Does Anyone Feel a Draft?

[Luke T.]

????. the situation during wwii was much different. even the most fervent supporter of GWII and Bush would admit that, i think. back then i think nearly every able bodied male was signing up before they were drafted. my grandfather faked his birth certificate so that he could go before he'd reached the minumum age requirement.

Which is exactly my point. Shemp's questions were based on a bias of the Iraq war being unjust. Those people who think the war is unjust are not the target of military recruiters.

 

[Luke T.]

Boredom, huh? I guess that might happen when you only watch the war on TV. Imagine what terrors the other side is experiencing. I can promise you, it's far from boring.

And so they have their own recruitment incitements.

 

[Luke T.]

If the US reinstitutes the draft, who will be drafted? Young men & women, or only men?

When I was but a teenager and the draft registration was first begun, a female friend & I protested the fact that they were only registering young men. Why couldn't they also register us, we wondered?

Well, we went down to the local post office & requested the forms for registration. We had alerted the local media and, surprisingly, some of them showed up. We wrote letters to our senators & reps, and got quite a few interesting responses to our point of view.

So now I wonder if they'll still use the same arguements we got back then about why women shouldn't be drafted, since the role of women in the military has changed since the late '70's.

How would the American public respond to women being drafted?

MHB

I believe the bill introduced by the Democrats to reinstate the draft was designed for women to be drafted as well.

 

[corplinx]

Draft scares are sooooo 2004.

 

[Luke T.]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."

Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.

 

[LostAngeles]

There was a bill presented to the House of Representatives last year to reinstitute the draft.

Who introduced it?

What was the military's feelings about the draft?

How did the bill do?

I'm going to answer these off the top of my head. Let me know how I do.

It was introduced by a Democrat Representative who introduced it to "stir debate." I don't recall the military's feelings, probably because I never heard what their stance was. I also don't recall the bill ever leaving committee.

 

[Kerberos]

The point that apoger made was that increasing the pay and benefits increases the supply. This is from the first week of Economics 101.

If we decide we need more troops, it would be a lot cheaper and more palatable to raise pay 25% rather than start a draft.

Unless there are several more 9/11s, there will be no will in the nation for a draft and it would political suicide. If there are several more 9/11s, we will probably get enough new volunteers to make the draft unnecessary.

CBL

For the record I don't believe there's going to be a draft but I think you overstate the arguments against it. There are limits to how much raising the pay will help, and it can get very expensive. Also I think that you overstate the influx of new recruits in case of additional attacks. Sure there will be an influx, but I suspect it will be temporary just like the one after 9/11 was. You're probably correct in saying that more attacks will be needed to create the political will for a draft though.

 

[Tony]

I don't think there's going to be a draft, but I won't be surprised if there is.

 

[Manny]

I'm going to answer these off the top of my head. Let me know how I do.

It was introduced by a Democrat Representative who introduced it to "stir debate." I don't recall the military's feelings, probably because I never heard what their stance was. I also don't recall the bill ever leaving committee.

I'll call it 2/3 out of three. It was introduced by Rep. Rangel partly to stir debate, but also to "make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices." He had several co-sponsors from the usual suspects like Reps. Conyers, Stark, etc.

The military opposes a draft. They're quite happy with their volunteer professionals, thanks.

The bill came to the floor and was defeated 402-2. Rep. Rangel voted against his bill.

The draft thing is absolutely nothing but a sickening and cynical scare tactic from Democrats.

 

[Tony]

The draft thing is absolutely nothing but a sickening and cynical scare tactic from Democrats.

Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will become true. The fact of the matter is that Bush and the repubs. are against the draft only because it's not yet needed. Don't mistake their lack of support for a draft as being based on some moral principle.

 

[Manny]

Take it up with Rep. Rangel. He believes that the Republicans oppose a draft out of moral principle. He opposes what he believes that principle is, but he believes it's there. Feel free to get back when everyone's got their story straight. Until then, then answer the the question in the original post, "Does Anyone Feel a Draft?" is "Only Democrats."

 

[Rob Lister]

Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will become true. The fact of the matter is that Bush and the repubs. are against the draft only because it's not yet needed. Don't mistake their lack of support for a draft as being based on some moral principle.

I don't think you're paying attention. The vote was 402/2 against. But yea, you're right, it's only because it's NOT NEEDED. Which pretty much makes the discussion moot.

The last thing the military wants is conscripts because it's a very different military than it was decades ago. They're usually good for cannon fodder but not much else. They simply do not fight well because they have no heart (not their fault). Some of the guys (and gals) in the current military don't want to be there either but they know, most all of them, what was at stake when they signed on the dotted line.

The current military, as mundane as it might seem to some, has become a very technical and precise job. The lowest ranking private in a squad is sometimes put in very responsible positions; positions a normal high-school grad wouldn't realize for a decade, if ever.

They'll increase the benefits/pay as they see fit. I'm sure there are economic formulas that are fairly accurate in determining the exact amount of 'bang' they'll get for the buck (raise incentive x, y dollars and get z enlistments +/- a)

I see no draft unless democrats take control. And not even then since they are as likely to run away as to stay and do the job.

 

[Luke T.]

The current military, as mundane as it might seem to some, has become a very technical and precise job. The lowest ranking private in a squad is sometimes put in very responsible positions; positions a normal high-school grad wouldn't realize for a decade, if ever.

Yep. I think most kids join the military to escape poverty, or their parents, or the mundanity of their home town. The military doesn't offer pay, it offers opportunity.

They'll increase the benefits/pay as they see fit. I'm sure there are economic formulas that are fairly accurate in determining the exact amount of 'bang' they'll get for the buck (raise incentive x, y dollars and get z enlistments +/- a)

I've actually seen and used that formula.

Re-enlistment bonuses are not offerred across the board. Some specialty ratings get higher bonuses than others. Some ratings get no bonus at all.

As for how volunteer military people feel, I think I can safely say they are almost universally opposed to a draft. Hell, we didn't even like Reservists! They were almost as bad as untrained civilians and were usually assigned menial labor during their two weeks of active duty. We didn't know what else to do with them.

But that was the Navy. I suppose the Army had their Reservists dig ditches and practice their shooting skills, but I have no idea.



















I'll let you in on a little secret, because I am very opposed to the draft. Okay? But don't tell anyone else. Shhh! Come here.








Closer.







A little closer.






Okay. If you get a notice from the draft board, we have this thing now that they didn't have in the Vietnam conflict that they call a "piss test" which you have to pass during the induction phase. You see where I'm going with this?

I'll say no more.

 

[Mephisto]

D. Increase benefits and/or compensation.


It's interesting how you gloss over the simplest option.
Not controversial enough for you, Mephisto?

Apparently you didn't read;

" " This recruitment shortfall has come despite offering the largest enlistment bonuses in Army history (up to $20,000 for a four-year contract) and spreads across all three components of the US Army, which include the reserves and National Guard."

http://americandaily.com/article/7831"

It's easy to believe that, at some point, the poor will be poor enough that $20,000 is much better than starving, but to voluntarily put a price on your own life is something most in America will have to be much more desperate to do.

How much are you worth?

 

[CBL4]

Also I think that you overstate the influx of new recruits in case of additional attacks. Sure there will be an influx, but I suspect it will be temporary just like the one after 9/11 was.

If there are 2 or 3 more attacks with thousands dead, I think the country will get angry enough to provide tons of recruits. I think 9/11 stirred patriotism and revenge but the feeling petered out as it became yesterdays news. Repeated attacks would create a resounding and lasting anger that my generation has never known.

There is only one way to find out for sure and I hope we can avoid it. Until then it is just conjecture and I admit I could be wrong.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

This recruitment shortfall has come despite offering the largest enlistment bonuses in Army history (up to $20,000 for a four-year contract) and spreads across all three components of the US Army, which include the reserves and National Guard."

Are you saying that there is something about the draft that prevents supply and demand from being true? If there is one truth in economics it is the law of supply and demand. More pay means more supply. Sometimes it takes a lot more pay but enough pay will fill the ranks.

The shortfall has also come during a controversial and open ended war. This reduces the supply apparently as much as $20,000 bonuses increase it.

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

I took a look around to see how the reenlistments were doing, and things look much better for the military in that area.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html

American soldiers are so far continuing to reenlist at levels that surprise the Pentagon and pundits alike.

Surprising pundits is no hard trick, and surprising the Pentagon just means they thought it would be worse.

But

http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/story.asp?id=1499

The Army National Guard has retained 73 percent more soldiers during the past three months than it retained during the same period last year,

Last year being when the war was already going on, so possibly those who were most eager to get out have got out by now. Weren't territorials part of the "next greatest generation" last year for some reason?

 

[Luke T.]

Apparently you didn't read;

" " This recruitment shortfall has come despite offering the largest enlistment bonuses in Army history (up to $20,000 for a four-year contract) and spreads across all three components of the US Army, which include the reserves and National Guard."

http://americandaily.com/article/7831"

Dude! You are confirming my hunch!

Early in the article, the writer in your link says, "News organizations across the country are lunging at the opportunity to exploit this 'failure' within the military, but news of fewer recruits duriing this war is good for my morale."

Now look at what he says later on. "In February it was reported that the Marine Corps – of which I am a proud member – missed its January recruiting quota by a mere 84 recruits of their goal of 3,270, breaking its 10-year streak of success."

Now go back and read what I posted earlier and see if you can figure out what is wrong with this picture.

Never mind, I will totally copy myself again.

The result (P.L. 108-375) was to increase the Army by 20,000 and the Marine Corps by 6,000 in FY2005

Can you figure it out yet?

6000 extra Marines over last year. That is 500 a month more. And the Marines missed by only 82! Get it?

So the guy is wrong when he says there are "fewer recruits."

The Marines have a much higher recruiting goal this year.

So take off your dancing shoes.

edited to add: The guy also confirms my earlier statements about the deterioration of the military in the 90s:

Under the Clinton administration every branch but the Marine Corps missed its recruiting quotas, yet not a peep from national media or liberals in general.

A Heritage Foundation study reported that during the Clinton administration “the military [was] suffering its worst personnel crisis since the draft ended in 1973. The U.S. Navy missed its recruiting goal by nearly 7,000 sailors in 1998, forcing many ships to deploy understaffed. In response, the Navy’s leadership decided in 1999 to accept a higher percentage of recruits without high school diplomas. That same year, both the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force missed their recruiting goals. As noted … only the Marine Corps, by far the smallest of the four services, has avoided a major personnel crisis.”

 

[Luke T.]

At no time did I ever deploy in the Navy in the 90s on a ship that was fully manned. Not even close.

 

[kimiko]

In the June issue of Harper's Magazine, Lewis H. Lapham writes about the recruiting issue.

...the rewards currently being offered to the prospective boots on the ground- bonuses of $90,000 over three years ($20,000 in cash, $70,000 in supplemental benefits), forgiveness of college loans, the promise of citizenship to foreign nationals (currently estimated at 3 percent of the American Army), the acceptance of older recruits (now eligible to the age of thirty-nine), a general lowering of the intellectual and physical requirements (waivers granted for poor test scores, for chronic illness, in some instances for the disability of a criminal record), the chance of a generous pension...

How many recruits are people we would have found unfit prior to the lowered standards?

The desertion rate now stands at 3.1 percent of the active service inductions; of the new recruits coming into camp, 30 percent depart within six months of their arrival.

That's supposed to be pretty high for a desertion rate.

...the questions that supplied the energy to the discussion were the ones touching on the reluctance of the country's privileged aand well-educated youth (for the most part presumed lost in the desert of materialism) to go to war. Why had the Princeton class of 1956 sent 400 of its 900 graduates to the Army, the class of 2004 only 9 of 1,110?

That's related to Rangel's draft bill- he thought if the congresspeople voting on the war were in danger of seeing their own kids go, they would reconsider.