ARTICLES
OCTOBER 2004 ARTICLES
Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
G.I. Joan
A Draft That Might Include Women
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
A military draft for women?
News of this possibility has been in the air since the United States invaded Iraq last year. On April 20 of this year, Nebraska Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, said, in reference to military service, "why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Senator Hagel's question (especially in the phrase "all of our citizens") echoed statements made by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-New York) that every American citizen -- rich and poor, male and female -- should bear the burden of military service or, at least, national civilian service. In 2003, Representative Rangel introduced in the House a bill, H.R. 163, that seeks "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [ages 18-26] 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." Rangel's bill severely limits exemptions -- none for college; and for conscientious objectors, transference to civilian service "at the discretion of the President." A deferment may be had until age 20 for those who need to complete high school.
Rangel's concern is that military service not unfairly impact the poor, who, because of economic necessity, he says, are disproportionately represented in the armed forces. Rangel thinks that if all Americans -- even the offspring of senators, representatives, and presidents -- had to serve, our leaders would be less likely to go to war.
It is unclear, however, that such egalitarian sentiments inspire Lewis Brodsky, chief of the United States Selective Service System. On May 1, 2004, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that just before the Iraq invasion, Brodsky presented to the Pentagon a proposal not only to extend draft registration from age 25 to 34 but also to include women in a draft. The February 11, 2003 proposal said, "in line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills." Such "critical skills" could include computer and linguistic expertise.
The Selective Service's proposal noted that the agency would have "to market the concept" of a draft of women to Congress. To get a glimpse of how open at least some congressmen are to the "concept" of a female draft, I called the offices of some of Southern California's congressional delegation. I narrowed my inquiry to Republican congressmen (who would, presumably, support President Bush's "War on Terror"); then I further focused on those representatives whose pro-life convictions would, I thought, indicate, as well, a devotion to traditional sex roles. At least, I thought, these were the only ones faithful Catholics would even think of voting for.
Does the congressman support reinstating military conscription? Jim Specht, spokesman for Congressman Jerry Lewis (Inyo-Kern), said Lewis "is intimately involved with the military at this point and the Pentagon because of his position as the defense appropriations subcommittee chairman. He believes that there is very good evidence that the volunteer military has been a terrific success and that to change to some form of conscription at this point would undermine the [effectiveness of the armed forces]."
Specht, however, said that the representative might consider a draft "if it was something that was sought by the Pentagon, and they explained well why they thought it would be a better system than the one they have right now." But what about the conscription of women? "I don't think he's ever seriously considered that," Specht said. "The time in which we have had women in the military there has never been a draft. I don't think it's something that's really come before him." Specht said that he has heard nothing about the Selective Service's proposal to broaden draft registration to women.
Dana Rohrabacher (Huntington Beach) is "against conscription, across the board, [because] he thinks the best army or military is supplied by volunteers," Rohrabacher spokesman Aaron Lewis told me. But what if more troops were needed in Iraq? "No, I think he would be ... no, he would be opposed, nonetheless," Lewis said. And what of extending conscription to women? "He'd be opposed to conscription for anybody," Lewis said.
When I first called Newport Beach representative Christopher Cox's of- fice, his spokesman said Cox would probably not support a conscription bill. But, said Cox's man, he would have to call me back.He did call back but said he was sorry, "we're going to have to pass on this." *Cox is the chairman of the House Policy Committee, which advises the president on national policy and helps form legislative ideas into bills.
Tammy Ploscham, spokeswoman for Congressman Ken Calvert (Riverside), said that since the Rangel bill "was introduced in January 2003," Calvert "did not see a reason for an interview at this point. From what the committee is telling him, the bill is not expected to go anywhere this year." Ploscham, however, added that Calvert "does not support the bill. He supports an all-volunteer force." But does he support the conscription of women? "He does not support the bill," Ploscham repeated. "It's not an issue of men or women for him, he does not support a draft bill."
Representative David Dreier (Glendora) also does not support a draft. Spokesmen for Elton Gallegly (Thousand Oaks), Buck McKeon (Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley), and Ed Royce (Orange County) did not return phone calls. The spokesman for Gary Miller (Brea) said he would call me back. He never did.
According to the Oakland-based Center on Conscience and the War (a resource organization for conscientious objectors: www.nisbco.org/), the Bush administration has been quietly asking Republican members of Congress if they would support a draft in 2005. Kevin Ramirez, who works in the Center's Philadelphia office, said he thinks members of Congress are considering a draft, but "publicly, it doesn't seem they're very seriously considering it. It's pretty much hard to predict right now," Ramirez said, "but what we are seeing is the military drastically reshaping its own force, shifting troops from Korea -- which is pretty much unprecedented -- moving troops from Europe, expanding the military by 40,000." Ramirez noted that the Pentagon has instituted a "back-door draft," forcing thousands of soldiers to stay in Iraq for six months to a year past the dates of their discharges. This shows that the military is "kind of desperate at this point," Ramirez said.
Other signs of desperation were the U.S. army's decision in May to call into service 5,674 retired soldiers -- members of the Individual Ready Reserve -- for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. The July 21 New York Times reported on another sign of desperation: the army was inducting recruits to meet 2004 recruiting goals rather than letting them defer their entry until the beginning of the next accounting year in October. Army officials said 4,500 recruits were needed to help in meeting a 30,000 active duty soldier increase. The problem is that the army would begin 2005 with fewer advance recruits than it needs, and the army is having difficulty attracting new recruits. "I worry about this every single day -- recruiting and retention," Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, the army's top personnel officer, told the Times. "We are recruiting a volunteer force during a time of war. We've never done that before."
Still, said Ramirez, "it seems like the military is prepared to do anything that they can to avoid a draft with the current situation in Iraq and the war on terrorism." But, Ramirez continued, the position of the Center on Conscience and the War is that "that can all change if there is another September 11-type attack in the United States, where the public would probably support some type of a draft a little more readily than they would at this point. That's the wild card right there."
Despite signs of desperation, however, Ramirez said he didn't think the army is "that desperate to start drafting people for a pretty unpopular war here in the United States. As the weeks go on, more and more people are dissatisfied with what is going on in Iraq and with the way President Bush is handling the war.
"You've got to remember," Ramirez continued, "that they would only draft people when they need a very high number of troops -- in the millions. The military is not prepared to deal with a million new people, as far as the money they have to train them, to feed them, to house them goes. They don't even have enough housing that would accommodate a million new troops. The military is already expanding as far as active duty troops; they're trying to get more combat brigades, at least ten more structured in the next couple of years. If anything, if conditions worsen in Iraq, they may just send more reservists, more national guard, look to expand the coalition a little bit. I don't think they would draft people for Iraq."
Ramirez also thinks it unlikely that the government would draft women. "First of all," he said, "they don't have any women registered for the draft, so they would have to start draft registration for women. Then they would have to change the department of defense regulations as far as women in frontline combat positions goes, because the reason women aren't included in draft registration is because the draft is designed to supply troops to the front line in combat positions. Current policy from the department of defense bars women from combat positions."
The ban on women in combat, however, could be lifted in the future. And, despite their non-combat status, "dozens of women have been killed in Iraq," Ramirez said. "There's really no front line when you're dealing with urban, guerilla warfare. And more and more women are participating in 'combat' operations -- just driving in a convoy could be a combat operation in Iraq or Afghanistan. More and more women are being placed in these positions and are proving to be able to handle combat just as proficiently as the men. So that [women in combat] may change in the near future."
Ramirez, however, said it is not unreasonable that a new draft could include women. Even if the military does not permit women to take on specifically combat roles, the department of defense could, he said, "restructure the draft, and they've been talking about it. Instead of having a draft for front-line combat positions, they could have a special draft for homeland security. What they could also do for drafting women is to get more women non-combat related jobs a lot of men in the military are doing. This would free up males in the military from doing clerical work, and get them trained for combat."