Do I Feel A Draft In Here?
The goal of registering voters, particularly young ones is a worthwhile one but Rock the Vote is using fearmongering to do so.
Next April will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and yet if there is one word that can frighten people, that word is "draft". President Bush and Senator Kerry have both made it clear that they have no plan to reinstitute a draft, if elected. Yet the non-partisan Rock the Vote organization is promoting the idea that the return of the draft is a likely possibility and their campaign is working.
And, for the most part, until this morning, I felt that there was nothing to the notion that a draft would return. Until I read the story of John Doe. That's the name attached to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by a California National Guard soldier who is being forced to remain in the Guard beyond his contracted period of service.
The soldier in question, who is not being identified while his suit proceeds through the legal system, had enlisted in the Guard in a program for veterans where they can join for one year, bypass basic training and immediately begin serving and receiving the benefits of service on a one year trial period. However, before his one year trial period ended, the soldier was called up to active duty for an eighteen month period of training and deployment to Iraq under a program called "Stop-Loss".
Since the end of the draft, the United States military has been an all volunteer force. The question I have, and which will be examined by the courts, has to do with the enlistment contract that John Doe signed. Does that contract contain language that allows the military to force him to remain on active duty beyond the one year trial period? If it does, then John needs to do his 18 month tour and be done with it. If not, then the military needs to live up to the terms of the agreement and release Mr. Doe from service.
I can clearly remember my recruiter rolling his eyes as I sat there reading my own enlistment contract word for word. Those rolling eyes widened as I asked about the section of the enlistment contract that required me to serve for a total of eight years, four years longer than what I had thought I was enlisting for. The recruiter explained that the added years were in the inactive reserve and that the chance that anyone in that group would be called back to serve were remote. Remote back when I served in the all volunteer force, not so remote now.
However, even if the contract that John Doe signed would allow the military to keep him on active duty beyond the one year trial period, there is the moral question of a Commander-in-Chief who left the Guard prior to the end of his own commitment using such contracts to force the men and women he commands to serve longer than they believed themselves committed.
Next April will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and yet if there is one word that can frighten people, that word is "draft". President Bush and Senator Kerry have both made it clear that they have no plan to reinstitute a draft, if elected. Yet the non-partisan Rock the Vote organization is promoting the idea that the return of the draft is a likely possibility and their campaign is working.
And, for the most part, until this morning, I felt that there was nothing to the notion that a draft would return. Until I read the story of John Doe. That's the name attached to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by a California National Guard soldier who is being forced to remain in the Guard beyond his contracted period of service.
The soldier in question, who is not being identified while his suit proceeds through the legal system, had enlisted in the Guard in a program for veterans where they can join for one year, bypass basic training and immediately begin serving and receiving the benefits of service on a one year trial period. However, before his one year trial period ended, the soldier was called up to active duty for an eighteen month period of training and deployment to Iraq under a program called "Stop-Loss".
Since the end of the draft, the United States military has been an all volunteer force. The question I have, and which will be examined by the courts, has to do with the enlistment contract that John Doe signed. Does that contract contain language that allows the military to force him to remain on active duty beyond the one year trial period? If it does, then John needs to do his 18 month tour and be done with it. If not, then the military needs to live up to the terms of the agreement and release Mr. Doe from service.
I can clearly remember my recruiter rolling his eyes as I sat there reading my own enlistment contract word for word. Those rolling eyes widened as I asked about the section of the enlistment contract that required me to serve for a total of eight years, four years longer than what I had thought I was enlisting for. The recruiter explained that the added years were in the inactive reserve and that the chance that anyone in that group would be called back to serve were remote. Remote back when I served in the all volunteer force, not so remote now.
However, even if the contract that John Doe signed would allow the military to keep him on active duty beyond the one year trial period, there is the moral question of a Commander-in-Chief who left the Guard prior to the end of his own commitment using such contracts to force the men and women he commands to serve longer than they believed themselves committed.
posted by me at 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home