By Candi Duke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
July 7, 2004
The tides have turned in the past two weeks. Concern about
reinstating the military draft is finding its way into the spotlight after
percolating beneath the surface for months while most mainstream media and
the press allowed the politicians to deflect and avoid pivotal points and
thus maintain control over the 2004 Election Issues. Coverage is escalating,
though. What was once heard as a whisper is now a clatter and could soon
become a lion's roar.
In his July 1, 2004 article, "Abuzz About the Draft",
International Herald Tribune writer, Brian Knowlton notes..." ......
Internet sites and mass e-mailings have seized on the known facts and then
elaborated, at times, with half-facts and speculation."
However, Mr. Knowlton goes on to report a half-fact of his
own, "...Bush and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his presumptive
Democratic opponent, have given support to enlarging the military - in fact,
the Senate voted overwhelmingly this month to expand the army by 20,000....."
Actually, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005, (nicknamed the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act), was passed on June 23, 2004, and states:
"There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year 2005 a total
"The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active
duty personnel as of September 30, 2005, as follows:
(1) The Army, 482,400.
(2) The Navy, 365,900.
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 359,700.
SEC. 402. Gives additional authority for increases of Army
active duty personnel end strengths for FISCAL YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009:
(a) AUTHORITY- During fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Secretary of Defense
is authorized to increase by up to 30,000 the end strength authorized for
the Army for such fiscal year under section 115(a)(1)(A) of title 10, United
States Code, as necessary to support the operational mission of the Army
in Iraq and Afghanistan and to achieve transformational reorganization objectives
of the Army, including objectives for increased numbers of combat brigades,
unit manning, force stabilization and shaping, and rebalancing of the active
and reserve component forces of the Army."
In addition, the same document calls for increased strengths
for Field Grade and Company Grade Officers in the Marines of 39% for Captains
and 35% for 1st and 2nd Grade Lieutenants.
It also authorizes $6.67 billion for weapons activities of
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $27.6 million for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator feasibility study, $9 million for Advanced Concepts,
including research on low-yield nuclear weapons, and $30 million for the
Enhanced Test Readiness program, which reduces the amount of preparation
time to 18 months for conducting a live nuclear weapons test.
If you are interested in reading the document in its entirety
Meanwhile, the Selective Service System (SSS) is still denying
allegations made back in the spring that a Selective Skills Draft is being
considered, which would up the conscription age to 34.
Yet, there is already a little known Medical Draft that has been on the
books and in place since 1987, which allows for the conscription
of medical professionals (male and female) up to the age
of 44. Automatic Selective Service Registration is now tied to
the issuing of Driver's Licenses in 32 states for all males, citizen or
resident, and "The Selective Service System's Annual Performance Plan
for Fiscal Year 2004" clearly states plans to place volunteer registrars
in 85 % of the Nation's High Schools and to report to the president by March
31st, 2005 that the system is ready to roll full steam within 75 days, which
would clear the decks for a first lottery by June 15th, 2005.
Many people have pooh-poohed the "Universal National
Service Act of 2003" because it has only 13 co-sponsors to date. Some
readers have claimed that it would be political suicide to reinstate the
draft. Yet the facts speak for themselves. The machinery is in place.
The Administration is planning for the worst and is prepared to act quickly
once the call is made.
A more important point is this: Political Analysts have stated
it would be political suicide for the candidates to allow the draft to become
an Election Issue.
Take a gander at the ongoing list of "facts come forward"
in recent mainstream news:
Unilatarilism and Preemptive Strikes Don't Work
The Bush Administration insists on staying the course
Kerry plans to add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a TEMPORARY
(his words) increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.
Terrorism is up in Iraq
U.S. Department of State released faulty info in their initial
report on terrorism
Pentagon memos in 2002 paved the way for prison abuse
Supreme Court Justices say, "A state of war is not a
blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's
Citizens" ie; the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional
Recruitment and morale is down
Army plans involuntary call-up of thousands through the Individual
In addition to the "Stop-Loss" backdoor draft which
is already in place
A CNN-USA TODAY-Gallup Poll indicates that no less than 80
percent of Americans are against a return to the draft. Furthermore, only
17 percent say they support a draft.
The people over at PBS's program "NOW with Bill Moyers"
have recently outed Republican wordsmith and strategist Dr. Frank Luntz
as a master of manipulation by making public his memo, "Communicating
the Principles of Prevention & Protection in the War on Terror".
Take a look for yourselves. It's a rather chilling read:
The strategy is obvious. Keep the American public
in an enormously emotional reactive state of mind; keep the trauma and the
fear ever present, keep voters from thinking objectively. Never mind the
fact that there were no WMD's found in Iraq, or a link to 9/11...
In the NOW interview, which was broadcast on PBS Friday July
2, 2004, Dr Luntz responds to David Brancaccio's queries regarding such
contradictions with the comment, "...he's a bad man......besides, it's
better to fight the War on Terrorism over there than on U.S. Soil."
Ouch. Since when did it become the "right" thing
to do, the Patriotic thing to do- to dump our problems in someone else's
back yard-in the name of establishing Democracy and performing the service
of Reconstruction? (By the way, Reconstruction is Big Money for Big and
Small Business in the U.S.) To do so in foreign countries with people who
have already suffered abuse and atrocities that far exceed any we have ever
endured is not only arrogant it is obscene.
And as we sacrifice more and more of our privacies and privileges
in the name of "National Security", a serious dilemma presents
itself. If we are to claim ourselves the greatest military power in the
world, do we not run the risk of becoming citizens to a "military state"?
Where, may I ask, is the Democracy in that? Will we, in the
process of forcing Democracy onto other nations and peoples, sacrifice it
Can the public afford NOT to ask questions? We cannot expect
to simply sit back on our hands and let Democracy happen to us. Democracy
only works if it is "by the people for the people". It is the
voting public that decides the Election Issues, not the Politicians. We
must demand an open dialogue, clarity, and accountability...before we cast
Dr. Luntz also commented that the country was split 50/50,
that there are only 2 million swing votes to be had. I beg to differ. If
the draft becomes an Election Issue, there are 100,731,931 female citizens
in the U.S. over the age of 18, and 28,899,571 males and females between
the ages of 18-26. That's a healthy peace of the pie, no matter how you
Keep on poking, prodding, and pinching the sleeping dogs,
because it works. Every Indymedia article, Internet site, forwarded email
and question has an effect. Keep the mass emails, Internet sites and Indymedia
articles rolling folks...it's working...
By the way, here are a couple of helpful sites from readers:
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.