As America enters its fifth month of Operation Enduring Freedom, and as Congress and the President begin their budget negotiations, some long-term effects of terrorism on U.S. military policy are becoming apparent. The President has called for a $48 billion increase in defense spending. Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (D-CT) have launched a bipartisan effort to use public service volunteers as homeland security forces (supported by the President's announcement of the creation of FreedomCorps, in his State of the Union address). And perhaps the most controversial proposal yet is the one from Congressmen Nick Smith of Michigan and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania; H.R. 3598 - a bill to institute universal military service for males of ages 18-22.

The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, as it has been introduced, would require all males to receive military training for a period of six to 12 months. For the first time, women would also have the opportunity to register for the selective service. Individuals over the age of 18 would have the opportunity to voluntarily enlist in the military prior to being called by the government to do so. Those who enlist would receive benefits that would not be available to individuals drafted under the provisions of the Act. Young men* who identify themselves as 'Conscientious Objectors,' and whose moral, ethical or philosophical bases for conscientious objection have been reviewed and approved by a local selective service board, would be required to participate in all but the combat portion of the compulsory military training. Following training completion, such individuals would be enrolled in a national public service program for the duration of their service. The young men involuntarily inducted into the military under this bill would receive only 35% of the pay given to enlisted service members of the lowest pay grade-approximately $340 per month.

Some men who characterize themselves as Conscientious Objectors (C.O.s) would agree to military training and service, as long as they are not trained to kill nor asked to use any of their training for the harm of another human being. These Non-combatant C.O.s could be satisfied with the provisions included in the bill for alternative national public service following basic training, or possibly even with non-combatant roles in the military as medics or cooks. However, many other C.O.s would resist forcible induction-regarding any association with the military complex as tacit participation in the killing process. A universal draft policy would turn these otherwise upstanding and moral citizens into criminals.

Even under the current selective service system, the penalties for conscientious objection are severe. The selective service review board has the final say on whether or not an individual is a Conscientious Objector in the eyes of the government. If the board is not convinced, and the young man continues to resist registration, he could be penalized with up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. As a non-registrant, he will continue to be punished throughout his life by his inability to obtain admission to many public colleges and universities, his ineligibility for federal financial aid, and his exclusion from federal and state government jobs.

Unlike traditional 'peace churches' that avow strict pacifism such as the Quakers, the Mennonites, and the Brethren, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is generally characterized as a 'just-war' church-one that condones wars waged for just cause and conducted in a just manner. Some just war guidelines include:

1. Force can only be used as a last resort;
2. The war must have as its goal the return to wholeness, health, and peace;
3. Force must be used against soldiers only-the lives of civilians must be protected;
4. The use of force must be applied with sadness of heart, not a vengeful spirit.

Some draft resisters in the Vietnam era cited 'just war' theory as their principle for non-compliance, claiming that they would have fought in World War II because they felt that lethal force was necessary to stop the Nazis from committing further atrocities but that they could not abide the use of lethal force as a means of resisting communist advancement in South East Asia. Unfortunately, the United States government does not recognize selective objection to war. In order to qualify as a Conscientious Objector and warrant selective service exemption, an individual must adhere to strict pacifism, categorically rejecting war. This frequently means that pacifist members of 'just war' churches, such as the 233 Presbyterians who have registered with the Stated Clerk's office since 1970, have a harder time convincing selective service review boards that their individual consciences require them to disagree with the church on this issue.

In a period of militant patriotism, such as we have experienced over the past few months, a draft policy merely opens up the door to discrimination and persecution. Men and women who do not believe in killing another person for any cause, or those who only condone killing in certain just circumstances, are frequently misunderstood by society as being unpatriotic or un-American. A draft system would require these young people to publicly declare their sentiments and would thereby expose them to attack by those in society who view such civil disobedience as tacit support for the 'enemy.' This discrimination and persecution may be long-lasting, as evidence of conscientious objection would follow an individual into every future job interview and onto every future loan application in the form of a conspicuous inability to provide the dates of military training and service or in the form of a 'dishonorable' military record.

This type of universal draft policy has long been opposed by the Presbyterian Church (USA) because of its contradiction with the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith statement that "God alone is Lord of the conscience," a tenet incorporated into the 1788 Principles of Church Order. This statement recognizes that individuals who believe that they have received God's true revelation are obligated by conscience to hold fast to that truth regardless of the opposition they may experience from authorities. For many Christians over the centuries, this obligation to conscience has taken the form of conscientious objection to war on the grounds that God has instructed believers not to kill and to turn the other cheek to their enemies. Recognizing the theological foundation for a position of pacifism, the Presbyterian church's 1952 statement in opposition to "universal military training" protects pacifists within the church by recognizing that their beliefs may prohibit not just military service but any involvement in the military complex.

With technological advancements in warfare, the draft is no longer a helpful tool for waging war. Through the use of guided missiles, 'smart bombs ' and other forms of modern weaponry, fewer and fewer military personnel are needed to inflict greater and greater damage upon their foes. It is important to note that this solution to flagging military enlistment did not come from the Pentagon. Military officials have found it more cost-effective to increase recruitment and improve their advertising strategies than to turn to a policy of universal military training. The standard 6 - 12 month regimen of basic military training that inductees would presumably be subject to currently costs the military more than $30,000 per inductee. As it stands, H.R. 3598 does not require military service beyond the mandatory 6 - 12 months required, which means that the vast amounts of money that would be spent on the universal training would do nothing to improve military enrollment or effectiveness. Rather, such a policy could have the opposite effect of decreasing military enlistment, as those individuals who may have considered serving their country in the military for the minimum enlistment period of two years before the universal training requirement may see their 6 -12 months of training as adequate service. Also, a lack of interest in or commitment to training on behalf of unwilling recruits could negatively impact the learning environment of longer-term enlisted service members leading to decreased overall effectiveness of military training and, in the long-term, decreased overall effectiveness of the military in general.

Proposals to reinstitute the draft have been introduced in Congress in the past and have never received broad support. Most groups, even those that support freedom of conscience and oppose draft policies, are fairly confident that the bill will be defeated because of the futility of training such large numbers of individuals for such short periods of time. However, the political climate of the 107th Congress is at best unpredictable. Only one member of Congress out of 535 voted against military action in Afghanistan and only 66 Representatives and one Senator opposed the Anti-Terrorism bill's dramatic attack on civil liberties. With a Congress that is in favor of militarization and willing to compromise individual rights for the corporate security, the potential for significant support of universal military service is not so far fetched as it may have been in the past.

General Assembly
The General Assembly of the UPCUSA in 1981, affirmed the theological justification of conscientious objection by asserting that "refusal to take up the sword has a solid biblical foundation." This statement gave credence to earlier statements, such as that by the 1960 PCUS General Assembly recognizing "the right of citizens to object conscientiously to combative participation . . . in a particular conflict as well as the right to object conscientiously to combative participation in all war." Though the Presbyterian Church is most often categorized as a just war church, the UPCUSA General Assembly in 1980 declared its "opposition to possible limitation of conscientious objector status only to members of 'peace churches,' and further [declared] that many members of our, and other churches interpret their faith to require conscientious objection." Since 1952, the Presbyterian Church has, even more broadly, affirmed its "historic opposition to Universal Military Training as a permanent peacetime program." By alerting readers to the introduction of H.R.3598, the Washington Office is responding to the urgings of the 191st General Assembly in 1979 for Presbyterians to "monitor attempts to reinstate a peacetime draft or establish compulsory national service and to work against such legislation should it be proposed."

Confused about the differences between pacifism, just war, holy war, and just peacemaking? Visit the Presbyterian Church (USA) webpage "Four Christian Views of War" at horeb.pcusa.org/kosovo/four.htm

Are you a conscientious objector or do you know a young man who might be? If you or someone you know is facing selective service registration and may qualify as a conscientious objector, contact the Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly (for Presbyterian Church USA members) and/or the Center on Conscience and War for information on how to formally declare your sentiments.
Office of the Stated Clerk: (888) 728-7228, x5424
Center on Conscience and War: (202) 483-2220 or www.nisbco.org

The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It is a new documentary film by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Teja da-Flores airing on Public Broadcasting nationwide. The film focuses on Conscientious Objectors during World War II but also paints a broad picture of the history of conscientious objection in the United States. Visit www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/ to find out when it will be playing on your local PBS station.