The Draft: Coming Soon to a Superpower Near You!

Remove all ads!

Marine commanders are afraid of the consequences of moving troops out of Falluja to other hot spots like Mosul.

Already the existing "volunteer army" is stretched to its limits, forcing extended tours of duty, the use in combat of the National Guard, Reserve units, etc.

There seems to be an increase in stories about the other two legs of the "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea, and their efforts to develop a nuclear deterant, as well as an increase in chatter among the hawks in the Bush administration, who feel the US needs to draw the line.

So: Has the probability of the draft increased? How would this draft be designed, and who would be called? Would it work? What would be the domestic reaction to a US draft? And how would the world react?

 

Now here you go trying to work up our young male American patrons into a frenzy.... It didn't work for Kerry (actually, I think it backfired).

The American public does not want a draft, the politicians (most of them anyway) do not want a draft, the military does not want a draft. The military is still in a "cost cutting" mode (not counting the "War on Terrorism") -- they are releasing nonperforming personnel quicker and closing bases.

Recruiting quotas have been reduced over the past decade as fewer personnel are needed in the military. Recruiters are able to be selective in who is allowed in. There could easily be a 20% increase in recruitment without lowering standards (incentives work great to increase numbers). Accepting people at minimum standards could double the number of men and women entering the military (once again, incentives are the key here).

If all attempts at increasing recruitment failed, then you might hear talk of a draft -- but the military would go down kicking and screaming all the way (no one likes to be fraged).

 

Aye. If there's one thing that's not going to happen in the near future, the draft is it.

Barring a major war with the likes of China, of course.

 

I think that we can all agree that it is a virtual certainty that there will not be any attempt at starting another draft.

However, if there was another draft the government of Canada would be licking its chops in anticipation. A lot of our smart young folk are moving to the U.S. to take advantage of higher paying jobs - I can assure you that we would be more than happy to take in any of the U.S.'s best and brightest who didn't feel an urge to comply with mandatory military service.

We have done it before and you can rest assured that we would do it again in a heartbeat.

 

Nice of you Canadians to support the flight of criminals out of the US. Any chance you would be interested in a few of the citizens out or our prisons as well?

 

We have a long tradition of taking in people fleeing the U.S.A., provided that WE don't think that they have done something wrong - British loyalists during and after the war of independence, escaped black slaves, Vietnam war draft dodgers, etc.

 

I was teasing.

Sorry, I just think that the chance of the draft coming back is so laughable that I couldn't resist poking a little fun, and getting off topic, I apoligize for that too.

No offense was intended!

 

Ahh, very Reaganesque of you. "There you go again..."

Of course the military doesn't want a draft. The military also prefers to avoid going to war unless it has to.

However, I think most people would agree that there is some chance, even if its very slight, of the US getting involved in Iran or North Korea.

I agree the US military could maintain its current world presence, and even add substantially to the troops in Iraq (well, it's not like anyone else will send more troops), without a draft. But it seems to me that it would be impossible to both maintain an occupation of Iraq *and* wage a second war in either Iran or North Korea without the use of the draft.

And the idea of the draft *is* at play today, if only at the level of policy. We wouldn't seem very credible if everyone thought we were so overextended in Iraq that we were incapable of mustering enough troops at short notice to deal with other crises. Both Iran and North Korea have already taken some advantage of the US being occupied with Iraq (so angering a number of hawks). Along with carrots you need sticks, as they say, and you can bet the US has made it clear to both Iran and North Korea that they do have enough reserve capability to engage if need be. As the US military doesn't presently have this kind of reserve capability, you can bet that, even if it's generally unspoken, the idea that "The US isn't really constrained by troop levels, as it can always institute a draft" is at play in these negotiations, if only as a deterant. And the problem with deterants is that sometimes the bluff is called...

 

In the hypothetical sense, what do you think will be different if a draft is reinstated. For example:

1. Will it only be men who could be drafted, or now that women are in the military, will we take women as well?

2. Will the draftable age remain 18-27?

3. Will there be deferments for college and the like?

4. Will it be equal-opportunity in the sense that even if you are married and have children could you still be drafted?

My personal belief would be the only "old rule" that would apply is the 18-27 draft age. Perhaps no women either simply because there are few women in actual combat roles, and when you have a draft, what you're really looking for are grunts.

 

Just because there are few women in combat roles does not mean they can't fill the combat role as well as or better than the average male. They want the freedom to vote, equal wages, special woman rights? Well then they gott'a fight for 'em too. Obviously a way for women to avoid the draft then would be to get pregnant pretty darn quick.

 

I don't think it's coming back. The political ****storm you'd create would be too severe, and people have long memories when it's their flesh and blood that have been randomly shoved into the firing line. For WW2, the story was a little different. In a relatively divided nation like the US, drafting people to go to a war many openly decry would be insane.

If last month is anything to go by, the US doesn't really mind its draft-dodgers, JSBB.

Sorry, couldn't resist that cheap shot...

 

NS,

You are right; both of the final candidates were draft dodgers.

Bush joined the National Guard, which could have been called up and gone at any time, so he still took his chances.

Kerry tried for a deferment to go to France to study (does anyone think he would have come back before the end of the war?), and when that was denied, he joined the Navy, and requested non-combat duty. Unfortunately for him, the assignment for that role was modified and he ended up in combat, but the fact is that he never volunteered for combat, and if he had truly wanted to make sure that he went into combat, he should have joined the Army and requested the infantry.

It is sad that Vietnam as defined a generation of Americans. The Great Generation is dying (those who lived through WWII) and the generation of negativity is rising in power. God, I wonder what is going to happen when Gen X and Y start to take the reigns?

You can bet there still will not be a draft!

 

Darkwolf, do you have a secret crush on Kerry?

No matter the topic, you can't seem to get your mind off him.

 

While I agree in principle with your comment (i.e., that there are women who could fill a combat role, and if they are given equal rights they should also receive equal responsibility during war), it just doesn't stack up well with known human physiology. The average grunt is carrying around a whole lot of stuff. In addition to the rifle and ammunition, which weigh a fair bit in the own accord, the soldier on the field is also carrying around food rations, first aid, ancillary equipment (things like binoculars), heavier damage weapons (like grenades), and certainly chemical weapon kits in case of a chemical attack, (these things include gas masks, and antidote injections). All told, I could easily see the average soldier carrying around at least 50 pounds of equipment.

Now, while I agree that there are women who could carry 50 pounds of stuff over long distances the raw ability to do this lies more with men. Based on simple muscle mass averages, the average man is better equipped to do these things than the average women. For example, my wife wouldn't be able to trudge around with 50 pounds of equipment for very long, but I would.

Like I said, I agree in principle, I just don't know how we would be able to implement a system to decide which women would be able to do the job, and which women wouldn't.

 

There are women in combat roles, but not many grunts. As Aldeth has stated the ability to carry around 50 pounds, 20 miles a day, for a minimum of 14 consecutive days (85 pounds for Marines) is crucial to a grunt. I believe women can be conditioned to do this (my wife could now). The support activities, which still enter combat areas, are available to women.

Congress would never approve women in the draft though....

I've often thought a draft would be great -- but only if not limited to the military. The draftee could alternatively join the police force, fire department, forest rangers, peace corps, teaching in inner cities -- literally hundreds of possibilities. Alas, there is too little community involvement anymore....

 

@ T2Bruno: Good idea, I think - a little community service wouldn't hurt anybody, especially in today's "cult of the individual" (or "cult of hedonism", whichever you prefer). Reminds me a bit of Fight Club; you need people in these roles to keep society rolling. They wash your cars; they teach your kids; they protect your property; they guard you while you sleep - a little perspective wouldn't hurt... then again, I work retail - 'nuff said about courtesy and basic humanity.

Darkwolf, your last post almost reads like Bush is a stalwart hero and Kerry is a wuss who'd do anything to avoid serving his country! Strange comparison, considering that one received multiple injuries and the other has a less-than-exemplary NG record.

I'd seriously question the sanity of someone who wanted to go straight to the front - that person is either very good at fighting or just bloodthirsty, and either way would probably be very dangerous to be around in a combat setting. A guy who actively requests front-line duties in a guerrilla war is either crazy as hell or a borderline headcase - I don't blame Kerry (or any other Vietnam vet) for not actively seeking infantry duties, especially if friends have been killed or maimed in service to their country.

I wouldn't blame people for being bitter and negative after returning from Vietnam - they got shot at, ambushed and (ultimately) humiliated, and then were attacked as "baby-killers" and inhuman savages when they returned home. I'd be angry too, if my country turned on me after my generation had fought, bled and died in a war that the leaders from the "Great Generation" had sent me to. Sure, every generation has its wars - but having defeated the Nazis (with a massive assist from the Soviets, I might add - there were German forces actively fleeing to surrender to the Allies) does not necessarily mean that the accomplishments of later generations are somehow incapable of being worthy of comparison unless they involve blood and war.

 

The draft is something brought up by liberals to scare the country into voting for Kerry. Seeing as Kerry lost, all of the sudden the draft 'rumor' has disappeared. Let's get on with our lives and talk about something that matters.

 

Just like whingeing ultra-liberal George Will on "Face the Nation" this morning, asking how we can go after Iran, a country of 69 million, while "our hands are full" with Iraq, a country of 25 million.

Take this thread as evidence that the "draft 'rumor'" has not disappeared.

 

It's highly unlikely that either the draft will happen, or that Iran will be invaded. But it is likely that if one happens the other will. But Bion is right in that both are certainly worthwhile topics for debate. Of course, if things improve in Iraq, then the likelihood goes up that Iran will be invaded. Iran was probably on the roadmap until things turned so ugly in Iraq. Shrub is bogged down for now. But he probably will hand-pick a successor to the throne who may follow through on Shrub's dreams of a grand American empire. Still, much of this is yet to be decided amongest the warmongers in the basement of the White House.

 

They might go for Syria or Jordan instead of Iran as that is where Saddam moved all his immense stockpiles of nukes and super-killer-germs. Not to mention that they are much easier targets than Iran and the risk of them biting back isnt as large. Not even the neo-cons would be able to pull off to start a war against someone who can fight back. Iraq was supposedly a perfect target, a country in ruins with no infrastructure and a demoralised population. We all saw how that went.