Twenty-five years ago, after Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I sent a letter to the Selective Service System – cc’d to the US Attorney in Buffalo, NY – politely informing them that I would be declining their offer of registration. When the FBI finally came to my door two years later, in Berkeley, California, I reiterated my intent to refuse to comply with the draft laws.
I claim no special heroism for this stance: hundreds of young males nationwide did likewise, as did thousands of non-young or non-males trying to gum up the works of enforcement. The sabotage was widespread. Lists of local registrants were posted in public places in an attempt, anticipating the later public service of John Ashcroft, to encourage friends and neighbors to turn noncompliant men of that delicate age in to the relevant authorities. This didn’t work either. When I – ahem – obtained the list that had been posted in the Alameda County courthouse, serving Berkeley and Oakland, the law-abiding registrants named therein included Ira Michael Heyman – then chancellor at UC Berkeley, and who despite being decades too old to receive a draft notice was evidently possessed of such patriotism that he registered several times in different zip codes. Also among the East Bay’s stalwart obeyers of law was one “Pinhead, Zippy T.”
Ah, but draft resistance in the 1980s wasn’t all fun, games and petty theft. People actually went to jail for it. In 1983, eighteen young men were indicted on felony charges stemming from refusal to register.
Eleven of them were convicted. A couple spent time in prison. The main reason I wasn’t among them, as far as I can tell, is that my Congressional representative backed me up. Ron Dellums, at that time the Representative for California’s Ninth Congressional District in Berkeley and Oakland, sent a letter suggesting to the abovementioned US Attorney, Sal Martoche, that he spend his office’s time pursuing the increasingly violent local representatives of drug cartels rather than peace activists. When I received my heavily redacted copy of my FBI file more than a decade later, it was clear from the documents therein that Dellums’ letter had been a stick in the prosecutorial gears.
So it was saddening to me to see one of Dellums’ Black Caucus heirs, Harlem’s Rep. Charlie Rangel, raise an apparently serious suggestion that the draft be reinstated. True, I can’t say I disagree with his intent. The old adage “Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight” is as valid as it was when the Wobblies first uttered it a century ago, aside from needing one obvious update in this age of enlisted women and Condi Rice. Conservative statisticians have sometimes disputed the assertion that the US military’s lower ranks are overwhelmingly populated by African-Americans relative to society at large. But no one disputes the military’s class disparity. Rich kids don’t become grunts. The bulk of US soldiers who actually risk injury are there because that was the job available to them. Meanwhile, those who make the decisions to go to war are unlikely to see their loved ones die in the attendant hostilities, the pathetic story of Ted Olson notwithstanding.
So I find it understandable that Rangel would say, as he did in a CNN interview, that “I think, if we went home and found out that there were more families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and more willingness to work with the international community, instead of just saying that it’s my way or the highway.” How likely would G.W. Bush be to commit troops to Iraq if he knew Jenna might be walking point in Baghdad?
OK, maybe that’s a bad example.
Nonetheless, Rangel’s argument has holes in it large enough to allow easy passage of a lemon-yellow Hummer H2 with fully inflated tires, and it takes a peculiar historical amnesia not to find them. The present crop of warmongers found it easy enough to escape the clutches of the Selective Service System before 1975. Most pols already sacrifice their families on the altar of career: do you really think as base an opportunist as Tom Delay would put his children’s welfare before his political goals?
Further, one could point out that while the vast majority of rape victims are female, no one is proposing laws that would send one male in four to the NYPD basement for the Giuliani broomhandle treatment. Some evils are better abolished than distributed evenly.
But forget the details: there’s something rotten at the heart of Rangel’s pitch. Though he dresses it up in terms of social contract and shared sacrifice that would make even an unreconstructed communitarian fascist like Amitai Etzioni retch, what Rangel is saying is “change your policies or lose your children.” He could help develop the growing number of Americans who don’t want to fight this war, but instead, he’s taking hostages. He isn’t quite piloting a 737 into the Capitol to make his point, but the difference is at this point one of degree alone, and has a potential US death toll far outstripping that of 9/11/2001.
Note to draft-age men in Harlem: don’t look to your Representative for support should you take a principled stand when the draft board comes calling.
I agree with Rangel’s sentiment, but I have to concur with you about its impracticality.
It might be more effective to require declarations of war to go before a plebiscite, in which “yes” votes are cast in the form of enlistment papers.
I continue to view myself as a liberal/progressive independent who may or may not affiliate with Dems than a partisan Dem. The Dems are the ones who brought back draft registration, and we have a Dem in Rangel who’s one of the most avid advocates of reinstating a draft. I appreciate Rangel’s concerns about class inequality and all that, but think that over both the short and long haul that a draft will only serve to enable those occupying the White House to engage in even more military misadventures than they already do. We really do not need that. And I for one resent that it’s my own children who will end up at risk if folks like Rangel have their way.
than a guard at Guantanamo.
“Ah, but draft resistance in the 1980s wasn’t all fun, games and petty theft. People actually went to jail for it.”
Spooky. In the last couple weeks I’ve run into both of the mid-80s resisters who served time in prison.
You saw Andy? How’s he doing?
Ed Hasbrouk was at the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference, now involved in travel privacy issues.
Gillam Kerley just stopped back home in Madson.
Yeah, I’m in touch with Edward.
Andy Mager (from Syracuse) spent a year and a half in Danbury.
Rangel’s bill is conceptually sound, although poorly written. Universal Service is something those of us in uniform felt was a rational policy in the Vietnam era:
(a) Obligation for Young Persons- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act. [H.R. 2723, Rangel]
I support the bill in concept, and believe it’s time for a national discussion on the question.
First, I find it interesting that someone who resisted, and a good friend of mine who’s an ex-marine (18 months in Vietnam) agree on something, even if for totally different reasons. But you’re both arguing from an historical perspective, and in the negative.
What are the alternatives? An entire “volunteer force” comprised of troops who do not want to fight? Who question the validity of the order to go war? Or as in Vietnam, are motivated only to survive?
I agree with Rangel: everybody serves – no exceptions. The bill would also incorporate all existing national service programs under the umbrella of Universal Service. AmeriCorps and Peace Corps among them.
I don’t see a problem here. Those serving would be fed, clothed, housed, paid, and have medical coverage. Under the current construct of the programs they would also be eligible for specialized education in a wide variety of occupations. The net social and economic effects would likely be positive.
The system is currently broken. Rangel’s bill is a good place to start the debate on how to fix it.
“everybody serves – no exceptions.”
Then shouldn’t it start with my age group, the 50 year olds, (1st not to get drafted in the Vienam callups) and work back?
Wise guy. 🙂 And no, it should start with members of congress.
I don’t see a problem here. Those serving would be fed, clothed, housed, paid, and have medical coverage. Under the current construct of the programs they would also be eligible for specialized education in a wide variety of occupations. The net social and economic effects would likely be positive.
Well, the basic assumption on which such a program is based would be that the government has a right to seize the labor of every single citizen. I’m not sure I’m willing to grant that right, although I certainly admit the state exercises that right over all of us de facto.
I much prefer moral suasion to get people to perform their duty to society. For one thing, it allows people to decide what their duty to society is, and thus some folks volunteer wiith non-profits and such that would almost certainly not be on a government mandatory service roster.
In fact, I’m betting a bunch of non-profits that rely on volunteers would suffer severely if national service was mandated. Not only would the prime volunteer pool be taken up, but I bet most of discharged service people would feel they’d put in their time, and not bother to check out the local animal shelter or crisis hotline.
I believe Rangel’s stated objective was to force a confrontation on the draft. His bill eliminated many exceptions for children of the rich and politicians. Unfortunately, this is exactly why his stated strategy was doomed – no way in hell would Congress seriously debate his bill, and no way in hell would the media, dominated as it is by rich men, cover it. So it was either sabotage or stupidity, take your pick.
I also don’t believe that a draft is moral. Universal service might be, if it truly was universal, but even then I doubt the morality of forcing young people to join an organization whose entire purpose is killing and death. It seems to cheapen the weight of the choice of those who choose to serve to protect their country. (Not that Bush’s Amazing Iraqi Adventure doesn’t do the same thing, but…)
The beauty of the system is in offering paid alternatives to joining the military. I know what Charlie Rangel is doing – and I don’t agree with his tactics – but still believe the concept is sound.
Points well made, and the crux of the debate. Right now I suspect a survey of volunteers and active duty military would show the economic scale for the former skews upward, and downward for the latter. Fairly close to economic coercion.
Our children are “seized” from age five to eighteen for school. I don’t believe two years community service is too much to ask, and there are benefits for both participants and the country as a whole.
I guess I just like my playing fields level.
I like Charlie Rangel a lot, and I know he is a veteran and draftee. I also take his point, and it’s a good one, that the burden of our military adventurism is unfairly divided. But a draft would be a disaster. And, I say this as the wife of a Marine, who served in Iraq, and could be sent back, because we are so short troops.
The draft worked fairly well in WWII because it was a popular war, with widespread public support. The entire nation participated, in one form or another. Korea, not so much. Vietnam — disaster. How much cannon fodder did we go through, how many protests and domestic tragedies like Kent State did it take to force Nixon’s hand into finally crafting an exit? Do we really think it would be different with Iraq? One of the things that most pressures this administration is that the military is falling apart under the strain of our ill-conceived obligations. Give them more cannon fodder, one incentive to scale back our martial goals disappears.
Further, as it is, even with a volunteer, trained military, the rank structure is beginning to fall apart. The fragging has already started. If you don’t know, fragging was a major problem during Vietnam because we had a totally demoralized military, made up, in part, of people who had no inclination towards military duty, but were conscripted.
People who choose military life are drawn to warriorship and to that structure, in some form. I say this because I am married to a warrior. A warrior nature is not universal. I couldn’t do what he does. I’m about as disciplined as a cat. It would be a nightmare. I would be a danger to anyone who had to depend on me to stay alive. And, that’s not simply because I’m a woman. I know plenty of men, who are not wired that way, and would be a threat to themselves and others, in uniform. But, if we go to a draft, people like me will be volunteered to be warm bodies in what has already degenerated into chaos. I don’t even want to contemplate the consequences of that.
He promotes the bill as a “draft” but title is “Universal Service” – a more comprehensive approach to serving the country. You wouldn’t want the military, but would you be willing to work in Peace or AmeriCorps?
It’s nothing against either institution. They are fine and noble, as is military service. I just think such things should be a matter of choice, not conscription. I get very nervous when the government starts compelling people to do things. It’s involuntary servitude. The extent to which I participate in my community and how I do so should be a matter of what gifts I have uniquely to bring to the world. The government is in no position to tell me that.
In case it wasn’t clear from my post above, being a pacifist is not my reason for not being in the military. I absolutely believe that sometimes war is unavoidable, and for this, I am glad we have a military. I just know where my gifts and talents lie, and where they do not. They do not fall neatly into the categories of some overbearing nanny state.
So save me a cell in Leavenworth.