Do people take that draft bill seriously? Is a draft a credible possibility?

Great Debates
41

That is hardly the only scenario that might produce a draft. What if (for example) Pakistan were to implode, and we were put to the decision of whether and how to try to secure its nuclear weapons.

Or, imagine if a revolutionary and radicalized Pakistan were to invade Afghanistan to “liberate” it from US troops.

Or if Iran were to respond to an Israeli pre-emptive strike by attacking US troops in Iraq.

Or if North Korea were to get a wild hair and invade our ally South Korea.

Seems to me that any of these scenarios might stretch our troops to the breaking point. It is not hard to imagine a draft in one of those scenarios, though I can see where it might be geared to fill stateside and administrative positions to free up troops for combat.

I do not believe a draft is imminent, but Bush has moved to fill vacant positions on local draft boards. (I know this because I applied for one of those positions when the call went out.) I think a draft is unlikely, but I also believe the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand.

42

All of those scenarios would raise the ire of the “international comunity”, and I don’t think it would be hard to get a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force, in which case other countries could fill in the gap where the US comes short on manpower.

43

I grew up in an era when the draft was the norm and not having a draft was almost unthinkable. That puts a different perspective on it for me.

I think that a draft may be a last resort after the backdoor draft has drained the morale of those who serve and discouraged enlistees. If it is reinstated, there will be the usual appeals to the American tradition of doing what it takes to liberate the oppressed and bring freedom and democracy around the globe, fight for peace, etc. It will be carefully orchestrated not matter what party does it. And the other party will scream bloody murder.

44

And they’ll probably have 80% of the American people on their side.

The draft is a nonstarter, baring a major attack against the US.

45

You keep saying that, and yet there are situations (such as those I listed above) where a draft might be the only solution to a manpower shortage.

46

You didn’t read my reply to your post about those situations.

47

I read your reply. You are assuming that the international community would leap to our assistance. Given the way the Bush administration has alienated our allies, I am not so sure.

48

Do you realize that only 1 out of your 4 situations is actually a USspecific problem? The other 3 are clear attacks by one country (not the US) on another country (not the US).

But all you are arguing is that if some major change arises relative to some countries attacking the US, that we’d need to institute a draft. I wouldn’t argue that point. But it would have to be an attack on the US itself, not on some other country-- including Iraq.

49

“US specific” or not, guess which country would get left holding the bag? You don’t think we’d see any foot-dragging from our alienated allies (as they take barely-concealed pleasure in seeing the Bush administration hoist on its own petard)?

50

You are taking the position that the draft will be necessitated by our golbal military aspirations/obligations. I simply think that our global military aspirations/obligations will be held in check to the extent that they can’t be fulfilled without the draft.

51

The international community doesn’t have much manpower. Or military weight to bring to bear. Unless you are talking outside of Western Europe. The EU nations, including Britain, have much less military might than sometimes apparent. They have become great proponents of soft power in part because of their relative ineffectiveness compared to the United States in power projection. NATO happily shouldered the burden of defense, and the United States has been glad to remain the foremost world power and attempt to keep relative power positions. This means we are the only effective force, that we want to be in such situations.

If you mean the international community such as the Islamist NGO’s and Central Asian governments already becoming involved in many of the trouble spots around the world I completely agree.

I don’t see that we have enough troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, and I really feel that is the central question. I don’t think people really wanted the draft at any point in history. Do you think that another serious terrorist attack would change people’s priorities? We do not have an effective military presence in Afghanistan now and there is every sign that the India, Pakistan relationship is being further strained by the way the Afghan War is developing.

I do not believe the draft is necessarily happening and I will not go so far as to say that Bush intends to start the draft. My opinion is more that* the draft is more likely with Bush as president because further (nearly?) unilateral military action is more likely to be undertaken, and the United States is more likely to be involved in global strife*

I do believe that the WoT will fare better with more Special Forces troops, however since they are not available we may need to go to the old standby – training new troops that are hurried into service.

52

A great military need may well require a draft. But I think merely increasing manpower could be done by boosting the incentives.

Speed wouldn’t be sacrificed, either. I joined the Navy in May of 1993, and went through basic, “A” school, and a one month “C” school. I was standing watches in Sicily in January of 1994. Had I not taken a month’s leave before transferring there, I would have been on station in December.

Sailors who don’t get additional “A” school training after boot camp typically get to their ships or stations as undesignated seamen, firemen or airmen after about four months in.

53

House Set to Crush Bill to Reinstitute the Draft

Of course, ‘crushing’ the bill doesn’t address the underlying force deficit, so they’ll have to bring something up next session.

54

On what basis do you say we don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? American isn’t occupying Afghanistan…you know that, right? The US is there more in an advisory role, though granted we have combat troops on the ground. Most of them are SF units though, and we mainly work THROUGH the various militia factions and the new Afghan government. Kerry made a big deal about the US reliance on Afghan ‘mercenaries’, but it was actually a viable strategy for that region and our aims there.

The problem in Iraq/Afghanistan with respect to our military (IMO) is not warm bodies…its logistics. And money of course. The administration TRIED to do this war on the cheap, no doubt of that in my own mind. In addition they didn’t plan their logistics worth a shit as far as troop rotation goes…not to mention equipment.

If there were another major terrorist attack on the US I don’t see it automatically causing a draft…far from it. The only exception I can think of is if there is a major terrorist attack on the US that we can directly link to a major power like China (unlikely in the extreme). Even a major terrorist attack by, say, Iran (more likely than China, though still unlikely IMO), we have the military strength without a draft. If we REALLY need more military strength we’ll see a heavier effort at recruitment by the military…more advertising (notice it hasn’t really increased that much?), incentive bonus’s, signing bonus’s, re-enlistment bonus’s, more benefits, etc. When you start seeing that, then you know that the military is seriously trying to increase its personnel (Kerry wants 2 new divisions…do you think he HAS to do a draft to get them???). If THAT fails to bring in people (something I find unlikely), THEN you MIGHT start worrying about a draft. Until that’s even tried though, you are fretting for nothing IMO.

-XT

55

This link is one reason I think we have too few troops in Iraq. The amount of committed and in need military personnel are another, including numbers from this thread. The book Imperial Hubris:Why America is Losing the War on Terror is one reason that I feel we don’t have forces on the ground in Iraq, as well as the continued traffic of Al Qaeda through the Pakistani border and in the countryside of Afghanistan. We did invade the country to get rid of that right? And it hasn’t been successful? And not much outside of the cities is safe for Americans or Westerners in Afghanistan, as far I know, and the cities are questionable. The current government in Afghanistan seems very weak to me, and seems weaker the more I read about it.
I have tried to avoid saying we need a draft. We don’t at the moment. However there are some fragile situations in the world that may cause big flare ups. The Saudi government is very weak and Pakistan is being weakened by American policy and very wary of the Indian involvement in Afghanistan. Either situation could end up requiring a major troop commitment. We probably would not quibble with the government that suceeded the current leaders, but is that a position we want to be in? And we should not weaken a nuclear power, probably. We are putting ourselves in a dangerous position and I do feel that wars are becoming more likely under our current leadership, though they might be the last to agree to that, or a draft.

56

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.

Right now we have a military that is vastly more powerful than any other on the planet. If we can’t win in Iraq and Afganistan with our current forces, then we need to acknowledge that simply spending more money and throwing more troops into the situation isn’t likely to improve the situation. If we need more troops than what we have now, then the war is essentially lost already and sending more troops would be futile anyway. See Vietnam. We didn’t lose there because we didn’t have enough troops or enough equipment, we lost because what those troops were doing wasn’t bringing us victory. The more troops we sent the worse we did. At the time it was thought that we had no alternative to victory, we had to fight even in a losing war because the alternative was unthinkable. Well, we lost anyway. The unthinkable happened. And we went on.

If we require a draft to supply fresh troops to occupy Iraq, that means that the occupation of Iraq is not going to succeed, and we’ve already lost. Rather than tearing apart the country and ruining their political careers the politicians will declare victory and pull the majority of the troops out and hand things over to Allawi or Sistani or Sadr or Al-Qaida or whoever manages to eventually come out on top. Even if it means that Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists, even if it meas a vastly increased risk of terrorist attacks on the US and around the world, even if it means a crushing blow to American prestige.

Because the problem in Iraq isn’t caused by having too few 18 year olds with M-16s in our military. Most of our military isn’t even in Iraq or supporting operations in Iraq. And adding more 18 year olds with M-16s isn’t going to make our military more effective, it will make our military LESS effective.

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.”

57

Looks like there isn’t much support in [/url=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9847946.htm]Congress for a draft:

The spin that the Dems are putting on this is disgusting. They’re the ones floating these bills and they have nerve to say the Pubs are prostituting the system by forcing a vote.

58

Fixed link

59

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.

60

The bill was introduced in the first place with the usual leftist Democrat race and class warfare arguments, so that’s hardly surprising.