The question was broached indirectly, as it was in the context of women being included in the requirement that all young men register with the selective service agency. Yet other than a cursory answer by Mark Rubio, the other respondents ignored the implications and rambled on, out of a mixture of ignorance of the specific issue, but also of the profound moral implication of this country engaging in war without universal sacrifice from its citizens.
Martha Raddatz of ABC news as a moderator of the debate on February 6 in New Hampshire brought up a national policy question that has been lost in the realty show atmosphere of politics in general, and this Republican nomination in particular.
I will begin with a summary that she assumed was not necessary for those who were seeking their party’s nomination for President. Not only was she wrong about their understanding the issue, but in looking over the news stories about the debate, I didn’t find any commentary. Other than Rubio, who did answer the question, but not in a way that was coherent, or clear to the audience or the other candidates, none of the others where seemed remotely aware of the larger issue being raised.
The military draft in the United States ended with the expiration of an enabling act that expired in June 1973; registration for all men on reaching the age of 18 was initiated by order of President Carter in July 2, 1980. Ignoring this law, while a felony, its sporadic adherence has not resulted in a single prosecution. A serious discussion of this requirement, which is only on the books as an acknowledgment that there had been a consensus in this country that if we were to go to war, it would include a sacrifice of our men that included a risk of mutation and death.
End the draft was not based on any principle or even a serious national discussion. rather it was a way that President Nixon hoped to quell the Vietnam anti-war movement. The only public figure who takes this seriously is Representative Charles Rangel who faced the vicious combat of the Korean War. He wrote:
"I have long called for reinstating the military draft, simply because I believe strongly that a national decision to go to war must also include a broad commitment to share its burdens," according to Rangel, who has introduced the draft measure every Congress since 2003, when U.S. military operations began in Iraq.
With Rangel’s retirement this year, after serving thirty six years, it could be that will be the last combat veteran of the Korean war, where most of his fellow soldiers were drafted, and it was part of what united a country. In WWII and Korea, it was not only those who couldn’t find a way out, like G.W. Bush did by joining the Texas national guard, and his Vice President did by saying when asked about his serving, “I had other priorities.” If American went to war, it wasn’t out of political bluster, such we see among the Republican candidates, boasting that they will destroy ISIL no matter how many civilians are killed along with them. Truman knew the horror of war when he made the decision to defend South Korea, as he had been in combat in WWI. As the war went on and on, his political career was ended, but that is as it should be.
I’m appending the transcript of the section in the debate where this was brought up, with my comments in italics:
================================
RADDATZ:I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.
Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?
RUBIO: First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.
Few knew what the moderator was referring to which is a law that anyone man who does not register is committing a felony. Rubio say it should be “opened up”, implying that it is an opportunity that should be extended to women, not a requirement. He then goes into the mantra below, that the military is failing because of the Commander in Chief, not the cut in appropriations by his Tea Party constituents.
I think the more fundamental challenge we're now facing is what's happening to the U.S. military -- I've said this many times, and I think it's important to start paying attention to this. Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it's been in 100 years. I'm sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it's been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it's been in 100 years.
I think we need to begin to refocus on rebuilding our military because every time we have cut our military in the history of this country we have had to come back later and rebuild it, and it costs more, and it's a lot more chaotic and dangerous. When I'm president, we are rebuilding the U.S. military.
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Thank you, Senator Rubio. Governor Bush, do you believe that young women…
BUSH: ... Say it again?
RADDATZ: Do you believe young women should sign up for Selective Service, be required to sign up...
BUSH: … The following is the most incoherent gibberish in these debates, and that’s a pretty low criteria to surpass
I do, and I do think that we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military. There should be -- if women can meet the requirements, the minimum requirements for combat service they ought to have the right (it’s not a right, it’s a requirement) to do it. For sure. It ought to be focused on the morale as well. We got to make sure that we have readiness much higher than we do today. We need to eliminate the sequester which is devastating our military.
We can't be focusing on the political side of this, we need to realize that our military force is how we project our word in the world. When we're weak militarily it doesn't matter what we say. We can talk about red lines, and ISIS being the J.V. team, and reset buttons and all this. If we don't have a strong military than no one fears us, and they take actions that are against our national interest.
RADDATZ: Tell me what you'd say to American people out there...
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: ... Who are sitting at home, who have daughters, who might worry about those answers, and might worry...
BUSH: ... Why would they worry about it...
RADDATZ: ... if the Draft is reinstituted?
BUSH: ... Well, the Draft's not going to be reinstituted, but why -- if women are accessing...
RADDATZ: ... Are you saying you'd do away with it?
BUSH: No. I didn't say that. You -- you asked a question not about the draft, you asked about registering. And if women are going to be...
RADDATZ: You register for the draft.
BUSH: If -- but...
RADDATZ: If it's reinstituted.
BUSH: ... we don't have a draft. I'm not suggesting we have a draft. What I'm suggesting is that we ought to have readiness being the first priority of our military, and secondly, that we make sure that the morale is high. And right now, neither one of those are acceptable because we've been gutting the military budget.
The preceding is absurd, the required registration is only part of an anticipated draft, it only exists for this purpose. If Bush, or any of the other candidates cared to affirm that they are with the majority against Charles Rangel, that we as a country will go to war without any risk except those who chose to subject themselves to such, then let them say it, let them defend it. But why, when they can just change the subject to how feckless is our current president.
We also need to reform our procurement process. We need to make sure there are more men and women in uniform than people -- than civilians in our Defense Department. There's a lot of things that we need to reform to bring our defense capabilities into the 21st century and I'm the guy that could do that. That's why I have the support of generals, of admirals, of 12 Medal of Honor recipients and many other people that know that I would be a steady commander-in-chief and rebuild our military.
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: Martha?
RADDATZ: Thank you very much.
CHRISTIE: Can I -- can I be really -- can I be really clear on this, because I am the father of two daughters. One of them is here tonight. What my wife and I have taught our daughters right from the beginning, that their sense of self-worth, their sense of value, their sense of what they want to do with their life comes not from the outside, but comes from within. And if a young woman in this country wants to go and fight to defend their country, she should be permitted to do so.
Part of that also needs to be part of a greater effort in this country, and so there's no reason why one -- young women should be discriminated against from registering for the selective service. The fact is, we need to be a party and a people that makes sure that our women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do. That's the way we raised our daughters and that's what we should aspire to as president for all of the women in our country.
Christie is a higher level of B.S, artist then the rest of them. He is saying, “Because women can dream, they should be required to register for a draft, that he choose not to engage in the discussion of as a principle for engaging in aggressive war. “
(APPLAUSE)
RADDATZ: Thank you very much, Governor Christie.
CARSON: Can I say something...
RADDATZ: We just covered -- wait one second, Dr. Carson.
CARSON: Something about the draft. Very quickly.
RADDATZ: Very quickly.
CARSON: You know, 14 percent decrease in the number of people applying for voluntary military service, and I think part of it is because of the way that we treat our veterans. You know, we wouldn't be a free country if it wasn't for them, and we have 22 veterans per day committing suicide.
So, I think what we should do is have an external support system for people once they volunteer and it should follow them throughout their career, should follow them for three years, five years afterwards, a year before they get out, should be working on integrating them back into society, so that they quit on Friday and they start their new job. They should have health empowerment accounts that are subsidized so they can go to any medical facility and be taken care of. They can go to a V.A. if they want to.
But if we start taking care of our veterans the right way, we won't have to ever worry about a draft again.
(APPLAUSE)
HUH, If we take better care of our veterans, we won’t ever need a draft again? He said it, but there is no connection of the dots — no need for an explanation of how better care will end the need for “manpower” for grunts who will do what the tough talking Republicans say they will do as President, have a full scale war in the Middle East.
=========End of Transcript=========
The Military Draft is more than a way of getting cheap grunts on the ground. It is the way a democracy determines whether a given goal is worth the death of their own family members. And then if we do decide it is, will it no longer be only men who sacrifice, partly for the ideal of protecting their wives, their families and children. This was the myth of our wars, dare I say popular wars, from 1917 to 1953. This is a profound issue, that when brought up to those who never came close to risking their lives or their children’s lives for their country, would prefer to ignore. There is a consensus that if the invasion of Iraq had meant conscription, the very idea of it would never have surfaced.
The American public has bought the faux patriotism that by focusing on glorification of our “brave men and women who are protecting us” makes a genuine discussion of why we are hated by so many impossible to have. And the one man with the experience, guts and genuine integrity, to bring up this taboo subject, Representative Charles Rangel, is about to exit political life.