Follow us on social

A war draft today can't work. Let us count the ways.

A war draft today can't work. Let us count the ways.

Congress should stop making futile attempts to salvage, much less expand, the current failed registration system

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

Two proposals that would radically alter the current system for registering Americans for a future draft were introduced recently in Congress without any hearings or debate.

They raise practical issues about whether any draft today would even be possible.

As part of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, the House voted this month to make registration with the Selective Service System of all draft-eligible men ages 18-26 “automatic.” In addition, the version of the NDAA on its way to the Senate floor would expand draft registration to include young women now, too.

Debate about the draft has typically been framed around whether the U.S. “needs'' a draft. Debate about women and the draft has been framed around whether women “should” be required to register. But the bigger question we face is three fold: will women sign up voluntarily (if in fact registration is not “automatic”), is “automatic” registration based on other databases feasible, and can registration or a draft – for men and/or women -- even be enforced.

When I was invited to testify before the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (NCMNPS) in 2019, I told them that “any proposal that includes a compulsory element is a naïve fantasy unless it includes a credible enforcement plan and budget… Women will be more likely to resist being forced into the military than men have been, and more people will support them in their resistance.”

Antiwar feminists have long identified militarism and war with patriarchy, and women have been an important part of movements against the draft even when only men were being drafted. At its national convention in 2022, the National Organization for Women adopted a resolution which “calls for an end to mandatory Selective Service registration” and supports the Selective Service Repeal Act of 2021.

The sole purpose of the Selective Service database is to enable prompt, provable delivery of induction notices to individuals selected by lottery, if and when Congress activates a draft. Provable delivery by certified letter or personal service, not by email or phone, is necessary to provide evidence of receipt sufficient to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that failure to report for induction was “knowing and willful” — an element of any criminal violation of the Military Selective Service Act.

I was one of only twenty people prosecuted in the 1980s for openly refusing to register for the draft. Our public statements were used to prove that our refusal was “knowing and willful.” Non-registrants would learn from our show trials that there was safety in silence as well as safety in numbers.

Compliance has continued to fall, and enforcement of the registration requirement was abandoned in 1988. As a result the Selective Service database is so inaccurate and incomplete that it would be “less than useless” for an actual draft, as Dr. Bernard Rosker, the former Director of the Selective Service System, testified to the NCMNPS.

Men are currently required not only to register when they turn 18, but also to report to the Selective Service System, within ten days, every time they change their address until they reach age 26.

“Absolutely nobody” tells the Selective Service System when they move, as the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee noted in his statement opening a hearing with members of the NCMNPS in 2021. Most induction notices would either be returned as undeliverable or delivered to registrants’ parents at addresses where registrants no longer live. And no doubt many parents, as I pointed out to the NCMNPS, would destroy an induction notice to protect their child against being drafted.

The Selective Service database does not include many young men who don’t register voluntarily, especially in states such as California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, which don’t require registration with Selective Service as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license. But laws in other states that automatically register drivers with the Selective Service System produce the opposite error of over-inclusion.

For example, not all driver’s license holders are eligible to be drafted. Foreign students and H-1 visa holders, many of whom are draft age, are considered “non-immigrants” who are neither eligible to be drafted nor required or permitted to register. Registering all applicants for driver’s licenses in some states has produced a list with hundreds of thousands of draft-ineligible non-immigrants who could legally ignore any induction notice.

“Automatic” registration sounds seductively simple. In practice, trying to base Selective Service registration on other existing federal databases would be a recipe for an even greater fiasco.

Aggregating and matching data collected for unrelated purposes and maintained in different formats is hard. The track record of large federal information technology projects is poor.

The bill that has passed the House would grant the Selective Service System unprecedented authority to issue regulations requiring any other federal agency or entity to hand over, in bulk, any records that might identify or locate potential draftees.

At a minimum, this would need to include Social Security and IRS records. Immigration and visa records would also need to be matched and parsed by Selective Service to separate draft-eligible immigrants from draft-ineligible non-immigrants. Still, the resulting list would have out-of-date addresses for many potential draftees.

In the U.S., unlike some other countries, only individuals subject to Selective Service registration or under court supervision after being convicted of a crime are required to report to any government agency each time they change their address.

The NCMNPS studied the option of “passive” registration for a draft based on other existing databases, but eventually ruled this out as an option. A memo from the NCMNPS research staff, released in response to one of my Freedom Of Information Act requests after the NCMNPS disbanded, concluded that no other federal agency even tries to include up-to-date addresses for all U.S. residents in its records.

Only those who were assigned male at birth are eligible to be drafted or required to register with the Selective Service System. But no current Federal database reliably indicates sex as assigned at birth.

Individuals can self-select their preferred gender marker – “M”, “F”, or “X” – to be used on U.S. passports and Social Security records, without regard for sex as assigned at birth. The same is true of driver’s licenses in California, and of records kept by a growing number of other states and foreign countries. Births are recorded with state and local offices, not federal agencies. No state or federal agency has copies of birth certificates for those born abroad.

Therefore, trying to determine who is, and who is not, required to register would lead to a gender-judging quagmire.

The perceived availability of a draft enables planning for unlimited wars, without having to worry about whether people will be willing to fight them. But it’s long past time, as I told the NCMNPS, to recognize that — like it or not —draft registration has failed. A draft is not a viable policy option to rely on in military planning, even as a fallback. Rather than making futile attempts to salvage, much less expand, the current failed registration system, Congress should repeal the Military Selective Service Act and end contingency planning and preparation for any sort of draft.


Draft Director Curtis Tarr officiates at annual draft lottery, Commerce Dept. Aud. TOH 2/2/72 (Library of Congress)

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.