This is the sort of thing that would NEVER pass. It hasn't gotten any media attention yet because it's still being discussed in committees, once it nears time to vote on it, the shit will hit the fan. You have enough people who still remember how much everyone hated the draft that this would never fly since it's about 100 times more invasive.

It would be too wildly unpopular to make it through.

It's actually called the "Universal National Service Act."  There is a slight, but very important, difference between National Service and Military Service--the bill allows for either military service, or civilian service.

The reason that it isn't getting media attention is it's not moving.  The bill has been stuck in committee since January 2003 and is likely to stay there, indefinitely.  There isn't a whole lot of support for the bill--the Senate version doesn't even have any cosponsors.  I wouldn't worry about it just yet...it appears to be dead.

once it nears time to vote on it,

Zoomba- I don't think that time will come, I think the bill is going to die in committee.

It's just an extremely crude attempt by anti-war politicans to try their best to reproduce the protests of the 1970s.

Contrary to popular myth, the Vietnam war was only "immoral" once the draft was instituted to include college students (i.e. when they could no longer get automatic deferrments). 

The politicans know that what motivated mass anti-war movements the most is self-interest. Make college students have to forcibly go to war and voila, instant protests and sudden arguments about how "immoral" it all is.

Totally unnecessary here. The US armed forces have more than enough troops to handle the job and could expand recruitment.

It would be good for some people who loose their direction after High School. Beats going to prison. It'll never pass anyway.

Never going to pass, I agree. Going to civil service will require the person to be paid for two years and receive social benefits. Going to prison - a private prison, as soon most will be - will usually require minimum or no payment for many years with no social benefits. Besides, the person is usually unable to fit back in society so he is going to come back. Going to prison is MORE productive than going to civil service. God bless America!

It's just an extremely crude attempt by anti-war politicans to try their best to reproduce the protests of the 1970s.

That certainly puts the most negative spin possible on it.

I think the idea is that it is an essentially unhealthy situation to have voters feel such insulation from the country's foreign adventures. As it stands right now, our leaders really do not have to make the case that it is truly in the best interests of Americans in general to take military action. War really should not be TV entertainment for those who like it and easily ignored by those who don't.

I would not be in favor of the law, but I see this aspect as one upside.

It works well in Finland and South Korea. I have no problem with the theory of two years of mandatory civil service. I think it would encourage a greater participation by the young who tend to be rather apathetic.

Cheers

"It's just an extremely crude attempt by anti-war politicans to try their best to reproduce the protests of the 1970s."

If you trace it back this is proposed periodically by many Liberal, and often racial minority leaders in the US congress. The logic is that when service is voluntary only the poor and uneducated will be sacrifices, and all the rich kids will sit idly by, making it easier for the affluent government leadership to send other people's kids to war.

Maybe it is true to a point. On the other hand, many, many people would be forced into service who don't want to be there, who have no aptitude for it, or who are destructive and abusive of their service. I think we would see a lot more issues like the rapes in Japan and the abuses at Abu Garaib if everyone was pressed into service. Military service is great for some people, and for others it seems to make them utter wastes of skin.

It works well in Finland and South Korea

 

Jet - We have very little cultural similarity with South Korea, trust me I have spent the majority of my adult life there. I can't speak for Finland though as I have never visited it. Aditionally I would not characterize the draft in Korea as a sucess.... interview a few dozen ROK drafees and see what you get. It ain't pretty and it aint patriotism. There is a reason north Korea fears our less than 35,000 US troops far more than they fear the nearly 500,000 man South Korean Military. Anyone remember the ARVN? Same shit.

     Charlie Rangel has a very long record of pushing this sort of bill whenever he opposes something he just introduces ridiculous legislation to try and "scare" support up for his cause. A very odd form of reverse psychology but it works on some. Don't be scared... this bill never stood a chance of passing and never will stand a chance of passing short of a Canadian incursion to Seattle. Trust me, when the northern California pot fields are in danger then the Dems will be clamoring for the Draft in earnest! Coincidentally the "Americorps" program of Clinton fame started it's life out as a mandatory program but that part got deleted before it went anywhere.

 

 

The politicans know that what motivated mass anti-war movements the most is self-interest. Make college students have to forcibly go to war and voila, instant protests and sudden arguments about how "immoral" it all is.

And rightfully so.

VES

Contrary to popular myth, the Vietnam war was only "immoral" once the draft was instituted to include college students (i.e. when they could no longer get automatic deferrments).

from the moment the us agreed to assist the french in reasserting their colonial claim in what was then known as indochina, its involvement was not only immoral but anti-american (in the sense america has of itself and projects to the rest of the world as an advocate of liberty from oppression). although roosevelt was adamantly opposed to returning vietnam to french control (incidentally, the vichy government was far more active in its collaboration with japan than with the nazis in europe) until america chose to provide active support for the french military campaign against the vietnamese whose declaration of independence as read by ho chi minh in september, 1945 began with these words:

We hold as truth that all people* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We, the members of the Provisional Government representing the entire people of VietNam, declare that we shall from now on have no connections with imperialist France; we consider null and void all the treaties France has signed concerning VietNam, and we hereby cancel all the privileges that the French arrogated to themselves on our territory.

unfortunately for all involved, truman believed the french support for nato required america acquiesence in the french attempt to regain its indochinese holdings. the truman administration was also under attack by what would soon become the anti-communist witchhunt of the early 1950s. (ironically, the vietminh guerillas fought the japanese in concert with and assistance provided throught chaig kai-shek's nationalist chinese army)

the net result was a division of vietnam following the defeat of the french at dien bien phu followed by a regrettable decision in favor of 'regmine creation' by means of a rigged election that put diem in power in saigon. a country-wide vote mandated by the geneva treaty was effectively denied by us policymakers who couldnt afford to acknowledge overhelming popular support for unification.


as to any connection between student deferments and the anti-war movement, please check your dates. i had an automatic student deferment in 1966. critics of us involvement in southeast asia had surfaced en masse nearly 4 years earlier. in early 67, a test (very similar to the sat exam) was instituted to determine whether students had sufficient abilities to succeed as college students.


*the implication of that change in wording was revolutionary indeed in a confucian society where women were considered to be chattel.

opposition to a draft or any other form of compulsory service in peacetime is a basic conservative tenet in that it imposes an unnecessary and dangerous infringement on individual liberty.

in the words of robert a taft:

"It is said that a compulsory draft is a democratic system. I deny that it has anything to do with democracy. It is far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of individual liberty, which have always been considered a part of American democracy. Many people came to this country for the single purpose of avoiding the requirements of military service in Europe. This country has always been opposed to a large standing army, and it has been opposed to the use of the draft in time of peace. I shrink from the very setting up of thousands of draft boards, with clerks and employees and endless paper work and red tape; from the registration of 12,000,000 men and the prying into every feature of their lives, their physical condition, their religious convictions, their financial status, and even their hobbies."

further on in that same address, senator taft noted:

"The principle of a compulsory draft is basically wrong. If we must use compulsion to get an army, why not use compulsion to get men for other essential tasks? We must have men to manufacture munitions, implements of wear, and war vessels. Why not draft labor for those occupations at wages lower than standard? There are many other industries absolutely essential to defense, like the utilities, the railroads, the coal-mining industry. Why not draft men for those industries, also at $21 a month? If we draft soldier, why not draft policemen and firemen for city and state service? The logical advocates of the draft admit this necessary conclusion. Senator Pepper, of Florida, has said that he believes the President should have power to draft men for munitions plants. Mr. Walter Lippmann says that if the conscription bill is to serve its real purpose it must not be regarded as a mere device for putting one man out of twenty-five into uniform but must be regarded as a method of mobilizing the men of the country for the much larger and more complicated task of industrial preparedness. In short, the logic behind the bill requires a complete regimentation of most labor and the assignment of jobs to every man able to work. This is actually done today in the Communist and Fascist states, which we are now apparently seeking to emulate."

The "first" democracy in the world required military service before citizenship could be achieved. Robert A. Heinlein suggested that in Starship Troopers This is not a new idea, will our society ever go for it? Probably not, we may love our guns, but having to stand toe to toe with someone who can kill you? Not bloody likely.

Cheers

Jet - The professional arm of our military would also never stand for it Jet. We wants to have conscripts with guns? Not I or any other NCO I know.

Kingbee - Good comments but a trifle long. I especially liked the brief history of the Vietnam war though.