Looks like we're going to have a "draft" after all

[raveneye]

During the presidential debates, a return of the "draft" was one spectre thrown out by both sides, each accusing the other that he would re-institute the draft if elected. Bush denied the "rumors on the Internets" that he was going to reinstitute a draft.

But this question is a lot more complicated than it seems. Consider:

1. The Selective Service is now admitting that it will be instituting a kind of military draft. This won't be a draft of soldiers into combat, but a draft of doctors, nurses, engineers, plumbers, mechanics, etc. etc. into the military to support the Iraq operations.

Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short." In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you -- and quick.

2. There is no doubt that if the U.S. starts another war, it will not be possible to fight it without reinstituting a draft of soldiers into combat. That's because Iraq and Afghanistan are currently stretching the military to its limits.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea -- almost half of America's entire military.

3. There already is a back-door draft. Recently 40,000 National Guard troops were told that their enlistment extends another 26 years. Many of these people enlisted under a one-year obligation.

David Qualls, who joined the Arkansas National Guard for a year, is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. "I've served five months past my one-year obligation," says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. "It's time to let me go back to my life. It's a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home."

4. The politics of the draft are complex. People in favor of a draft have argued for instance:

--a draft would force everybody from all socioeconomic levels to participate in combat, rather than working class and minorities that are currently overrepresented in the volunteer military;

--a draft would make politicians more careful in making decisions to go to war, since their children would also be subject to the draft (ideally);

--without a draft, there's basically no antiwar movement. Sixty percent of Americans oppose the Iraq war, but they aren't doing much because they're willing to pay volunteers to fight it. If there were a draft, the antiwar movement would be immediately mobilized.

Says Charles Rangel:

"If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone -- no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."

So here are some questions for debate. We already essentially have a draft that is immorally forcing working class people and minorities (the bulk of the volunteers) to serve for many years, in some cases decades, beyond their initial contractual agreement. Plus we're soon going to have a draft of skilled laborers who will be sent over to Iraq.

Wouldn't it be better if we just made all this completely honest and above board by reinstituted a full military draft, without deferments? That way (1) everybody, male, female, rich, poor, black, white would have to share this burden; and (2) we would find out very quickly how prepared American citizens and their elected representatives really are to continue fighting this Iraq war.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ion=6.0.12.857
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1209-12.htm

[tecoyah]

I read this article as well....but decided to refrain from posting it here.

After reading it I must say I was quite pleased to be approaching 40. Not that I have any of the specialized skills this is likely to start off with. The statements by those in the know....that another front in this War would create a shortage of "Grunts" kinda hit home though.

[Manx]

Huh? Draft? Are you crazy? Bush promised not to have one!

It's called Freedom Duty. If there's no "draft" in the name, it can't be a draft. You're not anti-Freedom, are you?

[tecoyah]

This type of reply is becoming more and more prevelant in this forum....and leads to nothing but further trolling.

I will ask that we show some level of Maturity and contribute more productively.


Because:

This is nothing but a Freakin' Troll

[Manx]

True. My apologies.

MOD EDIT: (content removed) Nice try, but you don't get the last word. Not this time.

[stevo]

I think there should be mandatory military service for all males in the Unided States. At least 1 year between the ages of 18 and 24.

And if the DPRK strikes a deal with Al-queda giving them some nukes we better damn well have a draft. But like I said before, we won't invade the north koreans, we'll just nuke the communisim right out of them.

[The_Dunedan]

Any attempt to Impress me will be viewed, by me, as an attempted Enslavement, and will be resisted with all nessesary force. A Draft is unConstitutional ( Involuntary Servitude, remember? ) and amounts to nothing more than armed Slavery.

[stevo]

If you live in this country, and you love this country, and you believe in what this country stands for then you should have no problem fighting for this country.

No free-loaders.

[KMA-628]

I have two things on this.

First, this is old news, before the election even. You can't really whine "but Bush promised...." when you see that this news goes back to last year.

If it is such a big issue to you, why weren't these comments bigger news before the election?

Second, the following quote was purposely left out of this discussion:

Richard S. Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said yesterday: "We have been routinely updating the entire plan for a health-care draft. The plan is on the shelf and will remain there unless Congress and the President decide that it's needed and direct us to carry it out."

User: tfp@noname.com Pass: 1234tfp

Common Knowledge: There is always a plan for a draft, this is not news. This is not a Bush thing, a Clinton thing or a whoever is running in 2008 thing, this is a defense thing and should be treated as such. Not thrown out to try and further bash Bush.

However, I notice that nobody bothers to mention that little tidbit of information.

This quote right here really gets me:

Plus we're soon going to have a draft of skilled laborers who will be sent over to Iraq.

Oh, we are huh? This has now gone to a plan that is always in place (and on the shelf) to actually gonna happen?

And then we have this from the RS article:

In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you -- and quick.

Uh, duh. Selective Service has always had the means to draft you, if Congress puts the plan into action.

This is really weak.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by stevo

If you live in this country, and you love this country, and you believe in what this country stands for then you should have no problem fighting for this country.

No free-loaders.

While I do so enjoy bieng called a freeloader, as it gives wonderful insight into the thought process of the individual that would issue such a statement....I will take exception in this case.

Personally, I would consider military service were my country (which I indeed love) under threat in some way that I could see, and accept as real. It would be "My Duty" to my loved ones, as well as the society I am a part of. I would not, however consider such if I felt the actions of my country were not justified.

This my friend, is part of bieng a citizen of the World.

[stevo]

If every soldier in every army was able to question the leader of the military and decide what battles are and are not worthy for his fight, no one would have a strong army. It is not up to the individual soldier to decide which threats are "real". It is the soldier's duty to follow orders.

All I am asking is one year. One year of following orders, giving to something more than yourself, one year of standing by your fellow countrymen prepared to serve when duty calls. Thats all.

While I do so enjoy bieng called a freeloader, as it gives wonderful insight into the thought process of the individual that would issue such a statement....I will take exception in this case.

--oh before I forget, what thought process would that be?

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by stevo

If you live in this country, and you love this country, and you believe in what this country stands for then you should have no problem fighting for this country.

No free-loaders.

I assume that you are currently in iraq, protecting our freedom.

[stevo]

You need not be on the battlefield to serve your country. I am not asking that everyone serve on the battlefield, only that they serve. It is up to the leadership to determine where that service shall be.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by stevo

--oh before I forget, what thought process would that be?

My apologies....I thought I had placed enough care in my reply to avoid being overtly critical. A thought process is that which we use to formulate an opinion, and I generally enjoy using a form of reverse engineering to guage the way an individual thinks, based on commentary. I find this somewhat handy, when deciding whether to continue a dialogue.

[SecretMethod70]

"the leadership." heh...I can't help but think of Big Brother when I hear a term like that used to describe the president and the rest of government.

The way I see it, with a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it is impossible for those in government to be "the leadership." They (theoretically at least) get their orders from the citizenry and, thus, WE are "the leadership." All approximately 300 million of us. If the government is "the leadership" (and I don't mean to discuss de facto standards here, because we all know the government has been ACTING like "the leadership" - with our willing complacence of course) then it is no longer a government FOR the people, but a government ABOVE the people. Any government that can TELL me to go die (let's face it, that's what it's doing) as opposed to explaining, and explaining well, why I should feel genuinely threatened and want to fight for my country is not a government SERVING me. It is my master.

[Lebell]

Another case of the post title not matching the facts presented.

The only thing I saw that could even remotely be called a back-door draft is the extending of enlistment periods, which I don't know enough about to know if what was said is true. (In otherwords, I would like to see more information on it, but I am doubtful since the rest of the article is obviously spinning already known things to a dubious conclusion.)

The rest of what is presented is, as another poster said, weak.

The government has always had plans to draft people it needs in the event of a major war (geez, don't any of you watch M*A*S*H? )

[stevo]

tec....thanks but I know what a thought process is. Perhaps I wan't clear. I want to know what wonderful insight into my thought process was gained by reading my previous statement.

SecretMethod...by "leadership" I was referring to those in the military. Granted, the prez and the sec. of defense have great influence on where, when, and if military action is taken, but where I serve is not immediately determined by either one of them, but by military brass.

and the gov't is not there to serve you. It is there to protect you and your way of life. But the government can not do that alone, for the gov't is made of the people, by the people, and for the people as you so eloquently quoted. So it is up to the people to stand up when they are asked, without question. That is why we have elected officials, so they can make those decisions for us. It's called delegating. You can't have it both ways. You can't participate in the democratic process and when it doesn't work out the way you like you can't just go about refusing to follow the rules.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by stevo

So it is up to the people to stand up when they are asked, without question. That is why we have elected officials, so they can make those decisions for us.

stevo, I gotta tell ya, man...that statement just sends cold shivers up and down my spine. That's truly frightening.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevo

I think there should be mandatory military service for all males in the Unided States. At least 1 year between the ages of 18 and 24.

And if the DPRK strikes a deal with Al-queda giving them some nukes we better damn well have a draft. But like I said before, we won't invade the north koreans, we'll just nuke the communisim right out of them.

one year is nowhere near the amount of time one would need to be able to provide military service. I don't care what your occupational specialty would be.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by stevo

I think there should be mandatory military service for all males in the Unided States. At least 1 year between the ages of 18 and 24.

And if the DPRK strikes a deal with Al-queda giving them some nukes we better damn well have a draft. But like I said before, we won't invade the north koreans, we'll just nuke the communisim right out of them.

As a conservative, I'm against the govt mandating military service on all young adults. However, the service does offer a lot of characteristics that can make a person more successful in civilian life (discipline, honor, work ethic, ect...)

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by stevo

You need not be on the battlefield to serve your country. I am not asking that everyone serve on the battlefield, only that they serve. It is up to the leadership to determine where that service shall be.

So the only reason you're not currently fighting in iraq is because of where you were assigned?

[stevo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

So the only reason you're not currently fighting in iraq is because of where you were assigned?

If you must get personal, its because I am "permanetly ineligable." Not because I didn't call up a recuiter. My family has been in the military (one form or another) for generations, right down to my brothers.

So bill, what do we have elected officials for then, if not to make the big decisions? Do yout think its easier if we all decide individually what is in our nation's best interest? That would get us nowhere.

[taylorspl]

I do not serve now nor will I unless there is an actual threat to my freedoms. Calling someone a freeloader just because they do not serve in the armed forces is about as personal an attack as you can throw out there. I pay my taxes, theres more to being an American than simply joining up and performing your duty, but because I choose not to serve in the military I'm a freeloader. There's no need to be bitter because you can't go play war with the others.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by stevo

If you must get personal, its because I am "permanetly ineligable." Not because I didn't call up a recuiter. My family has been in the military (one form or another) for generations, right down to my brothers.

So bill, what do we have elected officials for then, if not to make the big decisions? Do yout think its easier if we all decide individually what is in our nation's best interest? That would get us nowhere.

I'm not trying to offend you. It's just that it seems that many of the war's most vocal supporters lack the intestinal fortitude to actually contribute anything to the war effort beyond a "support our troops" bumper sticker.

That being said, i don't think iraq was any threat to our freedom. I would gladly fight in a war i believed in.

[irateplatypus]

as a person who wears the uniform everyday... the last thing i want is to lead troops who don't want to be there. it is my opinion that a draft should be instituted only when our fundamental national survival is at stake. if congress wants our military to continue at this frenetic pace (the reserve is now on a schedule that exceeds 24 month deployments)... we really need to rethink our force size/structure.

[BabySealClubber]

Reasons aside, a draft always has, and always will be on the backburner in the gov't. Like KMA said, if the gov wants you, they can get you. Always.

It does no good to worry about it until it actually happens. I don't think it will happen, but I could get a card in the mail tomorrow. I will admit that I am a bit uninformed on the draft issue itself, because it is terribly difficult to get an account of the facts of the situation without a political spin. I mean both to the left and the right, I don't want to spark a lib/conserv war.

Until it happens I am not going to sweat it. And yes, I will go if I am called, no questions.

[Hardknock]

Originally Posted by stevo

If you live in this country, and you love this country, and you believe in what this country stands for then you should have no problem fighting for this country.

No free-loaders.

Talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

Typical.

I'll tell you what, I WILL NOT go in the event of a draft. This whole situation is bullshit to begin with. I don't support this war, I don't support the troops in this war and I don't agree with Bush's actions, his policies or anyting he had done that has gotten us in this mess. Freeloader my ass. It's called standing up for what you believen in and not being a blind waving flag holder.

Go die for Bush?? Fuck that. I'd rather go to jail.

[BabySealClubber]

Before we go all anti-bush here, let's remember that the draft comes up with every conflict. And also remember that the current Iraq situation was a long time coming, and is not entirely his fault. Granted the handling of it could be better(in fact a whole lot better), there is still a lot of history behind the thing.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by BabySealClubber

Before we go all anti-bush here, let's remember that the draft comes up with every conflict. And also remember that the current Iraq situation was a long time coming, and is not entirely his fault. Granted the handling of it could be better(in fact a whole lot better), there is still a lot of history behind the thing.

Thank you for this...refreshing example of how we should act in this Forum.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Manx

Huh? Draft? Are you crazy? Bush promised not to have one!

It's called Freedom Duty. If there's no "draft" in the name, it can't be a draft. You're not anti-Freedom, are you?

Pretty clever though nonetheless.

[jorgelito]

I think part of the problem may be they way our military institution is structured.

I think in theory, there should be no need for a draft as we should have a professional standing armed forces. At least this is what I had always though and assumed.

1. What I do not understand is, we have one of the largest and advanced armed forces in the world, so then why are we "stretched so thin"? I always assumed our military's pre-eminence but it seems like were either sitting ducks or weak or something. Plus we spend an incredible amount for defense. What gives? Where is the money going then if were still so "weak"? I find this a bit disconcerting and alarming and I'm concerned that we're being called out and the world is seeing our vulnerabilities.

2. While in theory the draft would give equality in socio-economic terms, it would still not address the issue of quality - EX: unwilling soldiers make poor soldiers.

Here'a a radical and abstract idea: One solution would be to make distinctions in our war planing. For example, if there is no determinant cause (direct threat/clear & present danger) then the choice to go to war and ensuing costs should be billed to those that instituted that war. EX: Iraq - No clear and present danger, not a priority war. No problem, bill the $300 billion to the Republican party, Halliburton, cheney etc. Bill the Sudan (Black HAwk Down) debacle to Clinton's administration, Democrats etc. Bill the Europeans for Bosnia. With accountability and responsibility, decisions will be made with more careful consideration instead of recklessly. We are more careless and reckless with other people's lives and money so put it on the line.

3. If you sign up for the Armed Forces (regardless of your intention) you did so knowing your obligation. So, since we can't pick our "war" then either don't sign up in the first place or fulfill your end of the bargain. People who complain of the draft always whine and say the're moving to Canada but they never do. We all know of the draft since the day we sign the Selective Service form when we turn 18. I don't think it's going to happen, I think it's a "we reserve the right" thing. I suppose if we truly gave a shit, it would have been made a real campaign issue long ago.

[BabySealClubber]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

3. If you sign up for the Armed Forces (regardless of your intention) you did so knowing your obligation. So, since we can't pick our "war" then either don't sign up in the first place or fulfill your end of the bargain.

I agree completely.

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

What I do not understand is, we have one of the largest and advanced armed forces in the world, so then why are we "stretched so thin"? I always assumed our military's pre-eminence but it seems like were either sitting ducks or weak or something. Plus we spend an incredible amount for defense. What gives? Where is the money going then if were still so "weak"? I find this a bit disconcerting and alarming and I'm concerned that we're being called out and the world is seeing our vulnerabilities.

it really doesn't matter how strong a military is... there will always be limitations. our military supremacy is, literally, unparalleled in the history of the world. even so, our strength lies in technological innovation and well-trained personnel... not in numbers. i think it's a popular misconception (one i'm not saying that you, specifially, hold) that the U.S. military is some monolithic thing with millions upon millions of troops. in fact, our force size is relatively small when compared to the diversity of our missions. there are plenty of militaries around the world who have more people in them.

the money in the budget that goes to defense is spent on maintaining our distinct technological advantage and maintaining a well trained/paid/educated fighting force. it does not, however, stretch far enough to have all those things and also have millions of soldiers at our disposal.

if the military is tasked with:
fighting a war in afghanistan...
fighting a war in iraq
prosecuting a massive drug interdiction campaign in south america
maintaining a forward operating presence in europe and asia
providing tsunami relief across the pacific
being on-call to defend homeland targets
defending embassies and american interests abroad
being a major component of ALL united nations operations
composing a majority of all NATO forces
etc.

all the while balancing the mission with its people... having enough people to accomplish these objectives (and MANY more) while making the lifestyle livable so people will stay in an all-volunteer force. you can see why they are spread so thin, especially in light of all the many personnel drawdowns brought about in the 90s.

our policymakers deploy our military at an unprecedented pace with an ever-broadening scope. and still they ask that they do so with fewer and fewer people.

trust me, the american taxpayer is getting their "bang" (pun intended) for their buck. still, there is a point where it can go no farther... either we must begin to accept how much bang we can wring out of a buck, or shell our more bucks to get more bang.

[jorgelito]

Irate,

Thanks for the thorough reply. It paves the way for continued discussion in a thoughtful manner.

So, I admit, I did have a sort of monolithic view of our military, I suppose it's something I always took for granted (but grateful for).

In that case, can we say our hypothesize that our military institution needs to change or shift to adapt to new objectives. In other words, a major paradigm shift. For example, do we need to keep and maintain "x"-amount of tanks? Do we need to redefine our objectives and mission statement?

In regards to the draft (original thread topic), if we shift our objectives, presumably we would focus on qualitative measure as oppose to quantitative. If so, then a draft is definitely not necessary. Then, we have a finite limitation to the "quantity" of missions as well.

For example: to redefine and implement our US military policy and strategy, in the given case - Choice of missions: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea, Tsunami. If we only have resources for three out of the six, then our decision making process becomes critical and more scrutinized.

I dunno, sumthin' like that. Let me think about it some more and come back.

[Willravel]

Inherent autonomy (the fancy shmansy name for everyone who don't do anything unless they are effected directly by something, namely most Americans) will no longer be a problem if a draft comes a knockin'. Will we have another draft dodge? I know I'll be gladly burning my draft card.

-btw-

"United States vs. O'Brien" keeps us from claiming the First Ammendment for draft card burning, so be ready to be convicted right along with me. I'll see you there.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=391&invol=367

[RogueHunter65]

I am 19 and most likely would be one those drafted if it was re-enacted. If the draft came back I would not engage in military service. Fighting for my nation is not worth risking my life to me. I would either be a contentious objector, leave the country, or find a way to not serve active duty. Do not get me wrong, I love America. But, I should not have to fight. My family has paid in blood for my right for freedom. The debt I own to my country has already been paid for me. My father spent seven years in Vietnam. I have an uncle that was in Korea and died in a POW camp. My grandfather served in WWII. One of my great-grandfathers and my great-uncle served in WWI. My family paid my debt to this nation for my freedom and no one else in my family should ever have to serve.

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by roguehunter65

I am 19 and most likely would be one those drafted if it was re-enacted. If the draft came back I would not engage in military service. Fighting for my nation is not worth risking my life to me. I would either be a contentious objector, leave the country, or find a way to not serve active duty. Do not get me wrong, I love America. But, I should not have to fight. My family has paid in blood for my right for freedom. The debt I own to my country has already been paid for me. My father spent seven years in Vietnam. I have an uncle that was in Korea and died in a POW camp. My grandfather served in WWII. One of my great-grandfathers and my great-uncle served in WWI. My family paid my debt to this nation for my freedom and no one else in my family should ever have to serve.

What about your children, grand children, and great-grandchildren? If all of those people before you died for YOU, what about those who come after?

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by roguehunter65

My family paid my debt to this nation for my freedom and no one else in my family should ever have to serve.

I have a similar background, going back even further than the Revolutionary War. So far, almost every male in my family has served, both peacetime and wartime, and served proudly.

I don't think the debt is ever paid off, just whittled away at in installments.

Not to pick at your comment, it just made me think, now that I am a father.

I would never let my son think that his duty or obligation to this country has already been paid and that he owes this country nothing.

Who knows what the future holds for us. Who knows the enemies we will face. Who knows the sacrifices our children will need to make to further ensure the freedom of their children.

[taylorspl]

See that isn't the logic that most of us share, at least I don't think it is. I simply will not fight because those in power want to invade a foreign land in order to spread the greatness of Democracy. If it came down to us being attacked by an aggressor then I wouldn't need a draft, I'd be there of my own free will.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by taylorspl

If it came down to us being attacked by an aggressor then I wouldn't need a draft, I'd be there of my own free will.

So...you enlisted on 9/12/2001?