Is it Time for Women to Register for the Selective Service Program?

Coach is Right ^ | February 5, 2016 | Jim Emerson, staff writer

[Vic S]

the Selective Service Program?, Vermont Lt wrote: What I think a lot of people are missing in this discussion is that we are broke. Funding a conscription army in the field would be impossible. If we slip into a recession this time around, we might just slide into a depression. I often times think the US is economically where the Soviet Union was in 1989. The US will eventually default on it's debt. If there is a war and we can just print money, wouldn't it make sense to just print it and win? When the war is over there will be a new economic system. Hopefully we will have a patriot in the White House when that happens, as opposed to someone like Rubio or Cruz that know little about economics and have deep ties to Wall Street.

[bluejean]

“Selective Service” is offensive. Inclusive Service is better. /s

[Glad2bnuts]

The all volunteer military has led to war without end. A draft is the only way to have a military. All serve, all could be in the line of fire. The only reason the Vietnam war ended was the draft. The minute the draft was over, the protests stopped.

[sparklite2]

“The all volunteer military has led to war without end.’

Now there’s an interesting thought. Wasn’t it Clinton who said, “What good is having an army if you can’t use it?”

[CharlotteVRWC]

Will Muslim women who are drafted still have to wear burqas?

[crusher2013]

NO. HELL NO.

My family isnt going to get maimed or worse in some ME hell hole so the pot smoking kid down the street can play video games all day.

Not going to happen.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I don’t think there’s an equal protection problem if suitability standards are used. Most women don’t qualify for infantry
Sane testing, and the problem resolves itself.

[MortMan]

The equal protection issue arises from prior court cases that have tried to force women to register. The argument that prevailed was the women were barred from combat arms, which obviated the need for them to be registered for the draft.

They have removed the reason for the exception, and therefore if they do not remove the exception there is an issue.

Proper testing simply will add to the cost of administering any draft that becomes necessary, at least until the standards are declared to be sexist.

[discostu]

No, the other way around. It’s time to end registering for a draft no politician will ever enact. It’s completely pointless.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The equal protection issue arises from prior court cases that have tried to force women to register. The argument that prevailed was the women were barred from combat arms, which obviated the need for them to be registered for the draft.

There's a wrinkle I didn't know about or expect. It makes combat duty the plum, coveted job. The thinking seems to be, if you've got to be drafted, it's discrimination if you don't have your fair opportunity to be in combat.

I never thought of it that way, and I'll bet most people of both sexes don't view it that way.

[MortMan]

Your thinking is a bit backward from the logic applied. The argument is that the draft is used, first and foremost, to fill the combat arms roles required in a major war. Therefore, if one is ineligible to the combat arms, one is not required to be in the draft.

From my memory (which may be suspect), the “include women” argument was really used as bait to try and get rid of the selective service altogether. The anti-drafters thought including women would scuttle registration. But their arguments were rejected because women cannot fill the primary roles sought in a draft.

The “plum role” part comes in the volunteer army, where combat arms are considered a distinguishing role, so that officers and enlisted who serve there have a leg up in the race for promotion.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Your thinking is a bit backward from the logic applied. The argument is that the draft is used, first and foremost, to fill the combat arms roles required in a major war. Therefore, if one is ineligible to the combat arms, one is not required to be in the draft.

Is my thinking really that backward? In today's military, what is the ratio of supporting to combat roles? I think it's pretty significant, and good deal higher than one to one. In a situation where there was a general draft, there would be plenty of danger to go around, and not just for combat volunteers.

I agree that many military volunteers do consider combat to be a job they want, but I'd submit that in a mobilization, many draftees would prefer not to get that job.

[MortMan]

The logic used to determine the prior lawsuit, as I understand it, was opposite to your line of thought. Perhaps the thought has to be modified, but if a draft is required, then the support to combat ratio changes from the volunteer force.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I understand that the logic used in the lawsuit was different. I follow it, but I think that it is backwards. That doesn’t help, as once a precedent is established, it becomes hard to overturn.

The logic used is, to my way of thinking, backwards. Equal protection means that the law doesn’t subject different distinguishable groups of persons to different requirements.

Volunteering is one thing, but if I didn’t want to go (say in a war caused by Dem fecklessness) I’d feel more protected if I was treated the same as the other class exempted from the draft.