Coming soon, Exclusively From the Bush Administration: The DRAFT!

[Chicago_Faucet]

I’m not going to bother reading all of the posts up until now. I’m just going to state the obvious reality.

The OP and the Salon article both mentioned the word draft. No where in the cite that the Salon article linked to did it mention draft. It mentioned the Selective Service positions. This is not at all the same thing, and Salon is wrong.

As a veteran, I have some inside information on the process of this subject.

It is law for all male 18 year olds to register with the Selective Service. It has always been this way, even after the draft was abolished. I chose to join the military. Since the draft has been abolished, they changed the contract type so that you sign up for a certain number of years of active military duty. The default here is 4 years, but can be longer or shorter depending on mitigating circumstances. Whatever this number of years is, you also sign up for the same amount of years as Inactive Ready Reserve after your active years expire. During this IRR time, you are officially discharged from the military. You are a private citizen. You can go to college, you can travel outside of the US, you can work full time. The IRR doesn’t effect you at all.

What the IRR does is it tethers you, ever so thinly, back to the military. As a sign of the preference, IRR ranks just below the regular Reserve. So the chances of being called back up are slim, although I have known it to happen. That is what you sign up for when you sign the contract, and the recruiter is obligated to inform you of this. If you do the math, at any given time you have the same amount of people on active duty, as you would on IRR. Actually slightly more on active duty when you factor in the reenlistment of some military personnel.

This Salon article, and in effect, the OP is bunk. Obviously, the increased volunteering for the military after 9/11 has required more Selective Service agents to process these requests. It would take an act of Congress to reinstate the draft.

The Salon article, and the OP, are trying to put words in the mouth of the administration, specifically the evil word “draft” when it is not such the case. Shame on Salon.

[Deptford]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
** keep buttering up the French and Germans. They like to be overrun before they begin fighting. **

The Germans like to be overrun before they begin fighting?

Which planets history have you been reading, because it sure isn’t Earth’s?

[Beagle]

Actually, that was a little Eastern Front joke. Ha ha. The fact remains that the French and Germans are not our allies any more. It’s time people woke up and realized that.

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Dogface:

You misunderstand completely. What gave rise to the widespread resistance was when the Vietnam War-style draft stopped being that style. The hallmark of the Vietnam War draft was the rubberstamp rich-boy deferment. If mummy and daddy could afford to get you into college, you could get out of service. Knock up your sorority-member girlfriend in the last couple of months and you get another deferment.

It wasn’t until the college deferment got cancelled that a bunch of overpampered hypocrites finally “discovered” that war in Vietnam was “wrong”.

Could you provide a cite? Or at least dates. In what year did the anti-Vietnam-War movement visibly emerge? In what year did it begin to involve draft-card burnings, blockading or trashing of Selective Service offices, and other specifically draft-related protests? In what year were college deferments ended?

And, as a matter of your opinion – if the draft is reinstated in the near future, will it or will it not include deferments, alternative forms of service, or other ways out for the sons of the rich and privileged?

And – will there be more anti-draft protests and resistance if the sons of the rich are exempted, or if the sons of the rich are not exempted?

(I say sons because I can’t see this administration even broaching the idea of drafting women. So far as I know, the only country on earth that drafts women is Israel.)

[lokij]

I think a draft is highly unlikely for all the reasons given so far. I do think though that there might be another reason why they’re filling these vacancies and it’s strongarm diplomacy. Say you’re in negotiations with a North Korea who knows your active manpower is stretched thin… quietly filling your draft board slots (but making it known that you are doing so) might send a nice little message to not push us because we are capable of getting the people we need if we have to (The IRR mentioned above is a good source in a pinch). I don’t know how likely this is, but it’s just a thought I had.

[gex_gex]

originally posted by Meteorshower
I’ve asked myself the exact same question. My mother, who I am going to pretend is always right, told me that the reason that they wouldn’t draft women (at least, not at first) was simple.

If a country goes to war, then it is assumed that some significant percentage of people are going to die. Which means that there will be a gap to fill in the population. If all the women go off to war, and the men stay at home, who is going to make some new babies?

Middle-aged women could make a few children, but not a lot and with bigger health-risks. So you need healthy young women around. Unless,of course, you’re willing to implement some extremely massive immigration

There is no real risk of America’s rate of population growth dropping below replacement levels, even if a draft were instituted. This argument might hold sway in some Western European countries.