Non-Gay Political Issue// Women Registering for Selective Service

[Hunt]

To me, the whole idea of having people register for the draft is a waste of time. Do you really think they'd be hard to find if we ever needed to reinstitute the draft? As I recall, the reinstitution of draft registration was a sabre-rattling action by President Carter when the Soviets were up to something (I don't even remember what it was--invading Afghanistan, maybe?).

If you are going to have registration, there's no reason to register men and not women. It's a completely separate question from whether women should go into combat or not.

And I have to say, I really don't understand this horror of having women in combat. It seems to cast all women--no matter how strong or capable--primarily in the role of potential sexual victim. If that's not it, what is it?

[Rooster7]

scoutingagain,

 

I took no offense to your question. Although, I'm not sure that my answer is relevant. I want our government to continue their current policy - to disallow women in combat roles. If my daughter ever wants to volunteer for service, I will discuss it with her. If women cannot be directly placed in harms way, I'd probably reluctantly give her my blessings.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I think I was pretty clear. In short, I think those who advocate women in combat roles, do so mostly in theory. When the rubber hits the road, most recognize the differences between men and womenthey come to their senses. Those that dont, should consider the ramifications of their position.

 

[Rooster7]

I am truly amazed at the number of folks who don't recognize the differences in the sexes. It's slowly dawning on me why so many don't find homosexuality offensive. By all appearances, these folks don't see ANY spiritual, emotional, or psychological differences between men and women. Thus, the resulting logic is - "If the only thing that separates us is our genitals - Why not engage in same sex unions? Why not have women go into combat? Why not have same sex couples adopt children? Why not have unisex bathrooms? Why not have men and woman play together in the NFL?" I don't mean to turn this conversation into another thread that debates homosexuality, but I'm wondering just how far off the mark am I?

 

By the way, here's the reason to "why not" - Even if we ignore the physical differences, men and women are STILL different. Take all of the testosterone or estrogen you want, you can't turn a woman into a man or vice versa. I'm not going to attempt to list and describe our differences, because God has made them clear. If we send women into combat, I know in my heart of hearts we will have to answer to God. It's wrong. And frankly, I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

 

Maybe my argument is more emotion than "intellect". But I would not want to stand before God and intellectualize a position that defends sending women into combat. He knows your heart as well as your mind. It would be a futile exercise.

[NJCubScouter]

Hunt, yes, it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that prompted Jimmy Carter to propose reinstatement of draft registration (and also to pull the U.S. out of the Moscow Olympics, gosh that seems like a really long time ago.)

 

Ironically, as I recall, the actual commencement of draft registration was delayed by a pending court case involving a claim by one or men who had sued, claiming the system was unfair because women were not required to register. This case had actually been pending since the Vietnam era but I guess it had been placed on the back burner when draft registration was suspended in 1975 (I had reason to be keeping track of this, since I was born in January 1958, do the math.) When the new draft registration law had been passed by Congress and signed by President Carter, the attorneys must have run back to court and gotten an injunction against the process starting up again. My recollection becomes vague at this point, I know there was some delay, but I do not recall whether it was days, weeks or months. If I had to guess, it would be that it was a few weeks. When it finally did go into effect, it was in the summer of 1980. (But I did not have to register then either; as I recall they cut the date at Jan. 1, 1960, so anyone born before that date but after some time in 1957 never had to register.)

[scoutingagain]

Rooster,

 

Just had to smile at your last post.

 

First, I'm glad you weren't offended by my question.

 

Second, ironically this thread was started to discuss something other than the gay stuff.

 

While the thread started as a question of whether women should register or not, I do have another thought related to the issue.

 

Many women have volunteered for service and have proven themselves to be able contributors to the military. They serve as drivers, nurses, clerks, fighter pilots, naval officers and many other postions. In fact I'll bet the all volunteer force might not be possible if it weren't for the women that do volunteer. In that sense, is it possible that our sons retain the alternative of choosing to serve or not due to the contributions made by the women that do volunteer for service?

 

SA

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Scoutingagain, I agree with your post, I just have one question: Are there really women serving as fighter pilots? I thought that was one of the roles from which they were excluded.

[scoutingagain]

My terminology may be wrong. But there are women that fly combat aircraft. i.e. Fly sorties, drop bombs, shoot rockets, bullets from aircraft. There are probably not many given the physical demands of the position, but I've seen several interviewed on various news programs.

 

Those in the military are free to correct my terminology.

 

SA

[Rooster7]

Yes, I imagine that you are correct. Via volunteer service, women are enabling a large number of men to choose "not to serve" (i.e., by virtual of the fact, it is not necessary to draft men). Of course, if that is our goal, let's open volunteer service to children and the elderly too. Then, if the demands of the military increase, even more men will be able to choose not to serve.

[OldGreyEagle]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but doesn't Israel require men and women to register for selective service and does anyone know how the Israeli Army uses women?

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, it had been my impression that the Israeli military drafts both men and women, but I did not know for sure and I did not know any of the details. A search turned up this site about Israel:

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kdq0

 

(Overall the site seems to take a rather dim view of Israel in general, though I did not study it that closely.) Here is an excerpt:

 

Women and the Armed Forces: Although service in the IDF is compulsory for both men and women, inequality does exist. The exclusion of women from many military professions and all combat units guaranteed that the highest positions were closed to them. In 2000, Israel's Parliament adopted an amendment to the Security Service Law, opening all military professions to women. Recently, this change has met with strong objections from religious institutions and politicians.

 

One other interesting point about the draft in Israel is that I believe it is "universal" i.e. everyone reaching whatever the age is, is drafted for a certain period. I am not sure whether there is any sort of student deferment or exemption, but I know that in recent years there has been a lot of controversy over whether there should be a religious exemption.

[scoutingagain]

Rooster,

 

I assume by your last post that at some point there should be a moral decision made as to who should be allowed to serve, even if they volunteer. I agree.

 

The worst recent example I can think of is during the invasion of Iraq I watched video of young boys, no older than the those I serve in scouting, running in open territory collecting ammunition and rocket propelled grenades for Iraqi soldiers??? (I really don't intend to dignify these, whatever they are as soldiers, but I don't have another term). I have read where some of our

soldiers and marines had to shoot these kids at times. I don't hold anything against our service personnel, I blame the cowards that either forced these kids to do it or even convinced them to do so voluntarily.

 

There is a moral line here.

Where it is and who gets to decide where it is are big questions.

 

SA

[Hunt]

Rooster--I certainly agree that men and women have many fundamental differences, but I still don't get which ones make it wrong for women to be directly in harm's way. And is it wrong to expose women to danger, or to put them in a situation in which they would have to kill others? I admit I have a gut reaction agains women in combat, but I can't honestly say whether it's cultural or moral. What's the moral argument?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Looks like Congress might bring back the draft (and include women);

both bills introduced back in January:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

 

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

...

The DoD has recently asked for volunteers for local draft boards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3242923.stm

(I can't find any mainstream US news outlets covering this).

[mrs red feather]

S.89 the Universal National Service Act of 2003 was introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings of S.C. It was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

 

The same bill (H.R. 163) was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel of N.Y. It was referred on 2/3/2003 to the Subcommittee on Total Force. Also an Executive Comment was requested from DOD.

 

The language was as Merlyn described and calls for registration of all persons 18-26 for a 2-year period of service. Since it hasn't been heard from since Febuary, it may have died in committee.

 

"Someone oughta o-o-o-o-pen up a window...."

[NJCubScouter]

I read this bill and it is interesting, but it is somewhat more complicated than simply extending the military draft system to women. Service (of both men and women) would be "universal" (that is, everybody turning 18 would serve for at least two years with very limited exceptions or deferments), and service could be either military or civilian. However, it does appear that if military circumstances require, someone (other than a conscientious objector, which is a difficult status to achieve) could be compelled to go into military service as opposed to civilian service, and that includes women. This is not just registration; this is actual service, by (almost) everybody.

 

This idea of "universal service," including civilian service, has been around for a number of years. The only "new feature" that I see in this bill was that it was always my understanding that a young person would get to choose whether to go into military or civilian service, while under this bill, the military gets to choose you, so to speak. That apparently would apply to both men and women as well. I think the way it would actually work in practice is that a young person WOULD get to choose civilian service, unless the President decided that there was a military situation requiring more people in the military than were volunteering. In terms of MILITARY service (as opposed to civilian service), that's really no different than what we have now, except that women could be drafted into the military service.

 

However, I don't think it matters much. I think this bill has the proverbial "two chances" of being adopted (slim and none.)