Draft College Student, Male And Female, Into The Military!

[DMark]

I don't doubt that is the plan after the November election.

Running out of people. Pass a law. Homeland Security, ya know.

SO...

will this finally get university students off their collective asses and come out as political beings? Back in the old days, the 60's, this was a reality.

Consider this a reality check.

To all of you university students reading this, how will you react when you suddenly get your "call to duty"? Ready to zip off to Iraq, or is that a job for "other people's kids" to do?

[HoldenCaulfield]

I don't doubt that is the plan after the November election.

Running out of people. Pass a law. Homeland Security, ya know.

SO...

will this finally get university students off their collective asses and come out as political beings? Back in the old days, the 60's, this was a reality.

Consider this a reality check.

To all of you university students reading this, how will you react when you suddenly get your "call to duty"? Ready to zip off to Iraq, or is that a job for "other people's kids" to do?

I'd be at every demonstration I could. Hell, I'd do that for any talk of a draft, college students or no. But then, I'm already a pretty political being; I can think of a lot of my classmates that still wouldn't care about politics, right through the day they get shipped off.

[factorial]

I'd go.

It would be more interesting than classes.

[Paul in Qatar]

Was there a question in the OP?

[Menocchio]

Bringing back the draft would shift this country leftward (well, maybe rightward of teh draft was instituted by a left-wing administration under leftist reasonings) like nothing else could. Every draftable studnet, and their parents, would take to the streets in protest. They'd be joined by elements f the regular military, as they don't really want soldiers who don't want to be there. No congress critter who liked his job would dare to support it. If he did it, the president (whoever that may be next term, would be forced to leave the war long befor his term was up (whether we were "done" or not), and not deploy American forces again. He'd still be voted out by a huge margin come next election.

That's why the only people to seriously suggest such a thing in recent years are people who don't want the military to be used. They want draftees to act as political hostages against unneccessary wars.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I'd go.

It would be more interesting than classes.

:eek: :eek: :smack: :smack:

Kid, your statement is seriously nuts!

99% of you time in the military is crushing boredom, 1% is cr@p-in-your-drawers terror.

You can have a million times more fun in college than in the military. And you can drop out of college.

[catsix]

I think he meant he'd go to the protests because those would be more interesting than class.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I think he meant he'd go to the protests because those would be more interesting than class.You may well be correct, but you can't be certain.
Far too many young people have a wildly distorted view of the military today.

[asterion]

You may well be correct, but you can't be certain.
Far too many young people have a wildly distorted view of the military today.

Wait, so you're saying I won't get to have lots of sex with Denise Richards and Dina Meyer?

Well, how about Bob Hope? Can I still be entertained by Bob Hope?

[Sean Factotum]

Ever since Korea, a drafted military has been "a job for other people's kids" (- DMark.) It was relatively easy for the more affluent to get deferments, and the ranks were filled out by those without the resources or contacts to avoid service. Especially in Viet Nam, the last time we had a fully drafted military. This is just in the enlisted ranks, mind you. There were still many people who joined the officer ranks out of a sense of public duty or as a stepping stone to a later life in the world of politics.

Last year I retired, and you would not believe all of the crap I had to put up with on a daily basis from kids who wanted to be there (voluntary enlistment.) The 90 - 10 rule was constantly in effect: 90% of my problems were caused by 10% of the people. Talking to the guys that had been there longer than me, this had gotten worse over the years. In their opinions, the country's youth were less open to the whole idea of public service than their fathers and uncles, and acted like they were owed something for enlisting.

I believe, from experience, that there's no way the vast majority of today's 20 yo's would behave in the way necessary that would result in a competent, non-dysfunctional unit. I can't image what the chiefs and sergeants of a drafted military would have to go through now just to finish the day.

So if we're voting, mark me as against renewing the draft. I've got a lot of friends still in who would spend all day solving behavior problems from kids who should have just stayed home.

[John Mace]

I don't doubt that is the plan after the November election.

I don't doubt that you are 100% wrong.

What do you say we place a little wager on it?

[Zagadka]

Yea, this is nothing more than paranoid idle speculation.

Unless you have some *concrete* evidence that this is the case, I won't be party to it. Protesting things that you have no evidence for? That isn't "doing something", that is digging yourself a hole and make no one listen to you when you DO have something to protest.

[Marley23]

Running out of people. Pass a law. Homeland Security, ya know.
SO... granted that Bush wouldn't have to worry about re-election, but you're saying a majority of the House and Senate will committ political suicide here? What's their motivation? "Homeland Security, ya know?" With half the country (give or take) saying Iraq was a bad idea, what makes you think anyone would get behind this if it was proposed it - which it won't be.

A few reasons to think you're wrong. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp)

[Zakalwe]

Was there a question in the OP?
In written English, the interrogatory statement is usually indicated by the prescence of the "question mark" (?) at the end of the sentence.

For example (from the OP):
will this finally get university students off their collective asses and come out as political beings?
See also (again, from the OP):
To all of you university students reading this, how will you react when you suddenly get your "call to duty"?
As a final example (do I need to say it? <- hey, there's another one):
Ready to zip off to Iraq, or is that a job for "other people's kids" to do?
Or was your question rhetorical?

[Astacey]

My husband is military and happens to be in Iraq right now, on his 11th month. He is already scheduled to go back there in less than a year for another 12 months. Between his deployments, there will be about 10-11 months of official home time, in which he will leave for a month in order to go for some training in the Mohave desert. Then he will go to school (across the country) for about 3 months, before he goes back to Iraq. How many years in a row are we going to do this? The unit that is replacing him in Iraq are coming from Korea. Their one year Korea stint is being interrupted in order to do their year in Iraq. When they get done in Iraq, they have to go back to Korea to finish their time there before coming home, all the while their wives and kids are in the USA waiting.

I am not complaining. I miss my husband and today is a bad day. I support my husband and his decisions. I believe that most of the current soldiers (my husband included) want to continue to have an all volunteer army. However, with the recent involuntary recall, is it completely voluntary anyway?


I would like to see the current and future administration actually make a call to arms (not sure if that is the right way to phrase that) or something similar. Right now, every one is too busy denying that we need more troops. You know, "Ask not what your country can do for you...." instead of denying there is the need.

I would like to see some sort of national service program proposed. I don't think it would have to be military service alone, because there are many things that could be proposed in addition. Maybe some sort of a program, where 18 year old makes a choice between various national needs for a 2-3 year commitment prior to college, with those really gifted students having the choice to do theirs after college. I don't know.

However, if there is ever going to be a draft again, before a draft takes place there will need to be at least one major change that hasn't been mentioned. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will have to be abolished. Gays need to be allowed to serve in the military along side everyone else and everyone has to deal with it, just like they always did. Now, with that policy, anyone who didn't want to be drafted could simply become gay.

[Lemur866]

Oh, for crying out loud, not this again.

So, let's get this straight. The OP is convinced that, if re-elected, Bush will re-instate the draft. Never mind that reinstating the draft would take an act of congress, lets just go with the idea that Bush will attempt to get congress to reinstate the draft.

And the question asked is: would this cause people to protest? And of course the answer is obvious, reinstating the draft would be political suicide, it would cause an explosion of opposition to the President, and anyone else who seriously supported the draft.

So...since the draft is political poison, and would destroy the Bush presidency, why exactly would Karl Rove and Dick Cheney order Bush to propose re-instating the draft? I mean, if Bush goes down, they go down with him, right? Why does the OP find this so plausible? Or is it more accurate to state that the OP doesn't really believe this will happen so much as HOPE it will happen, since a political blunder of this nature will be so bad for the President? Because the fact is that the administration would abandon the war in Iraq in two seconds rather than reinstate the draft.

[Duckster]

So...since the draft is political poison, and would destroy the Bush presidency, why exactly would Karl Rove and Dick Cheney order Bush to propose re-instating the draft? I mean, if Bush goes down, they go down with him, right? Why does the OP find this so plausible? Or is it more accurate to state that the OP doesn't really believe this will happen so much as HOPE it will happen, since a political blunder of this nature will be so bad for the President? Because the fact is that the administration would abandon the war in Iraq in two seconds rather than reinstate the draft.

Assuming Bush were to be re-elected in November, how can it be political poison? While the public just might get up in arms about a draft, the only way to (legally) punish Bush is by impeachment. Considering Bush has been re-elected, should one also assume Congress took a major shift to the Democrats? Not likely. Do you really think the House would begin impeachment proceedings against Bush if it stayed Republican? Not likely.

Don't forget that a Bush re-election (with actual vote tallies showing it across the board), coupled with a Republican re-election in the House and Senate (status quo, if not increasing their numbers) might actually improve Bush's standing in the power game. Add to it that the terrorism war and the war in Iraq continues to bog down, shouldn't the likelihood of a possible draft increase? A strong vote for Bush might very be considered strong support, if not a mandate for his policies (Don't laugh, but could the greater electorate be that dumb?) that a draft is actually palatable?

It is only political poison to implement a draft if you may be forced to drink it. Bush would be under no such obligations after a re-election. Only Congress might suffer the consequences two years down the road during the off-elections, but by then it really doesn't matter. There will be no third Bush term and whoever may be the Republican party's annointed one to follow Bush will have two years (if not more) to distance himself from the entire draft issue. Then again, even if the Republicans get smashed in 2008 in the White House and Congress, it will not matter. All the current power brokers will be retired and living the high life they quietly built for themselves during the Bush presidency. They won't care about any legacy or possible long-term damage to their party because they were only in it for themselves from the beginning. They just used the electorate and their own party for their own benefit.

[Marley23]

It is only political poison to implement a draft if you may be forced to drink it. Bush would be under no such obligations after a re-election. Only Congress might suffer the consequences two years down the road during the off-elections, but by then it really doesn't matter.
If you read my link, you'll note that it would take two years from the reinstatement of the draft for any potential soldiers to be ready, much less shipped off to war. So Congress would pay the price and the damage would not be done at that point.

Then again, even if the Republicans get smashed in 2008 in the White House and Congress, it will not matter. All the current power brokers will be retired and living the high life they quietly built for themselves during the Bush presidency. They won't care about any legacy or possible long-term damage to their party because they were only in it for themselves from the beginning.
I think that's totally false. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them have some big, long-term plans.

[Duckster]

I think that's totally false. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them have some big, long-term plans.

Cheney will be 67 in 2008. So far he's had four known heart attacks. I doubt his long-term plans will be as stressful as they are right now.

Rumsfeld will be 76 in 2008. Whatever long-term plans he may have, one would think them to be more behind the scenes than the up front job he has now.

[Marley23]

You're right; I doubt the pair of them will hold office or be very public at that point. But as I said, they have larger plans that I don't think they will sabotage intentionally- which a draft would do.

[Cervaise]

will this finally get university students off their collective asses and come out as political beings?Seems to me this is one of the most significant reasons why this will never happen. Why wake the sheep?

[Lemur866]

So once a President is elected to a second term, they become virtual dictators, since they will never face re-election again? Don't be silly. The President has no law making powers. The President can propose legislation, but it is up to the House and Senate to pass it.

Therefore, given that a draft would require the vote of 60 Senators to invoke cloture, and given that under any concievable election results the 2004 Senate will close to 50-50, there is no possible way that a draft bill could pass without support of both Republicans and Democrats. And there are plenty of Republicans would would vote against a draft, for obvious reasons.

And why would the retirement of the people who rammed through a draft bill make any difference? According to you they don't care what happens after they leave office...so why would they bother expending all their political capital getting the draft bill passed, when it would be so bitterly opposed that within one or two election cycles it would be repealed anyway? It doesn't do any good to reinstate the draft, send every 18 year old in the country off to basic training, and then have the draft repealed a few months after they graduate.

The draft can only succeed if a solid majority of the American people support a draft. A solid majority of the American people oppose the draft, for very good reasons. Therefore, there will not be a draft.

Let's say that you're right, and everyone in the Bush administration is just looking to cash in, and they're willing to destroy the country AND the Republican party for short-term gain, since they'll be living like kings by 2008. Never mind how stupid that is, even if we grant the idea that they are all amoral psychopaths...after all, the goal of the powerful is to maintain power...wealth isn't an end, it is a means to an end, and the end is power. No, never mind that. The question is, how exactly would reinstating the draft further their twisted aims?

What exactly is the point of reinstating the draft? How does that enrich Haliburton (Haliburton used here as proxy for the shadowy figures that are supposed to control the Bush administration)? Wouldn't it make more sense to use every ounce of political capital to fight for corporate welfare and tax cuts rather than the draft? OK, the draft might help us fight the war in Iraq. Actually, it wouldn't help, but suppose it did. So what? Let's say the goal is subjugation of Iraq and control over the oil fields, right? Don't you think that once the Republican party is destroyed as a political force those troops protecting the oil fields are going to be brought home by whatever peace-loving Democratic candidate that wins in 2008? And then Haliburton doesn't have draftees to protect its oil wells on the Euphrates river any more.

Listen, I can accept conspiracy theories as long as they make sense. But this is ridiculous. The long term prosperity of Haliburton would surely depend on the long term viability of friendly Republican-led government, right? Surely there are easier ways to pump dollars from the wallets of American taxpayers into the portfolios of Haliburton stockholders than reinstating the draft.

Reinstating the draft accomplishes nothing, even if we stipulate the the Bush administration would be happy to ruin the country (and the Republican party!) to make a few bucks.

[factorial]

I think he meant he'd go to the protests because those would be more interesting than class.Nope, I meant I'd go to Iraq without protest because it would be more interesting than classes, or sitting around at home like this summer. I tried to subcontract myself and my friends to Halliburton this summer, but they never got back to me. Must be the economy's in the shitter or something.

[Paul in Qatar]

Or was your question rhetorical?

No, I rarely resort to verbal trickery, all to often what I ask is a plain question. I simply presumed from the leading nature of your inquiries that you already had an answer in mind. Please excuse me if I misunderstood.

To turn to your questions then, the answer is simply unknowable. There will be no draft, and so no way to answer your inquiry. Sorry, I hope that helps.

[Polycarp]

The draft was popular during World War II, when there was a consensus that we truly needed to defend ourselves against truly evil and aggressive enemies. It was seen as ultimate fairness -- deferments for essential occupations, and random choice among the rest of the population. Even people who didn't much want to go to war saw it as something that they would have to do owing to Nazi and Japanese hatred of us.

No war since then has attracted that sense of consensus -- and I would consider any debate on the need for Korea, Vietnam, the Reagan-Bush I-Clinton interventions, and Afghanistan and Iraq, to be a hijack of this thread. Simply allow me that whatever your personal views, there are a fair group of people who hold the opposing view, so no consensus exists.

In For Us, the Living, published before the atomic bomb and missiles, Robert A. Heinlein had an interesting idea -- make all declarations of war subject to a public national referendum -- with open, non-secret ballots. The kicker is that if you voted for the war, you were volunteering to go fight it -- or at least, if not fully able-bodied, volunteering to take on the military support duties you were capable of in order to free up able-bodied men and women to fight. If a war truly needs to be fought, Heinlein reasoned, it'll still win the referendum.

(Heinlein, though foursquare for a strong military, was vehemently against the draft, which he considered as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.)

[Gala Matrix Fire]

I spent six years in college and six years in the military. I had more fun in the military and am about ten times prouder of my military service than my bachelors degree.

Draft 'em all. It'll be the best thing that ever happens to the little whiners.

[Lumpy]

Bringing back the draft would shift this country leftward (well, maybe rightward of teh draft was instituted by a left-wing administration under leftist reasonings) like nothing else could. Every draftable studnet, and their parents, would take to the streets in protest. They'd be joined by elements f the regular military, as they don't really want soldiers who don't want to be there. No congress critter who liked his job would dare to support it. If he did it, the president (whoever that may be next term, would be forced to leave the war long befor his term was up (whether we were "done" or not), and not deploy American forces again. He'd still be voted out by a huge margin come next election.

That's why the only people to seriously suggest such a thing in recent years are people who don't want the military to be used. They want draftees to act as political hostages against unneccessary wars.Underlining mine.

Talk about strange bedfellows: the handful of ultra-right wingers who believe that restoring the draft would return the staus quo to 1955 would be voting along with the people who would like universal military service AND require universal consent to actually go to war.


(Heinlein, though foursquare for a strong military, was vehemently against the draft, which he considered as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.)What the Master had to say about the 13th Amendment and the draft:

Is the draft forbidden by the 13th Amendment? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_140b.html)

[aruvqan]

In For Us, the Living, published before the atomic bomb and missiles, Robert A. Heinlein had an interesting idea -- make all declarations of war subject to a public national referendum -- with open, non-secret ballots. The kicker is that if you voted for the war, you were volunteering to go fight it -- or at least, if not fully able-bodied, volunteering to take on the military support duties you were capable of in order to free up able-bodied men and women to fight. If a war truly needs to be fought, Heinlein reasoned, it'll still win the referendum.

(Heinlein, though foursquare for a strong military, was vehemently against the draft, which he considered as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.)


MrAru and I were discussing this this morning, he was reading over my shoulder last night and spotted the thread...

We agree that universal service is actually a great idea....and for those who are consientious objectors, or have something disqualifying them for more athletic demanding or combat positions, bring back the Civillian Conservation Corps and WPA. A lot of the countries infrastructure that was built by the CCC and WPA are deteriorating. There are a lot of paper pushing and nonphysically demanding jobs stateside that can be done by minimally trained people...So if we had a mandatory 2 year term for everybody hitting 18 years old, we could get a lot of kids jobs other than slinging fries and burgers, some real world experience, and get them ready to meet the world.

Heck, mrAru pointed out that most military bases actually have childcare centers on base for military members, get those women who complain that they have to stay home until their kid is in middle school because they cant afford child care and are single, the kid hits 4 years old, off welfare and into the mililtary for a tour....they get a chance to get out of the house, the kids go into day care and socialize with other kids until they are old enough to go to school full time, and mom gets vocational training...and they might make a few friends as a side benefit - group picnics are fun when you have a bunch of kids along.

[Mr2001]

I spent six years in college and six years in the military. I had more fun in the military and am about ten times prouder of my military service than my bachelors degree.

Draft 'em all. It'll be the best thing that ever happens to the little whiners.
Hey, you know, I had fun when I was telemarketing. Let's force everyone to work in a call center for a year. It'll be the best thing that ever happens to the little whiners, 'cause what's good for me must be good for everyone else, right?

[Northern Piper]

(Heinlein, though foursquare for a strong military, was vehemently against the draft, which he considered as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.)
What the Master had to say about the 13th Amendment and the draft:

Is the draft forbidden by the 13th Amendment? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_140b.html)Better yet, here's what the Supreme Court said in 1918 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245&invol=366) when rejecting a challenge to the WWI draft brought under the 13th Amendment (at p. 390 of the decision):As we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.Personally, when old guys start by talking about the "supreme and noble duty" for young guys to go to war, and finish by saying the draft is so obviously okay that they don't need to explain their conclusion because it's obvious, I think there's a bit of a problem.

[Steve MB]

However, with the recent involuntary recall, is it completely voluntary anyway?

Yes. The people affected voluntarily failed to read the fine print. :smack:

[Steve MB]

What the Master had to say about the 13th Amendment and the draft:

Is the draft forbidden by the 13th Amendment? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_140b.html)

It turns out that the answer is similar to his comment income tax protestor arguments (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html) -- the courts have punted the matter, by just sort of sputtering that attacks on the status quo are stupid.

[Steve MB]

Personally, when old guys start by talking about the "supreme and noble duty" for young guys to go to war, and finish by saying the draft is so obviously okay that they don't need to explain their conclusion because it's obvious, I think there's a bit of a problem.

As the Master put it in the other column I referenced, "[I]f you're a parent you recognize that 'because I said so' isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge."

[DMark]

Regarding the "there will NEVER be another draft" feelings:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=267715

[XT]

This has got to be one of the most frequently asked questions in GD...and its been answered over and over again. And no one has ever taken John Mace up on his bet either.

Lets try this again: There will be no draft, unless WWIII crops up somehow. Bush can't enact the draft, even if he wanted too...which he doesn't. The military doesn't want the draft either...their current model is exactly what they want. Our all voluntary force is the best military machine in the world...bar none. Why fuck with it?? Congress doesn't want a draft...it would be political suicide. Certain blow-hard members of Congress and the Senate might toy with the idea or even flap their gums about it to the press...but thats it. There is zero chance of it passing a vote. So, NO ONE WHO MATTERS WANTS A FUCKING VOTE. Clear?

Lastly, Bush ISN'T the king...he can't do whatever he wants whenever he wants, even in his second term. Lets at least TRY and keep, say, one foot in reality in the future, ok? Think we can finally put this question to rest or will there be another parade of 'There is going to be a Draft from evil Bush..." threads from handwringing democrats frantic about a Bush re-election?? THAT is an intersting debate point at least: Will there be yet another stupid rash of draft threads in GD?

-XT