Let’s say we, by law, drafted 10% of our armed forces randomly from the American population all the time. Completely random. The rest would still be volunteers.
But why? In a volunteer army, you have people who “volunteer” because they need money for an education (ie, poor people), people who need a job (poor people), or gung ho military types. There is a lack of upper-middle or upper-upper class folks. Yet, these types of people have parents with money/power. People with money have political clout that goes far beyond the ability to “cast a vote.” People with that kind of political clout can influence public officials to not send their son into a war they suddenly care more about.
Public officials will wait, exhaust diplomatic means, make sure there’s no other f’n way, or rather just not go fight. They “should” do all these things regardless, but a 10% draft law will guarantee it.
Good in theory? I’m sure there are real world problems (like “I didn’t volunteer for this shit”), but I can’t help but think a draft would lead to less American military adventure, less death, less money spent, less foreign hate of American military adventure.
There would be no school/college exemptions. Thereby closing more of the rich/poor gap. That’s the point.
I meant to keep the OP loose/no exemptions. But, like a single father with kids would be exempt, but he’s more likely to be poor/less clout anyways. I’ll debate these, but it’s not really my point.
The goal is to see, obviously in theory, if my desired effects of a 10% random draft would come to fruition.
I’m not sure who all falls into “gung ho military types,” and why their income doesn’t count, but I’d like to be sure there’s a problem before trying to solve it.
From here, as of 2005 the military looked a lot like America, demographically. In fact, in 2003, 22% of the military came from the top quintile, percentagewise.
If this has changed in the past four years, and the demographics are so out of whack that an intrusive, questionably legal, draft is an attractive alternative, please present your work.
I’m going to disagree with your OP. You make it sound as though only poor people need to serve in the Military, and there are a few HOOAH types that serve. Truth is that there are a lot of reasons that people serve, college and job opportunities are just a couple of them. There are leadership opportunities, travel to different countries (and Iraq is but one of them, I loved Korea.) and the opportunity to serve your country.
Just for argument’s sake let’s say that 10% of Americans were required to play major college sports(basketball, football, hockey, etc), and I mean actually play, not just come in during the final few seconds, but must be an active player on the team. After all, most kids who play college sports know they will never play professionally, so they are only playing to get college money (poor people). If we require everyone to play sports, then everyone will have the opportunity to go to college. Also, Military or college sports, you can fuck your body up pretty badly in either, so the comparison seems valid.
But SSG Schwartz, you will say, if we make everyone, young, old, disabled, and unfit, the games will not be any good, because those that don’t really want to play will fuck up the games on purpose. Exactly, and this is also why I don’t want to see a draft. Conscripted troops don’t make it easy on those of us that want to serve in the Armed Forces.
I’m feeling the hit on the reduced standards introduced in recruing a few years ago. I’m not sure of the standards as of this moment, but dude…I’ve had a few soldoers in the last year or so that were…well, I’ll tell ya, "I checked their GT scores, and they were well below the level required in my MOS when I joined or even when I was recruiting.
So I gotta agree. A draft would only introduce more of these morons into the service. Its another symptom of the fiasco in Iraq. Lowering the standard for enlistment, that is.
Jolly Roger,
I’m still in recruiting and I will hit the halfway point next week. CAT IV’s are closed now, but line scores for MOS’s have got to be dropping. The Army is still on pace to make its mission this year. Moral waivers are just getting harder and harder to get though.
Just on a practical level, getting a law like this passed will never work. People don’t want a draft, because they don’t want to get drafted. If they wanted to join the military, they would - and then we wouldn’t need a draft in the first place. So a draft would be politically unpopular. The only way to get around that, is if the country finds itself in such dire straits that we absolutely must beef up the military at all costs. In that situation, you might see Congress go against popular opinion and institute a draft. But they’re going to include all the standard loopholes that get their kids - and the kids of their financial supporters - off the hook.
Your solution belies the obvious statistical import: the people with power, money and the commensurate influence are a small part of the population. They’re far less likely to get drafted in the first case than, say, someone who’s middle class or below. This is particularly more the case when you only want to draft 10% of the military (as in its numbers) instead of 10% of the population. So, we’re going to draft about 100 to 200 thousand people into the military.
Your solution belies the obvious statistical import: the people with power, money and the commensurate influence are a small part of the population. They’re far less likely to get drafted in the first case than, say, someone who’s middle class or below. This is particularly more the case when you only want to draft 10% of the military (as in its numbers) instead of 10% of the population. So, we’re going to draft about 100 to 200 thousand people into the military.
I don’t think there has ever been a peacetime draft that was random w/minimal exemptions. If there has, I’m open.
Yes, there will be people drafted who would rather not be in the military. That’s the point; it would prevent a war like Iraq in the first place. Doing, say, a 2 year stint in North Carolina is one thing, serving time in Iraq is another.
Yes, there are affluent in the military now - voluntarily.
CaveMike’s link is pretty much what I’m describing:
“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Chuck Rangel said”
I would also add there would be more able people to influence adventures before they have a chance to happen.
I don’t think a bill like Rangel proposed in 2003 would ever get passed, but I’m interested in debating whether the intended effects would ever happen – less unnecessary military adventures.
No. Now I see how my OP “completely random” might be misleading. I had in mind completely random from abled bodied young men/women. When I said random, I was thinking no exemptions would apply.
Historically, the draft has always been applied to enable large standing armies. (read European). The only exception was probably the UK prior to WW 1 - and their army was very small by the standards of the time.
