Military Draft Coming Back?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SPG, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #1
    http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html
    http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020604cdam3.htm
    Something to consider if you're 18-25 and planning on voting for Bush and the next war he will almost certainly wage.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i think a draft is inevitable even if no more wars are started. the current administration plan is, once iraq is stable, to re-do the afghan war.

    i wonder if, absent iraq stability, the afghan re-do will proceed regardless. the re-do is supposed to be on the scale of the iraq war and there's clearly a shortage of soldiers to pull that off.
     
  3. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #3
    Talk about political suicide...the country is different from the way it used to be, and after the way Vietnam was handled I doubt you'd get much support for a draft under anything but the most dire circumstances.
     
  4. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    how is a draft declared? is that something on which congress votes, or can bush just declare one?
     
  6. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #6
    The military draft (not the alcoholic beverage served in the officers club :D), is part and parcel of the power of Congress to "To raise and support Armies". So, it would have to be an act of Congress to reinstitute the draft, and the President would have to sign the bill as well.

    But since the Congress was cowardly as to never have declared war on Iraq but only a joint resolution on the use of force, I could see Congress as letting a draft go through without really reinstituting it.

    damn cowards! :mad:
     
  7. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #7
    Come on, who is kidding who? Republicans prefer the mercenaries we now employ as troops -- hell, you don't even have to be a citizen to be in the U.S. army.

    A draft means rich white boys would have to serve. Ain't gonna happen.

    A draft means organized resistence to Bush's policies by segments of society now supportive. It means drafting gays and Muslims, and whoever. It means fairness. Ain't gonna happen.

    Who wants their kids in the armed forces knowing they will be used to enforce Bush's vision of the world?

    You might not like the draft because you are draft age -- but the Bush administration is counting on this. Resistence over the Vietnam war was centered on the draft. Without the draft, the anti-war movement has died away.
     
  8. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #8
    I wouldn't call the current servicemen and women, mercenaries. Definition of mercenary is 1) motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain or 2) hired for service in a foreign army.

    In definition number 1, any employee is a mercenary, since they are motived soleby by a desire for monetary or material gain. In definition number 2, which is the one that is relevant here, is clearly not accurate.

    Sure, the current servicemen and woment are hired for service, but they are not hired in a foreign army. Last I checked, (and I was one myself not too long ago), only legal residents of the United States are accepted for military service, barring forged documents. So, mercenary is a wrong word. They are volunteers.

    As to rich white boys, when I was in the military, there were plenty of white boys, a few blacks, filipinos, hispanics, pretty much the broad spectrum of society. They were mainly young. My battle buddy was a skinny young 18-yr old male. He did not come across as coming from a poor family. He was immature coming in, but he matured as we went through basic training.

    Also, the nice thing about a legal resident serving in the military is that you get the fast track to citizenship. Normally, it takes 5 years of being a legal resident before you can apply for citizenship. In the service, you cut that time down to 2 years.

    Please, be more thoughtful in your posts. If you are against the draft, say so, specifically why the draft is bad. A few points you can make is that the draft is involuntary servitude, which is akin to slavery. Another is that a country that institutes a draft needs to coerce its people to support its policies, how could that be if the country IS the people?

    Also, according to the Selective Service System, the last draft was started in peacetime:eek: by FDR (Democrat), and it took a Nixon (Republican) to end it.

    I think that a draft, if it were necessary and used to fight a justified war, is because the threat to the country was not adequately communicated to the people. If the threat to the country was adequately communicated, you'd have enough people volunteering, some not able-bodied, to fill all the slots required, and then some. You would also have able-bodied people being turned away when they find out that they are working on critical private sector jobs, like churning out the next avionics improvements to the F-15 Strike Eagle. :D

    Windows NT programmers that disable a Navy ship for two days would be immediately sent to the front. :p
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    You too! You're the one who suggested art and music teachers evolved from failed math and english teachers with absolutely no proof and no recantation when called on it.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
     
  10. SPG thread starter macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #10
    I doubt that this draft would even be mentioned prior to the election. Rove wouldn't let bush do that because he knows how unpopular it would be. Instead we have the "Anti Gay Marriage Amendment" to distract us from real issues.

    Correct, just like the rich white boys who didn't serve in Vietnam, like bush jr (Daddy got him into the TX ANG with no chance of deployment), rush limbaugh (claimed anal cysts), and most of the Neo-Cons and war hawks who all got out of being drafted.
     
  11. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #11
    I should be more thoughtful? . . . that makes me laugh. Did you read my post? I'm the only who did not come out against the draft!

    A mercenary is indeed someone who fights for money, and is not from the same group for whom they fight. How does this not define our armed forces? (and, by the way, I did not attack or denigrate those in the armed forces, nor would I -- they have been put into a horrible position in Iraq -- I want them home now.)

    To say that there are "a few blacks" in the armed forces is incredible. Blacks make up 12.73 percent of those of draft age -- yet make up 28.9% of the army and 21% of the navy.

    I don't have figures concerning economic status. But do you believe that the wealthy are represented in the armed forces as evenly as the poor, or the middle class?

    As for the term "white boy", as a white boy myself, I don't see how using the term white boy is insulting. If it insulted you then I'm sorry and from now on I will use term that Lester Young liked to use -- I'll call you a gray.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    I don't see where the draft is needed. There are plenty of inducements available which can maintain the required numbers.

    And, after all, the shortage is less with the grunts on the bottom of the pecking order than it is the trained people in the middle. The drawdown of active-duty people, to be replaced by the Reserves and the Guard has had pilots and mid-range officers on active duty much longer than anticipated. These folks don't get there jobs from 16 weeks of Basic Training...

    I don't really think a return of the Draft would solve our real problems.

    I was drafted fifty years ago, last month. I've thought about the whole deal from time to time, and have heard most all of the arguments, pro and con.

    The only argument in favor of the Draft to which I subscribe is that it gives us more of a Citizen Army, with the loyalty of the troops to the nation as a whole and not to the leadership cadre.

    In something like a WW II situation, the Draft allows a more orderly process. If you get a notice to report, you do paperwork and then are told to come back in one or three or six months as your specialty is needed. Pardon the exaggeration, but you don't wind up with a boot Camp full of fry cooks at a time you need clerks or truck drivers. :)

    'Rat
     
  13. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    I'm not one to call servicemembers, mercenaries. Art and music teachers, another thread. If all the art and music teachers were drafted into the military tomorrow, a year from now, or even 9 years from now, reading/writing/math proficiency test scores will remain flat. ;)
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Nor am I. What is your point by stating that?
    Fine, please go to the other thread and answer for your remarks that are as offensive to music and art teachers as calling our soldiers mercenaries is.
    Wait, I thought music and art teachers were for another thread? Can you even take your own advice?;)
     
  15. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #15
    From the same nation. FFL could be considered a mercenary organization. US Army, I don't think so.

    My DI was black. One of guys in the same Basic Training unit as I was black. When you have a volunteer military, as we currently do, the racial mix does not matter. NASCAR driver is a volunteer occupation, I don't remember why it matters that its less than 12% black drivers. NBA player is a volunteer occupation, I don't remember why it matters that its more than 12% black players.

    The last draft ended in 1973. If an 18 year old was drafted in 1973, they would be 49. So, the current composition of the military are predominantly volunteers. So what if blacks volunteers are 28.9% of the US Army?
     
  16. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #16
    I don't have a problem that 28.9% of the Army is black. And I don't mean to get into a flame war with you -- and I doubt you want to get into one with me. Frankly, I think we probably agree on much here.

    The whole point of my original post here was to say that people really shouldn't worry about a possible draft. The real issue is war.

    Am I against a draft? -- as during WW2 -- absolutely not.

    But if the policy of the U.S. is to have wars against countries that have phantom WMDs -- then am I against a draft? Surprise, the answer is NO.

    If the citizens of the U.S. authorize war, then they should authorize the draft. (And Congress should fulfill their Constitutional duty by formally declaring war.)

    I feel this is a sure way to stop unjust wars. Afterall, why should the brave men and women who volunteered to serve their county during peacetime be the only ones thrown into a war? It is easy for a Senator to authorize war when they know that only a small percentage of their constituency will be effected. But if a draft is involved? This might make them think twice before committing troops.
     
  17. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
  18. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #18
    The last time Congress declared war was on Dec 11, 1941. Before that, it was Dec 8, 1941.

    Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Greneda, Iraq I, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II... every one of these has been because we joined the UN! :mad:

    Maybe if we left the UN, we would not be going to fight as often. From 1776 to before the UN started, we were involved in 6 wars with foreign nations. Since the UN, 10!
     
  19. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #19
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Dear pooky,

    we accept your offer. report for duty next wednesday.

    sincerely,

    gw bush
     
  21. SPG thread starter macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #21
    How is it that the UN is responsible for these wars? If anything the UN serves to prevent wars.
    We are involved in these wars because the US wishes to project influence overseas.
     
  22. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #22
    6 vs 10
     
  23. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Maybe a declaration of war is in order for every single of these since WW2. Wars where Congress did a declaration of war ended. We are still in Korea.
     
  24. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #24
    Oh, yeah, the UN was responsible for all those wars, especially Iraq II where they forced us to go in despite our pleas to allow the inspections to continue. Seriously, man, do you live in the same reality the rest of us wake up to?

    Oh, and the UN was also responsible for preventing several nuclear exchanges between the US and the CCCP. But maybe Congress would have declared that one...
     
  25. SPG thread starter macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #25
    Like the current Stop Loss Orders? That seems to be the one inducement to keep the fighting force in place in Iraq. In the article above there are references to the number of soldiers who don't plan on re-enlisting after their tours are up and they are released from the Stop Loss Order.
    If there is any other need for a US engagement, like oh say, Afghanistan (again), Syria, North Korea, Iran, Haiti, Liberia, Israel, Former Yugoslavia, Africa, Taiwan, France, or just about anywhere the tensions are rising, the US would be very hard pressed to muster enough troops.
     

Share This Page