Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

Articles Archive
Hits: 5234

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2016

— Ray Wolf     



[Editors’ note: Football quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand when the national anthem is played at football games has intensified the debate over racial injustice in the U.S. Many have responded positively to his message, but others have claimed that his method of protest is disrespectful of members of the military who, they argue, are the ones who guarantee our freedom to protest. We don’t see how Colin’s actions are disrespectful of military members, but even more troubling to us is the frequent assertion that the U.S. military is the protector of our freedom. Because this is such a powerful mythology, we decided to reprint this 2003 article from Draft NOtices.]

“I’d like to thank our military personnel for defending our country and protecting our freedoms." In the wake of September 11, this is a common public acknowledgment from celebrities, politicians, myriad TV and radio commentaries, and many people on the streets of the United States.

As a Navy veteran, whenever I hear statements like these, I think, "What are they talking about? Since when does the military have anything to do with freedom?" If I make this statement out loud, I’m often told that the military protects my right to criticize the U.S. government and the military. I use such circumstances as an opportunity to educate people who believe that the military protects our freedoms. Here is one blueprint I’ve used successfully in conversations with friends, family and even strangers to shift the conversation.

History is a powerful place to begin, and many people know little about how the U.S. government has repeatedly used its military against its own citizens. In 1877, for example, railroad workers went on strike to protest pay cuts, profiteering by the railroads, and unsafe working conditions that led to injury, dismemberment, and death. The U.S. Army was deployed to crush the union strikers. Collusion played a major role, since the railroads loaned the U.S. government the money to pay the Army officers (but not the enlisted men). What this means is that the Army was protecting the railroad barons’ right to harm and exploit their workers. For those who might protest that this was a long time ago, it’s important to point out that these early actions set the precedents for continued use of the military against U.S. citizens, and then proceed with the history lesson.

Articles Archive
Hits: 3545

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2016

— Isidro Ortiz, Ph.D.     

“Support our troops” has been a popular slogan in many circles. As observers like Noam Chomsky have noted, it has been an effective public relations slogan in support of militarism even though it has little meaning and distracts from a critical focus on policies that lead to U.S. American men and women fighting in the Middle East and other regions of the world.

Recently, thousands of former soldiers have discovered that a better slogan to describe their experiences might be “deport our troops,” for they have been deported after serving in the U.S. military. Their experiences are the focus of a report titled “Discharged, Then Discarded: How U.S. Veterans are Banished by the Country they Swore to Protect,” which is based on an investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California. The catalyst for the study was Hector Barajas, who is a deported veteran and director of the Deported Veterans Support House (also called the “Bunker”) in Tijuana, Mexico. In the spring of 2015 Barajas contacted the ACLU of California to explore whether the ACLU “could provide legal and policy support on two priority issues:

  •     Immigration relief for deported veterans seeking to return to the United States and, by extension, reform to stop the deportation of veterans; and
  •     Assistance obtaining medical benefits owed to them by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, but difficult to obtain outside of the United States.”

Articles Archive
Hits: 3962

— Rick Jahnkow     

On June 14 the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (S. 2943) with language that would require women to begin registering with the Selective Service System for a possible future draft. The requirement would apply to women who reach their 18th birthday on or after January 1, 2018. Earlier, the House of Representatives approved a version of the same bill but without language requiring women to register. When an attempt was made in the House to add an amendment that would have totally defunded the Selective Service System, it was voted down 294-128.

The process of resolving various differences between the two bills was still ongoing as of September 1. Once a final version is agreed to, it will be sent to the president for his signature. The 2017 Federal Fiscal Year begins on October 1, 2016.

While legislative action on the draft registration issue is still uncertain for this year, it should be noted that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has officially stated her support for requiring women to register with Selective Service. A separate important factor to consider is that a very viable challenge to the constitutionality of male-only registration is still moving through the federal courts. If it succeeds--which has been made likely by the recent opening of all combat jobs to women--eventual action by Congress would be necessary if the legislature wished to continue Selective Service registration.

Subscribe to...

Click HERE

 

Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS

When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:

Find Out More | Download PDF