# Well, here it is...The Draft
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 21, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130 "2004-04-21T00:12:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/21 "2004-04-21T07:17:42Z")
Holy typos, Batman! Sorry for that error, **jayjay**. I hate laptops with a passion. :mad:
---
### Author:  [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/22 "2004-04-21T07:41:43Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> I personally am very much against the draft. That last thing we need is people who aren’t dedicated to their jobs in the military. Imagine having an aircraft maintainer either not caring about the condition of the aircraft, or worse, intentionally sabotaging it. Not a pretty picture.
Just like his counterpart in WW2?
Not all drafts are Vietnam… although _this_ one probably would be.
---
### Author:  [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/23 "2004-04-21T13:02:27Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> …The draft is dead. Hopefully it stays that way…
I repesctfully disagree. It’s not dead, just lurking amongst us in an amicable manner. To me, it’s a game of symantics.
If it were really, really, really dead, you wouldn’t need to mandate the Selective Service to continue to keep tabs on our male youth (of age 18+) to this very day . And, being born shortly after the Vietnam War, how come to this very day I am often still required to show proof of having once registered for the…well, the DRAFT, what else can I call it?
The collective “they” really shouldn’t need to care and keep such close tabs on people during these times esp. if the draft is really dead vs. lurking. It is as if they are still hunting draft dodgers, and thoughts of being presumed innocent until proven guilty really come with a footnote that “they” will still be watching.
- Jinx
---
### Author:  [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/24 "2004-04-21T13:08:58Z")
I really really _really_ don’t think we are going to reinstate the draft, and the chances of it being officially discussed (by the administration) over the next 7 months seems very low. I can easily see any presidential administration convincing itself that even if the draft were necessary, a brief wait until after the elections would not be _that_ bad, regardless of whether or not it was in fact that bad.
Incorporating a draft would mean a rejection of Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s military and fiscal policies to date. Actually, more like an incredibly visible repudiation of all that they previously held to be sacred. Radically reshaping the military would be sacrificed for training and equipping and supporting legions of poor bloody infantry. The level of spending required would force fiscal sanity (read: raising taxes) on the president. More spending would be needed to really rebuild Iraq.
I don’t think the Bush administration was ever supposed to be _about_ invading Iraq. I think Iraq was just supposed to be a quickie (fast, cheap, painless, completely reshaping the middle east). While the administration is stuck with Iraq now, I don’t know that _anyone_ cares enough about it to go to the lengths that _might_ now be necessary to fix it.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/25 "2004-04-21T13:45:19Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> So, the draft. Is it necessary for “success” in Iraq?
No, and nobody is seriously asserting that it is. This is just another iteration of the old class-warfare argument (most of the cannon fodder is drawn from the lumpen proletarat, this is Unfair[tm], and Something Must Be Done About It[tm]).
---
### Author:  [@SpectBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpectBrain)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/26 "2004-04-21T13:55:09Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> The argument that the draft is involuntary servitude has never passed muster, **her 60jayjay**. It’s been tried, with little to no success.
>
> I personally am very much against the draft. That last thing we need is people who aren’t dedicated to their jobs in the military. Imagine having an aircraft maintainer either not caring about the condition of the aircraft, or worse, intentionally sabotaging it. Not a pretty picture.
>
> The draft is dead. Hopefully it stays that way.
>
> BTW, I’ll stay until I’m either 60, dead, or they throw me out. I’m devoted, and I expect nothing less from my fellow airmen (or soldiers, sailors and Marines, for that matter). They don’t have to stay, but while they’re there they have to do their job to the best of their abilities.
>
> That draft would destroy all that. That’s why it’ll never happen.
Viet Nam era draft avoider here. I joined the Air Force to avoid the Army. Nothing motivates a trip to the recruiters office like a notice to appear for a pre-induction physical. My point here is that you won’t find too many draftees used in skilled postitions. Their assignments will pretty much be as gravel agitators and other relatively unskilled jobs. The DOD isn’t going to send someone to a Tech school for a year or more as part of a 2 year draft enlistment.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/27 "2004-04-21T14:16:10Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> So, to draw a simple diagram for you…
Look, bud, quite a few people interpreted your OP exactly as I did: That you have claimed (or at least implied) that Bush will support the draft. You’ve offered ZERO evidence for that claim. I called you on it directly, and you’re trying to weasel out of it. Play semantic games or insulting other posters isn’t going to cut it. Enjoy your thread. Perhaps other posters here will have more patience with you than I have.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/28 "2004-04-21T14:57:52Z")
Ah…yet another “Oh my god, the draft is coming!!” thread. This seems to go around and around as some other obscure politician out there shoots off his mouth about The Draft with absolutely nothing to back it up with.
There won’t be a draft any time soon…maybe never again. We’ve moved on from that. Our military isn’t geared to that anymore. What would you DO with the draftee’s? We don’t really have a ‘cannon fodder’ position anymore. You don’t just hand someone a rifle these days and they instantly become a soldier…not in OUR military. Anyone who’s actually been in the military knows this cold…a draft would basically destroy our military at the most, and seriously degrade it at the least.
And the nominee for the lamest back pedel is…
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> What I’m saying is that if they reinstate the draft, Bush will lose. I don’t think anyone outside of Brutus would think otherwise.
Who exactly is ‘they’ that would be re-instating the draft? Do you think the draft will be re-instated behind Bush’s back or something?? And if it was, why would that hurt Bush exactly?
Basically you mis-interperated the situation, probably flew off the handle (Oh my god! A SENATOR is saying they will re-instate the draft!! :eek:), mis-associated that (for god knows what reason) with Bush, and John Mace called you on it. You gots nothing. There simply IS nothing official from anyone who means anything that the draft is even being seriously looked at.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/29 "2004-04-21T18:31:27Z")
Bush would never dream of starting a draft in an election year. Easier to just let Iraq fall into chaos and the body bags stack higher.
On the other hand, if he does get re-elected, I predict he’ll reinstate the draft by mid-summer 2005. June 30th would be an ironic date…
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/30 "2004-04-21T20:36:24Z")
In a rare show of candor, the president’s press secretary dished out the straight dope on the draft at [today’s press conference:](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040421-3.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Q Scott, Senator Hagel also talked about the idea – the need for more troops, perhaps speaking to the notion of reinstating the draft. What’s the President’s position on reinstating the draft?
>
> MR. McCLELLAN: John, that’s not something that’s been under consideration.
>
> Q Is it something that the President keeps in the back of his mind, though, that he may have to do at some point?
>
> MR. McCLELLAN: As I said earlier today, it’s just not something that’s been under consideration.
>
> Q Is he ruling it out categorically?
>
> MR. McCLELLAN: John, it’s not something that’s under consideration. That’s the way I would describe it.
---
### Author:  [@leroy\_the\_mule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leroy_the_mule)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/31 "2004-04-21T20:53:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> You don’t just hand someone a rifle these days and they instantly become a soldier…not in OUR military. Anyone who’s actually been in the military knows this cold…a draft would basically destroy our military at the most, and seriously degrade it at the least.
> -XT
Errrrr, xtisme, Senator Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.
But, more to the point–Hagel does not justify the OP in his statement. He is not saying the draft is militarily necessary or inevitable, but a neat idea to “force our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.” Which in the long run may keep us out of future fiascos. What if W, Cheney, and Limbaugh had gone to Vietnam?
---
### Author:  [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/32 "2004-04-21T21:01:28Z")
> [@leroy\_the\_mule](#):
>
> What if W, Cheney, and Limbaugh had gone to Vietnam?
Curse you for making me wish evil on someone.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/33 "2004-04-21T21:07:21Z")
> [@leroy\_the\_mule](#):
>
> Errrrr, xtisme, Senator Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.
Errr…so what? Is he part of the official decision making process for deciding when or if the draft will be reinstated? Does he have anything to do with it at all? As far as I know, the answer to those questions is…no. So, therefor it doesn’t matter what or who he is, or what he is babbling about from a reality of the draft standpoint…his words have no more meaning than mine do as far as whether or not the draft will be reinstated. No? For the record, my dad also served in Vietnam…and thinks we should reinstate the draft. His babbling is equally meaningless from the perspective of actually GETTING a draft reinstated.
> [@leroy\_the\_mule](#):
>
> But, more to the point–Hagel does not justify the OP in his statement. He is not saying the draft is militarily necessary or inevitable, but a neat idea to “force our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.” Which in the long run may keep us out of future fiascos. What if W, Cheney, and Limbaugh had gone to Vietnam?
Again, who cares what he says? He has no official position, influence or direct means to get a draft reinstated. Thats the only point I was trying to make. Let me summarize…there is NO official movement to even look seriously at reinstating the draft by the Government of the United States of America. So, the OP was flawed…its merely a what if speculation with zero grounding in reality.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/34 "2004-04-21T21:25:23Z")
> [@rjung](#):
>
> On the other hand, if he does get re-elected, I predict he’ll reinstate the draft by mid-summer 2005.
How much would you care to bet on that?
I’ll even give you a little hint: You do know, of course, that the president can’t “reinstate the draft”. Only Congress can do that.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/35 "2004-04-21T21:59:07Z")
You taking action on that prediction, rjung? I’d be willing to wager some sort of good and valuable consideration that George W. Bush does not reinstate the draft by August 2005, wager to be void if Bush fails to be re-elected.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/36 "2004-04-21T23:13:27Z")
> [@Lemur866](#):
>
> You taking action on that prediction, rjung?
I’d take action on \*\*rjung[/b being unwilling to take action on his own prediction. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/37 "2004-04-22T00:05:08Z")
I hate to be an “I told you so”, but I predicted this months ago (last year, in fact)in a thread which I can’t now locate . I was roundly scorned as a Bush basher, as I recall. The fun just keeps building.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/38 "2004-04-22T00:10:26Z")
> [@Chefguy](#):
>
> I hate to be an “I told you so”, but I predicted this months ago (last year, in fact)in a thread which I can’t now locate . I was roundly scorned as a Bush basher, as I recall. The fun just keeps building.
Wow. YOu predicted that a bunch of clueless individuals would fly off the handle about a draft that will never happen, has no basis in reality, and isn’t even being considered by the government?? Whats the stock market going to be like next week? Oh, and do you happen to know next weeks winning lottery number in New Mexico?? I could REALLY use that!
-XT
---
### Author:  [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/39 "2004-04-22T00:49:23Z")
> [@Alessan](#):
>
> Just like his counterpart in WW2?
>
> Not all drafts are Vietnam… although _this_ one probably would be.
I heartily agree. The idea of a conscript military tends to get a bad rap in the US as a result of the Vietnam experience. The US was able to put together very competent draftee militaries in the past, World War II and the early stages of Vietnam being good examples. The US military that left Vietnam was not the same one that went in – the declining morale happened as a result of an 8 year long war where repeated claims of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be untrue. Conscript US militaries have been able to inflict casualties at greatly favorable rates in the past when facing enemies that they materially and technologically outclassed, Vietnam and the Pacific theatre of WWII being particularly good examples. Outside of the US, other nations have been able to put together very high quality conscript armies as well, Germany during WWII and the IDF since its founding for example. One doesn’t see Israel’s military described as less capable due to conscription. For that matter, the military that was willing to take the casualties at greatly unfavorable rates until it forced the US to quit Vietnam was a draftee army.
The US could put together a high quality draftee military if it chose to do so, though given the unpopularity of Iraq, now would not be a very opportune time to do it.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/40 "2004-04-22T01:25:46Z")
> [@Chefguy](#):
>
> I hate to be an “I told you so”, but I predicted this months ago (last year, in fact)in a thread which I can’t now locate . I was roundly scorned as a Bush basher, as I recall. The fun just keeps building.
The only thing that has changed is that it’s now a whacky Republican proposal instead of a whacky Democrat proposal. The scorn is still appropriate. 🙂
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130.md?page=3)