# The Draft, now pending legislation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2004, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165 "2004-05-26T11:57:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/1 "2004-05-26T11:57:59Z")
[This site has an article about pending draft legislation.](http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg) From the article: > [@](#): > > There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program’s initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 I wanted to be wrong about this, but I did not see how they were going to get through Iraq without a draft. Apparently, they can’t. This seems to have been planned for some time since it has helper legislation in “No Child Left Behind.” This time, they are drafting both women and men, and college is only a shelter until the end of your current semester, or year if you are a senior. This is wrong. We should not have started this war, and drafting people to continue a war that was never about the safety of our country is heinous. ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/2 "2004-05-26T12:02:23Z")
I doubt anyone is going to actually institute the draft. More often than not, these things are introduced more to make a point rather than any serious attempt to reinstitute the draft. Further, if Bush tried to get the draft passed he would be committing political suicide. He may not be bright, but he ain’t dumb. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/3 "2004-05-26T13:00:39Z")
I am totally convinced that if Bush is re-elected his first act will be to re-institute the draft. I know this is GD and this is only MHO, but Bush and company scare the hell out of me. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/4 "2004-05-26T13:07:18Z")
[Some relevant info.](http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/5 "2004-05-26T13:11:03Z")
> [@PictsiePat](#): > > I am totally convinced that if Bush is re-elected his first act will be to re-institute the draft. “Totally convinced”? That sounds like a rather strong claim to make. Can you expain to us the logic by which you conclude that Bush would indeed reinstitute the draft, and that this would be his very first act after reelection? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/6 "2004-05-26T13:35:57Z")
There is leftist stink and panic-mongering all over this. The Bill in the Senate is sponsored by Senator Ernest Hollings. He is a Democrat. The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel. He is a Democat. The website link, [Congress.org](http://Congress.org), is obviously put together from a leftist prospective as well. Im certain the intent is to generate discussion just like this one…hoping the word “draft” is all people will hear so they will rush out to the polls in November to vote against the man who will steal the lives of their children. There are many advantages to the all-volunteer force. I wouldn’t look for the evil “neo-cons” to snatch 18 year olds from their beds anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/7 "2004-05-26T14:01:42Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > The website link, [Congress.org](http://Congress.org), is obviously put together from a leftist prospective as well. [Congress.org](http://Congress.org) is a production of the nonpartisan company “Capitol Advantage”, which provides grassroots lobbying tools to anybody who will pay them. That action alert isn’t meant to show their views. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/8 "2004-05-26T15:53:08Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > There is leftist stink and panic-mongering all over this. The Bill in the Senate is sponsored by Senator Ernest Hollings. He is a Democrat. The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel. He is a Democat. The website link, [Congress.org](http://Congress.org), is obviously put together from a leftist prospective as well. > > Im certain the intent is to generate discussion just like this one…hoping the word “draft” is all people will hear so they will rush out to the polls in November to vote against the man who will steal the lives of their children. > > There are many advantages to the all-volunteer force. I wouldn’t look for the evil “neo-cons” to snatch 18 year olds from their beds anytime soon. It seems to me that going to war is a serious enough business that when we do it the general mass of the US population should be vitally affected by it. I’m more and more heading toward the conclusion that the all volunteer military is a bad thing. It allows the executive to get into a war without much hardship on the populace at large which seems to have the attitude about the military, “Well, that’s what they signed up for.” A statement that I’ve seen on SDMB regarding the inactive reserve. If more cases of “18 year olds snatched from their beds” happened, maybe people wouldn’t be so quick to swallow trumped-up “evidence” regarding the need for preemptive wars. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/9 "2004-05-26T16:11:17Z")
I’m reminded of a line from one of Woody Guthrie’s songs, or maybe it was one of Arlo Guthrie’s: "I’ll be might glad to point a gun for my country, “But I won’t guarantee you which way!” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/10 "2004-05-26T16:35:31Z")
Is the draft supposed to be to help out in Iraq? And its not even supposedly even being looked at until 2005 (convient that, as its after the election)…and its being put forward by Democrats in the Senate, if I understand correctly? (and no one seems to think this might smack of partisan politics and posturing for effect with no real thought of actually trying to do this???) So, wouldn’t that mean the draft is likely only if Kerry gets elected, as its his party putting this forth?? (Again, I’m saying that with heavy sarcasm, as I don’t think Kerry or the democrats are that stupid either) Well, if its for Iraq, lets think about that for a second. According to the OP, the draft would begin sometime in “Spring 2005”. To me, that sounds wildly optimistic, but lets go with that figure. Ok, so they start the draft in the spring of 2005. It would take several weeks at least just to assemble the draftees (depends on how many are called up I suppose) I’d guess. Then it would take months to train them, correct? Unless the idea is to draft them, hand them a bolt action rifle with a bayonet and put them on the first transport to Iraq. Ok, so if all goes well, we MIGHT get our first crop of draftee’s realisitically, what? Early 2006? Maybe spring 2006? And people think this is going to be helpful how, exactly? You will be replacing professional highly trained troops in Iraq with half trained and sullen conscripts who don’t want to be there at all. We’ve ALREADY had abuses by our professional highly trained army…can you imagine what it would be like to unleash half trained, sullen and resentful American kids who have been drafted against there will on Iraq?? I’m sorry…but anyone who is stupid enough in our government to actually contemplate this (which I doubt…this is political posturing IMO by the democrats trying to scare folks into thinking the draft might be coming and associate that with Bush) should be buried in an ant hill and covered in honey…in the middle of the desert at noon. Its fucking madness. At any rate, as I’ve said in all the other threads of this nature (there have been several of this stripe in the last few months), I’ll believe it when I see it. I think its HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would be stupid enough to seriously try and re-instate the draft, no matter how ‘bad’ the situation deteriorates in Iraq. And its simply not that bad, from our militaries current perspective, to warrent a draft. -XT ---
**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:** [May 26, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/11 "2004-05-26T16:57:02Z")
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Are we going to have this discussion every month, with some new guy who just read on the internet that the evil Bush is going to draft us all? David Simmons, surely you realize that–for the very reasons you mentioned–the Bush administration is not going to introduce a draft. If a draft would reduce the ability of a President to engage in military adventures, what president would support a draft? And although the draft would take an act of Congress, if the President doesn’t want a draft it isn’t going to happen. So the bottom line is the President doesn’t want a draft, the Secretary of Defense doesn’t want a draft, the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t want a draft, the Pentagon doesn’t want a draft, the army doesn’t want a draft, the navy doesn’t want a draft, the air force doesn’t want a draft, the marines don’t want a draft, the coast guard doesn’t want a draft (aside–were people ever drafted into the coast guard? Has that ever happened in US history?), the Republican-controlled Senate doesn’t want a draft, the Republican-controlled House doesn’t want a draft, the American people don’t want a draft. Who does want a draft? Take a look at the sponsors of that bill. Do you even know who Charles Rangel, Jim McDermott, or Earnest Hollings are? Do you know what party they are in? Do you know what wing of their party they represent? Why do you think they introduced this draft legislation? Because they think it will succeed? No, of course it won’t succeed, since everyone opposes the draft. No, they proposed it for three reasons. One, some of them think a draft might be a good community-building exercise…give everyone a shared experience. Two, a draftee army would become a defensive army, replacing our highly-trained professional army with a bunch of half-trained resentful conscripts would make it impossible to send the military overseas. Three, they want to panic credulous people into thinking that the draft is likely to be reinstated, so they should get to work defeating George Bush. This is just another example of people HOPING George Bush would do something stupid like try to reinstate the draft, since reinstating the draft would be a huge military and political mistake. Let’s assume for sake of argument that George Bush lies awake at night masturbating to the thought of being able to draft every American kid into his vast army of darkness. But even though (on pure evil grounds) Bush wants with all his heart and soul to enslave the next generation of kids, why would he do something that would damage his precious war machine, and endanger his political support? Makes no sense. There will be no draft. Not going to happen. Anyone wanna bet? I’ll put up $100 dollars payable in January 2009 that there will be no draft during the Bush administration, bet to be void if Bush does not win re-election. Any takers? ---
**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:** [May 26, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/12 "2004-05-26T17:15:12Z")
David: Just to clarify, only my second paragraph was written to apply to you personally, the rest is more of a general rant. I don’t mean to imply that you are one of those who thinks a draft is actually likely, just that the reason you give for supporting a draft is one of the reasons there isn’t going to be a draft. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/13 "2004-05-26T19:06:03Z")
Thunder: I wish you would have quoted a bit of the next sentence I wrote: > [@](#): > > I am totally convinced that if Bush is re-elected his first act will be to re-institute the draft. I know this is GD and this is only MHO I don’t usually post in these types of forums, and I’m not a GD’er. I just have a really bad feeling about the whole Bush crowd. I am afraid that if Bush is re-elected, by even the slimmest of margins, he will take this as a mandate to do whatever the hell he can get away with. And since he can’t run again there is no political disincentive for him not to re-instate the draft. What has he got to lose? BTW, much to my chagrin, I voted for Bush in the last election ☹ I will now take my fears and feelings and toddle back to IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/14 "2004-05-26T19:53:16Z")
> [@PictsiePat](#): > > Thunder: > > I wish you would have quoted a bit of the next sentence I wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > I am totally convinced that if Bush is re-elected his first act will be to re-institute the draft. I know this is GD and this is only MHO That statement was irrelevant to the topic at hand, and so I deliberately did not quote it. It doesn’t matter if this is _Great Debates_ or _IMHO_. If you say that you’re totally convinced that Bush would reinstate the draft right after re-election, then it’s only fair for people to ask what rational basis there is for such a statement. Simply stating, “This is only MHO” or “just have a really bad feeling about the whole Bush crowd” does not buy you a free pass. If you have some basis for your statement, then we have every right to ask why you are “totally convinced” that it’s true. Or is this deep, abiding conviction based on nothing more than fuzzy feelings, rather than actual evidence? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/15 "2004-05-26T20:35:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So the bottom line is the President doesn’t want a draft, the Secretary of Defense doesn’t want a draft, the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t want a draft, the Pentagon doesn’t want a draft, the army doesn’t want a draft, the navy doesn’t want a draft, the air force doesn’t want a draft, the marines don’t want a draft, the coast guard doesn’t want a draft (aside–were people ever drafted into the coast guard? Has that ever happened in US history?), the Republican-controlled Senate doesn’t want a draft, the Republican-controlled House doesn’t want a draft, the American people don’t want a draft. Oh I agree, there won’t be a draft. I’m disgusted with a substantial fraction of the US population and its putative “leadership’s” panicky, irrational and ineffective response response to the 9/11 attacks. All of which makes me sort of glad that I’m as old as I am. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/16 "2004-05-26T21:05:09Z")
Uh, did anybody here actually read the Snopes link provided by Marley23? Or is this just gonna be more stupid the-sky-is-falling-because-of-that-evil-Bush-and-his-heinous-cabal handwringing? Are we actually afraid that Bush, as his _first act_, or any act, after a successful re-election bid is gonna instate a draft, the necessary prerequisite legislation for which, was proposed and sponsored by _Democrats_? In _January 2003_? C’mon, you guys. Let’s show a little bit of perspective here. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/17 "2004-05-26T21:14:10Z")
> [@xstime](#): > > And its not even supposedly even being looked at until 2005 (convient that, as its after the election)…and its being put forward by Democrats in the Senate, if I understand correctly? Democrats in the House, too. Obviously a lot of people have forgotten that this was a news story when it happened: the people who put this legislation didn’t do it to restart the draft, they did it to make a point. The point was that the leaders of this country were putting other people’s children in harm’s way and not their own (I think the stat quoted at the time was that only one member of Congress had a child in the military). > [@xstime](#): > > So, wouldn’t that mean the draft is likely only if Kerry gets elected, as its his party putting this forth?? :smack: The legislation dates back to _January 2003_. Kerry didn’t become the Democratic Presidential nominee until more than a year later. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Uh, did anybody here actually read the Snopes link provided by Marley23? Doesn’t look that way to me. From Snopes: "As reflected in the message quoted above, the draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. beween the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service’s advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both the Congressional bills were introduced back in January 2003 and have languished in committee ever since with seemingly little support… \ - About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms as unpaid board members. [Selective Service spokesman Pat] Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999. ``` That means hiring replacements has been going on for several years. Confusion arose in recent weeks when someone posted the hiring notice on www.defendamerica.mil, a Pentagon Web site about the war on terror, even though the Selective Service System is not a part of the Defense Department. "Serve Your Community and the Nation — Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member," it said.* ``` […] - While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost. ``` "The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession." A fundamental problem with a draft today, experts say, is that the historic two-year period of conscription isn't enough time to get a return on the investment in training that modern soldiers require. "There's just too much equipment [draftees] could break," Pike said. A related problem: the cost of feeding, clothing, training and paying a large influx of unskilled personnel would gobble up funds the military needs for other purposes. "We're a personnel-based institution," Wong said. "If we have a lot more people walking in the door, it would suck up all of our resources."* ``` ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/18 "2004-05-26T21:17:24Z")
Actually UncleBeer, I DID miss Marley23’s link to snopes on this…and I’m sorry now I did. I wish he would have quoted some of this stuff, as it would have saved me the trouble of saying it myself. 🙂 > [@Draft Fear](#): > > As recent U.S. military involvement in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has required the largest commitment of American troops since the mid-1970s, and the military has had to double the deployment periods of some units, call up additional reserves, and extend tours of duty by a year in order to maintain adequate staffing levels, the specter of a resurrected draft has been looming on the mind of many a young person. Although the possibility of a reinstatement of conscription cannot be ruled out, a renewal of the draft anytime soon appears unlikely, and one implemented as early as June 2005 seems rather improbable. > [@Draft Fear](#): > > As reflected in the message quoted above, the draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. beween the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service’s advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. **However, both the Congressional bills were introduced back in January 2003 and have languished in committee ever since with seemingly little support, and the Selective Service maintains that the timing of ads to fill draft board positions was coincidental, part of a process of filling expired board positions that has been underway for several years:** > [@Draft Fears](#): > > While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost. > > “The draft would be the Army’s worst nightmare,” said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. “We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can’t draft people into a profession.” > > A fundamental problem with a draft today, experts say, is that the historic two-year period of conscription isn’t enough time to get a return on the investment in training that modern soldiers require. “There’s just too much equipment [draftees] could break,” Pike said. > [@Draft Fears](#): > > Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005: Definitely got to remember this link for the NEXT off the wall “Oh my god!! Bush is going to re-instated the draft!” thread that comes down the pike. Thanks Marley23 for the link, and thanks UncleBeer for the heads up on it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/19 "2004-05-26T22:14:18Z")
Yeah, that link pretty much puts Chicken Little’s head squarely on the chopping block. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165/20 "2004-05-26T22:33:30Z")
Thank you guys. Snopes only posted that piece yesterday, and most of the specifics were new to me as well. I’m glad they put so much research into it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-draft-now-pending-legislation/247165.md?page=2)