The DRAFT

[SeanR]

I haven't visited this site in a while and I'm not sure if there already has been a thread discussing "The Draft."

With that said: I've been hearing talk lately from different people that it's going to happen if Bush stays in office...some even say it's happening whether or not Bush stays...some go far enough to say it'll be in effect by 2005. Is this just "talk?" What do you guys think?*


























*this is my 100th post.

[usa320]

Wont happen.

A drafted force will not get the training nor be motivated as much as an all volunteer force. PLus its political suicide.

If there was a draft, it would most likely be very limited...

Basically what would happen would be all reserve and national guard units would first be activated, and then the drafted forces would fill in that gap that the NG and Res. would leave. They would take jobs doing security at bases and airports, logistics, air cargo operations, things like that... This way the fully trained forces could all be deployed without having to worry about not having enough forces at home.


If there was a draft id work my ass off to get into the Air Force. Much rather volunteer to fly planes or be a mechanic than be given an M-16, a few weeks training and sent to the front lines...

Doubt theyd take me as a pilot though. ****ty eyesight.

[scm77]

It's just a Kerry fear tactic. Won't happen. Only a Democrat senator has intrduced legislation to re-instate the draft. But that will never make it to a vote.

Kerrys just using it to scare young people into voting for him because otherwise they will be shipped off to Iraq.

[Ichhabe]

But what if the USA has to stay in Iraq for the next 5 years? What if they have to increase their forces with an aditonal 50.000?

Ain't there also a chance for that the USA can be "forced" to attack yet another country in the "near" future, even a third.

All these questions are just assumptions of course, but not taken right out of fantasy. This is a worst case scenario of course.

[Ratamacue]

But what if the USA has to stay in Iraq for the next 5 years? What if they have to increase their forces with an aditonal 50.000?

Ain't there also a chance for that the USA can be "forced" to attack yet another country in the "near" future, even a third.

All these questions are just assumptions of course, but not taken right out of fantasy. This is a worst case scenario of course.
The draft won't be tolerated by the public nor the majority of politicians unless World War III happens to break out. Remember that when a draft is instated in time of war, not only is there outrage over the draft itself, but support will drop drastically for the war in question.

[Mark Sman]

If you can't get enough people to volunteer for a fight, than it is a fight you aren't going to have.

Put another way, a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.

[Ichhabe]

If you can't get enough people to volunteer for a fight, than it is a fight you aren't going to have.

Put another way, a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.

So, as long as there is a situation in Iraq that remain unresolved, we will see no US. Army against North Korea? What if the Iran-situation get out of hand? What if Syria is the real al-Qaida supporter?

Lot of what if's that can come true.

[Mark Sman]

In any of those cases you will still have to fight with what you have.

Modern armies don't conscript and train in six months. Can't be done.

You aren't going to raise whole new divisions in a year either.

You can ask for, and probably get, more volunteers if it is something vital to national security. Still, however, it would take a long time to bring large amounts of new soldiers into the system.

The military doesn't want conscripts either.

[Romulus]

My dad called me and tried to use this one on me today.

I stumped him when I said " Wasn't it Chuck Rangel who said we should be doing this, not Bush?"

The topic changed to football quickly.
;)

[MEGR]

As long as we are in Iraq and Ghanistan, no way are we going to use force against NK, or Iran.

[Group9]

I haven't visited this site in a while and I'm not sure if there already has been a thread discussing "The Draft."

With that said: I've been hearing talk lately from different people that it's going to happen if Bush stays in office...some even say it's happening whether or not Bush stays...some go far enough to say it'll be in effect by 2005. Is this just "talk?" What do you guys think?*



I think Kerry has figured out that this election is just about over and he's getting desperate.

The two bills in Congress that would bring back the draft, which were both introduced and authored by Democrats by the way, are stuck in committeeand dead as doornails.
Kerry is just throwing one wild charge after another out, hoping one of them will stick with each voter. Consider it to be of the same reliability as when Democrats tell senior citizens that the Republicans are going to get rid of Social Security.

They are both false, but it is the kind of thing that worries people even when it they stop and think about it, it makes no sense.

























*this is my 100th post.

[budanski]

John Kerry's idea of a 'New Army of Patriots' (http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/)

'Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/)


H.R.163 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00163:)
Title:To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. Democrat NY
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

Co Sponsors:
ABERCROMBIE, NEIL Democrat HI
BROWN, CORRINE Democrat, FL
CHRISTENSEN, DONNA Democrat, VI
CLAY, WM. Democrat, MO
CONYERS, JOHN Democrat, MI
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH Democrat, MD
HASTINGS, ALCIE Democrat, FL
JACKSON LEE, SHEILA Democrat, TX
LEWIS, JOHN Democrat, GA
MC DERMOTT, JIM Democrat, WA
MORAN, JAMES Democrat, VA
NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES Democrat, DC
STARK, FORTNEY Democrat, CA
VALEZQUEZ, NYDIA Democrat, NY

Hmmm, Imagine that.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif

[Mark Sman]

I see the usual scumbags from my state participated. F'in conscription. Figures. The dirty beyotches would sign something like that. People will say they did it to blah blah blah.

I don't care. You don't put your name on a paper like that unless you want to be called schmuck.

The most dangerous part is this "and for other purposes. " It doesn't even specify military service, you could be conscripted into a labor battalion with a draft this vague. What A holes.

[SeanR]

How much "freedom" would one have in a draft? Would you have any control over what branch you serve in and what MOS you work in? Would drafted troops get treated differently than troops who enlisted before the draft?

[mr.x]

usa320 wrote

PLus its political suicide.

depends on what you mean...if it happens (which I really doubt ) in GW's second term then he is a lame duck and his political horizons are already determined. If you meant it will kill GOP support than you may be right.

Mark Sman wrote[b]

If you can't get enough people to volunteer for a fight, than it is a fight you aren't going to have

this is a widely held belief that is not altogether true. The majority of conscripted troops in Vietnam and WWII performed their duties admirably and well, contrary to current popular belief. That said I do agree that an all-volunteer force is certainly even more of a cohesive fighting force and bettter motivated overall, but the fact remains that a draft does tend to absorb recruits who are already somewhat predisposed to consider military life. Not all certainly but many.

[Mark Sman]

I'm not nockin the combat skills displayed by the vets of WWII, Korea, Vietnam. That statement has more to do with the current US political environment, and my opinions.

[Beowulf]

Excerpts:


Selective Service System: "Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft."

Both the White House and the Pentagon have denied repeatedly that they're planning any return to military conscription. Here's what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said May 17, addressing the conservative Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

Rumsfeld: "I can't imagine our country going back to a draft. We don't need it. We're able to attract and retain wonderful people the way we're doing it as long as we provide the appropriate incentives. And certainly this is a country that's wealthy enough to do that."



The [draft scare] message is false or misleading on several counts.

--The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.

One bill is HR 163 , whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.


The Selective Service Budget has not been increased. The scare story also gets it wrong when it claims the budget for the Selective Service is being increased by $28 million in 2004. In fact, the Selective Service System's budget is flat. Its total operating budget was $26 million in fiscal year 2003 (which ended last Sept. 30), and is $26 million for fiscal 2004 as well. Furthermore, the President is asking for $26 million again for fiscal year 2005, and the Office of Management and Budget actually projects that the agency will shrink in size from 161 employees to 156 next year. That's hardly gearing up for a draft.

Military experts say a draft doesn't make sense. Numerous news accounts have quoted military experts as saying a draft would cause more problems for the military than it would solve. Here's one example, from an excellent story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month (emphasis added):

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

www.factcheck.org

[walford]

http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/may01.html
...There is a significant overlap of those advocating women being drafted and/or included in combat units and those who ‘loathe the military’ a la Bill Clinton. One objective is to curb military action at the prospect of large numbers of our daughters fighting (and dying) alongside our sons. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has admitted as much when discussing his January [2003] sponsorship of a co-ed military conscription bill...
Another reason is the ageing hippies are hoping to stir up another round of draft-dodging, card-burning and more generally to foment agitation against military deployment.

A draft is not being advocated by the military.

[Group9]

Put another way, a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.


That's a good way to put it.

[FallenAngel]

Comgress has capped the number of servicemen in each branch by law. The USAF, for example, is DOWNSIZING by about 25,000 people to meet their limit.

As stated before, the rumors of a draft are purely a scare tactic by the democratic party to frighten uninformed young adults to vote against Bush. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Durandal]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif

Damn if that ain't the truth. Nice post B.

[mi35d]

Ain't gonna happen. Would require waaaay too much infrastructure and planning. You don't fire up a national system like that overnight and the scare mongers haven't shown any info that it's going to happen.

[KB]

A draft done right could be very useful, for example creating a eligible population to serve with basic military training .

Years ago the Norwegian Army had a national service approach that put all members on active duty for 16 mos (basic/MOS training). After that most became part of the home guard, with various levels of readiness, 24-48-72 hrs, etc. It was pretty impressive (guys kept G3s at home; field equipment was stored in warehouses in central locations). And of course, Israel has a very effective national service program.

Of course, there is no stomach for a draft in the US, particularly now while the consequences of serving in the military are a person is likely to actually go into combat.

[vryhpyammoadded]

John Kerry's idea of a 'New Army of Patriots' (http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/)

'Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/)


H.R.163 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00163:)
Title:To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. Democrat NY
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

Co Sponsors:
ABERCROMBIE, NEIL Democrat HI
BROWN, CORRINE Democrat, FL
CHRISTENSEN, DONNA Democrat, VI
CLAY, WM. Democrat, MO
CONYERS, JOHN Democrat, MI
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH Democrat, MD
HASTINGS, ALCIE Democrat, FL
JACKSON LEE, SHEILA Democrat, TX
LEWIS, JOHN Democrat, GA
MC DERMOTT, JIM Democrat, WA
MORAN, JAMES Democrat, VA
NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES Democrat, DC
STARK, FORTNEY Democrat, CA
VALEZQUEZ, NYDIA Democrat, NY

Hmmm, Imagine that.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif

LOL That's great budanski!

The local college has these stupid DRAFT ALERT leaflets everywhere stating that Bush and company are up to no good, skulking about DC triying to pull a fast one over everyone.

I just finished plastering your work right next to the draft leaflets earlier today and now they're already torn down! I don't think it took more than an hour LOL. :roll:

[jmatucd]

did not bush say in the first debate that we have and will have an all volunteer army. case closed

[Pandy]

The way I see it, if anything, (please don't flame me for it.) is if someone who dropped out of high school for ANY reason, should put up 2 years in the US Military, then send their asses back to high school. I bet you 50 bucks for each person that does that, they'll pass high school.

Last I checked, an average of a half a million highschoolers dropout (Grades 9-12). That would work good for our manpower. Yes, we would have some dumb people but some jobs in the military are simple enough were a dumbass can do it. At least they would have a working job to support themselves then sitting at home doing nothing.

[Durandal]

The way I see it, if anything, (please don't flame me for it.) is if someone who dropped out of high school for ANY reason, should put up 2 years in the US Military, then send their asses back to high school. I bet you 50 bucks for each person that does that, they'll pass high school.

Last I checked, an average of a half a million highschoolers dropout (Grades 9-12). That would work good for our manpower. Yes, we would have some dumb people but some jobs in the military are simple enough were a dumbass can do it. At least they would have a working job to support themselves then sitting at home doing nothing.

Not flaming here, just pointing out that this is rather un-American.

You know, that whole, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness "thing".

Besides, the military needs competent people. The last thing any soldier wants is some guy next to him that cannot even remember radio codes and hand signals. let 'em dig ditches along the road side and empty garbage. Most Americans are unwilling to do those jobs, these people have a roll as much as anyone else...as pathetic as they may be.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2004/dancart2147.jpg

[IDFM203]

I personally think a draft is a bad idea for the U.S. A draft only is to be used out of pure necessity and to that I guess the IDF has done well. Now contrary to some of the incessant wailing from some, no, the U.S. is not at a point where it needs a draft to ensure its military standing.

However with that said, I am concerned about one thing and I ask for no one to take offense.

To me the problem is the makeup of the U.S. armed forces in general and in percentages where it seems that its basically made up of just lower income people that cant afford collage, or people that don’t have good work prospects after high school, so they go to the Military. Now they are all fine people. However it does seem that the burden of defending the U.S. is done only by the lowest economic class on a whole and to me that seems a bit wrong for it seems the U.S. military s not made up or representing all segments of society in a statistical match up.

Now it’s a volunteer army and well I just said I am against the draft, so frankly I have no solution, I am simply stating my perception and I would gladly love to hear if I am off and if so how off.


Shalom :D

[FallenAngel]

To me the problem is the makeup of the U.S. armed forces in general and in percentages where it seems that its basically made up of just lower income people that cant afford collage, or people that don’t have good work prospects after high school, so they go to the Military. Now they are all fine people. However it does seem that the burden of defending the U.S. is done only by the lowest economic class on a whole and to me that seems a bit wrong for it seems the U.S. military s not made up or representing all segments of society in a statistical match up.

For some of the enlisted ranks, that might be true. But the officer corps is far and above some of the smartest people in the country if we go by things like SAT scores and such. The service academies are THE top schools in the country. Many officers could make 4 or 5 times as much money (at least) if they were doing their jobs in the private sector.

[IDFM203]

Yes I hear you and acknowledge that.

I guess I should ask, in the sum total of the military, first of all how many people does it have in total?

Now what is the economic background percentages from the total and how does it relate to the general population statistics.

I guess now that we are going deeper, racial makeup? What is the percentage of the racial makeup of the U.S. armed forces, Vs. the racial makeup of the U.S.


I am not making any judgments per say, I am merely asking for as of now I do have this perception of this gross imbalance of U.S. armed forces in terms of the above categories VS the general population pool and well that bothers me to the extent that it would be nice if the military represented equally in terms of percentages what the general population is.

Now of course my perceptions can be wrong and frankly I hope so and I look forward to seeing if indeed I am wrong on this!!


Shalom :D

[TallGuy]

In my opinion there should be mandatory National Guard service for a few years. :)

[SpazzMunky]

In my opinion there should be mandatory National Guard service for a few years. :)

Thats a good idea. Of course, I think national gaurd units should actually be national gaurd, and not deploy anywhere further than their home state.

[KB]

I think a draft in the US is worth exploring.

It is hard to make absolute statements about motivations for joining the US military, but by and large the people who join and serve come from middle class or blue collar backgrounds; there are exceptions of course, particularly in elite units like Airborne/Marines/SF/Seals etc, where guys are motivated to join for the challenge and to see how far they can push themselves. Many officers come from privileged backgrounds, although not many (in my own experience) were from Ivy League schools.

There is a certain moral vacuum in the US, where so few serve yet so many who won't/haven't are ready to send them to risk their lives. Patriotism is more than sticking a flag lapel pin on the coat and a flag decal on the car. I happen to live in a major US city in a fairly affluent zip code. In my personal experience, the people who are ready to see us "nuke Iraq into the Stone Age" are the ones who've never considered wearing the uniform, let alone put themselves in harm's way. The most thoughtful and concerned with the GWOT are those who've "been there/done that" and know how Murphy's Law comes into play when the troops cross the LOD.

Serving in the military provides a special opportunity to gain an appreciation for being an American; guys from different backgrounds and walks of life working together. Standing watch on the bridge of a ship in winter in the North Pacific, sitting in a LP near the DMZ in South Korea on a steamy summer night, pulling maintenance on an aircraft all night so it can sortie in the morning, one gets a deeper understanding for the people that make up the US.

Done right, a draft could be a valuable resource in time of national emergency; it would also go a long way to reestablishing some basic concepts of citizenship in the US.