Judy Pamer – 9/8/04

This page was last updated on September 14, 2004.

Military draft a real possibility; Judy Pamer; Beaver County Times; September 8, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“There are two bills sitting in committee that may prefigure the return of the draft. They are stalled for now, waiting, I am sure, for the end of the election.

[RWC] Ms. Pamer is a promoter or victim of an urban legend. See Draft Fear for a discussion of this myth. Both referenced bills were introduced on January 7, 2003, as a political stunt. All sponsors were Democrats.

“Our National Guard units have been held in Iraq way past their initial deployment dates and the conflict in Iraq is years from its end. Enrollment rates for all three branches of the armed services are down. Young people are not as quick to trade their safety for a college education.”

[RWC] I don’t know where Ms. Pamer gets her information, but every source I found in a web search indicated all branches of the military – there are five, not three – met their 2003 goals and were meeting both their recruitment and re-enlistment goals for 2004.

“The draft, if reinstated, will not be quite as selective as in the past. There will be no student deferments and your daughters will serve beside your sons. It is one thing to buy a magnetic yellow ribbon to show your support, but would you go so far as to send your children into Iraq?”

[RWC] As noted above, renewal of the draft is currently a myth. No one who raised the specter of the draft during the last couple of years has been a Republican in a leadership position. Indeed, Democrat leaders talk about the draft as a political scare tactic.

It’s time for a little history lesson. The no-war-at-any-cost crowd screamed for all-volunteer armed forces in the Vietnam era because they felt no one would be “stupid” enough to enlist. Faced with the fact that we have no trouble meeting recruitment goals even during time of war, the same crowd now wants a draft because they feel forced service would be more conducive to antiwar sentiment.

“If George Bush had taken the time to enlist the aid of the United Nations in his war, our troops would just be a percentage of the troops fighting and dying there. The existing all-volunteer armed services would have been sufficient.”

[RWC] Where was Ms. Pamer in early 2003 when France and its cohorts said they would never approve military action against Iraq? That kind of kills the “If George Bush had taken the time…” argument.

What percentage would that have been? The United States spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.

“John Kerry is proposing to place all troops in Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations. This would bring the added troops and money needed to support the remainder of the war.”

[RWC] Ms. Pamer is still not paying attention to the news. When asked recently about Kerry’s contention that he could get countries like France and Germany to send troops to Iraq, representatives of those countries said “no way.”

“Then, our sons and daughters can make the choice to serve, as did John Kerry or to stay home, as did George Bush and Dick Cheney.”

[RWC] John Kerry “chose” to serve after his deferment to study in Paris, France, was turned down. That doesn’t make his service any less honorable, but kills the “send me” myth.

Ms. Pamer, you don’t know how many servicemen and servicewomen in the National Guard and Reserves you piss off when you claim Guard service is not serving.

Just as Kerry, Dick Cheney applied for deferments. In Cheney’s case, his deferments were approved, as were those of millions of other men. He did nothing unethical or illegal.

In conclusion, the premise of Ms. Pamer’s letter is an urban legend.