HR163 and HR4752 (Universal National Service Acts of 2003 and 2006)

First a bit of history:

Jan 2003:

HR163 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 2003) was was introduced in the House in Jan 2003 by Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY). The following is taken directly from the text of the Bill

"Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense"

The House rejected HR163. At that point, it would probably have been ill-advised for Republicans to pass this bill because it would have had a negative impact on the upcoming elections. So the bill didn't get that far (as expected)

Fast Forward to Feb 2006

HR4752 (also known as Universal National Service Act of 20066) introduced again by Congressman Charles Rangel

The following is taken directly from the text of the bill

"To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Apparently, the age range has been changed from 18-26 to 18-42. Both bills also mention that if not deployed in the uniformed forces, you may be deployed for civilian service. Check out the Citizen Corps program at their official website (note that this is a govt. program). Domestic law and order control ?

As expected, limited coverage in the mainstream media.

Wonder how this new bill is going to fare ? How long can it be pushed off ? In all likelihood, It will fail again this time, but what happens in the future ? (the bleak future of perpetual war, I mean). What happens if the US invades Iran ? I think the government already knows that a civilian army doesn't work (ample evidence from the Vietnam war), so they like to hire mercenaries to do their killing. But what if there's no alternatives to a draft ? (of course there are alternatives such as not invading other countries, but I'm referring to alternatives that are likely to be considered by the US govt. and doesn't look like withdrawal is one of them). Lets face it .. both the Democrats and Republicans are predominantly war parties.