# 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:** 3
### Author:  [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/41 "2004-04-22T01:40:43Z")
This is just me talking here…
I don’t believe there will ever be another draft were you train for 16 weeks and they give you a rifle and send you off to fight.
That being said, I do believe there will be some kind of national conscription to place people in jobs now being held by trained troops to free them up to go fight.
---
### Author:  [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/42 "2004-04-22T02:23:31Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> 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
Roadrunner Cash, Powerball, or Pick 3?
And the stock market will be either moderately up or moderately down.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/43 "2004-04-22T02:38:45Z")
> [@Reeder](#):
>
> That being said, I do believe there will be some kind of national conscription to place people in jobs now being held by trained troops to free them up to go fight.
There’s too much money to be made hiring out private soldiers to the pentagon for a socialist plan like that. America craves free market solutions to our problems.
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/44 "2004-04-22T03:13:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> 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
That was sarcasm, wasn’t it? I recognized it right away, even through your clever fog of subtlety. You might try polishing your skills a bit to avoid being such a bleeding obvious twit.
---
### Author:  [@leroy\_the\_mule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leroy_the_mule)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/45 "2004-04-22T05:59:31Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> 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.
> [@leroy\_the\_mule](#):
>
> Errrrr, xtisme, Senator Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968.
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> Errr…so what?
Xtisme, in post #28 you were trying to buttress your opinion by claiming any soldier would agree with you. But Senator Hagel was a soldier, and thinks the draft is a good idea. He’s got an opinion–you have an opinion. It looks like neither opinion gets the _absolute military expert_ seal of approval, so far.
FWIW you may have noticed that I agreed with you in my post–Hagel’s quotes don’t support the OP. The news story talks at length about how the senate foreign relations committee wants more attention from the White House–perhaps Hagel was just trying to shake the boat.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/46 "2004-04-22T07:32:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> How much would you care to bet on that?
I restrict my gambling to the Craps tables in Vegas. 🙂 But feel free to stick my prognostication in a safebox and check on it 18 months from now.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/47 "2004-04-22T12:55:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> 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.
FTR, Hagel’s not an “obscure politician.”
---
### Author:  [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/48 "2004-04-22T14:22:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> I expect you’ll be hearing more about foreign-born Americans serving thier adopted country. Permanent residence upon signing, citizenship if you keep your nose clean say, five years. Three years military service, two if its in a combat zone. And they can dispense with the cheezy macho advertising.
Do you mean something like [this?](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020703-24.html)
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Expedited Naturalization Executive Order \*\*
> Executive Order Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in An Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism
>
> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440) (the “Act”), and solely in order to provide expedited naturalization for aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States during the period of the war against terrorists of global reach, it is hereby ordered as follows:
>
> For the purpose of determining qualification for the exception from the usual requirements for naturalization, I designate as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States were engaged in armed conflict with a hostile foreign force the period beginning on September 11, 2001. Such period will be deemed to terminate on a date designated by future Executive Order. Those persons serving honorably in active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States, during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and terminating on the date to be so designated, are eligible for naturalization in accordance with the statutory exception to the naturalization requirements, as provided in section 329 of the Act. Nothing contained in this order is intended to affect, nor does it affect, any other power, right, or obligation of the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or any other person under Federal law or the law of nations.
>
> GEORGE W. BUSH
> THE WHITE HOUSE,
> July 3, 2002.
I guess they’ve tried it already.
---
### Author:  [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/49 "2004-04-22T14:22:42Z")
I agree that a draft is very unlikely. And not just because it would be politically unpopular, but because of changes in the US military’s structure.
That said, why doesn’t the government end draft registration?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/50 "2004-04-22T14:46:55Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#):
>
> That said, why doesn’t the government end draft registration?
I do think we would reinstate the draft if “WWIII” broke out. I expect the reason we still ask men to register (and I assume it’s still only men) is to be ready in case that event takes us by surprise.
Or, because the government can and so it does.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/51 "2004-04-22T14:50:04Z")
> [@SimonX](#):
>
> FTR, Hagel’s not an “obscure politician.”
The point, again, is that he has no official say so in whether or not the draft is re-instated afaik. So, he’s just giving his OPINION on what he THINKS might be a good idea. Thats all I’m saying. In other words, no one who actually matters (i.e. who could conceivable GET the draft re-instated, or even start the process going) is, again afaik, even seriously considering it.
> [@leroy\_the\_mule](#):
>
> Xtisme, in post #28 you were trying to buttress your opinion by claiming any soldier would agree with you. But Senator Hagel was a soldier, and thinks the draft is a good idea. He’s got an opinion–you have an opinion. It looks like neither opinion gets the _absolute military expert_ seal of approval, so far.
Thats news to me. Although it could be stated that most MODERN military people (i.e. from the post-vietnam era) wouldn’t be in favor of a new draft as they MOSTLY think the present military structure is far superior. Also, though Senator Hagel might have had a fine military record, that doesn’t make him the ‘absolute militar expert’ in my book…it makes him another talking head. Show me the clammer from the main stream military of today asking for a new draft and you can play that card. Afaik you’ll get a big zippo, as most of the military people who’s opinion actually matters (i.e. the current crop of Generals, JCoS, etc) don’t want a new draft.
However, again, MY point was, reguardless of Sen. Hagels record, credentials, medals, etc, he has no input into the system to actually GET a draft re-instated…so he’s just talking. Show me some folks that actually matter talking seriously about the draft and I’ll re-think my position.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/52 "2004-04-22T15:49:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> However, again, MY point was, reguardless of Sen. Hagels record, credentials, medals, etc, he has no input into the system to actually GET a draft re-instated…so he’s just talking. Show me some folks that actually matter talking seriously about the draft and I’ll re-think my position.
>
> -XT
Why wouldn’t he? As a US Senator, he can sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft. How else would the process begin?
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/53 "2004-04-22T16:07:03Z")
> [@SimonX](#):
>
> FTR, Hagel’s not an “obscure politician.”
By no means. If the grand old party were to put together a Hagel, McCain ticket I could even be tempted to vote for it!
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/54 "2004-04-22T16:08:21Z")
That’s true. The draft would be restarted by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.
[http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm](http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm)
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/55 "2004-04-22T16:27:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Why wouldn’t he? As a US Senator, he can sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft. How else would the process begin?
I stand corrected then John (I thought it would have to come from Congress, and I didn’t realize that any single individual could put it forth for serious consideration). Is he in fact putting such a bill in place as we speak? How much support is there in the Senate for it? Whats the likelyhood the President will sign it if its placed before him.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/56 "2004-04-22T17:41:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> I stand corrected then John (I thought it would have to come from Congress, and I didn’t realize that any single individual could put it forth for serious consideration). Is he in fact putting such a bill in place as we speak? How much support is there in the Senate for it? Whats the likelyhood the President will sign it if its placed before him.
>
> -XT
From Article 1 of the US constitution:
> [@](#):
>
> Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
I assume that means the Senate could introduce a draft bill. But even if it couldn’t, Senators would still have to vote on it. So, to say that a Senator has no say in the matter is incorrect.
I still think there is little, if any, support for such a bill. People in the US would not stand for it. Not unless we were in WWWIII.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/57 "2004-04-22T21:09:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Not unless we were in WWWIII.
According to some neocons, WWIII was the Cold War. Currently, this global War on Terror has the potential to become WWIV.
---
### Author:  [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/58 "2004-04-23T18:28:28Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> [Here’s the article](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft&printer=1)
>
> Now, before anyone decides to throw out something about this being Election Year Democratic Posturing, keep in mind that the guy being quoted is a Republican Senator.
>
> So, the draft. Is it necessary for “success” in Iraq?
>
> Do we even know what “success in Iraq” is?
>
> Does this mean that GWB and his administration care so much about Iraq (whether their reasons are as stated, giving sweetheart jobs to their friends the defense contractors, whether it’s because they’re pure evil, etc etc) that they’re willing to toss an election over it?
>
> -Joe
Here you go. Here’s my OP.
I’d like any one of the guys jumping on me saying, “You’re just having a panic attack and screaming about Bush reinstating the draft!” where I said anything about Bush wanting to reinstate the draft.
The only thing that could POSSIBLY be close is where I suggest that, were they to do so (for whatever reasons), they would lose the election - for the hard-of-thinking, that’s where we get the phrase “toss the election over it”.
Of course, then I responded to some willful misinterpretation with this:
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> If Bush starts a draft, he will lose. Even in his dim little brain he knows this. So, if he’s willing to throw away his election for the sake of stabilizing Iraq, then he must really, really be devoted to working out the situation in Iraq.
>
> Whether that’s devotion to doing what he believes to be the right thing, or just pigheaded stupidity, it would cost him any chance at the next election.
And here I say…the exact same thing. That if Bush starts a draft he will lose. And that he is aware of that.
Then there’s speculation that, if Bush were to reinstate the draft knowing that it would cost him the election, he (can’t believe I’m forced to quote myself) “must really, really be devoted to working out the situation in Iraq”.
Again, where the fuck do I say that Bush WANTS to reinstate the draft? Where do I even imply it? Seeing as how I’m fairly convinced he would bathe in the blood of innocent virgins at every full moon if it meant his reelection, I think the last thing Bush wants is to reinstate the draft.
At least before 2005.
Sorry I didn’t get back to this bullshit pile-on before this, but I spent most of the last week trying to convince a major oil refinery that they’d be wise to spend millions with my ten-man company, rather than with larger ones…
-Joe
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/59 "2004-04-23T18:50:45Z")
Maybe instead of ranting and waving your hands about, Merijeek, you could answer the core question asked repeatedly. Lets forget about Bush for a second. Do you have ANY evidence that, officially, the draft is being looked at in any way, shape or form, to be re-instated. Is Congress currently examining its options and forming the legislature to re-instate the draft? The Senate? Has anyone from the Administration said anything at all about the possibility of the draft?
Because afaik the answer is…no. There simply…is…nothing…here. A lone Senator makes a statement that he THINKS it MIGHT be a good idea to reinstate the draft means nothing unless said Senator is currently in the process of actually putting forth legislature to GET the draft reinstated. And even if he is (which, again afaik he isn’t) what kind of support does he have for such an initiative in either house? What kind of support does he have in the Administration who would have to sign off on it in the end?
If you just want to play ‘what if’ games, then orient your OP that way next time. Say “What IF Congress and the Senate put forth legislation to reinstate the draft and if the President signed it…”.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130/60 "2004-04-23T18:54:38Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> Again, where the fuck do I say that Bush WANTS to reinstate the draft?
It’s very easy to interpret your OP as implying so, even if you don’t actually say it. Since quite a few people did, you should think about why.
Here is how I follow the logic implied by your OP:
\*\*Some people are saying a draft is necessary for success in Iraq.
Bush wants to succeed in Iraq so badly that he might be willing to throw the election to do so.
Therefore, Bush might support a draft [in order to ensure success in Iraq].\*\*
Why say anything at all in your OP about Bush being so single-mindedly focussed on “success” in iraq unless you mean to tie that single-mindedness into the idea of a draft? Just what exactly did you mean by this:
> [@](#):
>
> Does this mean that GWB and his administration care so much about Iraq (whether their reasons are as stated, giving sweetheart jobs to their friends the defense contractors, whether it’s because they’re pure evil, etc etc) that they’re willing to toss an election over it?
You couldn’t possibly mean that he would toss the election if he **opposed** the draft, so it’s only natural to assume you are saying he would support it. I’m sure that how most people read it who commented as I did.
In the future, you might simply ask instead of flying off the handle and throwing the “F” word around. Take that advice for what it’s worth. 🙂
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-here-it-is-the-draft/241130.md?page=4)