Should it?
Would you argue that every draft order issued in US history was in the defense of American liberty?
Sending drafted men off to Korea in 1950 had nothing to do with American liberty. It was to fulfill US geopolitical goals.
Conscription is a form of slavery. The defenders of liberty will always rise to the occasion if liberty is truly threatened. Conscription is not necessary.
Conscription of women into the IDF doesnāt seem to be a big deal.
then aināt now. There is no way any draft would ensue now without a formal DoW from the congress. Not an AUMF, the solemn deal. Reality is what it is, if that happened, it could only be in circumstances where liberty itself was threatened.
WuWei
24
Why do you keep saying that? Why do you think that?
Safiel
25
Society has evolved. Women could not vote or serve on juries until a century ago. Open discrimination against women in employment was legal until a relatively short time ago.
Womenās service during WWII was limited to the WACās, WAVEās, etc. Then there was a lengthy period in which women could service in various support MOSās.
But now we have acknowledged as a society that women have the right to serve in combat arms, to include even some special forces outfits.
With RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES and EQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW.
I donāt typically use excessive capitalization like that, just want to drive the point home.
If we acknowledge as a society that women are indeed capable of serving, it becomes immoral and unjust to make only men liable to the draft.
When women were deemed incapable of service, it then followed that women should not be liable for the draft.
To me, it comes down to equal treatment before the law.
Safiel
27
As a side point, I deem it implausible that we will ever again need to forcibly induct people into the military, which is why I support abolition of the Selective Service.
because they are not currently allowed in them.
I donāt think it would be a big deal here either.
A century ago, probably.
But today? I donāt think it would cause a huge issue beyond the outrage that occurs when conscription is issued.
WuWei
30
Yes they are. You need to do a little research buddy.
Tell that to Kim Campbell
if all positions are open to them, I am unaware. if so, then equals is what equals is.
It has never been ruled unconstitutional. Correct?
WuWei
34
The first female graduated the SFQC a couple of weeks ago.
It hasnāt.
In the cases presented gender was never the primary reason.
The plaintiffs always challenged the legality of conscription itself.
And they lost each and every time.
IMO, they were political decisions by the courts.
The lib house of cards comes down.
I wonder⦠did they define āwomanā?
1 Like
Smyrna
37
There is no reason to complicate our response in the case of war. Women do not need to be intermingled with men on the battlefield as comrades. It will create more problems than solveā¦IMHO.
1 Like
good for her! That however does not change what Iāve read. Which is that under the āleaders firstā initiative women officers are allowed, but so far, still no enlisteds. Maybe Iām wrong, but this is the last I knew.
Smyrna
40
They are united side by side from the same platoon on the battlefield?