Monday, December 04, 2006

Can Voters be as Underhanded as Politicians?

If you never resided in the United States you may not understand the point of this post, so feel free to skip. Americans have grown accustomed to their national politicians lying to them about important issues, and that sad characterization applies to all political parties. While one side lies, you would think another would challenge the bilge to educate the public. In reality, politicians are of a single stripe: "We made it here and want to stay, so we promise each other to make only minimal waves, cover up the terrible truth, pursue our own wealth and get our fabulous salaries and pensions at taxpayer expense when we retire."

After many efforts, Vigilis finally found a paper to publish my underhanded effort to expose the truth and this will not be cast away by the telling of more lies of omission, or withholding another, harsh, political truth from American voters. Readership of the following has now been expanded to the civilian world outside the arcane realm of this ex-submariner's blog. In a few months, we may all finally read a related article by a columnist of stature, and it will probably quote a politician putting his career on the line. I am not seeking credit, I just want our military draft repaired before it is too late and to share the early wake-up call with you. Here is what has just been published where it is guaranteed to make waves:

There is almost zero chance that a draft will be reinstated until a serious flaw has been fixed. The draft most people have experienced or heard about was inadvertently wrecked by the EEOC, which appropriately invoked employment opportunities for minorities and females (an actual majority) since the draft was last utilized.

Although, due to inertia, today's Selective Service System still requires young men to register, there will be grievous inefficiencies if it is attempted. Here is why:

Whether in blue collar (police, firefighters, etc.) or in management-type jobs, women have made substantial inroads since the early 1970s. Mandatory conscription of only the male gender would be more than just politically incorrect nowadays, it would involve male forfeiture of fiercely competitive promotion prospects in the civilian workplace and invite substantial litigation. We witnessed the very opposite of this litigation ensue for decades as women felt they were being unjustly excluded from those very same promotion opportunities.

In consequence, women will have to be drafted along with men in any equitable draft, today. Here is the problem, however. If 25,000 combat infantry are required by the military (a realistic assumption at any point in time), selection of 25,000 physically and mentally fit conscripts will actually yield 12,625 women and 12,375 men. Legally, all would have to be drafted into the military, trained, and paid for equal durations. At most, less than half of the required combat infantry additions would have been made available. To get the 25,000 men needed, about 50,500 men and women would have to be drafted (from the civilian work force) under existing laws.

Hopefully, we understand how prohibitive such a draft would become compared to the last one. I know, you think women serve in combat roles, right? Wrong, current regulations prohibit women in most combat roles, even if they have volunteered, and most draftees certainly would not.

Today's draft is broken and short of the most dire national emergency (late in the game) would have to be fixed before it can realistically be considered.


Post a Comment

<< Home