Continuing the Requirement of Registering for the Draft Versus Ending the Practice

LTC Marc King — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:53:34 -0400

In a mid-February article in The Military Times written by Leo Shane III, called Lawmakers Move to Abolish the Draft, the following was debated:

As Congress begins debate on whether to force women to register for the draft, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers has a compromise solution: Get rid of it altogether.

Four Congressmen, two from Colorado and two from California have introduced new legislation to abolish the Selective Service System, calling it an outdated and unneeded program. The idea comes amid dueling proposals from other lawmakers either requiring or continuing to exempt women from registering for the draft for the first time in U.S. history.

Before we shoot ourselves in the foot, perhaps we need to take a deeper dive as to why we have a Selective Service System in the first place. Hopefully we can avoid the Congressional knee-jerk and moving to abolish something we might regret not having in the future.

According to the Selective Service System Wikipedia page, history recounts that:

“Due to very slow enlistment following the U.S. declaration of war against Germany on April 6, the Selective Service Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 76) was passed by the 65th United States Congress on May 18, 1917, creating the Selective Service System to raise an army to fight in Europe. The Act gave the President the power to conscript men for military service. All males aged 21 to 30 were required to register for military service for a service period of 12 months. As of mid-November 1917, all registrants were placed in one of five new classifications. Men in Class I were the first to be drafted, and men in lower classifications were deferred. Dependency deferments for registrants who were fathers or husbands were especially widespread. The age limit was later raised in August 1918 to a maximum age of 45. The military draft was discontinued in 1920.”

So three key points to take away:

- Before 1917, the military was an all-volunteer force.

- Whenever we had to muster a force after 1917, there clearly were not enough volunteers to fill the ranks and we again reverted to conscription; however, keep in mind that the world of 1917 was a slower paced place than it is in the 21st century. Just note that the time to react to a national emergency was far longer than what would be considered acceptable today.

- After 1920, we once again reverted to an all-volunteer force.

Down the road, the Selective Service Act of 1948 came about, and it created a new and separate system, which was the basis for the modern system. According to that same Wikipedia page, “All males 18 years and older had to register with Selective Service. All males between the ages of 19 to 26 were eligible to be drafted for a service requirement of 21 months. This was followed by a commitment for either 12 consecutive months of active service or 36 consecutive months of service in the reserves, with a statutory term of military service set at a minimum of five years total. Conscripts could volunteer for military service in the Regular Army for a term of four years or the Organized Reserves for a term of six years. Due to deep post-war budget cuts, only 100,000 conscripts were chosen in 1948. In 1950, the number of conscripts was greatly increased to meet the demands of the Korean War.”

Since then, Selective Service has been with us in one form or another. Presidents from Kennedy to Nixon, to Ford and Carter have all left their mark on the Selective Service in one form or another. They each made tweaks to the law but supported its original purpose: the rapid infusion of manpower into the military to defend the country in times of national emergencies.

Now, before the critics get all upset and tell me that Korea and Vietnam were not by definition “national emergencies” and yet conscription was used to fill the ranks, I respond by pointing to two things: context and timing. Agree or disagree, it should be understood that wars like that in Vietnam were generally not popular and the reliance on the public to support such a war through volunteers would have been dubious at best. There were a sufficient number of draft card burnings to support this. The country had a treaty obligation (SEATO) to fulfill, and we did so by supplying the necessary manpower through Selective Service. What NATO commitments will come our way in the future?

So let’s advance the story and recognize that no new draft orders were issued after 1972 and on January 27, 1973, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird announced the creation of an all-volunteer armed forces, negating the need for the military draft. In March of 1975, President Ford eliminated registration requirements yet again. But the world continued to turn and, in 1980, after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter re-established Selective Service registration for all men born after 1960 in response to what was perceived to be the threat of Soviet aggression.

So it was repeatedly on again, and off. But what did we learn?

- We need the draft to rapidly expand the force in the event of a national emergency

- We can manage a high quality all-volunteer force for most military situations that we find ourselves in

- Threats that were dangerous 36 years ago seem to be just as dangerous and threatening today, along with some radical new ones

- The need to know where your manpower is, how to contact them and plan to mobilize them… if needed… has not changed since 1980

- “Maintaining the Selective Service simply makes no sense,” said Rep. Mike Coffman, a Marine Corps veteran, in a statement. “In 1973, the last draftee entered the Army and since then, despite the first Gulf War and subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has never considered reinstituting the draft.”

True, but consider the size and scope of the conflicts and the motivations of such events such as 9/11.

And here is why the Congressman has it wrong: much the same as we are forced to maintain an industrial base manufacturing things that might not be needed during peacetime but would be essential for a war. In this same vein,we must maintain our manpower base.

Call it “Manpower Base Sustainment” – it’s not needed right now, but we’ll have it if we need it. Selective Service will only be activated if it is need. The United States has effectively designed and equipped the best fighting machine, all based on a volunteer armed force.

I say: do not focus on those who have chosen to serve – keep your eye on those citizens who choose not to. It is their right to choose not to serve as long as they are not needed. However, when the proverbial “balloon goes up,” their right not to serve is trumped by their obligation, and the nation needs them to serve. We will know who they are, where they can be reached, and what to tell them if they are needed. Think of everyone you know who chooses not to serve, and their reasons for not doing so. It’s better to eliminate the option not to serve your country.

On keeping or canning Selective Service registration, a Military Times article quoted another Congressmen saying:

“Re-opening of that debate provides a timely opportunity to get rid of the Selective Service System. Agency activities cost taxpayers roughly $23 million each year, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office report questioned whether the system could even provide a viable list of draftees to the Defense Department if needed.”

Do you honestly believe that $23 million every year cannot buy an accounting system that can track the registration information of every eighteen -year old in the country? If we can invest in a national gun registration system, we can invest in Manpower Base Sustainment.

Congressmen Coffman noted that abolishing the Selective Service “will remove an undue burden on our nation’s young people.”

Really, they seem pretty unburdened now. When you look at the demographics of who makes up the all-volunteer force now, you realize it is not a level playing field. Rep. Coffman went on to add that “We need to get rid of this mean-spirited and outdated system.” I ask, is filling out a post really that mean spirited? I don’t agree, and hope that if the need should arise, Americans — both male and female — will answer the call to defend our nation.

In today’s world, we cannot afford to get this wrong. There is no time to waste revitalizing legislation should the U.S. Military once again be called to war. So we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Modernize the Selective Service System and learn from the lessons of the past.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Apr 22 at 2016 12:13 PM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:13:47 -0400

I think it should be thrown out... But only after 5 years of requiring women to register.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Apr 22 at 2016 12:19 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:19:01 -0400

Toss it, registering to vote or getting a drivers license would serve the same purpose. Hell for that matter just having a social security card should do.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Apr 22 at 2016 1:48 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:48:06 -0400

I say keep the selective service registration, just upgrade the tracking systems. With all the threats out there why on earth would we do away with the system that allows us to muster manpower quickly.
Unless it's just another link in the conspiracy to weaken the US to a point that we can be easily subdued. (just joking not really that paranoid.... yet)

Response by SPC James Harsh made Apr 22 at 2016 2:20 PM

SPC James Harsh — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:20:38 -0400

They should never throw out Selective Service. I think females should also be required to fill it out. The US doesn't ask for any mandatory term of military service and the Federal government has penalties against many opportunities that many people do actually use. This is one major reason I think women should have to register because while many use government benefits , unlike Men they do not have to share any allegiance to the US. Let young people sweat out the multiple choice question. Most of the time it's not going to effect them anyway. I have no sympathy for any jody registering for selective service after having to update life insurance while serving

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 22 at 2016 2:46 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:46:03 -0400

I think we could easily do away with it. The OIF/OEF conflicts have shown that we can pull together the necessary force without going to a draft. It may require some loosening of recruitment standards and increases in incentives but at least we generally will have people who want to be there. I would prefer that to a force of drafter soldiers that might resent being forced into that position.

Response by SGT Jay Ehrenfeld made Apr 22 at 2016 6:56 PM

SGT Jay Ehrenfeld — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:56:15 -0400

Yes because if the females is going into combat unit full time that only reason why.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2016 1:50 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:50:00 -0400

Interesting choice of words by the writer of that article: ...whether to FORCE women (emphasis added)... when men are REQUIRED BY LAW to register for the draft. Any bias about???

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Apr 26 at 2016 11:03 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:03:44 -0400

Not only should we keep the Selective Service System, we should have used it after 9/11. Everyone says we were able to field a large enough force with just the volunteers we had at the time, but I question that. How many people would have been relieved of the obligation to deploy multiple times? If we had drafted just 1 million men, we could have caught Bin Laden, deposed Saddam, and go home within a few years, instead of a decade, or more. Or maybe just 500,000, effectively doubling the size of the army. With that many people, we might have been able to execute both wars without relying on Halliburton and KBR to supply and move us(always a sore point with me). If anything, the 2 most recent wars have shown us that we still have a need for the draft, even if the president and the congress don't have the guts to use it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 2:49 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 14:49:31 -0400

Not only should we not abolish the draft, we should enact it and have all able bodied men and women coming out of high school serve 2 years in the military. Only because we can and they should. For no other reason than, "nanna, nanna, boo, boo."

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jul 1 at 2016 1:37 PM

SFC Alfred Galloway — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:37:50 -0400

Enact it for everyone, after all women want equality, there can be no true equality if they are exempted from the draft. To combine this with, they do not have to be drafted into the infantry, artillery, armor or other direct combat jobs, they can be drafted to do the plethora of other combat support and combat service support positions that would be created if a general draft were called upon.

Response by SFC Nate Robertson made Jun 23 at 2018 12:37 AM

SFC Nate Robertson — Sat, 23 Jun 2018 00:37:52 -0400

Male and female need to register for the draft.
1. All Americans have a duty to their country. Registering for the draft reminds people of this duty.
2. If Americans thought their wives and daughters could be called. They may pressure the government to think twice before sending troops into unnecessary conflicts,

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 2 at 2018 9:27 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:27:43 -0400

All I would add is a requirement that the draft would only be used in the event of a legal declaration of war, eliminate most exemptions and include any gender.

Response by SFC Kurt Brunken made Apr 14 at 2021 2:47 PM

SFC Kurt Brunken — Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:47:22 -0400

A) end the practice or B) include females.