October 11, 2024 / Edward Hasbrouck / Antiwar.com - Of men in the U.S. who turned 18 in 2023, fewer than 40% signed up for the draft – down from more than 60% in 2020 before the start of the war in Ukraine.
This eye-popping and previously undisclosed admission, as well as other revelations equally damning to plans to increase readiness to activate a draft, was included in documents released recently by the Selective Service System (SSS) in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request.
The SSS maintains a database of eligible male U.S. citizens and residents who could be conscripted if and when Congress and the President institute a draft. Per the law, American males must register within 30 days of their 18th birthday or find it difficult to get a drivers license in some states.
Public statements from supporters of draft registration have justified preparation for a draft as needed for national emergencies, self-defense, or implausible existential threats such as a Chinese invasion of the mainland US. But the lead bullet point in the newly-disclosed SSS talking points to Congress in support of the SSS proposal to automatically register all young Americans for a future draft is the possible activation of a U.S. draft for foreign wars in Ukraine and/or the Middle East.
“SSS is experiencing a significant decline in registrations by 18-year-old men. In 2020, the registration rate for 18-year-old men nationwide was 61.8%, today it is just 39.9%,” the agency reports.
Most men register eventually, but often years after their prime draft eligibility. The SSS allows men to register without penalty until their 26th birthday. Some men deliberately or inadvertently delay registering until they are close to age 26. This minimizes their exposure to a possible draft while preserving their eligibility for Federal or state jobs or other programs later in life.
The SSS is also misleading Congress about its use of immigration records. In its messaging to Congress, the SSS falsely claims that, “The SSS, nor any of its systems or processes, collects or identifies the immigration status of any resident.” In fact, the SSS systematically accesses USCIS visa records and matches them against records of driver’s licenses obtained from state motor vehicle agencies to try to identify which draft-age foreigners in the US are required to register for the draft.
Is the SSS afraid that members of Congress would balk at giving the agency even greater authority to access records of other Federal agencies if they knew that it is already using immigration records to prepare to draft U.S.-resident foreign citizens into the U.S. military? Or is the SSS afraid that foreigners in the U.S. would be less willing to provide information to Federal or state agencies if they knew that it could be used to help administer military conscription – a special concern for those who have come to the U.S., like so many previous immigrants, to avoid being drafted into foreign armies?
“Immigrant” foreign citizens are subject to the US draft. Foreign students, H-1 and other temporary workers, and others holders of “nonimmigrant” visas are not. Because the requirement to register with the SSS depends on immigration status, visa records would be essential to automatic draft registration.
The SSS claims that, “By using federal, state, and commercial databases, the agency will be able to register all individuals required to register…. (databases: Social Security Administration, DMVs, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, etc.) Note: The agency is already aware of who is required to register because of these existing data sharing agreements.” This claim to completeness and accuracy is both unwarranted and untested. Data matching can get the SSS only so far.
With respect to completeness, it should be obvious that existing databases omit, among others, many undocumented draft-age immigrants, who would be subject to the draft and are required to register with the SSS.
As for accuracy, the test of provable deliverability is whether, when an induction notice is sent by certified mail to the address in SSS records, the SSS gets back a return receipt signed by the registrant – not a parent or anyone else — that provides sufficient evidence to prove to a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the registrant received the notice. That’s what’s needed to prosecute a registrant who doesn’t report for induction.
The only way to test this is to send letters to a sample of registrants, and compare the signatures on the return receipts with the signatures in registration records. But the SSS has never done this.
Records released by the SSS show that the only test of the accuracy of SSS records was limited to comparing SSS records with records from commercial data brokers. Unsurprisingly, they mostly include the same entries with the same addresses. But that says nothing about the completeness of these databases, or whether they have the same addresses because they are derived from the same unreliable sources.
As I noted in my testimony to the National Commission on Military National, and Public Service, which considered, but recommended against, trying to automate draft registration, “Many parents would either refuse to sign for an induction notice for their child, or destroy it to protect their child against being drafted.”
Furthermore, the SSS has withheld its cursory one-page cost estimate for automated registration. But the one-page letter it provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes clear how little consideration it has given to the real cost of automating draft registration. It includes no funding for database integration or for collection or verification of information not available from existing databases, including current physical addresses for provable delivery.
Congress and OMB need to scrutinize the proposals for automation and/or expansion of Selective Service registration, which have been through no hearings or budget review, much more closely. At a minimum, Congress should remove these provisions from the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2025, and schedule full hearings next year specifically on Selective Service, with witnesses for and against continuation, expansion, automation, or repeal of draft registration. There’s antiwar opposition to Selective Service registration from both the right and the left.
While Selective Service registration is being discussed behind closed doors in negotiations on the NDAA, the issue has been raised publicly in the Presidential campaign. In a speech in September, former President Trump criticized Vice-President Harris for allegedly supporting a military draft.
Mainstream media has fact-checked this as false, but has failed to note that, while Harris hasn’t directly called for a draft, (1) Democrats and Republicans have both supported planning and preparation for a draft, as part of their bipartisan national security consensus, and (2) Trump did nothing as President to end draft registration, which he could have done by executive order if he were really opposed to a draft.
Selective Service registration requires authorizing legislation (the Military Selective Service Act) and funding from Congress as well an order from the President. The order currently in effect was issued by Jimmy Carter in 1980, and could have been rescinded or revised by any subsequent President. If either Presidential candidate wants to show that they don’t support a draft today, they could endorse Selective Service repeal legislation and/or promise to issue an order, if elected, ending draft registration.
In the meantime, more and more young people will take the decision of which wars to fight into their own hands by opting out of Selective Service registration, either by not registering or by not telling the SSS when they move.
Edward Hasbrouck maintains the Resisters.info website and publishes the “Resistance News” newsletter. He was imprisoned in 1983-1984 for organizing resistance to draft registration.
Resources
Please consider supporting The National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth
and our work to demilitarize our schools and youth by sending a check to our fiscal sponsor "in our name" at the
Alliance for Global Justice.
Donate Here
###
Revised: 10/12/2024 GDG