NVA: US Military Draft Probably Isn’t Coming Back

August 26, 2004

Rick Jahnkow argues in May’s _Nonviolent Activist_ that there’s a “Decreased Like­li­hood of Draft”:http://www.warresisters.org/nva0504‑3.htm. There are many aging paci­fists that have become obsessed late­ly with the idea that com­pul­so­ry mil­i­tary ser­vice might be return­ing to the Unit­ed States. For exam­ple, I’ve watched the leader of one annu­al anti-draft work­shop pre­dict the draft’s immi­nent return year after year, in ever more excit­ed terms and won­dered what evi­dence this orga­niz­er has seen that I haven’t.
Jahnkow watch­es this issue as much as any­one in his work for the San Diego-based “Com­mit­tee Opposed to Mil­i­tarism and the Draft”:http://www.comdsd.org/ and he’s been watch­ing the hype build as he’s become more skeptical:
bq. Warn­ings about an impend­ing draft have been cir­cu­lat­ing on the Inter­net for months now. Some are tying a pos­si­ble draft to the elec­tion and pre­dict­ing with bold cer­tain­ty that con­scrip­tion will be intro­duced in 2005… The ener­gy that�s been gen­er­at­ed on this top­ic has been both amaz­ing and, I have to con­fess, some­what seduc­tive to anti-draft orga­ni­za­tions like the one for which I work.
Most of the peo­ple I’ve seen get excit­ed by a pos­si­ble return of the draft were in their teens back in the Viet­nam War era. Their orga­niz­ing some­times seems almost nos­tal­gic for the issues of their youth. They’re try­ing to save the cur­rent gen­er­a­tion from hav­ing to go through the same trau­ma. But the old­er activists’ anti-draft work is often patro­n­is­tic and self-congratulatory, for it does­n’t take into account the fact that younger Amer­i­cans don’t need saving.
The bot­tom line truth is that the Pen­ta­gon sim­ply could­n’t rein­state the draft. Jahnkow cites a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that found that 88 per­cent of peo­ple 18 – 29 oppose a return of the draft. There would be mass may­hem if the draft returned. While some young men would sure­ly obey, a huge per­cent­age would active­ly defy it. Even if only 10% dra­mat­i­cal­ly refused, the sys­tem would break down. This is a gen­er­a­tion raised in a post-punk cul­ture and many of its mem­bers aggres­sive­ly ques­tion author­i­ty. They were raised by par­ents who lived through the six­ties and saw wide­spread lies and abuse of pow­er, includ­ing the Viet­nam War and the Water­gate scan­dal. The media mythol­o­gy around sixties-era rad­i­cal­ism has kept us from real­iz­ing that there’s a base­line of every­day rad­i­cal­ism today that far over­shad­ows much of what was going on thir­ty years ago. The Pen­ta­gon knows this bet­ter than the peace move­ment does.
It’s not the only nos­tal­gic protest­ing this gen­er­a­tion is engag­ing in these days and I’ve com­pared revived orga­niz­ing around “phone war tax resistance”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000230.php to “recy­cling dead hors­es.” I agree with Rick that today’s teens and twenty-somethings have real issues which we need to address. He says it so well:
bq. The lat­ter point leads me to the sec­ond rea­son why I have some neg­a­tive feel­ings about the cur­rent con­cern over the draft: Much of the anx­i­ety is com­ing from peo­ple who are ignor­ing the more press­ing prob­lem of aggres­sive mil­i­tary recruit­ing, which, among oth­er things, dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly affects non-affluent youths and peo­ple of col­or. In essence, there has been a draft for these individuals�a pover­ty draft�and yet it has drawn rel­a­tive­ly lit­tle atten­tion from anti­war activists. There is a race and class bias reflect­ed in this that needs to be seri­ous­ly con­sid­ered and addressed by the gen­er­al peace movement.
“Here’s the link to his arti­cle again”:http://www.warresisters.org/nva0504‑3.htm
h4. Related:
* Last Novem­ber we pub­lished a provoca­tive arti­cle by paci­fist Johann Christoph Arnold argu­ing that “A Mil­i­tary Draft Would be Good for Us”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000231.php and a per­son­al response piece I wrote about how the “pres­sures of a mil­i­tary draft”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000231.php can force an eigh­teen year old to real­ly think hard about issues of war and peace.
* Non​vi​o​lence​.org has guide to issues of “mil­i­tary con­scrip­tion and con­sci­en­tious objection”:http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/conscience.php. We also watch issues of the “peace movement”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/cat_peace_movement.php, and tend to high­light gen­er­a­tional issues a lot.
* The Urban Leg­end debunkers at Snopes​.com have tracked and researched the “draft fear emails going around”:http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp. They don’t think a draft is com­ing back and any time soon, cit­ing many sources.

History of Non​vi​o​lence​.org, 1995 – 2008

October 13, 1995

Non​vi​o​lence​.Org was found­ed by Mar­tin Kel­ley out of a home office way back in 1995. Over the 13 or so years of its exis­tence, it won acco­lades and atten­tion from the main­stream media and mil­lions of vis­i­tors. It’s arti­cles have been reprint­ed in count­less move­ment jour­nals and even in a fea­tured USAToday edi­to­r­i­al.

From 2006:

The past eleven years have seen count­less inter­net projects burst on the scene only to with­er away. Yet Non​vi​o​lence​.org con­tin­ues with­out any fund­ing, attract­ing a larg­er audi­ence every year. As the years have gone by and I’ve found the strength to con­tin­ue it, I’ve real­ized more and more that this is a min­istry. As a mem­ber of the Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends I’m com­mit­ted to spread­ing the good news that war is unnec­es­sary. In my per­son­al life this is a mat­ter of faith in the “pow­er that takes away occas­sion for all war.” In my work with Non​vi​o​lence​.org I also draw on all the prac­ti­cal and prag­mat­ic rea­sons why war is wrong. For more per­son­al moti­va­tions you can see at Quak​er​Ran​ter​.org, my per­son­al blog.

A Non​vi​o​lence​.org Timeline

Screenshot from 1996 via Archive.org
Screen­shot from 1996 via Archive​.org

In 1995 I was edi­tor at an activist pub­lish­er strug­gling to adapt to a rapid­ly chang­ing book world. Many of the inde­pen­dent book­stores that had always sup­port­ed us were clos­ing just as print­ing costs were ris­ing. The need to re-invent activist orga­niz­ing and pub­lish­ing for the 1990’s became obvi­ous and I saw the inter­net as a place to do that. One of the ear­li­est man­i­festos and intro­duc­tions to the Non­vi­o­lence Web was an essay called The Rev­o­lu­tion Will be Online.

I began by approached lead­ing U.S. peace groups with a crazy pro­pos­al: if they gave me their mate­r­i­al I would put it up on the web for them for free. My goal was to live off of sav­ings until I could raise the oper­at­ing funds from foun­da­tions. “Free type­set­ting for the move­ment by the move­ment” was the ral­ly­ing cry and I quick­ly brought a who’s-who of Amer­i­can peace groups over to Non​vi​o​lence​.org. I knew that there was lots of great peace writ­ing that was­n’t get­ting the dis­tri­b­u­tion it deserved and with the inter­net I could get it out faster and more wide­ly than with tra­di­tion­al media. For three years I lived off of sav­ings, very part-time jobs and occa­sion­al small grants.

Non​vi​o​lence​.org devel­oped into a web por­tal for non­vi­o­lence. We would fea­ture the most provoca­tive and time­ly pieces from the NVWeb mem­ber groups on the newly-redesigned home­page, dubbed “Non­vi­o­lence Web Upfront.” A online mag­a­zine for­mat loose­ly mod­eled on Slate and the now-defunct Feed mag­a­zine, it also con­tained orig­i­nal mate­r­i­al and links to inter­est­ing threads on the inte­grat­ed dis­cus­sion board. With these pop­u­lar fea­tures, Non​vi​o​lence​.org attract­ed a grow­ing num­ber of reg­u­lar vis­i­tors. The com­bined vis­i­bil­i­ty for mem­ber groups was much greater than any­one could obtain alone and we earned plen­ty of awards and links. Some media high­lights of the era includ­ed a New York Times tech pro­file, a fea­tured guest Op/Ed in USA Today, and an inter­view on Oliv­er North’s nation­al­ly syn­di­cat­ed radio show.

But this mod­el could­n’t last. A big prob­lem was mon­ey: there’s were too few phil­an­thropists for this sort of work, and estab­lished foun­da­tions did­n’t even know the right ques­tions to ask in eval­u­at­ing an inter­net project. Non​vi​o​lence​.org was kept afloat by my own dwin­dling per­son­al sav­ings, and I nev­er did find the sort of mon­ey that could pay even pover­ty wages. I took more and more part-time jobs till they became the full-time ones I have today. At the same time, inter­net pub­lish­ing was also chang­ing. With the addi­tion of blog­ging fea­tures and open-source bul­letin board soft­ware, Non​vi​o​lence​.org con­tin­ued to evolve and stay relevant.

Through the ear­ly 2000s, Non​vi​o​lence​.org con­tin­ued to be one of the most highly-visible and vis­it­ed peace web­sites, being high­ly ranked through the first Gulf War II, the biggest U.S. mil­i­tary action since the web began. This mod­el of inde­pen­dent activist web pub­lish­ing was still crit­i­cal. The Non​vi​o​lence​.org mis­sion of fea­tur­ing the best writ­ing and analy­sis con­tin­ued until 2008 when Mar­tin final­ly moth­balled the Non​vi​o​lence​.org project and sold the domain.