BS"D
Fighting to Lose -- Will GOP Devotion to Jimmy Carter's Selective-Service Legacy Kill American Women?
November 21, '21 / 17 Kislev, 5782 / Parshas Vayaishev (v.2)
by Binyomin Feinberg, formerly, a contributor to The Jewish Press
On
Thursday, November 18th, the ranking Republican member of the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator James Inhofe (R, OK), spoke
vibrantly for about 20 minutes on the Senate floor about the NDAA, the
yearly "must-pass" National Defense Authorization Act (https://www.c-span.org/video/?516182-1/senate-session).
He spent much of the time lauding the importance of passage of the
mammoth legislation, heavily-loaded with member-items (apparently a
reference to favored funding proposals). In the final segment of his speech (approximately 2 hrs., 19-20 minutes into the video) he
declared his opposition to NDAA's inclusion of the now-infamous
provision to expand Selective Service to women. That provision mandates a
potential female military draft. [From a Jewish perspective, that is
something that is absolutely prohibited, involving Torah violations of
the highest order.]
"... Get ready for that fight, because that fight's coming..." he proclaimed. However,
by "a fight" he means promotion of an apparently futile amendment to
remove the objectionable language his own Armed Services Committee
inserted. This is dubbed a "Direct Strike" [or "Strike-Out]" Amendment.
This occurs in the backdrop of an unusually late session, in which the
GOP will likely get only one opportunity to bring an amendment to a
vote. Time is indeed short; earlier Thursday, Senator Schumer (D, NY)
stated he plans to finish this process next week, before the
Thanksgiving recess (about 21 minutes into the video https://www.c-span.org/video/?516182-1/senate-session).]*
*
Update: Schumer scheduled a final vote on the NDAA for Monday Nov. 29,
the first day of Chanukah. Chanukah is eight-day Jewish festival which
celebrates the miraculous victory of the saintly Maccabees over the
Jewish Hellenists and antireligious Greek edicts (some of which clearly
fall short of the female military draft policy, on the neo-barbarism
scale).
Moreover, Senator Inhofe, who served in
the military in a peacetime draft in the late 1950's, is pushing his
legislation in the presence of more viable legislation, S.A. 4161,
Selective Service Repeal. Notice his body language in promising a
"fight." Now, if he would be intent on a fighting to win, one would
expect that the effort would be laser-focused on forcing a vote on an
amendment that actually has a fighting chance of garnering enough
BIPARTISAN support in this Democratic dominated Senate to pass. A
game-plan for victory would not be predicated on promoting his amendment
to remove the offensive language. That's simply because very few, if
any, Democratic senators would support his amendment.
Additionally,
a revealing number of Republicans are known to be positioned or even
ensconced on the wrong side of the issue. Even in the Senate Armed
Services Committee itself, reportedly 8 out of 13 REPUBLICANS voted to
include women in a potential military draft. [This one fact says much
about the actual orientation of the contemporary GOP.] Additionally, all
but two REPUBLICAN Senate Committee members voted for the final package
bill, despite it's inclusion of said female expansion - which, in any
lucid legislature, would be a poison-pill (cf. https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/23/conservatives-riled-up-over-registering-women-for-draft/).
So how does the esteemed Senator expect us to believe that his
amendment - to remove the very language inserted by eight of his fellow
Republicans - will pass in this Democratic dominated Senate?
In
contrast, S.A. 4161 (sponsored by Sen. Wyden), clearly has a fighting
chance. It is an amendment to repeal Selective Service altogether (akin
to S. 1139, a stand-alone bill with bipartisan support). SS Repeal is a
policy that has long had much Democratic support. Although this
amendment too, at this moment, may not have enough openly-declared
support yet, the very tangible potential for passage is clearly present -
if the GOP would only get behind it.
So why promote losing
legislation when there is an alternative that has a real fighting chance
of passage? Specifically, why should a leading Republican push an
amendment that requires swinging resistant Democrats - something quite
impractical - when they could alternatively promote legislation that
really just needs Republicans themselves to get their own act together,
which is doable, provided willingness?
Conventional wisdom may
answer that the senior Senator, who remembers the end of WWII, is more
dedicated to preserving Selective Service than preventing the drafting
of women [and the expansion of Selective Service to purposes other than
replenishing troops lost in battle]. Some may also suspect that some
Republicans may actually wish to fight to lose - in order to leverage
the passage of including women in Selective Service - and the fear of
any future female or "national emergency" draft - as a campaign issue to
take back Congress next year. However, neither of those calculations
would be seen by much of the Republican base as justifying laying the
groundwork for forcing women into the exploitive military environment.
How much more so is that the case in regard to the specter of forcing
women into actual combat, facing violent male enemy troops, and the
possibility of capture, with all the unspeakable abuse that entails.
The
choice is clear. The Republicans will have to choose: Kill Selective
Service, or require women to register for any military or national
emergency conscription that may be activated at ANY point in the future.
As one conservative women's organization put it, IF the issue comes
down to that choice, their message is clear: "Kill Selective Service,
don't kill our daughters" (or granddaughters). And Republican devotees
will have to choose whether they're going to tolerate the GOP
sacrificing their daughters and granddaughters on the altar of Jimmy
Carter's aborted attempt at one of the closest things to legalized human
trafficking.
~~~
The "Grand Bipolar Party:" Why the
Republican Devotion to Selective Service, the Lingering Legacy of
Leftward-Listing Jimmy Carter?
If
anyone is concerned about having a mechanism in place to expedite a
military draft in a real emergency - America already has that - without
recourse to Selective Service. It's called the computer. In the current
age of high-tech, the Department of Defense has access to the technology
to expedite a draft if G-d forbid it would ever be necessary. Why this
superfluous, outdated relic of the logistical limitations of the
pre-Computer Age has garnered so devout a Republican choir is an
interesting question. This question is particularly fascinating in light
of Mr. Carter not being at all venerated by the GOP base, for a range
of reasons, including statements like this, which he made on occasion of
the reenactment of Selective Service:
"The
freedom-fighters ("Mujadeen" - Ed.) in Afghanistan, who are striving for
the liberation of their country, deserve the admiration of the entire
world, and their courage and persistence in fighting for freedom is the
greatest single deterrent to the Soviet aggression being successful."
[Many
conservatives would probably cite President Carter's attitude embracing
the cause of the Afghan Mujadeen (followed by administrations of both
parties) as leading up to the events that made both attacks on the World
Trade Center possible - in turn leading into America's 20-year military
campaign in - and heartbreakingly chaotic flight from - that same
country.]
~~~
Some Additional Reasons to Repeal Selective Service:
° (Simplest first: ) Repeal will save taxpayer money.
°
Far, far more importantly, instituting and maintaining Selective
Service is perhaps the most effective means to manipulate the American
People into eventually forcing women into combat. Americans would not
directly agree to drafting women. However, they would possibly be open
to the notion of requiring them to sign an ostensibly harmless form for a
theoretical draft. Once the Selective Service requirement would be
extended to women, it's just a matter of time before draft. By that
time, it will most probably be too late to step back from established
law, without monumental efforts, if then.
Quite
evidently, this was the thinking of Carter himself in reinstatement of
Selective Service. At the time, he sought, and failed, to require women
to register as well. Leaving his legacy in place exposes women to that
unprecedented threat year after year, as this year's looming catastrophe
demonstrates. Allowing the NDAA to pass as it is would constitute a
tragically ironic case in which Republicans play a pivotal role in
passing revolutionary policies Carter failed to enact.
°
In Torah terms, drafting women would be categorized as an
antireligious edict, inasmuch as it would seek to compell Jews to
violate the Torah prohibition against the conscription of women.
Accordingly, a system geared towards advancing that antireligious edict
would itself earn the status of anathema. This would be one of several
specifically Jewish arguments against maintaining Selective Service.
° Projecting weakness globally:
It's
important to listen, carefully and analytically, to the entire speech
of Senator Inhofe. Ironically, his speech is one of the strongest
arguments to end Selective Service (which he apparently very strongly
supports) - from a strictly military perspective. His dramatized
description of looming military threats from powerful adversaries
(Russia) and belligerent enemies (e.g. North Korea), even if partially
overblown (particularly regarding Russia, which is quite apparently not
interested in a hot war with the U.S.), is all the more reason to end
Selective Service now.
That's because, if Congress fails to
eliminate Selective Service now, the NDAA will pass, as is, including
women. That itself will erode the taboo of forcing women into the Armed
Forces, and even into combat. It will also contribute to robbing
military women of their cherished status as deserving the dignity
reserved for women for thousands of years, by men of all walks of life.
The natural consequences of degraded attitude is degraded conduct. That
will translate into normalization of mistreatment of women who volunteer
to enlist. Americans will thus be stuck with the escalation of
exploitation of women in the U.S. Armed Forces, even before any draft is
invoked, G-d forbid. Those skeptical of this gloomy projection are
invited to learn what is already happening in the U.S. military, by
reviewing the extensive materials posted at the site of the Center for
Military Readiness (a conservative advocacy organization specializing in
military and social issues), e.g. https://www.cmrlink.org/issues/full/are-military-social-experiments-increasing-sexual-assaults-on-men-and-women.*
* If one reads nothing else there, read page 6, for an insight into the mentality being foisted on America:
"...
Commissioners also debated a cultural question: If military policies
conveyed the message that violence against women was acceptable –
provided it happens at the hands of the enemy – would that be a step
forward for civilization or a step backward? [12]
"The
commission’s debate followed testimony from instructorsfrom the
Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape (SERE) program, an intense
Air Force course that trains potential prisoners of war. The instructors
told the Commission that gender integration in the combat arms could
succeed, but only if the nation became “desensitized” to the reality of
combat abuse and violence against women. [13]
"That disturbing
argument proved too much for most commissioners. “Good men,” said
commissioner Kate O’Beirne, “protect and defend women.” [end of quote]
Many
readers may be wondering if a government that chooses to desensitize
its people towards combat abuse and violence against women is a
government worth fighting and dying for. Even in ancient Sodom, 3,800
years ago,, to "merit" that type of public desensitization and
consequent abuse (e.g. death by burning), one had to contravene their
wicked laws against feeding the poor (e.g. see Beraishis Rabbah 49:6 on
Gen. 18:21). Currently, Congress seeks to impose a fate not that
divergent, albeit indirectly, against those young women whose only crime
is being a draft-age female.
~~~
In the final
analysis, the message that expansion of Selective Service to women would
send to America's many enemies worldwide - both actual and latent - is
that we're being led by bipartisan weakness (political and cognitive),
and consequently barreling towards military-readiness vulnerabilities
unprecedented in recent decades. Senator Inhofe correctly waxed eloquent
about the dangers of broadcasting weakness to enemies of America.
However, allowing the NDAA to pass in current form - including expansion
to women - would accomplish exactly that. The inclusion of women in a
future armed conflict may be shockingly worse than what Americans have
become accustomed to in recent decades (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/10/28/army-expects-fierce-close-combat-next-war-despite-advanced-tech.html).
And the disadvantage of such toxic messaging would outweigh any
micro-advantage that maintenance of Jimmy Carter's Selective Service
legacy may ostensibly provide. ~~~~
In the merit of
opposition to this Hellenistic proposal to register women for Selective
Service, perhaps we'll avert the specter of needing a draft (see VaYikra
/ Leviticus 18). Allowing passage of the cruel mandate to force women
into the exploitative military environment - and into brutally
"unequally" deadly combat scenarios - will - without a shadow of a doubt
- not bode well for meriting the Divine Protection that America truly
needs. When those who seek to save women from this manifestly faulty
Republican battle-plan inform the GOP that they will score them
accordingly, based on their actions, not their patriotic rhetoric or
staged fencing bouts (http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2021/11/demonizing-dems-enables-gop-on-female.html), then they will have hope of success, G-d willing.
