Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

: Rick Jahnkow; Articles Archive; 01 October 2016; Hits: 2231

Female Draft Registration Still Looming

From Draft NOtices, October-December 2016

— Rick Jahnkow

Legislation that would require women to register for the draft was still uncertain as of our publication date [see following update]. The U.S. Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 contained such a requirement, while the House of Representatives’ version did not.

The differences between the two versions were supposed to be resolved by a joint Senate/House conference committee before the October 1 start of the next fiscal year, but slow progress has made it unlikely that a bill with final language will be sent to Congress until after the November election.

The Senate’s NDAA language would impose draft registration on women when they turn age 18, beginning January 1, 2018. The House version would only require a study to evaluate the impact that female registration might have on readiness, as well as the possible effects of ending male draft registration.
Meanwhile, a hearing has been scheduled for October 24 in an ongoing lawsuit that is challenging the constitutionality of male-only draft registration. The hearing will be held in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. If the suit succeeds, and if Congress does not pass legislation to extend registration to women, it could ultimately terminate the draft registration program. Congress could continue to fund the Selective Service System, but then SSS would have little justification to exist.

: Ray Wolf; Articles Archive; 01 October 2016; Hits: 2368

Does the Military Protect Our Freedom?

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.

: Isidro Ortiz, Ph.D.; Articles Archive; 01 October 2016; Hits: 1973

“Support our troops” or “Deport our troops”?

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.”