Re: ERA War and the Draft

More | Report Post

To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy
against
intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than
a
Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that
military
conscription will again be implemented during the months
following the
2004 Presidential Election. The nature of this struggle renders
irrelevant the person or party who wins the election.

With very rare exceptions, every male residing in the United
States 18 to
26 years of age is required by the Military Selective Service Act
to
register with the Selective Service System, and thereby subject
himself
to the possibility of involuntary military service. Yet, with the
ongoing
War on Islamic Terrorism, the prosecution of which has required
the
deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel,
and
stretched the National Guard and Reserve to its limit, absolutely
no
female in the U.S. is required to register. This clear fact of
gender
discrimination has not been focused upon in public discussions
because an
active draft has not been in effect since 1973.

The United States Selective Service System offers on its Website
a short
history of the draft with respect to women. The primary reason
given for
non-registration of women is a Supreme Court decision, Rostker v.
Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Simply stated, it says that since
all men
registered with the Selective Service are considered combat
replacements,
and since Congress forbids women to go into combat, women should
not be
registered. Of course, this reasoning is absolutely absurd, since
it
presupposes that absolutely every male called for involuntary
military
service will be used exclusively for combat, and conversely that
absolutely no male called will be used for the approximately 90%
of
military jobs which are non-combat related.

Two identical pieces of legislation before the U.S. Congress,
H.R.163 and
S.89, referred to as Universal National Service Act of 2003,
amend the
Military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of
females.
Unless exempted, they obligate the performance of a two-year
period of
national service either in the armed forces or in a civilian
capacity
that "promotes the national defense," for all United States
residents,
male and female, between 18 and 26 years of age. Further perusal
of this
proposal reveals Section 5(d), which authorizes the President "to
apply
different classification standards for fitness for military
service and
fitness for civilian service." This Section clearly permits the
President
to perpetuate the current double standard and pander to the
female voting
majority. Because of a Congressional rule exempting females, only
males
will be placed involuntarily into direct ground combat. Females,
although
subject to national service, will be spared the dirt and danger
that is
inherent in facing our country's enemies. Section 5(d) guarantees
that
virtually all females will return whole and well to enjoy equal
civil
rights and equal veteran benefits, while those of their male
peers who do
return will have had a vastly different experience discharging
their
'male-only' civil responsibilities.

Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of
continuing
gender discrimination:

Do equal civil rights for females obligate females to equal civil
responsibilities? Should the absence of female civil
responsibilities
vis-à-vis military service commensurately diminish female civil
rights?
In light of the fact that only males are required by Federal law
to serve
involuntarily in direct ground combat for up to six years of
their lives,
and to risk their very existence in that service, to what quantum
degree
should females' civil rights be diminished? Why is the pretext of
a
logically flawed Supreme Court decision, and continuing
legislative
gender discrimination, allowed to exempt the female majority of
the
population from any possibility of involuntary direct ground
combat? .
Should female members of the Legislative and Executive branches of
government be permitted to vote for war, i.e. to place only males
into
involuntary direct ground combat, while they and their daughters
enjoy
gender exemption from such civil responsibility?
Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funding be
used for
all school-based activities, including athletics, in schools that
receive
any federal funding. Many schools have had to abandon male team
sports
that earn revenue in excess of their costs and which aid in the
preparation of males for the teamwork and organization of military
service, in order to provide gender-equal funding for female
sports which
perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no imperative for females
to
utilize the skills and strengths learned on the athletic field
and in the
classroom for the military defense of their country. Should Title
IX
continue?
Finally, to address those arguments, based on strength and speed,
against placing females involuntarily into direct ground combat.
Gender-norming has been used to affirmatively place females ahead
of
males into civilian positions requiring physical strength and
speed, such
as firefighters, police, smoke jumpers, and cadets in service
academies.
Why not use these same gender-normed standards, which are
significantly
less rigorous than those minimums required of males for the same
occupations, to affirmatively qualify females for involuntary
direct
ground combat? Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow
to
perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be
affirmatively
placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar
strength and speed.

David W. Behrens
10 High Point Terrace
Sussex, NJ 07461