Listen up ladies! Uncle Sam might want you too

In this Jan. 24, 2013, file photo Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hands the memorandum he has just signed, ending the 1994 ban on women serving in combat, to Army Lt. Col. Tamatha Patterson of Huntingdon, Tenn., during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. The decision to lift the ban on women in combat has opened the door for a change in the law that currently compels only men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register for a military draft, according to legal experts and military historians. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, file) Show caption
In this Jan. 24, 2013, file photo Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hands the memorandum he has just signed, ending the 1994 ban on women serving in combat, to Army Lt. Col. Tamatha Patterson of Huntingdon, Tenn., during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. The decision to lift the ban on women in combat has opened the door for a change in the law that currently compels only men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register for a military draft, according to legal experts and military historians. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, file)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tennnnnn-hut, ladies! The next time Uncle Sam comes calling, he’s probably going to want you, too.

The Obama administration’s recent decision to lift the ban on women in combat has opened the door for a change in the law that currently compels only men between age 18 and 25 to register for a military draft, according to legal experts and military historians.

Never before has the country drafted women into military service, and neither the administration nor Congress is in a hurry to make them register for a future call-up. But, legally, they may have no other choice.

It is constitutional to register only men for a draft, the Supreme Court ruled more than three decades ago, because the reason for registration is to create a pool of potential combat troops should a national emergency demand a rapid increase in the size of the military. Women were excluded from serving in battlefield jobs, so there was no reason to register them for possible conscription into the armed forces, the court held.

Now that front-line infantry, armor, artillery and special operations jobs are open to female volunteers who can meet the physical requirements, it will be difficult for anyone to make a persuasive argument that women should continue to be exempt from registration, said Diane Mazur, a law professor at the University of Florida and a former Air Force officer.

“They’re going to have to show that excluding women from the draft actually improves military readiness,” Mazur said. “I just don’t see how you can make that argument.”

Groups that backed the end of the ban on women in combat also support including women in draft registration as a matter of basic citizenship. Women should have the same civic obligations as men, said Greg Jacob, a former Marine Corps officer and policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network. “We see registration as another step forward in terms of equality and fairness,” Jacob said.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., supports draft registration for women, according to his spokeswoman. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., who heads the House Armed Services Committee, hasn’t made up his mind. McKeon said through a spokesman that he’s awaiting a Defense Department report due in the coming weeks that will assess the legal impact of lifting the ban women in combat on draft registration.

But if you’re worried a draft notice is going to soon be in your mailbox, take a deep breath. There is no looming national crisis that makes a military draft likely.

A draft would be enormously unpopular; a new poll by Quinnipiac University found that American voters firmly oppose a return to conscription. Also, adding women to the mix just doesn’t appear to be a high priority for a battle-weary nation nearing the end of more than a decade of war.

The U.S. military has been an all-volunteer force for the past 40 years and women have become an integral part of it. Nearly 15 percent of the 1.4 million troops on active duty are female. More than 280,000 women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries in support of the wars. There have been 152 women killed in the fighting.

Americans overwhelmingly support allowing female volunteers to serve in ground combat roles by a 75-25 margin, according to the Quinnipiac poll. But the survey of 1,772 registered voters found them conflicted over mandated military service for women.

On the question of re-establishing a military draft, male and female voters said they were opposed, 65-28, according to the poll. If a draft were called, however, men backed the conscription of women as well as men, by 59-36, the poll said. But 48 percent of the women surveyed said they did not want women to be drafted while 45 percent said they should be.

Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, a California Air National Guard pilot who served three tours in Afghanistan, said excluding women from a draft reinforces a stereotype that they are less capable than men and need to be protected. Not every woman can handle a close combat job, she said, and neither can every man.

But they can contribute in other ways if a crisis demands their service, said Hegar, who received a Purple Heart for wounds she suffered when her Medevac helicopter was shot at during a mission near Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Hegar and three other female service members filed a lawsuit last year challenging the combat ban on the grounds that the policy unfairly blocked them from promotions and other advancements open to men. The suit did not address the question of draft registration for women.

“You can’t pick and choose when equality should apply to you,” Hegar said. “Making generalized statements like, ‘Women are capable of being in combat’ or ‘Women are incapable of being in combat,’ are equally ignorant. People are either competent or they’re not competent.”

For baby boomers in particular, talk of conscription stirs memories of the social and political upheaval of the late 1960s and early 1970s caused in large part by the unpopularity of the Vietnam war and the perceived unfairness of the draft. Research published in the late 1970s showed that men from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to fight in Vietnam than men from middle- and high-income families who could avoid being drafted by going to college or finding a slot in a stateside National Guard unit.

“The American people lost confidence in the draft as a means of raising an army when it ceased to require equal sacrifice from everyone that was eligible to serve,” said Bernard Rostker, a former director of the Selective Service System and the author of “I Want You! The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force.”

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has made several attempts over the past decade to reinstitute the draft on the grounds that a small fraction of U.S. citizens are bearing a disproportionate burden in fighting the nation’s wars. But his bills have gone nowhere.

That hasn’t stopped him from trying. Just this month, Rangel introduced another bring-back-the-draft bill that also would require women to register.

“Women have proven that they can do the very same tasks, military and non-military, that men can,” Rangel said.

No one has been conscripted into the U.S. military since 1973 when an apprentice plumber from California named Dwight Elliott Stone became the last draftee to be inducted. Stone, now 63 and living in San Francisco, didn’t go happily. “I just wanted to do my two years and get the hell out,” Stone said. He ended up serving about 17 months, and never had to go overseas.

The rules have been changed to make a future draft more equitable than it was during the Vietnam era. Being a college student is no longer an out; induction can only be postponed until the end of a semester.

Men who don’t register with the Selective Service System, an independent federal agency that prepares for a draft, can be charged with a felony and fined up to $250,000. But the Justice Department hasn’t prosecuted anyone for that offense since 1986.

There can be other consequences, though. Failing to register can mean the loss of financial aid for college, being refused employment with the federal government, and denied U.S. citizenship.

The Selective Service System maintains a database of nearly 17 million names of potential male draftees, yet the odds of a draft being called are remote, according to national security experts. Volunteers typically are more motivated, more disciplined and more physically fit than draftees. They’re also more willing to re-enlist, which creates a more experienced force.

The Pentagon’s top brass didn’t push for a draft in 2005 when recruiting efforts slumped and they needed more troops for the expanding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University. Instead, it hired contractors by the thousands, called up reservists, and used an arcane rule known as “stop-loss” to extend, involuntarily, by months the tours of active-duty troops, said Bacevich, a retired Army colonel.

With formation of the all-volunteer force under way, President Gerald Ford ended the peacetime draft registration process in 1975. But after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan a few years later, World War III suddenly seemed possible, and President Jimmy Carter ordered a return to registration as a show of resolve. Carter, ever the progressive politician, added a twist. He wanted young women, not just young men, to sign up.

But Congress and certainly the country weren’t ready for such a seismic cultural shift, and lawmakers refused to allow the registration of women.

Elaine Eidson, a mother of three sons and a daughter from Haleyville, Ala., spoke for what she described as the country’s “silent majority” in testimony she gave in March 1980 to a House subcommittee that quickly shelved Carter’s proposal. “This I will not stand for, nor will the American people stand for it,” said Eidson, a member of the conservative Eagle Forum, according to the hearing record. “You cannot draft our women.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling came a year later and validated Congress’ rejection of Carter’s plan. The case that triggered the decision took a circuitous route to the high court. It was originally filed in federal court in Philadelphia during the waning days of the Vietnam War by a young medical school student named Robert Goldberg. He challenged the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act on the grounds that it discriminated against men by excluding women from draft registration. While Goldberg was subject to the draft, his number was never called.

When Ford ended draft registration, Goldberg’s case languished. Carter’s decision to revive the process gave it new life. A district court ruled in favor of Goldberg, finding that the Selective Service Act unconstitutionally discriminated between men and women.

The federal government appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the lower court. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that Congress “acted well within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women.”

Goldberg is now 59 and a doctor living and practicing near San Francisco. He said there is a “delicious irony” in the Pentagon’s decision to end the ban on women in combat nearly 40 years after he challenged the idea that women couldn’t cope with the rigors of military service.

“As a 20-year-old, I wasn’t trying to make history,” Goldberg said. “All I was trying to do was to see that the Selective Service System be declared unconstitutional by one means or another. It seemed patently obvious to me that a woman could do a job as well as I could.”

———

Online:

Selective Service: http://www.sss.gov

Service Women’s Action Network: http://servicewomen.org


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (21)


1) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

phil, your misogyny is sickening, Thanks for sharing ti yet again...

2) Comment by gofigger - 25/02/2013

Let the women who fought so hard for their equality, watch their grandaughters suffer for the fruit of their desires.

3) Comment by phil - 25/02/2013

Some here talk of equal treatment in a job like actual combat in war is just like any other job, but has everyone forgotten that the number one job of a combat soldier is to kill the enemy? We are not talking about a job at a hamburger joint or Walmart here. Ok women should have the equal right to see the misery of war and be surrounded by death and destruction - and be forced to have that job in what is called the draft. Happy now?

4) Comment by phil - 25/02/2013

Tea-Slayer- I was talking about the draft. Do you remember what the draft is? However I will agree that women can kill just as well as men do in many cases, but one question is how willing will men be to kill women on the front lines in hand to hand combat etc, or be in the tropics like in WW-2 in foxholes with women for months and months with no real bathroom facilities etc? OK I give in. I think I will sue the government for treating men unequally for hundreds of years and insist that they pass a law that says women now have to go into combat and men can stay home and raise the children and take care of things at home. Seems fair to me. Men have been treated unequally for hundreds of years. Hey maybe the idea of being in a foxhole with a beautiful women for my final days here on earth in a war is starting to sound better after all.

5) Comment by Chucky - 25/02/2013

This is good, I was fortunate to work with women warriors and have no problem with the actions and response of the female sex, in critical and hostile environments.

6) Comment by The_Host - 25/02/2013

Sign them up! I see no reason why they can't go. They want equality then give it to them 100%. They enjoy the freedoms that come with living here so why shouldn't they defend them if needed? Sure they aren't going to be as effective as men in certain situations but they will be useful in all sorts of others. No reason they can't go IMO. Phil is just nostalgic about it and I can understand that is where not sending women into combat comes from way back. But hey this is the 21st Century and we are all equal. So load them up and ship them out. Won't matter because those making the war will never go themselves. That should be rule #1 if you declare war you lead the charge. You AND your family!

7) Comment by Tally - 25/02/2013

Women have been in combat for centuries in Europe. Some of the best, toughest OSS agents of WWII were women. The Romans were terrified of Boudicea. Joan of Arc lead legions of men. If you think women can't fight with the fervor and skill of men, you don't know your history.

8) Comment by zealer99 - 25/02/2013

Maybe this is a good time to dust off the Equal Rights Amendment and give it another shot?

9) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 25/02/2013

Preppy 6917 nailed it. Thank you.

10) Comment by Preppy6917 - 25/02/2013

Nimby: Simple. Stop invading and/or occupying other nations for no reason.

11) Comment by nimby? - 25/02/2013

1965 , S.E. Asia ; saw men wounded , killed . seemed they had the per-conceived notion women were not effective in combat and refused to fire on them . on the other hand our enemies will show no mercy , will exploit female captives to an emotional nation . how do we handle this ?

12) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

"Letting women decide for themselves is not the issue." yes it is... read my previous post. If they can meet the same standard as a man, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have the same job?

13) Comment by Attila - 25/02/2013

Letting women decide for themselves is not the issue. If women want to serve in the military, and draw the same pay as the men, they should be willing to do the same jobs as the men. It has finally gotten to the point with women obsessed over "equality" that the courts just may make sure that they are indeed equal, right down to being drafted. Be careful what you ask for as you just might get it.

14) Comment by Attila - 25/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

15) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

my view on the subject is that misogynistic men like yourself need to let women decide for themselves if they want to be in combat. If they can physically meet the male standard, then let them. Another newsflash, women are already on the front line. The just don't have Infantry, armor, artillery,combat engineer or SoF MOS'.

16) Comment by Preppy6917 - 25/02/2013

Phil respects women too much to let them to be fully vested citizens. Got it.

17) Comment by phil - 25/02/2013

newsflash - I do not care what you think Tea-Slayer. You did not really state a view on this subject -all you basically did was to attack me.

18) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 25/02/2013

Guess it's time for someone to re-write 1st Samuel, chapter 8 to include daughters as running before the chariots, not just sons. This may not be the end of the world, but we certainly can see it from here.

19) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

newsflash phil, most women don't want to be sheltered by the likes of you with your mysogonistic viewpoint

20) Comment by bourbon-soda - 25/02/2013

Just get preggers and you don't have to go.

21) Comment by phil - 25/02/2013

It is getting almost impossible for me to believe what is going on in this country now. This is not about equality in my opinion. Men in the past have respected women to the point that they did not want to see their wives and daughters etc get drafted and possibly get blown into little pieces in a war. How many men actually have the stomach for seeing that? War is nasty, and always will be and is not something I personally want to see women have to be involved in, at least not in combat. Do you really want to see your 18 year old daughter get drafted and go into combat? I will not even get into the issues involved with women in combat having to stay in places like swamps and deserts for extended periods. Men have wanted women to NOT be in combat in the past because men respect women and not because they think women are unequal to men. I think we need to look deep inside ourselves and decide if we really want to go there and have women on the front lines of war. Personally I respect women too much, and therefore my answer is NO we do not need to send women into combat. Of course, if it was possible I would suggest we end ALL wars and send nobody to war, including men. Unfortunately I do no think that is a realistic thing to wish for considering all of the evil that exists in this world now.