Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft?
usamamasan1
Posts: 4,695
Damn straight woman should have to register. Makes perfect sense. Besides, homosexual men shouldn't be the only ones getting a piece of "ass" :-/ in the military.
Now that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat, does this mean that women could potentially be drafted, too?
And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?
It’s a thorny question, raising what may be a difficult prospect societally. But the legal implications are obvious, analysts argue.
“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”
The wars of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by an all-volunteer force, since the US military discontinued the draft in 1973. Males between the ages of 18 and 25, however, are still required to register for the Selective Service.
Once the combat exclusion policy is lifted, “My belief is that if we open up combat arms to women, even on a voluntary basis, if there is a draft, we should be able to force women into those positions,” says retired Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of military history at the Ohio State University in Columbus and a former US Army brigade commander who served two tours in Iraq.
“If women are acceptable to serve in combat, they are acceptable to serve whether they volunteer or not. You can’t have the frosting on the cake and not the cake underneath,” he says.
Legal precedent backs this up, adds Professor Coughlin, who has advised plaintiffs in lawsuits to overturn the Pentagon’s combat exclusion policy – in particular a US Supreme Court case in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg. In that suit, men argued that the draft is unconstitutional because only men are required by law to register. The Supreme Court rejected the premise of lawsuit.
“The court ruled that the Selective Service process is designed to assemble combat-ready people, and right now women are excluded from combat arms,” Coughlin says. “Therefore they can’t participate in the very thing that the draft is for. Hence, it’s appropriate and constitutional to continue to exclude women from the draft.”
Yet in overturning combat exclusion for women, “The male-only draft falls as well, no question about it,” she adds.
Critics of women in combat argue that culturally, the prospect of women being drafted might make the country reluctant to go to war.
To that, Professor Mansoor says, “It should be: That’s exactly the debate the country needs to have.”
But while the notion of women being drafted “may add some measure of hesitancy to the decision, I don’t see it as swinging the decision,” he says.
Even so, “Congress and the president should agonize over going to war. Questions of war should be difficult,” Mansoor adds. “They should not be as easy as they’ve been in the past 10 years.”
http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-regi ... tsrc=yahoo
Now that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat, does this mean that women could potentially be drafted, too?
And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?
It’s a thorny question, raising what may be a difficult prospect societally. But the legal implications are obvious, analysts argue.
“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”
The wars of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by an all-volunteer force, since the US military discontinued the draft in 1973. Males between the ages of 18 and 25, however, are still required to register for the Selective Service.
Once the combat exclusion policy is lifted, “My belief is that if we open up combat arms to women, even on a voluntary basis, if there is a draft, we should be able to force women into those positions,” says retired Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of military history at the Ohio State University in Columbus and a former US Army brigade commander who served two tours in Iraq.
“If women are acceptable to serve in combat, they are acceptable to serve whether they volunteer or not. You can’t have the frosting on the cake and not the cake underneath,” he says.
Legal precedent backs this up, adds Professor Coughlin, who has advised plaintiffs in lawsuits to overturn the Pentagon’s combat exclusion policy – in particular a US Supreme Court case in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg. In that suit, men argued that the draft is unconstitutional because only men are required by law to register. The Supreme Court rejected the premise of lawsuit.
“The court ruled that the Selective Service process is designed to assemble combat-ready people, and right now women are excluded from combat arms,” Coughlin says. “Therefore they can’t participate in the very thing that the draft is for. Hence, it’s appropriate and constitutional to continue to exclude women from the draft.”
Yet in overturning combat exclusion for women, “The male-only draft falls as well, no question about it,” she adds.
Critics of women in combat argue that culturally, the prospect of women being drafted might make the country reluctant to go to war.
To that, Professor Mansoor says, “It should be: That’s exactly the debate the country needs to have.”
But while the notion of women being drafted “may add some measure of hesitancy to the decision, I don’t see it as swinging the decision,” he says.
Even so, “Congress and the president should agonize over going to war. Questions of war should be difficult,” Mansoor adds. “They should not be as easy as they’ve been in the past 10 years.”
http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-regi ... tsrc=yahoo
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Personally I think it's stupid and going to fail.
I think it's ridik for women in combat, but if they want it then it should be fair, meaning they should have to register for draft.
This will result in ZERO good.
Utopia
It's called the selective service system and males have to register when they turn 18. It's purpose is to provide the government with a list of potential soldiers in the event of a war.
I'm here to help.
To be clear on topic however
"The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women."
Everyone signs!
For all practical purposes, women have been serving in combat roles for the past decade. It's a done deal, just policy catching up with reality.
And of course women should have to register and be subject to the draft. That should have been the case when there actually was a draft. The debate about registering is fairly pointless though, since nobody is being called up.
I realize that you're just trying to cause shit with your obtuse, obnoxious, sexist, racist, homophobic bullshit like usual and I should know better.
But nobody is getting ass in combat.
Since you're too much of a wuss to enlist, I can tell you that while guns and firing, bombs are dropping and bullets are flying past your head, the last thing on your mind is blowing the guy next to you.
As far as registering for the draft... there is no draft. Registering for it is a silly, out-dated bullshit exercise left over from the Reagan cold war head-in-ass syndrome he had. It's never going to happen. And if it did, you know that you'd run screaming for mommy as fast as you could.
I think if the draft still existed we'd never have gone to war in Iraq. But that's another thread.
But you've got me curious, Who Princess, as to how that would work out. My immediate reaction is, "Wouldn't it be just the opposite" but I don't know either way. Can you fill in a bit more?
And I see that....
So why not get rid of it? Take that option off the table completely...
C'mon man, this was law way before Reagan was around.
i say get rid of the selective service process.
either that, or reinstitute the draft. perhaps out leadership will be more cautious with starting wars and international interventions if they knew that their children might have to go fight.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
wow dude. Stooping to a new low.
and...honest question... What is the likelihood that the draft will EVER be implemented in the US in the future?
I realize that being a Ron Paul supporter means you not bother reading up on stuff before you say things.
So quick history lesson.
After the draft was ended following massive public backlash in the wake of Vietnam.... Jimmy Carter brought in a "register for the draft for no particular reason or war" and while candidate Reagan was dead-set against it, president Reagan not only extended it, he made it permanent.
Carter had made the draft law he brought in a sort of short-lived one, Reagan made it a "forever" one.
Did I really just read these words?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But as for going to war in Iraq, I just think it's a lot easier to start a war that other people's children will be fighting. If nobody in Congress or most of the general public has to consider losing one of their kids, the attitude would seem to be Sure, why not? But if you're worried about your kid being drafted and sent halfway around the world on spurious evidence, you're not going to be so gung ho.
butyeahthe
ladies should register too theresequality in service and death
Actually I did. It was signed into law in 1917. Ford ended in 1975, and Carter brought it back in 1980. So yeah, it did exist long ago.
Try having a reply to me that you don't try and insult me. I've never once taken a shot at you. Grow up. We can disagree and both act like men.
Yes... it did exist long ago but the current law is one started by Carter and although Reagan said he would end it, he instead made it permanent. So... pretty much what I'd said.
May I ask what "acting like a man" entails?
...
I understand the arguements... Combat experience provides a greater opportunity for promotion than those in support roles. Also, not all women want combat positions.
Males who enlist are not automatically assigned combat roles. They must assume combat trainning, but may be assigned ground crew for aircraft ot vehicle maintenence roles. Those posiitions do not typically get promoted to higher ranks, which goes to those soldiers with combat experience.
...
That being said... I agree with those that say, Yes.... women 18 years of age should register with their Selective Service Draft Boards... just as the Males.
In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.
Hail, Hail!!!
Basically, the fact is we never know... our enemies of the past are now our allies... and our past allies are now our enemies (i.e. Russia/USSR et al). Israel is nuclear capable and has a fomidible military force with a combat ready Air Force (and, arguably, some of the best fighter pilots in the world). And given the volitivity of the region where they exist... anything is possible.
Point being, in case of a War with a legitimate military threat.. which only Israel, Europe, Russia and China possess... we would require a draft. Bullshit militaries such as Iraq or Iran... not so much.
Hail, Hail!!!
draft beer! its friday.
No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.