You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Great Cultural Revolution
Washington Wants To Be Able To Draft Your Daughters Into Military Service, in the Name of 'Equity'
2021-03-21
[Reason] "The current disparate treatment of women unacceptably excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation and reinforces gender stereotypes about the role of women, undermining national security."

Go on, fancy national commission, tell this #GirlDad more!

"After extensive deliberations, the Commission ultimately decided that all Americans, men and women, should be required to register for Selective Service and be prepared to serve in the event a draft is enacted by Congress and the President."

Go f-f-f-f-f-f-lush yourself.

Last Thursday, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, a body created by Congress in 2017 to reassess the oxymoronically named Selective Service System and brainstorm ways to increase public participation in the military, at long last presented its final recommendations to the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a nearly year-old report whose official delivery was serially delayed by COVID-19 and other distractions, commissioners reacted to our newish reality of having fully integrated female combat troops by urging Congress to ungender President Jimmy Carter's 1980 reinstatement of compulsory draft registration for 18-year-old males.

And, because this is the world we live in now, they did so in the name of equity.

"That women register, and perhaps be called up in the event of a draft, is a necessary prerequisite for their achieving equality as citizens, as it has been for other groups historically discriminated against in American history," the commission concluded. "Reluctance to extend the registration requirement to women may be in part a consequence of gender stereotypes about the proper role for women and their need for special protection."

There is indeed a compelling moral and legal case for women and men to be treated equally under the law when it comes to military obligations. Which is why I, like The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin and most libertarians I'm aware of, prefer the equality of no military obligations whatsoever.

In consequentialist terms, the draft has not been used since 1973, and military capability has improved markedly since switching to an all-volunteer force. But the root argument against pre-conscription is moral: We do not truly own our own lives if the state can lay theoretical claim on them between the ages of 18 and 26. The Declaration of Independence elevated first among our unalienable rights "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," not "Death, on-call Servitude, and whatever else you can Manage in the margins."
Posted by:Besoeker

#10  /\ And the Soviets, too, because the Germans couldn't fly deep into Soviet Russia to bomb the armaments factories.

Meanwhile, the gum'ment shouldn't be drafting ANYBODY.
Posted by: Clem   2021-03-21 22:58  

#9  No! and Hell No!

In a major conflict where men are off getting their asses shot off there needs to be young people left behind to take care of the home front. The elderly, the children, etc. etc.. If young men are hearing that their little sisters are getting shot, raped, tortured, etc. because the generals allowed it, these bastard generals aren't worth fighting for.

WWII was won by the US because according to the Japs and the Nazis the US had the material/manufacturing advantage. Guess who was back home giving the troops that massive advantage. Their sisters building the bombs, guns, boats and planes in a peaceful and human stateside aka HOME.

YOU ARE NOT MEN IF YOU CANNOT PROTECT YOUR WOMEN!
Posted by: Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589   2021-03-21 22:28  

#8  ..on that note.

I'm a proponent for a return of an auxiliary corps, not just for women. There are a lot of combat soldiers who's body can no longer hold up to the demands in the field. I'd reclassify them and keep their knowledge and experience in by putting them in such an auxiliary corps along with those who can do necessary military tasks and functions but can not perform effectively in a combat threat environment.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2021-03-21 13:39  

#7  Take it the next step farther. All service categories open to whoever can pass the physical and skill requirements The quarter of a percent of women (or whatever small number it is) who can handle forced march requirements would be the ones going through the women’s quarters looking for hidden jihadis while the male troops search the rest of the village — that platoon would have full employment being attached to each male unit in turn as needed. When rotated home they could be drill sergeants for the women’s boot camp, desperately trying to find a few more gymnasts and soccer babes capable of joining them... and forcing the rest to accept they’ll never be able to do the work, no matter how hard they try.
Posted by: trailing wife   2021-03-21 11:44  

#6  And the State has mandated that legal adults have no right to buy a beer or a pack of smokes. But a 16-year-old can be tried in a court of law [sic] as an adult.

Wow, what a country.
Posted by: Clem   2021-03-21 11:21  

#5  As a vet I'm all for this. Women wanted full equality. Well, ya got it. The military always needs clerks, cooks, supply chiefs, cargo pilots, etc. and women fill these rolls very well. I'm not for them going into full combat roles as they can't carry and keep going in the rigors of battle, but they sure as fuck can operate a gate gun and pull defense on the major bases.
Posted by: DarthVader   2021-03-21 11:15  

#4  ...A couple of predictions:

1) Even if the Administration put its weight behind this, I think Congress would kill the Selective Service before they allow women to be drafted.

2) Alternatively, if Congress did manage to pass such a thing, it would be laden with so many 'buts', 'ifs' and 'howevers' that it would end up that if a woman didn't want to register, she wouldn't have to.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2021-03-21 11:12  

#3  It does open an interesting issue because eventually if we have a war with a draft we will see a lot of men transitioning to avoid service. It really should be everyone or no-one.

Since it is unlikely we'll fight another war big enough yet isn't over before the draftees can be trained we should just dump the system or use it for civilian purposes or something that might create some kind of unifying even in the lives of our youth.
Posted by: ruprecht   2021-03-21 09:03  

#2  ...because those who were trying to ram through the now failed Equal Rights Amendment lied through their teeth saying it wouldn't happen. Just another of the encyclopedia of Leftist disinformation.

Technically, they don't need 'equity' to do so. Article I says Congress is the basis to organize and regulate the militia. Per Title 10 USC subparagraph The Militia, it is and has been all male citizens 18-45. They're either class I - National Guard or class II - the unorganized militia. Its the 'selective activation' of that class II that is colloquially referred to as the 'draft'. It just takes Congress to modify the text to 'all citizens'.

It's been a failing in the whole story. The first militia acts passed in the first year of the new republic stipulated 'all white males 18-45' which in Venn Diagram would be a major overlap of those with the franchise. The act was changed in the 1860s to include those of African descent followed by the 15th Amendment giving the franchise to the same group. It was the 19th Amendment which extended the franchise to women without militia obligations where the break occurred in 'having skin the game' happened.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2021-03-21 08:44  

#1  And it's a problem because?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-03-21 08:01  

00:00