Hell No, Here We Go...Again...

It's fairly innocuous. A single line of text, above a single bill, introduced in January, last year: "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

If one views the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov (use HR163 as your search item), it's almost impossible not to get a cold chill as the text flows by. In some ways, the equal rights amendment to the Selective Service criteria makes the text of the bill even more chilling. The most disquieting aspect of all, however, is that at no time has there been any public reference to this bill, or that it is even still an open issue.

In preparing to make itself look appealing for the November election, the Bush Administration has been quietly trying to wash its hands of the more unpleasant aspects of the entire Iraq war. Having used up its first roll of hand towels, so to speak, it is now reaching for more: our reservists, lied to, underpaid, shot at, and hated by the population they were sent to pacify, have been used up and now need to be replaced.

But by what?

Interestingly enough, the bill contains many provisions whose implementation is subject to the direct control of the President, apparently effectively bypassing congressional oversight. During the run of this administration, we have seen many attempts at building the power of the Executive Branch. It is well known that Bush and Cheney are on very good terms with the boards of directors of many "private armies"; does this bill now signify an open grab for control of our country's military forces by the Executive Branch?

The status of the bill, conveniently enough, is "Executive Comment Requested from DOD." Not too much imagination is required to figure out what their response will be. With morale dropping in the ranks of the reservists sent into the field for extended tours of duty, and the official body count rising by the day (various estimates for the "private armies" run at three to five times what is officially being reported as US casualties in mainstream media), the conclusion would seem to be obvious. And for the DOD, it appears to be the only choice they can make -- for them, there is no escape. But why put the bill under wraps in the first place? Why submit it to a governmental agency whose decisionmaking pace can best be described as 'glacial'?

The answer might lie in Bush's sinking poll numbers. If it became widely known that his administration was supporting reinstatement of Selective Service, the backlash, especially among the youngest voters -- who would be first in line to be drafted -- could be tremendous. In fact, this may be a true turning point in our country's history -- the point where the children rise up and say "No More War." More young people have registered and pledged to vote this year than in almost any recent election. Our country's fate, in a very real sense, now lies in the hands of its young people...almost all of whom have no idea what the Bush Adminstration has planned for them if it wins in November.

That said, the rest of us have plenty to do. The list of co-sponsors of the bill contains members from both sides of the House, all of whom should be written to and encouraged to withdraw support for HR163 and S.89:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003