House panel backs requiring women to register for the draft (1 Viewer)

I'm conflicted on this.  As a military guy it makes sense from a numbers standpoint.  As a father of two daughters I really hate it. 

The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday voted to require women to register for the military draft, making the change one step closer to becoming law after senators endorsed the move this summer.

During late night deliberations on the committee's annual defense policy bill, lawmakers voted 35-24 to adopt an amendment from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) to expand registration for the Selective Service System beyond men.

The move caps off a contentious debate and could stir up conservative opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes defense spending and lays out military policy.

Several Republicans broke ranks to help Democrats to adopt the amendment.

Calls to broaden the pool for a potential draft to all Americans, not just men, have grown as the Pentagon opened all military combat roles to women in 2015. Advocates of the change also contend the current system is discriminatory.

"It's past time," said Houlahan, an Air Force veteran. "Women make up over 50 percent of our population, and not including them in the Selective Service is not only a disservice to these women, but also to our nation as a whole."

If the provision remains in the defense bill and passes on the House floor, the change has a high chance of becoming law. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted a similar provision in its defense bill, which awaits a floor vote.

Current law requires that American men register for the Selective Service when they turn 18, though there hasn't been a military draft in more than four decades. The law, however, remains on the books should the U.S. need to conscript men into the service in a time of war.

One Republican supporter, Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, a former Army Green Beret, warned that the military would need a much broader pool of recruits in the event of "a national emergency so grave" that it requires a draft.

"If it's so grave that we have to go to a draft, we need everybody," Waltz said. "We need man, woman, gay, straight, any religion, Black, white, brown. We need everybody, all hands on deck."

Click to expand...

This is fine with me, and honestly a little overdue.  In the extremely unlikely event that we ever conscript people into the military again, I can't see a good argument for discriminating on the basis of sex.  (I'm against the draft as a matter of principle, but I'm good with the way we're running it, where people are simply registered "just in case.")

I guess we still have people register for the draft to pretend that we have some level of privacy and that the government couldn't hold a draft tomorrow based on the information it has collected since birth on all of us.   Or maybe we need to pretend to keep from having the security apparatus spill the beans so to speak on how little privacy we really have.

Hot take: It's about time we switched to an auction format.

Maurile Tremblay said:

Hot take: It's about time we switched to an auction format.

Click to expand...

That is a great idea.    Because we don't all have same budget.    I'm definitely  buying my kids "drone pilot" spots in air force.    

women want equal rights? register for the military draft is the most glaring example we have of sexism/discrimination in the USA right now, its time to end it

Former Marine, father of two daughters, and I support this 100%.   There are plenty of MOS's that don't require carrying a weapon in a combat zone.  I even started talking with my oldest about the Military and all the different jobs and options.      

As long as we only pay them .82 cents on the dollar after they are drafted. 

quick-hands said:

That is a great idea.    Because we don't all have same budget.    I'm definitely  buying my kids "drone pilot" spots in air force.    

Click to expand...

You gotta go Space Force!  Better odds for them to land a spot on Cooper Station, just in case...   

As the father of two daughters and a 21 year-old son, I feel like it evens the playing field.  

In my experience they are the most vicious, heartless, ruthless, fighters and if anything we should have an all female military. 

May be necessary in future, remember Starship Troopers & Charlize Theron 

Punxsutawney Phil said:

May be necessary in future, remember Starship Troopers & Charlize Theron 

Click to expand...

Dizzy Flores?  

IvanKaramazov said:

This is fine with me, and honestly a little overdue.  In the extremely unlikely event that we ever conscript people into the military again, I can't see a good argument for discriminating on the basis of sex.  (I'm against the draft as a matter of principle, but I'm good with the way we're running it, where people are simply registered "just in case.")

Click to expand...

Women wanted equality - they got it.  They don't get to pick and choose just the good parts. 

2Squirrels1Nut said:

In my experience they are the most vicious, heartless, ruthless, fighters and if anything we should have an all female military. 

Click to expand...

You speak Chinese or Russian?  Because that will come in handy if that is ever the case.

E Street Brat said:

As long as we only them .82 cents on the dollar after they are drafted. 

Click to expand...

Which is weird if you think about it.  If that were true, why haven't businesses and the military only been hiring women for the last 100 years or so?  I mean, if they have been getting less (they haven't) then it seems like that would be the key to saving money in all sectors of the economy.  Saving money is the #1 business decision since the invention of, well, business.

But they haven't.  Turns out women cost just as much as men, probably even more if you account for benefit costs. 

Maurile Tremblay said:

Hot take: It's about time we switched to an auction format.

Click to expand...

I don't think auctioning off women would fly in this day and age. 

beef said:

You gotta go Space Force!  Better odds for them to land a spot on Cooper Station, just in case...   

Click to expand...

That's part of air force.   My brother and I researched.   But Maurile knows how to secretly protect white privilege.

2Squirrels1Nut said:

In my experience they are the most vicious, heartless, ruthless, fighters and if anything we should have an all female military. 

Click to expand...

What is your experience?     You should tell the Russians and Chinese that.

What is your experience  with religious  zealots who see women without their faces covered.   Vs an all female army? Who wins?

Max Power said:

I'm conflicted on this.  As a military guy it makes sense from a numbers standpoint.  As a father of two daughters I really hate it. 

Click to expand...

That's cuz it's beyond stupid.    It's a leftist idea.   And the left destroys everything  it touches.    

2Squirrels1Nut said:

I don't think auctioning off women would fly in this day and age. 

Click to expand...

You know there are more sex slaves in the world right now  than all the slaves transfered to America 1500 to 1850

IvanKaramazov said:

This is fine with me, and honestly a little overdue.  In the extremely unlikely event that we ever conscript people into the military again, I can't see a good argument for discriminating on the basis of sex.  (I'm against the draft as a matter of principle, but I'm good with the way we're running it, where people are simply registered "just in case.")

Click to expand...

You seem reasonable  so often.    But then you say stuff like this.    And it's obvious how far the left has drilled down.

Send your daughter  IK against the Chinese or Russian or for that matter Afghani.    At least it will be fair.    Im sure their front lines will appreciate  the access

quick-hands said:

That's part of air force.   My brother and I researched.   But Maurile knows how to secretly protect white privilege.

Click to expand...

Sure, like the Marine Corps falls under the Department of the NAVY, but they are separate branches.  Either way, you should continue your own research.  You might learn some more about how the Military works and all the support positions that won't ever see combat but are absolutely needed to support those that do.  Good luck! 

It’s a logical extension of feminism and equality, I’m not sure there is another possible answer that can be reconciled with these things.

Practically speaking I know some women and they really aren’t suited for war… lol.  Of course I know a lot of men that aren’t either.

djmich said:

It’s a logical extension of feminism and equality, I’m not sure there is another possible answer that can be reconciled with these things.

Practically speaking I know some women and they really aren’t suited for war… lol.  Of course I know a lot of men that aren’t either.

Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say the majority of people aren't suited for war.  I'd further suggest that's a good thing.  War is horrid.

Rich Conway said:

I think it's safe to say the majority of people aren't suited for war.  I'd further suggest that's a good thing.  War is horrid.

Click to expand...

It's not, really.  Freedom is not free - it's protected with the blood of those that ARE able to fight.  And we need to constantly protect that freedom too - it's not something that, once achieved, you never have to worry about losing it again.  It is a CONSTANT fight.  And that fight needs fit, strong and young men as it has been since the beginning of mankind.  Wars are won with boots on the ground.  Not from planes.  Not from ships.  Not from supply clerks in the rear.

I believe that all men should serve at least 2 years, that way we'll at least be ready if the time ever comes instead of having a bunch of cowards quivering under the table. Unless you have a actual, REAL physical reason, ALL men should be ready for war.

IvanKaramazov said:

..... I can't see a good argument for discriminating on the basis of sex. ....

Click to expand...

If you put 100 men through basic training and 100 women through basic training, there will be more men who pass into the next phase. There will be more women who wash out.

Obviously in a "draft" scenario, the military needs warm bodies and the standards to wash out will be lower.

But let's try it this way, everything is a resource management problem. Even the military and especially the military. When you add functions to the logistical chain, you add cost, so that cost has to come from somewhere. That means trade offs.

So say you had a son in the Air Force and his plane, God forbid, went down by accident or by enemy fire. Now he's potentially lost and/or stranded and/or wounded. Maybe even in enemy territory.  The money spent to virtue signal against a lower training pan out rate might mean one less Search And Rescue bird up in the air looking for your son.

The point of a principle is it's only tested when it costs you something. I believe all all Capitol Rioters and all rioters and looters in all of 2020 should be stripped of citizenship, all assets and deported out of the country permanently. If they try to sneak back in, they should be considered enemies of the state and found and executed. And that the law, while difficult to be changed, should be changed to support this. My stance, as a hard line Conservative, is actually the most draconian against Republicans in this matter on January 6th more than any leftist here. But if my godson threw a molotov cocktail in Portland or breached the Capitol building, I'd have to live with him being stripped of citizenship and deported and left to die in a third world hellhole. It only means something if I'm willing to believe up to the point that it costs me something real.

If you believe there should widespread acceptance of women in the military in all roles, including the draft, and all the resource management tradeoffs and costs to that, to actually hold to the principle, you'd have to be willing to leave your son, if he was laying in the mud and jungle, torn to shreds already, near the edge of death, far beyond the "Golden Hour" where medicine and First Responders could make a difference, and have one or more fewer Search and Rescue tasked vehicles, planes, personnel, surgeons, drivers, pilots, and on and on and on in play to save his life.

I'm sure some progressive types want more women as firefighters. And if your children were in a burning building and that progressive "choice" now on the job can't do the physical aspects of the job to save your children, whereas a merit based choice might have, would you be OK with your children burning to death?

There lies the issue with the liberal mindset ( Point to note, I appreciate most traditional liberals and I've always encouraged my Conservative brothers to embrace traditional liberals here, it's too bad the radical left wokies have shouted them down and driven most of them out)  The liberal mindset can only exist in an environment based on resource abundance. This is what people mean when they say, "It's a  First World problem"  Once you cut the meat to the bone otherwise though, when it's down to blood and brutality and lives at stake, you'll notice the liberal mindset tends to disappear.

John Legend and Chrissy Teigen were happy to bail out criminals, felons, rioters and looters. But would they do it if they knew those wayward souls would immediately head to their neighborhood first? I don't think John Legend would feel too progressive when his neighborhood has a new crack house at the end of the corner, his property value plummets, his wife is terrified to go outside( Yes, even for a noted bully) and he ends up stabbed in his own driveway because someone wanted his watch.

The need for the "perception" of equality, and the cheap implied bonus of virtue signaling, should not come at the price of actual lives. The game is not woke and it's not cancel culture and it's not identity politics and it's not intersectionality. The game of life, in all aspects, is about resource management. There are only so many dollars to be spent at any given time in any given area. One dollar here versus there can mean the difference between someone who gets to live and someone who has to die.

Are you willing to risk your children's lives for your principles? Then it's not really a principle at all.

beef said:

Sure, like the Marine Corps falls under the Department of the NAVY, but they are separate branches.  Either way, you should continue your own research.  You might learn some more about how the Military works and all the support positions that won't ever see combat but are absolutely needed to support those that do.  Good luck! 

Click to expand...

And, as a former Marine yourself, you should know that EVERY Marine is rifleman regardless of their MOS.  It doesn't matter what your daily job is, first and foremost your MAIN job is to pick up a rifle and fight.  All Marines are basically infantry.

And, secondly, please don't be informing others that Marines are a Department of the Navy.  It's embarrassing enough as a Marine to know that you're controlled by a bunch of squidlies.  Let's keep that under wraps, OK?

 Fair point, Blade. 

I'm not going to let the very slim chance, so slim it's practically zero, that either of my daughters get drafted and deployed as Marine infantry scare me.   If we ever have to reinitiate the draft again, we have some way bigger issues going on.  

I see no issue with this.  Should have been done 20 years ago.

GordonGekko said:

If you put 100 men through basic training and 100 women through basic training, there will be more men who pass into the next phase. There will be more women who wash out.

Obviously in a "draft" scenario, the military needs warm bodies and the standards to wash out will be lower.

But let's try it this way, everything is a resource management problem. Even the military and especially the military. When you add functions to the logistical chain, you add cost, so that cost has to come from somewhere. That means trade offs.

So say you had a son in the Air Force and his plane, God forbid, went down by accident or by enemy fire. Now he's potentially lost and/or stranded and/or wounded. Maybe even in enemy territory.  The money spent to virtue signal against a lower training pan out rate might mean one less Search And Rescue bird up in the air looking for your son.

The point of a principle is it's only tested when it costs you something. I believe all all Capitol Rioters and all rioters and looters in all of 2020 should be stripped of citizenship, all assets and deported out of the country permanently. If they try to sneak back in, they should be considered enemies of the state and found and executed. And that the law, while difficult to be changed, should be changed to support this. My stance, as a hard line Conservative, is actually the most draconian against Republicans in this matter on January 6th more than any leftist here. But if my godson threw a molotov cocktail in Portland or breached the Capitol building, I'd have to live with him being stripped of citizenship and deported and left to die in a third world hellhole. It only means something if I'm willing to believe up to the point that it costs me something real.

If you believe there should widespread acceptance of women in the military in all roles, including the draft, and all the resource management tradeoffs and costs to that, to actually hold to the principle, you'd have to be willing to leave your son, if he was laying in the mud and jungle, torn to shreds already, near the edge of death, far beyond the "Golden Hour" where medicine and First Responders could make a difference, and have one or more fewer Search and Rescue tasked vehicles, planes, personnel, surgeons, drivers, pilots, and on and on and on in play to save his life.

I'm sure some progressive types want more women as firefighters. And if your children were in a burning building and that progressive "choice" now on the job can't do the physical aspects of the job to save your children, whereas a merit based choice might have, would you be OK with your children burning to death?

Click to expand...

To clarify, I don't think we should lower our standards to push women into roles that they aren't cut out for.  I have no doubt that some women can fly combat missions as well as any man, but more men than women will naturally test into pilot roles.  That's fine.  I don't care about equal outcomes.