It’s unlikely in the extreme that the draft will ever be reinstated, but we can still speculate on whether one would work or not. Is conscription even a realistic solution to the Army’s personnel problems? It’s been proposed that the Army’s permanent authorized strength be increased by as much as 200,000. Clearly this would need to take place over several years. The Selective Service System’s current plans are based on drafting men turning 20 (then 21, 22, etc); how many men turn 20 in the US each year? What percentage of American men are even qualified for military service? Of course there’s also no reason to believe the a new draft would look anything like previous drafts. I don’t another all-male draft would fly (that’s not too say women would be drafted on the exact same basis as men). What about a system of national service with military and non-military options, but what happens if not enough people choose the military? Does Congress even have the power to authorize non-military conscription? And how long would conscripts need to serve to actually be usefull? Who sould be exempt? The same 2-6 year active duty followed be reserves as now? Would restricting conscripts to domestic duty and sending only volunteers overseas (like Canada tried in WWII) work?
I won’t address any constitutional issues other than to say it’s pretty damn clear that a military draft is legit. I think we all know that.
On the other hand I think the gripping hand answer to this is that a draft simply wouldn’t work. It may be legal, yes, but any attempt to institute it would get tangled up in debate over women being drafted, as you mentioned, and it would also cost whatever administration attempted to implement it their hold on power within, I predict, two years. It would instantly become the largest election issue on the map and members of the party in opposition would be all over it.
The American people will tolerate (not support) a draft when there’s a true perception that the very life of the nation is at stake. If that perception isn’t there (and it’s not right now) then it’s political suicide to bring it to a vote in Congress.
The only way I could see it working is if it made military service compulsory for all young folks, male and female…say two years starting at 18 with no exemption for anyone. But even that would fall apart if it became apparent, or even strongly believed against evidence, that the children of the elite weren’t filling this requirement.
Of course it would work. It did for many, many years even dring the 60’s while the country was tearing itself apart over Vietnam.
Maybe you’re asking if the proposed rules of a draft are somehow not adequate for the job. That may be, but it would become clear rather quickly and I suspect the rules could be changed rather quickly.
And AFAIK, there are no current plans to draft women. Actually, that was one reason the Equal Rights Amendment failed – the fear that women would have to be drafted on an equal footing with men.
Though it would increase the number of troops, I would WAG that the overall quality of our fighting force would decline due to low moral and perhaps rushed overloaded training - making our forces less capable.
It should do the opposite if it works properly. The military has had to substantially lower its acceptance standards to meet their recruiting goals, and still can’t meet them. . A draft would allow them to raise those standards again.
But I can’t say what it would do to morale.
When I was younger (and facing being drafted around the Vietnam War), I opposed the draft. Now I’m not so sure – I think if there were more middle and upper class kids being involuntarily sent to Iraq, the public would have demanded that we get out of there long ago.
The only time a draft works is when it serves as a way of funneling an over-whelming number of volunteers into the military. “Go home and wait for your call.” If the war does not inspire an over-whelming number of volunteers, it’s probably not worth it.
I disagree. The draft worked as you say during WWII, when there were indeed overwhelming numbers of volunteers. But it also worked perfectly well after the war and until its suspension in the mid-70’s. Of course, there were “draft dodgers” who either fled or, like Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton, found legal loopholes to avoid it. And the beauty of the draft, even with all the dodgers, was that the SSS could simply draw more numbers to pull in as many bodies as were needed.
That’s what I mean by it not working. A draft should have no loopholes. Those who are morally opposed to war, or are physically unfit, can perform some other job. There should be no deferments.
It wont help in Iraq. It will take way too long to setup.
I don’t know why everyone thinks that the military is made up of poor people. They may be in a higher proportion than the general population, but there are plenty of middle class and upper class people in uniform. Quit buying Michael Moore’s bull. The only demographic that is hugely out of whack is that we’re all young.
Ah, ok, my definition of “work” is different – does it work to provide sufficient bodies for the military to perorm their assigned missions?
And gonzomax, I partly disagree. The system is set up and in place now. 18 year olds are still supposed to register, aren’t they? It could be functioning within weeks.
The time consuming process would be the fight in Congress to authorize it.
I think we are very lucky in one respect. I think GWB could have pushed a draft through in the months after 9/11, but judged (incorrectly) that he could accomplish his military goals withe the forces available. He has lost any chance to pass a draft in the years since – certainly after last year’s elections, and probably for some time even before that.
Irrelevant to the OP question of whether it would work under current circumstances.
Props for remembering to put your mutually exclusive assertions in separate posts. :rolleyes:
I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s certainly a valid point if it is. Can you point me toward any data to support this? I will look for some to support my assumptions as well. My personal knowledge of people I know who were or are in the military is that they are there by and large for economic reasons. They had trouble finding a decent job or were unable to afford school. But I understand that’s not a representative sampling.
Steve MB, I don’t see a contradiction. As I noted in my reply to Frank, it works well enough if it supplies sufficient bodies for the military to perform their missions. It could certainly work better with fewer loopholes.
Well, I don’t have a cite, but I could name about half a dozen former class mates from upper-middle-class suburbs who are in the army or marines. One of them is even the son of a former governor.
Universal military training, which the US has never actually had, is one thing. “The Draft”, as it has been implemented in the past, is another.
Historically, conscription has been very unpopular in the US. Daniel Webster gave a famous speech opposing conscription even as the British were invading during the War of 1812. During the Civil War New York city had to be placed under martial law in 1864 after anti-draft riots. The first peacetime draft began in 1940, was widely criticized, and only lasted because the declaration of war in 1941 forced the issue.
In the postwar years, the Korean War was sold as a “police action” that was supposed to be short term. After only three years public criticism forced the government to seek an armistice. And although there was a peacetime draft all through the 1950s, in practice this meant overseas garrison duty, so it was tolerated. The breaking point of course came during Vietnam, when conscription meant fighting and potentially dying in an undeclared war of apparently limitless duration. The lesson was learned (or SHOULD have been learned) that you can’t maintain a quasi-imperial military occupation indefinitely with draftees.
The problem is one I’ve touched upon in posts I’ve made in the past: that the US is essentially going down the same road the Roman Republic did. The Republic was founded upon the Militia, but as it acquired more and more far-flung conquered provinces, it came to need a large permanent imperial force- the Legions.
Here’s the only thing I could find:
Source: http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0511/051106.htm
Oh, and I acknowledge that this Peace Work Magazine (which I had never heard of before this) doesn’t necessarily sound like the most unbiased source when pertaining to military matters.
If we had a draft, we’d probably need to end the military’s discrimination against gays. There just isn’t the stigma* associated with being gay these days that there used to be, and we’d suddenly discover that somewhere around 50% of the (draft age) population is gay.
*yes, there is still a stigma, but not like the 60s when it was still considered to be a mental disorder by the medical community. I think many college kids would have no problem saying “I’m gay” to get out of the draft. Maybe even most of them.
OK, I’d somehow missed that implication in your earlier post, and I probably should have used the word “politically” in mine.