A qualification-- all College Students used to be required to take part in some simple military training, including drill.
This ended sometime in the 19th Century.
I’m thinking alot of college kids might be willing to do more than just say “I’m gay”. I was still in high school when 9/11 happened and when of the things we went over in social studies was the draft. An awfuly high portion of the guys in my class (at least half) indicated that they’d be willing to “do it” with another guy if it meant getting out of the draft. Now whether they’d actually go through with it, I don’t know.
The SSS claims it can deliver conscripts withing 180 days of being told to using it’s current plans (all-male draft starting with 20 yr olds), but who knows if it’ll actually be that easy. How can we predict the number of men who’ll file for CO status, deferments, exemptions, who’ll make false claims, or go into hiding? That it’s taking the SSS over two years to plan a test :eek: doesn’t exactly make them look good. And a coed draft would take even longer since women aren’t even registered.
Try the 1960s. Until then it was common for state colleges and universities to require male students to spend a year or two in ROTC, or even organize them into a corp of cadets. Of course far fewer people went to college then.
Ok, 26 weeks. I’m sure that people who hide or file some kind of appeals would be moved into a slow track, but I would bet that a very large number wouldn’t do that.
In any case 26 weeks seems to leave plenty of time to get some draftees through basic and shipped to Baghdad before the end of Bush’s term, if the draft were magically reauthorized today.
On second thought, since they have to get some additional training after Basic, how long would that take, at minimum? I’m thinking jobs that don’t require a lot of specialized training, like maybe truck drivers. There have to be some other specialities that could be used over there that don’t need extensive training.
Well I doubt that a full on, every male Vietnam style draft would be very useful. I can’t see political folks buying in to that under almost any circumstances. As has been noted the Armed Services are pretty much adamantly opposed to a general conscription. So the only people even theoretically wanting it are folks who, probably correctly, believe that it is a way to get the U.S out of Iraq ASAP - for all the reasons that would politically work though, I can’t see it would ever fly realistically in the first place.
I can see, perhaps in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or a spectacular emergency that there may be a specialized skills Draft. And in fact, the head of the Selective Service has stated on the record that the Service’s “priority” is preparing for a special needs Draft.* This means, for instance, Doctors under the age of 42 and/or other certain needed skills, in an Iraq/chaotic situation this would likely mean people with police, civil engineering and fire experience. I would expect the vast majority of these people to (understandably) scream really loudly and be furious at the unfairness of it (it is) from the time they are notified pretty much continuously until the bus taking them to basic pulls out - which in my WAG something along the lines of 80% of them will be on.
*the SelServ’s job is to prepare this and make plans – it doesn’t mean they ARE planning to do this, only that they are charged with “what if” planning and this is the “what if” they are spending their time on - not on how they are going to ship the male half of the Class of '07 into Fort Leonard Wood
Incidentally, 96% of Americans believe in equal rights for men and women. In fact, 72% of Americans think that the Amendment already has been passed!
http://www.4era.org/survey.html
You probably already know this, but some people don’t: Congress already has the power to draft women into the armed services. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies but does not specify gender or age limitations
ERA or no ERA, I can’t see a draft in this day and age that didn’t include women. And even if women are excluded from combat roles, that leaves plenty of support roles that could be filled.
During WWII Congress came very close to drafting women into the Nurse Corps in preperation for the invasion of Japan. If Japan hasn’t given up after the atomic bombings we would have seen a female (special skills) draft.
There was NOT an overwhelming number of volunteers in WWII.
WWII was 70% draftee, 30% volunteer.
Vietnam was 30% draftee, 70% volunteer.
Define ‘work’. 
Seriously, I think that a draft would not work with our modern military model here in the US. All you would get is a bunch of young, pissed off civilians dragging their feet because they were forced to serve in the military against their will. I don’t think comparing our population today to that of WWII wrt tolerance for a draft is meaningful either…different times, different attitudes, different outlook.
There is a good reason our military went away from a conscription model and to the all volunteer force we have today. You don’t really think that if it was working well they would have changed, do you? :dubious:
-XT
Show 'em pictures of Eddie Slovik. 
I thought the support roles were traditionally filled with the male draftees considered unfit for frontline combat: the not-quite-4F, older men, etc.
I remember chatting with a military officer friend of mine about taxation of military pay. I observed it was a little weird that the government pays soldiers money and then takes a chunk right back in taxes. Why not just set a lower pay rate and make it tax free?
My friend explained to me that a surprising number of officers were wealthy and end up paying much higher taxes on their military pay as a result. So the current system makes more sense.
That being said, it doesn’t take a genius to notice that recruiting stations are usually located in working class areas – as opposed to fancy suburbs.
There are plenty of middle class people in uniform. I’d want to see a cite on your claim that there are plenty of upper class people in uniform. (I’m not sure how I’d define ‘upper class’ myself, but I’d accept any definition that was a subset of the richest 5% of the population.)
To me, the proof of the pudding in terms of recruitment would be, what are the demographics of people signing up for the ‘boots on the ground’ services (Army, Marines) over the past three years - during the time when it’s been clear that if you signed up, you’d likely be going to Iraq?
Pre-Iraq, the military was a pretty good place to be - sure, there were risks, but since Vietnam, we’d only been involved in short, quick, low-casualty wars, and it was an institution that, especially since the Gulf War, had a great deal of respect and credibility. So people with other options besides the military had good reason to join. That was then; what’s happening now?
With no idea whether your stats are correct or whether your stats refer to military in the arena or in general, somebody is not catching the nuances here.
WWII was strongly, overwhelmingly supported by the population. The draft was more a matter of keeping training and supplies in order than to force men into the military. A logistical issue.
Vietnam was the opposite. However, if you volunteered, and were smart enough or connected or lucky, you could choose your service to some extent.
Warning - anectode follows: I missed the draft by this >||< much. I would have volunteered for the Navy rather than be drafted into the Army. (I was a Navy brat.) Would that make me a volunteer?
Yes, that would make you a volunteer. That is part of the problem in parsing the data, I admit. However, that still does not explain the huge difference between WWII and Vietnam in terms of percent of volunteers vs. draftees.
Here is a cite for the ethnic/economic/educational makeup of the US Army recruits:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm
Article was written in 2005, using 1999-2003 census data…
What about me? I was drafted, along with just about everyone in my highschool class. If there hadn’t been a draft I doubt it would have occured to me to join up - I’m not what you call a natural military type. However, I fought to raise my physical profile, and I expressed a clear preference towards joining an infantry unit. Where I ended serving was essentially a voluntary unit.
Was I a draftee, or a volunteer?
It’s not made up of just poor people, although over half are in the lower-middle class to poor demographic (and I still have issues with how this zip-code based study was carried out. My zip code has everything from the very poor, to tons of multi-millionaires). It IS predominantly made up of people who didn’t have significant economic opportunities in their hometowns, no matter what economic status their parents fall under, and enlistment rates are much higher in families where income is lowest.
If you were drafted - you are a draftee for the purpose of this discussion. You were a good soldier, it sounds like, but still a draftee.
I was a volunteer in a time of no draft. My father was a volunteer during the draft for Vietnam. My father-in-law was a draftee against his wishes. The fact that he did his job in Vietnam does not change the fact that he was a draftee.
As a military Officer who works manpower issues in the pentagon, I don’t think there will be a draft for a long time. And the main reason that there is not a draft is that the military doesn’t want one. It hard enough keeping Soilders and Sailors motivated, who are getting paid less that $20,000 a year, who VOLUNTEERED. If every other Soilder is a draftee who doesn’t want to be there and is counting down the days untill he leaves, that the Army would be a mess. Secondly, the country no longer has the mindset that the draft is acceptable. Gone are the days when a man (or woman) knew that his Father, Aunts and Uncles had been drafted and now it’s his turn. The possibility of a draft is there for a life of death situation fo the U.S., nothing else.