# Do people take that draft bill seriously? Is a draft a credible possibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878 "2004-09-30T17:14:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/61 "2004-10-06T18:37:52Z")
Good lord. GOPers complaining about “spin”. That is rich. > [@Bricker](#): > > An interesting sidelight: the only two votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats. Apparently, if any party can be said to support the re-institution of the draft, it’s the Democrats. That won’t get you far at all, when the bill’s sponsor, Charles Rangel, voted against it and urged all Democrats to do the same. It’s a protest bill, and its text was pretty clear: to ensure that in the event of a draft, that children of the rich and privileged will not be able to avoid it. And discussion of this bill obscures a larger fact: Our military is getting stretched by the Iraq occupation. While the Air Force and Navy are fine, the Marines and Army are straining to fill their slots. (See the October 1 posts by **Squink** and **spoke-** for cites.) And the electorate holds GeeDubya responsible for Iraq, which is only fair since he’s taking credit for it at every step. But there’s a few things being missed here. First, the CW that draftees are worthless (brilliantly promulgated by our Secretary of Defense) is not held by Col. David Hackworth, who [says in this article:](http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hackworth_100404,00.html) > [@](#): > > I led draftees for almost four years in Vietnam and for several years during the Korean War. If well-led, there are no finer soldiers. Ask the Nazis, the Japanese and the Reds in Korea and in Vietnam, where “no value” draftees cleaned their clocks in fight after fight. > > Israel, a country that has lived under the barrel of the Islamic terrorist gun for decades, has the most combat-experienced counterinsurgent force in the world - and boy and girl draftees are its major resource. Second, in an [article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html) from March, a **spokesman for the Selective Service** admits that they are preparing for a “special skills draft” for linguists and computer experts and have been since last fall: > [@](#): > > “Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam,” said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System. “But they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft.” > > Flahavan said Selective Service planning for a possible draft of linguists and computer experts began last fall after Pentagon personnel officials said the military needed more people with skills in those areas. > > A targeted registration and draft “is strictly in the planning stage,” he said, adding that “the whole thing is driven by what appears to be the more pressing and relevant need today” – the deficit in language and computer experts. > > The spokesman said it could take about two years to “to have all the kinks worked out.” So, in answer to the OP: No, people don’t take that draft bill seriously. But people ([at least 38% of them](http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm#Military), see the second question from the top) do take the possibility of a draft in the event of a GWB victory seriously, vs 18% if Kerry wins. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/62 "2004-10-06T18:49:37Z")
> [@Airblairxxx](#): > > Good lord. GOPers complaining about “spin”. That is rich. Spin is spin, regardless of the source. > [@](#): > > But there’s a few things being missed here. First, the CW that draftees are worthless (brilliantly promulgated by our Secretary of Defense) is not held by Col. David Hackworth, who [says in this article:](http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hackworth_100404,00.html) When Colonels start making military policy, I’ll take his assessement sereiously. > [@](#): > > Second, in an [article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html) from March, a **spokesman for the Selective Service** admits that they are preparing for a “special skills draft” for linguists and computer experts and have been since last fall: Something along those lines might indeed make sense if more conventional means (pay incentives) don’t get the job done. But this is a far, far cry from what most people think of when they hear the term “draft”. I wouldn’t support this, but I can see where it might, and I emphasize MIGHT, pass muster with the public. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/63 "2004-10-06T20:32:19Z")
Of course, if the military truly needs people with specific skills, it makes much much much more sense to offer more incentives for those people to join voluntarily, or hire those people as civilian contractors. And there are other options that would help that fall short of a draft. Like, the president could call a national press conference and say that the country needs more soldiers, and exhort people to join the service especially if they have special skills X, Y, or Z. Instead, right now we are told to go on with our lives and pretend nothing is happening. I can guarantee you that tax increases to pay for better wages, benefits and working conditions for people in the service would be much more popular than reinstating the draft. Even a selective draft. Heck, a selective draft is much more unfair than universal public service. At least general conscription can be sold as a duty of every citizen. A selective draft is just involuntary servitude, no matter what the supreme court says. Slavery was supposedly abolished by the 13th Amendment, for crying out loud. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/64 "2004-10-06T20:37:33Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Of course, if the military truly needs people with specific skills, it makes much much much more sense to offer more incentives for those people to join voluntarily, or hire those people as civilian contractors. Of course it does. Drafting linguists will cause \*\*\*fewer \*\*\*people to pursue that career choice. Increasing the pay for linguists will cause \*\*\*more \*\*\*to do so. If your need was short term and short lived, a draft might make some sense. If you need is long term, it wouldn’t ---
**Author:** ![zoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71c47a/32.png) [@zoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/65 "2004-10-06T21:14:22Z")
Regardless of whether or not a draft is probable I think pushing the idea that GWB will start a draft may be a good strategy for Kerry and the Democrats to go with. Many people will believe Bush is more likely to start another war than Kerry. (He would need to get permission from the UN right?) If Democrats can convince enough young people that Bush will draft them it could spell doom for this administration. Republican: “Bush says he will not start a draft, period!” Democrat: “Bush said Iraq had WMDs, he was wrong. The administration said we had enough troops to invade and properly secure Iraq, they were wrong. Why should we trust him now?" ---
**Author:** ![TheSquirrelfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TheSquirrelfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSquirrelfish)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/66 "2004-10-07T03:40:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Of course it does. Drafting linguists will cause \*\*\*fewer \*\*\*people to pursue that career choice. Increasing the pay for linguists will cause \*\*\*more \*\*\*to do so. If your need was short term and short lived, a draft might make some sense. If you need is long term, it wouldn’t Oh, but the linguists I know either are already employed by the government in some capacity or have certain moral or cultural objections to working in that sort of capacity… This is an interesting group to consider drafting. ---
**Author:** ![TheSquirrelfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TheSquirrelfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSquirrelfish)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/67 "2004-10-07T04:07:03Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Here’s where I think you’re going wrong, Squirrelfish. > > Yes, if we have a couple new major incidents we might need to reinstate the draft in order to have the military staffing need to invade and occupy the half-dozen or so countries involved. And it may be that it would be the best option to invade and occupy those countries, so if we don’t have a larger military we won’t have the option to invade. > > However, this doesn’t mean that we will agree to a draft. No country in the world has the ability to invade and occupy a half-dozen other countries, even if it would be desirable to do so. If we are stretched thin in Iraq, and troops are needed to stop the genocide in Sudan, well, then the genocide in Sudan will continue and there’s nothing we can do about it. > > What we need to recognize is that world events are largely beyond the control of any country, or any military, or any organization. We could turn the United States into a new Sparta where every citizen is a soldier sent out to invade and occupy foreign countries, and we still wouldn’t have the manpower and resources we would need. > > … > > If we reach the point were we need a draft to continue the war, then a draft won’t win the war anyway. So we’ll cut and run. And the politicians will say something like: “It makes me mad when people say we turned and ran like a scared rabbit. Maybe it was like an angry rabbit, who was running to go fight in another fight, away from the first fight.” You have many good points and I agree and think you have made a very reasonable argument. I am not particularly advocating a draft, and I understand your point. The war in Iraq could be conceded, and if it leads to a draft it is much past lost. The war on terror? I am not so sure. We probably won’t need a draft for this, and unless something catastropic happens(eg India v. Pakistan or fall of Saudi royals) that should be the course we pursue. However, the draft doesn’t have to be useless and doesn’t have to be training 18 year olds to carry M-16s. Some governments have required training in military/emergency medical training. I believe something along these lines could be immensely effective in training people in emergencies. This would not necessarily require being sent anywhere for very long but would provide for some additional security in the areas where we are currently the most pressed, and not be that bad of a draft. I am thinking basic emergency medical and disaster preparedness, similar to Red Cross training, with the option of what to pursue dependent upon your beliefs, preferences etc. It’s a stretch, but the selective service draft for special service etc, could all be hosted through this program and it would provide for training to fulfill our huge need for nurses, medical assistants, firefighters, first responders etc, especially in the face of growing terrorism threats. I feel this would be the most effective response to another large terrorist attack and the situation of the more standard draft after sending our whole military to Iraq, Afghanistan that you described would be as described, a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878/68 "2004-10-07T05:39:29Z")
If no one is willing to voluntarily enlist to fight a particular war or action, and so not enough men exist to do so, then that particular war or action should not be fought. If there ever comes a time when the War on Terror is so unpopular with the american people that people have to be forced (drafted) to fight, then the time has come when the govt is putting itself (again) in the rediculous position of the ruler and not the servant. A draft is not compatible with a free society. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-take-that-draft-bill-seriously-is-a-draft-a-credible-possibility/266878.md?page=3)