GOV/MIL Defense bill would require women to register for draft - NDAA 2017

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
We discussed this possibility in the prior thread.....

Congress takes its first step toward killing the military draft
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-first-step-toward-killing-the-military-draft

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/277962-defense-bill-would-require-women-to-register-for-draft

Defense bill would require women to register for draft

By Rebecca Kheel - 04/27/16 07:52 PM EDT
Comments 75

Women would have to register for the draft under an amendment added to an annual defense bill Wednesday.

“If we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, then we should support a universal conscription,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said.

The House Armed Services Committee voted 32-30 to include the amendment in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Congress has been debating what to do about the draft since Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened up all combat jobs to women late last year.

In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that women did not have to register for the draft because combat jobs were closed to them.

With that reason now moot, some lawmakers have argued women should now register. Others want women to remain exempt, while still others say this is the opportune time to abolish the draft altogether.

As originally drafted, the NDAA would have asked the Pentagon to conduct a study on the matter and would not have taken a position.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the committee, said he believes Congress needs answers on the benefits of and alternatives to the current draft system before making a decision.

But Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who is opposed to women in combat and in the draft, offered the amendment to force discussion on the issue. He introduced a standalone bill earlier this year for the same reason.

“The draft is there to get more people to rip the enemy’s throats out,” said Hunter, who voted against his own amendment. “I don’t want to see my daughters put in a place where they have to get drafted.”

Both “coffeehouse liberals in San Francisco” and “conservative families who pray three times a day” oppose including women in the draft, he added.

Speier took issue with the idea that liberals don’t support women registering for the draft.

“While you could be offering this as a gotcha amendment, I would suggest that there’s great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in time of war,” she said.

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) added that if women were drafted, they wouldn’t be forced into jobs that they aren’t equipped to do.

“What we have right now is standards-based,” he said. “The fact of the matter is if we need hundreds of thousands of folks to serve, that hasn’t changed any reality of if it’s going to be standards-based of who’s going to be in the infantry and who might be supporting.”

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who introduced a bill in the House to abolish the draft, continued to support that position, saying many Americans of draft age are ineligible for service and that families of influence tend to be able to avoid the draft in wartime.

“If we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, in the height of the conflicts, there was never a discussion the Department of Defense to resort to conscription,” he said. “I think the selective service is unnecessary.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-defense/2016/04/hasc-approves-ndaa-214004

HASC approves NDAA

By Connor O’Brien and Jeremy Herb | 04/28/16 08:30 AM EDT
With Louis Nelson and Austin Wright

LEGISLATING AFTER DARK — HASC APPROVES NDAA: Following more than 16 hours of debate and dozens of amendments, the House Armed Services Committee voted 60-2 to approve its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) gaveled out the marathon session at 2:34 a.m.

The bill would authorize $610.5 billion in defense spending for the new fiscal 2017 year, even with the topline requested by the administration. But it allocates $23.1 billion in war-related Overseas Contingency Operations funds for base budget programs. Hawkish Republicans’ aim is to eventually get more money through a supplemental appropriation after a new Congress and president is sworn in next year — a move that has caused heartburn among some Armed Services Democrats.

The bill is expected to be considered by the full House the week of May 16.

HASC ranking Democrat Adam Smith of Washington state supported the measure. He had said before the markup that he was undecided, but cautioned the rearranging of war funding is "no small matter."

The two ‘no’ votes: Democrats Jackie Speier of California and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DAY — AND NIGHT:

— HASC OK’S WOMEN REGISTERING FOR THE DRAFT: In arguably the most surprising vote of the long day, the Armed Services Committee narrowly adopted, 32-30. an amendment from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) that would require women to register with Selective Service.

Hunter didn’t even vote for his own amendment, which he offered to force public debate on Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s decision to open all combat jobs to women. Six other Republicans, however, joined with almost all the panel’s Democrats to support the proposal.

— LAWMAKERS SLUG IT OUT ON ULA, SPACEX: The committee adopted by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) to permit ULA to obtain 18 RD-180 rocket engines for competitive launches. The proposal was among the very last considered. "It's been worked on all day," Thornberry said.

ULA and Pentagon officials say they need 18 RD-180 engines in order to “bridge the gap” for national security launches before a U.S.-made alternative is developed and certified. But opponents — led in committee by Hunter — contended ULA is trying to stockpile engines, and only nine would be needed at most for competitive launches through 2019. Hunter said he planned to offer an amendment to cut the number of rockets ULA could purchase to nine, but the amendment was ruled out of order because the House Intelligence Committee also has jurisdiction over the issue.

HASC also adopted an amendment from Smith to authorize $100 million to develop a new launch vehicle, in addition to a new U.S.-made RD-180 replacement.

— CONFEDERATE FLAG AMENDMENT UNFURLED: An amendment from Smith would have barred the military from supporting military educational institutions and academies that fly the confederate flag. Smith said the proposal was aimed at the Citadel in South Carolina, which flies the Confederate flag, but requires a two-thirds approval by the state legislature to take it down. "We need something to force South Carolina to do the right thing," Smith said.

The panel adopted Smith's amendment, but only after adding a change from Thornberry to exempt institutions like the Citadel whose board of visitors has voted to take the flag down, effectively rendering the proposal moot. Republicans charged the proposal would hurt cadets at the Citadel, which doesn’t have the power to remove the flag.

— DEMOCRATIC NUKE PROPOSALS SHOT DOWN: HASC rejected a slew Democratic amendments aimed at the U.S. nuclear modernization efforts, including a proposal from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) cutting $317 million in nuclear weapons spending. The panel also defeated, 26-36, a proposal from Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) that would have required a 30-year cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for fielding and maintaining the nation's nuclear stockpile as well as life extension, modernization and replacement programs.

— SAGE GROUSE LIMITATIONS STICK: The committee turned back an effort from Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) to strip provisions that prohibit findings under the Endangered Species Act for the Greater Sage Grouse. The vote was 27-35 against removing the limits.

Morning D Though Bubble: Would it really be NDAA if Rep. Speier didn’t have a Sage Grouse poster handy?

— GITMO PROPOSAL DEFEATED: The panel once again defeated an amendment from Smith to roll back limitations on closing the U.S military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transferring the detainees to the U.S. Smith, who conceded the proposal was “familiar” to lawmakers, again called the prison an “eyesore” that is "unbelievably expensive."

— MORE MARKUP ACTION: The panel adopted, 34-28, a proposal from Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) that would exempt the Defense Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration from an executive order requiring prospective contractors to disclose labor law violations to the government.

And lawmakers turned back, 9-52, an amendment from Gabbard to strike a provision to reauthorize the training and equipping of Syrian rebels. Earlier, HASC defeated, 20-4, a proposal from Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) to separate the F-35 program’s next block of software into its own separate acquisition program.

LOOKING FOR AN AMENDMENT? Be sure to check the Defense Pro Document Drawer, where we’ve got the text of amendments from the markup.

STAYING FUELED: To help reporters stay awake, Thornberry dropped off a trash can full of Rip It — his favorite military energy drink. As a result, we didn't need that extra cup of coffee to power through the chairman’s mark.

MORNING D NDAA CONTEST WINNER: Congratulations to Heather Brandon, who predicted 2:34 a.m. — the exact time the markup gaveled out. Enjoy your year of bragging rights, while we enjoy the fact that NDAA ended well before 4 a.m.

PLUS, CARTER BLASTS HASC'S DEFENSE FUNDING SCHEME: Carter slammed the House Armed Services Committee yesterday for the funding scheme baked into its version of the NDAA.

"I have serious concerns with a proposal from one of the defense committees to underfund DoD’s overseas warfighting accounts by $18 billion and spend that money on programmatic items we didn’t request," Carter said in prepared testimony to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "While I don’t expect this committee to consider such a proposal, I have to say that this approach is deeply troubling and flawed for several reasons."
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
Phyllis Schafly made her name fighting the ERA Constitutional amendment. She won pointing out (among other things)that it would allow men to use women's rest rooms and would require that women be drafted and put in the combat arms. The States turned it down. Much good that did.

If the Cultural Left can't make their goals one way, they will try another. They never give up.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-committee-votes-require-women-register-draft-n564166

News
Apr 28 2016, 11:37 am ET

House Committee Votes to Require Women to Register for Draft

by The Associated Press

Women would be required to register for the military draft under a House committee bill that comes just months after the Defense Department lifted all gender-based restrictions on front-line combat units.

A divided Armed Services Committee backed the provision in a sweeping defense policy bill that the full House will consider next month, touching off a provocative debate about the role of women in the military.

The panel also turned aside a measure backed by Democrats to punish the Citadel military college in South Carolina for flying the Confederate flag.

The United States has not had a military draft since 1973 in the Vietnam War era, but all men must register with the Selective Service Systems within 30 days of turning 18. Military leaders maintain that the all-volunteer force is working and the nation is not returning to the draft.

Related: Captain Kristen Griest to Become First Female Army Infantry Officer

The 32-30 vote Wednesday night came with a twist: The proposal's author didn't back it, a clear sign that more contentious debate is ahead.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not support drafting women into combat and opposes opening infantry and special operations positions to women. Hunter, R-Calif., said he offered the measure in the House Armed Services Committee to prompt a discussion about how the Pentagon's decision in December to rescind gender restrictions on military service failed to consider whether the exclusion on drafting women also should be lifted.

Related: Army Approves 22 Female Officer Candidates for Possible Combat Units

That's a call for Congress, not the executive branch, Hunter said. "I think we should make this decision," he said. "It's the families that we represent who are affected by this."

At times, Hunter evoked graphic images of combat in an apparent attempt to convince colleagues that drafting women would lead to them being sent directly into harm's way.

"A draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill," Hunter said. "The draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies' throats out and kill them."

But if Hunter was trying to sway people against his amendment, his plan did not work.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said she supported Hunter's measure.

"I actually think if we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription," she said.

Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz. and a retired Air Force fighter pilot, said draftees aren't exclusively sent to the front lines. There are plenty of other useful, noncombat positions for them to fill, she said.

If an 18-year-old man does not register with the Selective Service he could lose his eligibility for student financial aid, job training and government jobs. Immigrant men could lose their eligibility for U.S. citizenship. According to the latest annual report, 73 percent of 18-year-olds registered on time during the 2015 fiscal year ending last Sept. 30. And the registration rate for all men aged 20-25 was 94 percent.

Hunter's amendment was part of a defense policy bill that authorizes defense spending for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. The committee passed the legislation by a 60-2 vote early Thursday.

The overall bill cuts $18 billion from the wartime operations account to pay for weapons and troops the Pentagon didn't request, a money-shifting strategy Defense Secretary Ash Carter condemned as a "road to nowhere" that undermines U.S. troops and emboldens America's enemies.

Related: All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says

On another thorny policy issue, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the committee's senior Democrat, offered an amendment that would have barred the Defense Department from financially supporting the ROTC program at any institution that flies the Confederate battle flag.

The Citadel is the only school that fits the profile. The college is in South Carolina Rep. John Clyburn's district. He's not on the committee, but he backed Smith's measure in a statement Wednesday, calling the Confederate flag a symbol of hate, racial oppression, and resistance to the rule of law.

The college's Board of Visitors has voted to remove the flag, but South Carolina state law prohibits them from doing so.

"This failure to take down the Confederate battle flag is an extremely disappointing statement of principles," Smith said. "They should have voted to take it down instead of dodging the issue."

The overall bill authorizes $602 billion in defense spending for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/women-eligible-draft-house-222571

House panel backs 'gotcha' amendment to make women eligible for draft

By Connor O’Brien
04/28/16 09:06 AM EDT
Comments 7

In a new twist in the debate over women in combat, the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday night adopted a proposal to require women to register for the Selective Service in the event of a military draft — a proposal that its GOP sponsor, who actually voted against it, intended to make a point about women serving on the front lines.

In a marathon session to craft a new defense policy bill, the panel backed Rep. Duncan Hunter's amendment by a 32-30 vote.

By his own admission, however, the California Republican does not actually intend to include women in a draft and voted down his own amendment.

Hunter opposed the Pentagon’s decision to open all combat jobs to women earlier this year and has argued that his colleagues have failed to fully account for the implications of the shift.

“I’ve talked to coffeehouse liberals in San Francisco and conservative families who pray three times a day,” Hunter said during the markup of the Defense Authorization Act, which sets overall policy for the armed forces. “And neither of those groups want their daughter to be drafted.”

“This should not be a unilateral decision made by the commander in chief,” Hunter added. “This should be our decisions after speaking to our families.”

Hunter, a former Marine, believes the implications of allowing women to serve in all combat positions have yet to be fully digested by Congress or the public — and his amendment is intended to force the issue.

A military draft, he argued, was meant “to put bodies on the front line.” And by definition that now means women, too.

The proposal attracted support from nearly all the pane’'s Democrats, along with six Republicans.

“While you may be offering this as a gotcha amendment, I would suggest that there’s great merit and recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in a time war,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat.

Republicans supporting the proposal included Reps. Joe Heck, Walter Jones, Chris Gibson, Martha McSally, Sam Graves and Steve Knight.
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
Since WWII, the last Joe SixPack military success, the role of the US military has been to get killed and lose wars. And if by accident they actually win, like they did in Viet Nam, a left wing Congress will betray them.

And how more delicious it will be if a bunch of the dead are women.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Since WWII, the last Joe SixPack military success, the role of the US military has been to get killed and lose wars. And if by accident they actually win, like they did in Viet Nam, a left wing Congress will betray them.

And how more delicious it will be if a bunch of the dead are women.

What keeps blowing my mind is that the Lefty's and activists keep thinking that even if drafted the women wouldn't be forced into combat arms when at the same time they were the ones that forced those MOS positions to be opened to them. The logical and mental disconnect is mind blowing to say the least.
 

tiger13

Veteran Member
Those brain dead idiots could care less, but when the Grim reaper swings his scythe, he will care not who it reaps, man or woman...
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Kind of telling where the MSM and the population at large is when most of the stories that come up if you search the news with just "the draft" come back with the NFL college player picks....

As to "comprehensive look" at the "process"....Hummmm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...yan-doesnt-say-if-he-supports-requiring-women

Paul Ryan Doesn't Say If Women Should Register for Draft; Wants 'Comprehensive Look' at Selective Service Process

By Lauretta Brown | April 28, 2016 | 2:03 PM EDT
Comments 9

(CNSNews.com) – At his weekly press briefing today, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) was asked his view on an amendment that the House Armed Services Committee approved to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Wednsday, which would require women to register for the draft.

“We need to take a comprehensive look at the entire Selective Service process and we should just deal with one issue at a time,” Ryan said, without stating his position on requiring women to register for the draft.

Video

The reporter asked, “Mr. Speaker, on NDAA yesterday at the markup, an amendment passed that would require women to register for the draft for the first time. What is your view of that question and do you have any qualms about bringing NDAA to the floor?”

Ryan replied, “We have to bring NDAA to the floor. Not doing NDAA is not an option. I share Chairman Thornberry’s view of this, which is we need to take a comprehensive look at the entire Selective Service process and we should just deal with one issue at a time.”

“I think Mac’s mindset is the right one, which is look at the entire Selective Service process and deal with that in a comprehensive way,” Ryan said, deferring to House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas).

Thornberry said yesterday that “he believes Congress needs answers on the benefits of and alternatives to the current draft system before making a decision,” according to The Hill.
 

Warthog

Black Out
Globalist are running out of swinging dicks to do their dirty work, now they're going after our women!
 
What I'm wondering about is: if a draft were suddenly called, what would happen to young mothers....would their children have to go to a relative or foster care? This would most definitely be terrible for family lives.(I'm assuming the man of the family were also called up.)
 

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
This issue comes up about every two years or so. It's a distraction. Keep an eye on what's happening behind the curtain.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
This issue comes up about every two years or so. It's a distraction. Keep an eye on what's happening behind the curtain.

The difference is who is bringing it up this time and the manner it's coming up. It isn't Rangel doing his usual bit and it's expanding upon the whom it will potentially impact.
 
Last edited:

Meemur

Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
The difference is who is bringing it up this time and the manner it's coming up. It isn't Rangel doing his usual bit and it's expanding upon the whom it will potentially impact.

I still think it's a distraction. Lots of the political class have daughters and grand-daughters. I will go so far as to predict that US women will not be drafted into the military in my lifetime.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I still think it's a distraction. Lots of the political class have daughters and grand-daughters. I will go so far as to predict that US women will not be drafted into the military in my lifetime.

Remember they've been talking about government run "national service" as the primary function of their program and not the military.
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane
Remember they've been talking about government run "national service" as the primary function of their program and not the military.

That was my thought. The women might be put to work in some kind of community service. I can see that a selling point might be free college, or getting college debt paid off.
 

ssbn642blue

Veteran Member
Now wait a minute. I thought we were all equal now. You know, jobs, rest rooms etc...

Oh, but only us men can be sent in to be killed. Okay, gotcha.

(sarc).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/rebooting-the-selective-service/

Rebooting the Selective Service

Jason Mangone
May 9, 2016

Registering for the Selective Service is easier than it’s ever been. As long as you know your social security number, you can register in less than two minutes. Ordering a meal and creating a playlist require a deeper level of engagement than the act of registering to potentially go to war. What should be a grave consideration has become just another to-do.

In addition to the military-strategic justifications for the Selective Service System, it is also the only statutory opportunity the nation has to connect with every young American. If we’re going to have a Selective Service System, it should be structured in such a way that it asks young people to consider their relationship to their nation in addition to offering an outlet to actively pursue that relationship more deeply.

Fifteen years of continuous war has led to a healthy debate about the all-volunteer force. Since the Secretary of Defense’s “no exceptions” announcement, a distinct but interrelated debate has started to play out concerning Selective Service.

A unifying theme between both debates, as retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry puts it, is, “[t]he question of ‘political ownership’ of our military within our democracy.” The Selective Service is the closest thing most citizens have to “ownership of our military.” More broadly, it’s one of the few responsibilities of citizenship.

Oddly, 15 years into America’s current wars, registering for the Selective Service means less than it ever has. Registering for the draft used to have a visceral effect on people’s daily lives and lifelong trajectories, whether they were burning a draft card, seeking a deferment, volunteering to serve, dodging, or being conscripted (that was partly because at times, the potential for combat was real). Today, a more effective Selective Service System could reap some civic rewards without compromising the strategic benefits of the all-volunteer force.

Rather than focusing on whether or not Americans should register for an unlikely draft, here are a couple practical suggestions for improving the Selective Service System:

First, registration should provide a compelling advertisement about the benefits of service —whether in the military or as a civilian — and offer clear, actionable information about completing this type of service. I work with an organization that makes it easy for young people to search for civilian national service opportunities. Second, the registration process should occur with more frequency. As of today, registration is required once (though technically, the registration is supposed to be updated in case someone moves). Registration should occur often enough to be a conscious part of a young person’s life between the ages of 18 and 25.

There are many compelling counterarguments to these suggestions. For instance, it could be argued that registration should be as convenient as possible to support mass mobilization. Anything more than that, it could be argued, exceeds the mandate of Selective Service and might decrease its ability to achieve its central strategic priority.

This argument ignores the lived history of the Selective Service and the reality that Americans are disengaged from their longest wars. Traditionally, registering for the Selective Service carried with it the potential for “skin in the game.” This sentiment has decreased with distance from the repeal of the draft. Additionally, by increasing the frequency with which people register, it’s also likely that the Selective Service would have more up-to-date contact information in the event of total war in an era when young people are increasingly mobile.

Modest Selective Service reforms would not solve the challenges of today’s civil-military relationship. But, by increasing the frequency with which young people are required to register and encouraging young Americans to serve their country and community, the Selective Service could make citizenship a more personal experience.


Jason Mangone is on the Leadership Council of Service Year Alliance (formerly the Aspen Institute’s Franklin Project), an initiative to make a service year a cultural expectation and common opportunity for every young American. He is a former Marine infantry officer.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-draft-coders-tech-experts_us_572cddf7e4b0bc9cb046a2f9

Uncle Sam Needs Coders. Here¡¦s How The Military Could Draft Them.

Defense experts say we could ¡X and should ¡X register mid-career experts.

05/10/2016 05:00 am ET
David Wood „ï
Senior Military Correspondent, The Huffington Post
Comments 19

Could Uncle Sam track down and draft a dozen 30-something computer programmers if the Army suddenly needed them?

Not yet. But the idea¡¦s out there.

The Selective Service System should be drastically redesigned to meet the demands of modern war, according to a small but notable chorus of defense analysts and congressional lawmakers.

Leap past the latest controversy over whether young women should be registered for the draft alongside their male counterparts. What if the Selective Service was authorized to register both men and women between the ages of 25 and 45, listing them by professional or technical expertise?

Then in a national emergency, the Pentagon could rapidly find people with needed skills who were not in the ranks. After a massive cyber attack on communications systems, for instance, the military might require a fast infusion of engineers to repair satellites and rebuild software. Plus, hackers to identify and track the perpetrators and advise on counter-attacks. And social media specialists to temporarily bypass damaged systems.

Such sophisticated skills aren¡¦t common among the military¡¦s usual recruits. ¡§You can¡¦t just grab any kid out of high school and put him in charge of a $6 million piece of equipment,¡¨ said Richard S. Flahaven, associate director of the Selective Service System.

But if civilian experts were already registered, the Selective Service could find them in a heartbeat. These older recruits might serve as civilians ¡X bypassing bootcamp, shaved heads and saluting ¡X and sign on for short-term stretches, say six months to two years.

By enabling people to offer their services without committing to the full rigors of military life, a general registration for national service might even help close the rift between civilian America and those few who volunteer to serve in uniform.

Of course, that doesn¡¦t mean the idea is widely popular.

The Defense Department has already acknowledged that it faces a severe shortage of skilled cyberspace personnel, which hasn¡¦t been resolved by its usual methods of recruitment. The Pentagon¡¦s cyber force won¡¦t be fully manned until 2018, and even then it will rely in emergencies on an anticipated ¡§surge¡¨ of 2,000 part-timers from the National Guard and other Reserves.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter has not called for any kind of national registration of civilian experts. But he has begun publicly exploring new ways to coax outsiders into temporary duty.

On March 30, Carter spoke of reaching beyond traditional sources of manpower ¡X that is, the 18- to 21-year-olds who make up most of the military¡¦s inductees. ¡§Certainly, specialty jobs, like cybersecurity ¡X we need to be looking at ways to bring in more qualified people, even if they¡¦re already in the middle of their career, rather than just starting out,¡¨ he said in a speech at Abington High School in Abington, Pennsylvania.

The military is also short of more prosaic specialists. In a national emergency ¡X such as a domestic chemical or biological attack ¡X the U.S. Army would need additional technical and scientific support; experts in rapid road and rail logistics, fuel distribution and water purification; and more drone operators and police, according to a recent readiness study. The Pentagon jobs board currently suggests other shortages: IT specialists, management analysts and health techs.

These are all jobs that civilians could fill in emergencies, expanding the Pentagon¡¦s capabilities or replacing military personnel diverted to combat missions. But that civilian expertise can be so specialized that it makes no sense to recruit these professionals into the active-duty force and then idle them until needed.

Current steps to fill the military¡¦s gaps include a program enabling mid-career professionals to work at the Pentagon for up to two years in the Defense Digital Service. Under another initiative, the Defense Department¡¦s cyberwar chief, Adm. Michael Rogers, is offering a ¡§bug bounty¡¨ to ¡§trusted hackers¡¨ to probe Pentagon systems for vulnerabilities.

Military veterans and others suggest the Pentagon needs to think bigger. The idea of drafting civilian experts came up recently in a Capitol HIll debate about whether women should be required to register for the draft.

Don¡¦t think of drafting men and women just for the infantry, urged Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), a former Air Force fighter pilot who led a squadron of A-10 attack jets in combat in Afghanistan.

¡§If our nation¡¦s interests were at stake to the point where we had to call up the Selective Service, individuals would be put in positions they¡¦re qualified for and capable to fill,¡¨ McSally said during a meeting of the House Armed Services Committee. ¡§It could be medical positions, we could need cyber warriors ¡X there are all sorts of positions we¡¦d need the country to mobilize for.¡¨

The concept was also recently endorsed by David Barno, a retired Army lieutenant general who was the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, and Nora Bensahel, a defense policy analyst. In an essay posted on War on the Rocks, a website for foreign policy and national security issues, they wrote that new kinds of conflicts ¡§may require conscripting the nation¡¦s best experts at code writing, hacking, and cyber security.¡¨ To wage economic warfare, the U.S. might need to pull in financial experts and market analysts, they said.

Indeed, a national draft could summon people to work anywhere in the federal government in times of emergency. If the financial system were under cyber attack, say, bankers might be drafted to serve at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Commerce.

The very thought gladdens those laboring in the drab headquarters of the Selective Service, which is housed in a Virginia office building not far from the Pentagon. Among the skeleton 27-person staff, there is a firm conviction that drawing up a national registry of professionals and other experts is both a sensible plan and something they could do with ease.

¡§Of course we could!¡¨ exclaimed Associate Director Flahaven, an Army veteran who wears a suit with a vest and key chain to the office.

The Selective Service now maintains a databank of 17 million names and contact information for men between the ages of 18 and 25 who have registered. Even in what the staff admits is ¡§deep standby¡¨ status, an annual budget of around $22.5 million funds the administrators and data processors who manage the registration process. A small army of 11,000 volunteers work part-time on local Selective Service boards, which process appeals for exemptions.

If Congress authorized a new registration process for older experts, Flahaven said, the agency would begin by spreading the word that ¡§if you are of a certain age and within the past 12 months you have worked in the following fields, you must register.¡¨

That databank would require regular updating ¡X the skills and addresses of adults do change over time ¡X but otherwise it could sit ready for years, Flahaven said. Scrambling to locate and register experts from scratch in a crisis would take months or longer.

The associate director may be quick to engage this idea because the vision of a different kind of draft registration isn¡¦t exactly new to him. Back in the early 1990s, Flahaven said, the Selective Service staff put together a plan on how they could register Americans by profession or expertise. They took their proposal to the Pentagon.

It didn¡¦t go well.

¡§I briefed them on how we could register, say, linguists and computer professionals. They weren¡¦t interested at all,¡¨ Flahaven recalled somewhat sourly. ¡§They said they didn¡¦t have any shortages.¡¨

Ironically, it was President Ronald Reagan, the self-proclaimed foe of big government, who came closest to engineering a national registration of experts. In 1987, he asked the Selective Service to draw up a plan to register health care professionals to help resolve the military¡¦s shortage of doctors and nurses. The agency readied a blueprint to find 3.4 million doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians and others from 60 medical specialties and require them to sign up at their local post offices.

Long before cyber warfare was anybody¡¦s concern, the military worried about having enough health care providers. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, some 30,000 medical professionals had to be drafted, one way or another. The Selective Service found doctors and nurses by scouring state medical licensing boards. ¡§We gave ¡¥em a deal they couldn¡¦t refuse: a commission [as an officer] and a two-year commitment,¡¨ said Flahaven.

Some 83 of those 30,000 individuals actually refused the offer, he said. They were drafted anyway and put in the Army as buck privates, the military¡¦s lowest rank.

But Reagan never gave the order to set in motion a medical registration. The 1987 plan sits on a shelf gathering dust, along with much else at the Selective Service.

Traditionally, the draft was aimed at hauling in young men to serve in combat. Draftees swelled the ranks in the Civil War, the two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. As the Vietnam conflict wound down, the Pentagon ended the draft in 1973. Since then, although registration continues, the military has relied solely on recruiting volunteers, a system that has proved costly but effective in obtaining high school grads.

The all-volunteer force, as it¡¦s known, is now so entrenched in Pentagon culture that The Huffington Post could find no one in the Defense Department who would admit to even thinking about draft registration. Instead, after some prodding, the Pentagon issued a statement saying that the status quo is good enough.

¡§The ability of the all-volunteer force to recruit, retain, and assign personnel with critical skills will continue to improve,¡¨ the statement said. It suggested that the Pentagon would make ¡§increased use of lateral entry¡¨ to obtain those skills. A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Lt. Col. Gabrielle M. Hermes, said ¡§lateral entry¡¨ meant bringing in experts from the civilian world.

That cautious approach seems out of sync with the ways that war is changing. Today there is less likelihood of massive clashes of infantry, armor and artillery. In the war with the self-described Islamic State, the U.S. relies not on large troop formations but on pinpoint airstrikes, small special-operations units, and experts who can put financial, trade, political, social and intelligence pressure on the enemy. The Chinese talk about ¡§unrestricted warfare,¡¨ in which their military would unleash such economic, political and social attacks as equals to the traditional armed effort.

So further thought about how to identify Americans with the greater range of skills needed by the military might well be a sound idea. But even as some lawmakers are on it, others are calling to shut down the Selective Service altogether as a useless historical oddity and 21st-century waste of money.

Many Americans no doubt would agree, for the draft has always been unpopular. Our history with involuntary military service is bookended by the anti-draft riots of the Civil War and widespread resistance during the Vietnam War.

Nonetheless, Flahaven and his colleagues at the Selective Service are waiting for the phone to ring with new marching orders. The agency¡¦s $22.5 million ¡§is decimal dust¡¨ in the federal budget of $3.8 trillion, he said. ¡§You couldn¡¦t get a fully armed helicopter for that.¡¨

But you could get a very long list of names and addresses, to be consulted if Uncle Sam ever needed it.

As then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates once observed, the United States has a perfect record of predicting the location and nature of future wars: 100 percent wrong. So the grim view from the Selective Service is that sooner or later, the nation will need those names ¡X of people who can fight on land, sea and cyberspace.

¡§The United States has always been a lousy predictor,¡¨ said Flahaven, ¡§so we get caught with our pants down.¡¨ But right now, he said, ¡§nobody¡¦s listening.¡¨
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/10/n...ike-down-provision-to-force-women-into-draft/

NDAA Amendment Introduced To Strike Down Provision To Force Women Into Draft

Jonah Bennett
National Security/Foreign Policy Reporter
11:20 AM 05/10/2016

GOP Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the House Committee on Rules, filed an amendment Monday to the National Defense Authorization Act to make sure women don’t have to sign up for the draft.

In effect, the amendment would remove a provision introduced by GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter to force women to sign up for the draft, just like men have to.

Sessions’ amendment will come into play next week when the NDAA hits the floor. Hunter intends to support the amendment, as he only introduced the draft provision to point out the logical consequence and absurdity of allowing women into all combat roles.

“Right now the draft is sexist. Right now the draft only drafts young men,” Hunter said when he first introduced the provision, according to The Washington Examiner.

He didn’t exactly count on his provision being approved by the House Committee on Armed Services in late April by a margin of 32-30. But it did, and now he’s trying to backpedal, but it’s unclear whether backpedaling will work, as making women sign up for the draft is supported by leaders in the Army and Marine Corps. The provision also passed HASC by a bipartisan effort, even though Hunter anticipated that both Republicans and “coffee house liberals” would balk at the idea. They didn’t.

At the time of the vote, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier noted that although Hunter introduced the provision as an exercise in trolling, the idea makes sense on its own.

“While you may be offering this as a gotcha amendment, I think there’s great merit in recognizing each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in time of war and provide some period of time when we do some kind of service,” Speier said.

The reason why women weren’t previously forced to sign up for Selective Service was because they weren’t allowed to serve in combat roles. Now that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has removed the prohibition entirely in December, the central justification exempting women aged 18-26 from the draft has disappeared.

That hasn’t stopped GOP legislators from coming up with all sorts of new reasons to still exempt them from obligations of service.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/279870-left-divided-over-women-registering-for-the-draft

Left divided over women registering for the draft

By Rebecca Kheel - 05/14/16 03:11 PM EDT
Comments 777

The fight over women registering for the military draft is splitting Democrats.

Some see the issue as one of basic gender equality, arguing women should face the same requirements as men. Others argue that no one should be required to register for the draft, and that including women would be a step in the wrong direction.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re a man, a woman or a houseplant—we need to abolish the Selective Service,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in a statement to The Hill. “Allowing women to be included in the Selective Service would just double the number of people punished unnecessarily by the government over inclusion in a mean-spirited and outdated practice.”

“My position is the position on the draft in general,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said. “I’m just against the draft.”

Liberal activists have also taken up the cause. A Care2 petition with nearly 14,000 signatures urges lawmakers to end the draft instead of requiring women to participate.

"While this is unfair and sexist — women should be allowed to serve in combat roles just as men are — it is immoral to force people to go to war, no matter their sex," Julie Mastrine, the petition's author and Care2's activism marketing and social media manager, says in the petition document.

But Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said this week that registering women is a matter of equality.

"Women ought to be treated equally,” he told reporters. “If you're going to have Selective Service registration continue, and you're going to have women available to serve in the armed forces in either front-line capacity or support capacity — or both, which I think is now the case legally — then I think it makes sense to have eligible individuals, male or female, register as long as you have registration.”

Hoyer also argued against abolishing the Selective Service altogether.

“Internationally, we are in a very unstable context,” he said. “Therefore, it may well make sense to continue to have a pool available, a large pool available, in the event that we need to, in very rapid order, ramp up the numbers of folks in the armed forces."

The issue has also divided Republicans, creating a tense legislative debate in Congress.

Both the House and Senate versions of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would require women to register for the draft. But three amendments have been put forward in the House to strike that language. The bill is expected to come to the floor next week.

If Congress required women to enroll in the Selective Service, it would represent a historic change. The U.S. has come close to drafting women only once before, when there was a shortage of nurses during World War II.

The Defense Department says it no longer wants the draft, having not used it since the Vietnam War. Pentagon leaders including Defense Secretary Ash Carter have said repeatedly that they intend to keep the force all-volunteer.

But most men ages 18 through 25 still have to register with the Selective Service System or face consequences such as losing access to federal financial aid for college.

In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that women could be excluded from registering since combats jobs were closed to them.

That point is now moot, since Carter opened all combat jobs to women late last year.

Requiring women to register for the draft was included in the House version of the NDAA almost on a whim.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) proposed the amendment during the House Armed Services Committee’s 16-hour markup of the bill to force members to grapple with the consequences of opening combat jobs to women, which he opposes.

He voted against his own amendment, but six Republicans joined with all but one of the committee’s Democrats to approve it 32-30.

Now, as the bill comes to the floor, Hunter said he plans to support an amendment from Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) that would strike the language.

“I don’t want women to serve in the infantry or special operations, and I don’t want my daughters to have to sign up for Selective Service when they turn 18,” Hunter said.

Another amendment, offered by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, would strike Hunter’s language and replace it with what was originally in the bill, a requirement for the Pentagon to do a comprehensive study of the Selective Service.

“The chairman feels like this is a very momentous choice for the Congress, and Congress need to fully understand all of implications for military readiness that changing Selective Service involves,” a committee staffer said this week.

The third amendment, offered by Rep. Reid Ribble(R-Wis.), would strike the language on women and repeal the Selective Service.

Paying almost $25 million annually to keep up the draft system is a waste, Ribble said. Should a draft be needed in the future, he said, history has shown the system can be quickly reestablished.

But even if the language on women registering is removed from the House bill, it still exists in the Senate measure. Should senators choose to keep it, it could set up a fight when the two chambers meet to reconcile their versions of the bill.

In addition to requiring women to register, the Senate version of the NDAA would establish an independent National Commission on Military, National and Public Service to review the future of Selective Service.

“As women serve in more roles across the armed forces, I support the recommendation of the Army chief of staff and the commandant of the Marine Corps that women should register for Selective

Service,” Sen. John McCain John(R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement to The Hill. “It is the logical conclusion of the decision to open combat positions to women.”

Rep. John Garamendi(D-Calif.) said he doesn’t foresee changes to the draft ultimately happening with the NDAA.

He was the lone Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee to vote against Hunter’s amendment, which he said he did because such a big change required more study than the late-night markup allowed.

“It’s not the appropriate time to take up such a fundamental issue,” Garamendi said. “It needs to be fully understood and fully debated as to what are the implications of this.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-women-dodge-the-draft/

May 26, 2016

Will Women Dodge the Draft?

Legislation allowing female conscription began as a protest, but the Pentagon now supports it.

By Kelley Vlahos
Comments 22

It’s been two generations since “your number is up” meant anything but relief at the DMV or a one-way ticket to the pearly gates.

But for any man older than 65, it once meant something entirely different. It was your draft number, whether it be your birthday (Vietnam) or your district number (WWII). The information was pushed into a capsule no bigger than a cyanide pill, which was tossed into a fishbowl filled with hundreds or thousands of other tiny blue orbs. On “lottery day,” one capsule was plucked from the others. When a man’s number was “up,” he reported to the draft board and, if deemed fit for duty, was thrown into war.

Those were all the able-bodied men in a certain age range. Now imagine young women sitting in front of their televisions, or glued to their mobile devices, waiting to see if their numbers are up. It seems fantastical, 40 years after the draft was ended and with an all-volunteer force now filling the ranks for war. But the issue of whether to open the Selective Service to women—all men 18-25 are still required to register—is very much a debate on Capitol Hill today.

In fact, such a change could be included in the next major defense budget authorization bill.

Despite the unlikely nature of a draft, it is a salient issue that has split both Democrats and Republicans. It’s shaken their political sensibilities around and settled them down on either side in unlikely alliances. Presidential candidates have even had to address the question in primary debates.

In one corner, there are champions of women in the military, where the ranks have recently opened combat roles to female soldiers. For them, equality is a goal that cannot and should not be deterred by something as unpopular or archaic as the draft. If women want parity in the military, it starts here. It’s symbolic.

On the other side, there are two factions. One thinks women should not be in combat and therefore would overburden a draft board with deferments and disqualifications—a silly, bureaucratic nightmare born out of political correctness. The other school thinks the draft should be eliminated entirely, and lining up women to serve it, no matter how symbolic, is an anathema. Let the volunteer force—whether it be men or women—fight, if the country must defend itself.

Military historian Andrew Bacevich calls it a “tempest in a canteen cup,” and he is probably right: The draft was eliminated in 1973 for a reason. Despite the fact the Vietnam War was winding down, he writes, it was the conscription of tens of thousands of young men during that conflict that “spurred anti-war sentiment and benefited no one—apart perhaps from Canada, favored destination of many thousands of draft evaders.”

That may be, but how we came to be talking about opening the Selective Service to women today is significant in itself, and probably speaks about heightened tensions involving women in combat more than anything else.

It began when Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), an Iraq War veteran, first proposed an amendment in April opening the draft to women in the House National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The move came not as a symbol of women’s growing equality in the forces, mind you, but as a “gotcha,” according to Politico. He wanted to underscore the problematic nature of that newly enforced equality.

“In a marathon session to craft a new defense policy bill, the panel backed Rep. Duncan Hunter’s amendment by a 32-30 vote,” reporter Connor O’Brien wrote on April 28. But “by his own admission, however, the California Republican does not actually intend to include women in a draft and voted down his own amendment.” He opposed opening up all combat units to women and was clearly using the amendment to show that “colleagues have failed to fully account for the implications of the shift.”

“I’ve talked to coffeehouse liberals in San Francisco and conservative families who pray three times a day,” Hunter said during the markup of the NDAA. “And neither of those groups want their daughter to be drafted.”

He is right, of course, but he failed to note that there are also stalwart constituencies for drafting women, including the Pentagon brass. Both Army Chief of Staff Mark A. Milley and Marine Corps Commandant Robert Neller have said publicly that if women are in combat, women must be in the draft. While this may not sound like a rousing endorsement (the Marines, after all, were the last to come around to the changes), their backing has ignited support among the hawks on the Hill.

That includes head hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is typically considered one of the the most pro-military (if not pro-war) members of Congress. He offered his own amendment drafting women for the Senate version of the NDAA on May 10.

“As women serve in more roles across the armed forces, I support the recommendation of the Army Chief of State and the Commandant of the Marine Corps that women should register for Selective Service,” McCain said in a statement to Roll Call on May 12. “It is the logical conclusion of the decision to open combat positions to women.”

He is joined by fellow hawk Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who in February said that after hearing from military officials, she too was convinced that “it makes sense that … women would also register for the Selective Service.” Her colleague Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) expressed the same sentiment during a New Hampshire presidential primary debate. “I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised,” he said. Having gained access to combat, “I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a draft is ever instituted.” (He flip-flopped almost immediately.)

Now, these Republicans may be exhibiting the same kind of cynicism as their colleague Duncan: Everyone knows the draft itself is as unpopular as a skunk at a picnic, and that we will likely never see the likes of it again—so why not support opening the Selective Service to women on the merits of the idea, at least winning points with the millions of women who support it?

Or perhaps it is just a subtler form of the answer military writer Michael Yon gave TAC when we asked him.

“This is a no-brainer. If women wish to try out for Rangers, SEALS, Green Berets, they wish for equality,” said Yon, who served in special forces in the 1980s. “Draft them if needed. Put up or shut up.”

But such condescension isn’t likely to thwart the women who are already expressing an interest in “putting up,” and unlike Duncan, they aren’t bluffing. And they are backed by Democrats like Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is usually on the other side of McCain when it comes to military issues.

“The fight for equality and treatment must also include equality in obligation. As we move towards a formalized role for women in combat arms, this is a necessary progression,” said Tyler Gately, a spokesperson for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), which “applauds” the House and Senate for taking up the issue.

“I’m in favor of drafting women. As a female veteran who voluntarily enlisted, I see the importance of civic duty and giving back to our country. Freedom is not free,” says IAVA member De’Cha LeVeau, in an email to TAC. “As women we must step up to the plate, per se. If we are expecting equality; this equality comes with added responsibility.”

Those who have been against women in combat from the beginning—and this fight has been ongoing for decades—have seen enormous changes over the last few years, including special-forces roles opening to both genders. In fact, after passing the grueling trials, three women were the first to earn their U.S. Army Ranger tabs last fall.

But critics insist women do not have the physical capacity to join their male counterparts on the front lines. To achieve parity, the warning goes, women will likely be held to different standards, and this will hurt unit cohesion and readiness. Many of these critics are also social conservatives who blame feminism and political correctness for the drive to include women in the combat ranks in the first place.

“Political correctness is dangerous, and the idea that we would draft our daughters, to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close contact—I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) charged in February, when he was still on the campaign trail.

Meanwhile, a contingent of military women backed by longtime critic Elaine Donnelly at the Center for Military Readiness, are standing firm against what they are calling Duncan’s folly.

“Military women average two to ten times men’s injuries—this means an even higher turnover where the physical demand and intensity is much, much greater, in combat units during war time,” said Jude Eden, an Iraq War Marine Corps veteran, who cited a nine-month study by the Marines released in September.

“Because of these greater liabilities, drafting women will result in more lives being lost unnecessarily when they’re actually replacing infantrymen in a national emergency,” said Eden, who has written extensively on the subject. “The draft isn’t to collect people for desk jobs to ‘free a man to fight,’ it’s to replace the men dying at the front of the fight.”

But there is also the question over whether not opening the draft to women is even legal. In 1981, several men filed lawsuits alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it requires only men, not women, to register. The Supreme Court upheld the act, but gave women’s exclusion from combat roles as the reason for doing so. The ruling may no longer apply now that all the barriers are down.

The wheels of the justice are already turning on the subject: The National Coalition of Men, which has launched a lawsuit similar to the one filed more than 30 years ago, won a recent victory. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said their challenge against the Selective Service could go forward, mainly because the changes in policy in Washington made it “ripe for adjudication.”

So why not just get rid of Selective Service altogether? There is a bipartisan group of lawmakers trying to do that, too.

“Not only will abolishing the Selective Service save the U.S. taxpayers money, it will remove an undue burden on our nation’s young people,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), said in a statement as he and others introduced a bill to end Selective Service in February. “We need to get rid of this mean-spirited and outdated system and trust that if the need should arise Americans—both male and female—will answer the call to defend our nation.”

After the initial dust up, the House Rules Committee ended up pulling Duncan’s draft amendment from the draft NDAA last week. But the Senate continues to contemplate it as final legislation goes forward, folly or no folly.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and TAC contributing editor. Follow her on Twitter.
 
Top