back a few months on this same thread.
I get a big kick by the Kerry people using this to scare people.”

“Both bills, S-89 and HR-163 do not have a single majority Republican member as a sponsor or co-sponsor. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and has 14 co-sponsors, all of them liberal Democrats. The Senate bill has no co-sponsors--a sure sign of its unpopularity--and was introduced by Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.)”

“Charlie Rangel is merely trying to put Dubya's feet to the fire.”

“I will never vote for any a$$hole that brings back the draft, and any lib that does is being the worse sort of hypocrite.”

“Hell, this crap even made Snopes.com debunk”

“Stove -

"Q There wasn't much pr about this bill because it was being done by the Dems. No Repubs will have anything to do with it...."

Do you know how Gubment works? If so, you wouldn't say such a thing. Go and do some research on how a bill becomes a law, then come back and talk to me.


"We discussed this some while back here on TT.
Old News......"

Well then! Please forgive my Faux Pas on the matter. I didn't know that you great pundits have sorted this thing out already.

"Oh, Fox was about the only news outlet reporting it. That may be why you haven't seen it before...."

Stove - I watch about as much Fox News in one day as you do in a whole week. Why do you think that I make it a point to post stories that re-enforce my points from the Fox News website as much as possible? Your statment is a vast general ASSumption as to my information intake and is really not becoming of you. I thought you were a smarter person than that.”

“LMAO!!!!!!!”

“"Stove - I watch about as much Fox News in one day as you do in a whole week."

I guess it's true...Fox News does make you stupid.”

“Now, now, Nigal, play nice. ;-)”

“Sorry, I’ll be good. My patience for condescending people has grown too thin. LOL!”

“LOL
Nigal, with some people, it's best just to laugh, shake your head, and walk away. ;-)”

“If the Repubs are serious about having a real war, then they should have the guts to pay the price.

Or, forget about it.

Nobody rides for free.”