A large standing army (ie one created from a draft) allows wars of adventure to be pursued without the popular support of the people. If you have our current force structure, with volunteer active duty soldiers supported (and replaced, when they deploy to trouble spots) with National Guard and Reserve soldiers, as well as ‘Citizern Soldiers’ fulfilling mission-critical roles for large conflicts such as logistics and supply, then you need much more popular support to wage war at all. Roosevelt instituted the draft because he had to - force levels at the time were such that had Japan invaded the West coast, they would have made it to Ohio before we could have stopped them.
This is part of why Rumsfeld scares me - he is attempting now to completely gut the current force structure by re-aligning current reserve functions (such as in-air refuleing wings) back into active duty formations. This would remove the above statement from the equasion…
This is true, and I can state that from experience, but the draft would not make this any better or worse…
I don’t buy this. The folks who would get drafted would be the same as in other wars… those without the power to get out of it.
This is something i agree with, although the experience in most countries that I know of (South Africa and Belgium, where two friends are from) is that they do their time and get the hell out and rarely if ever talk about it again.
Um… cite? Because the Draft allowed Mai Lai to happen, so I don’t know how it would keep Abu Ghraibs from happening…
But does anybody know if the Pentagon would support it? Anecdotal evidence says no, as the general quality of a draft army is far to suspect to be counted on, and the institutional memory of the Military is such that I can’t imagine them supporting it…
Define “war on terror”. The country is split about 50/50 on the war in Iraq, and those against it probably don’t see it as part of the WoT. If the draft is reinstated, support for the Iraq War will drop significantly.
But I’ll repeat what I’ve said in most every thread on this topic. Anyone who wants to bet about the draft being reinstated within the next 4 years, bring it on.
Squink: Would you like place a wager? I’ll take prety much any odds.
Squink the difference is THE DRAFT. Get it? It’s one thing to accuse your opponent of being a terrorist-coddler because he didn’t vote for this budget item, or that measure increasing security at the municipal landfil in Bumfuck Indiana.
But those things are largely meaningless to most people. It doesn’t make a bit of difference to most people if the landfil gets the bomb-sniffing dog it’s always wanted. But its different when you want to ship Timmy off to Iraq at gunpoint.
And do you really think characterizing Iraq as a “meatgrinder” is accurate? We aren’t expecting to need more troops because the ones we sent over there in the first place are now mostly dead or maimed. We’re expecting shortages because some people don’t particularly want to go to Iraq, and they don’t have to go if they don’t reenlist.
If winning the War on Terror ™ required politicians to reinstate the draft, why, so much the worse for the War on Terror. I would imagine that many or most politicians would rather lose the War on Terror than get voted out of office. And even if they heroicly vote for the draft knowing it will cost them the next election, the draft will just be repealed by the next congress.
Hell no! But given a worsening of the recruiting and reenlistment situation, they’re going to have to do something. Bonuses for joining up and re-upping are already approaching all time highs, and the well is still running dry. Calling off, or hamstringing the war on terror is not an option, and I doubt that congress will approve upping combat salaries to say $50K in order to get the personnel for a couple more divisions. So what are they going to do?
As a note of interest, however, when Cheney was asked in a townhall forum about a possible post-election draft, he said “no”, while vigorously rubbing his nose. Fans of body language would tend to think he may be lying.
Actually, concerning this issue, I was surprised to see this article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. The WSJ isn’t typically in the business of quashing unfounded rumors (not to suggest this rumor does have any base in fact, as the article explains), and I’ve got to wonder why the article appeared at all. It’s not as if the WSJ’s readership is the type to believe in the rumor, and all I can imagine that the article was to further publicize it.
Well, file under “Things that make you go hmmmmm…”
Those who say that any member of Congress who supports the draft will immediately face defeat in the next election may not be fully in touch with the realities of American politics. Many members of Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives, are very firmly entrenched. They don’t face any sort of serious challenge during the average two-year election cycle. And even if someone did run against them, incumbents of this sort always have a solid base and a massive advantage in fund-raising. Old people vote much more reliably than young people, and if you think that the prospect of a draft would bring one hundred percent of the under 25 voting block to the polls, you’re underestimating how totally oblivious some young folks are to politics.
I’m not saying that I think there will be a draft, but supporting it isn’t necessarily political suicide.
Why is calling off the War on Terror not an option? Seems like it is a perfectly feasible option. Sure, maybe we’ll be hit down the road with more terrorism, or down the road the Middle East will explode into war. But that’s down the road. Politicians have to look after their careers TODAY. We like our politicians to make tough statements about how we won’t give up no matter what the price. Since right now the price is mostly running a budget deficit, we aren’t even being asked to pay higher taxes. And you expect politicians to have the courage to enact conscription?
That’s certainly true. If I asserted that “vote for the draft and you will, with 100% certainty, not be re-elected”, then that was a gross oversimplification. But there are enough Congresscritters who WOULD have their tenure threatened if they voted for the draft to ensure that it WON’T get the needed votes.
Because it takes two to disentango, and OBL has not yet cried uncle. If we call off the war on terror we’ll increase the chances that the terrorists will once again ‘get it right’.
Now if there’s another major terrorist success on US soil, I can see congress getting behind some sort of compulsary service initiative, in which our youth spend a couple of years guarding our ports, borders and infrastructure. It wouldn’t require much political courage to tack on an option allowing them to instead ‘volunteer’ for military service. By keeping the number of slots for home-service low, they could aquire as many for the military as they desire. It wouldn’t be a draft, but it’d accomplish the same end.
The draft seems unlikely but possible. A draft is not a good solution, but it might be a necessary stopgap. While I am against the war on Iraq, I am not against the War on Terror, which is losing badly right now. We have nowhere near enough forces in Afghanistan and we are currently sending them to Iraq. There are already compaints about the number of national guards and reservists being called up. If we have so many options of transferring people, where are they?
One of the reasons a draft is unlikely is that we need a different kind of armed service for the war on terror, however the proposed changes to the draft would allow them to select for people with an interest/expertise or aptitude for this kind of service. This would still not be an ideal solution, but wars don’t have ideal solutions. We are faced with a very large threat, with several current flash points. The war in Iraq has focused much of the extreme Islamist militants there, however the Al Qaeda bases in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan(to name a few, but not all) are still active. If we can not deal with them just now, that is understandable, however we still have one large problem.
They wish to attack us. We are currently low on soldiers and are calling up national guard and reservist troops. These troops often hold positions as first responders, police etc. We also have insufficient forces for preventing terrorism (exemplified by the massive recruiting being done by the FBI, CIA, and border controls) so we do need to train people to replace these first responders and be on hand in an emergency. There remains a threat of WMDs in the hands of terrorists. During the cold war we had preparedness training in the event of nuclear war, much of which has been rightly allowed to deteriorate. but we do need to remain aware that we can be attacked. We can even be attacked more violently and more dangerously, and much of what we need to do is create plans and leave manpower available in the US to respond to such emergencies. So perhaps a draft will be the only way to effectively fight both our current wars and have a secure domestic front.
The other reason a draft is unneccessary is that the WoT is not a conventional war. There is a military component to it, but it’s not the only (or even the most important) component. We don’t need large armies and we don’t need to bomb the shit out of countries, as we did in WWII. Perhaps we need more Special Ops guys, but you don’t get them from a draft. What we need are lots of spies and good intelligence (the spy kind, not the the SAT kind ) to fight the WoT. Having lots and lots of 18 year old Privates in the Army/Marines isn’t goign to help us.
Well there are three aspects even to the unconventional war we agree this is: finding targets, and then taking the targets, and then holding the targets. The intelligence community and special forces find the targets, but the rest needs to be done with regular soldiers. Unfortunately, because of a factors I am nowhere near expert enough to understand our military has been unable to effectively get targeted people. We manage to get facilities/regions alright, but those using them escape and build new ones… And we are only so-so at holding these facilities/regions. We are using the Special Forces for many of the traditional military duties and that could be improved upon.
I still don’t think the draft is likely, but I do think it is better than losing the War on Terror and continuing to alienate much of the world without giving them any reason to fear reprisals.
And it’s not irrational to start talking about the draft given that we do seem to be in a situation in which our manpower is stretched too thin, and we are fast careening (thanks to unbelievable incompetance in statecraft the like of which we haven’t seen since Russian czars sided with the countries who had the prettiest uniforms) into situations where we would need tons of troops. You can claim to be against the draft, but if you continue policies that make it inevitable, you aren’t really being very serious. However, a draft is, indeed, but one way to increase the size of the military.
Actually, I think those two options would require about the same expenditure of public funds.
That’s not the problem. The problem isn’t the government expenditure (either by higher taxes for the more expensive troops or the extra cost of having to round them up) but rather the overall efficiency: you’d be paying more for lower quality troops. But even that doesn’t take into account the overall inefficiency: when you offer a price, you get what you pay for. When you randomly pull people out of one sector of the economy and put them into another, there is no guarantee that you’ve efficiently allocated resources. A young man might enjoy his free time playing video games a lot more than the rest of the world might enjoy the benefits of his unwilling services as a soldier.
The real reason we would need a draft is not because of cost or efficiency, but speed. Offering people new career options with higher pay is a very SLOW way to attract new recruits. If we do have a great military need in the future, we may nto have the time to wait while people’s career judgements and expectations and lifestyles adjust to new market conditions. In reality, that sort of shift can take decades. A draft gets people armed and out there in a matter of months.
However, even that won’t be a very good solution, because modern wars just don’t rely as much on the standard grunt that you can just hand a gun and use as canon fodder. That’s just not how we fight wars anymore: we need technicians and pilots and drivers and medics and all sorts of diversely skilled troops.
Which makes things even worse: if we have a real military need, we will be to some degree SOOL in a way that we wouldn’t have been in earlier, less technological times.
No draft…not going to happen unless things around the world go completely over the edge. In which case, the draft will be the least of our worries.
We have sufficient troops for Iraq, and I can’t imagine the WoT requiring another whole army…and an army of half trained and resentful conscripts at that. It would be like Vietnam all over again…gods help us.
The WoT will be more SF oriented missions with small elite troops scouting or fighting in the shadows. I don’t see either Iran or NK escalating into a full blow war, though I conceed the possibility of things like air strikes…which the US is perfectly able to do even with a good chunk of our army tied up in Iraq for the forseeable future. In fact, BECAUSE a good chunk of our army is so tied up I seriously doubt there will be any more military adventures for the next decade or more.
There are myriad reasons I’ve given in the countless other ‘Oh my god…THE DRAFT IS COMING!’ threads, but I’m tired of repeating myself, and most have been addressed by other posters here. Basically no one (who matters) wants the draft. The President (whichever one we get) doesn’t want it. Congress/Senate doesn’t want it. The military would absolutely HATE it. The American people don’t want it. I find it incredible that, given the above, anyone would seriously think that its a pending doom held over our heads if Bush gets elected.
Time will tell who’s right about this I suppose. If Bush is elected and we get a draft I’ll be the first one to come on the board and fess up that I was dead wrong. My guess is that those people wringing their hands about the ‘pending’ draft and screeing about evil Bush won’t be coming on the board in 4 years (IF Bush is re-elected of course) and admit they were full of shit. Oh well.
The main reason the draft will not come back is because draftees are pretty much useless in a modern army. This isn’t the army of WWII or even Vietnam. Even being an infantryman these days requires a lot of technical training.
Plus, the job the forces will wind up doing most is peacekeeping. The U.S. military has shown that it can plow through the militaries of any of its likely adversaries in a matter of days or weeks. After that comes the long, grueling occupation. Draftees are lousy in that role. They are disgruntled, marking the time until they can go home.
The U.S. army has evolved into a highly professional, technical fighting force. It’s just not suited to being filled with hundreds of thousands or millions of untrained, uncaring draftees.
If the military has trouble meetings its recruiting targets, expect more incentives to attract high quality people. Sign up bonuses will increase, educational incentives will increase, etc.
The only reason this discussion is happening in the first place is because Rangel and others want people to use the words “draft” and “Bush” in the same sentence. When the fabulously self-centered and uninformed hear those words together, the hope is that a stampede to the polls will ensue to keep GWB from pulling those IPods off their heads and sending them to war.
The real reason we would need a draft is if we were attacked, conventionally, by a country like China. In that case, support for the draft would be high, and we’d be able to put it in place quickly. It’s unlikely, but something we should be prepared for. Of course people taking pot shots at the current administration for making sure the selective service infrastructure is in place doesn’t help matters. (Not saying you’ve done this, Apos, but it has been done on this board.)
) to fight the WoT. Having lots and lots of 18 year old Privates in the Army/Marines isn’t goign to help us.