Seems to me this is one of the most significant reasons why this will never happen. Why wake the sheep?
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getting the draft bill passed, when it would be so bitterly opposed that within one or two election cycles it would be repealed anyway?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any good to reinstate the draft, send every 18 year old in the country off to basic training, and then have the draft repealed a few months after they graduate.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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
What the Master had to say about the 13th Amendment and the draft:
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.
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?
Better yet, here’s what the Supreme Court said in 1918 when rejecting a challenge to the WWI draft brought under the 13th Amendment (at p. 390 of the decision):
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.
Yes. The people affected voluntarily failed to read the fine print. :smack:
It turns out that the answer is similar to his comment income tax protestor arguments – the courts have punted the matter, by just sort of sputtering that attacks on the status quo are stupid.
As the Master put it in the other column I referenced, “*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.”
Regarding the “there will NEVER be another draft” feelings:
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