Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why no draft?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
moosedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:35 AM
Original message
Why no draft?
Could it be that if our young men can't find jobs, they will be forced to join the military in order to get one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. drafts hurt economies
They put young men (and women?) into esentially unproductive jobs. While things learned in the military can be useful, you'd be better off teaching them directly. If the government wanted to improve employment, they'd be better off with a New Deal-sytle public works program, which leaves you with something concrete (usually literally) at the end (thus helping the future economy, which would help pay off the money borrowed to fund the program).
Drafts should only be used in national emergency. If there are any manpower problems in the military, it's because of overcommitment by the civilan administration, or the discouraging effect on enlistment/re-enlistment due to being unnecessarily sent to do a dangerous job.

Having said that, the combined military/economic track record of the Bush admin is quite capable of another disasterous decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:45 AM
Original message
Eminently reasonable.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. a Draft would ignite the country
and the Rove machine is not going to do that...they are morons, but I would assume even they know that NO ONE will put up with that...especially now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Rumpfield said he is going to
give guns to the cooks and maintenance workers who are already enlisted. Diversify they say....... The republican way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. What the plan
is, is to decrease the "tooth to tail" ratio; decrease the number of "support" personnel while increasing the number of "trigger pullers." That's one of the reasons the military is outsourcing jobs that can be done by civilians and retaining those jobs that can be/should be done only by those in uniform for those in uniform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's happened before.
When I was young, every male had an eight-year military obligation unless he was exempted as a student or for physical reasons. This reduced the general labor pool and, subsequently, unemployment.

It wasn't exactly fair. Except for "teacher's college" a college education was out of the question for those whose means were less than "comfortable." Wealthier parents could keep their sons out of the military by keeping them in college until they were past the ages that were being drafted at the time (usually 19- to 21-year-olds during peacetime).

Later, the lottery system was introduced to make the draft system a little more fair. I'm not sure how fair it was because I had completed my service time by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Where was this? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. Right here in the U.S.A. -- 1955
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 01:13 PM by Another Bill C.
I chose the Navy. Four years there was better than two years as a draftee in the Army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Funny
Didn't impact my father or father in law....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Ask them
how they got out of it.

Another point: each draft board had a quota to fill. If they filled it without your father and father-in-law, they lucked out. My friends and I didn't want to take a chance since they seemed to be drafting everyone around us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Bush will announce it AFTER the next election.
Count on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Bingo: this upcoming campaign season is not the time to introduce this
product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's coming
A draft would sound the death knell for the chimp*. They know it's coming kkkarl must be soaking the sheets at night, there isn't anyway we have the manpower to occupy Iraq, and fulfill the pnac wetdream of world domination. They'll hold off as long as they can, but it's coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moosedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Well, do they need to?
If they can get the boys to sign up because otherwise they will starve, then they have their draft in a tricky way of getting it. They have all the tricks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bfusco Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. it probabl will be after 04
A fried of mine who is in the military says there is serious buzz about the draft coming back but it won't occur until after 2004. Re-instating the draft beofre 04 would be the final nail in Bush's coffin. US forces are stretched at a level not seen since WWII, we are bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, unable to maintain these levels past spring of 2004 and the international community is unwilling to assist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. no need
recruitment is on target according to recent quotes.

Military service is still a good way to get trained in salable skills and you get the GI Bill too boot. As always, it is a good place to get started in ones work life. Just don't try it married.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. a draft
equals Bush is a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. Why this fixation with a draft?
There's been threads on DU for over a year now saying Bush is about to start a draft.

Why?

The front page of my local paper just yesterday said all parts of the service have reached their enrollment quotas for the year.

As far as I know Bush has never shown any interest in a draft.

Bush knows it would damage him politically.

It seems like there's no evidence that a draft is coming, yet it gets trumpetted constantly. Why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. b/c it's a message board
and logic is often left at the door ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. As several others have pointed out,
the military recruiters are meeting their quotas. If that stops happening, then there will be a draft. However, we keep on reading that the military is "stretched thin" because of Iraq and Afghanistan so far. Plus, reservists are being held on active duty for a year or more, which makes me wonder if enough people are enlisting in the reserves.

One important question to ask is, how long would it take to gear up a draft (even assuming no real opposition) and then how many new soldiers at a time can be pushed through basic training?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. a year
before the first batch of draftees are ready for service I think.

but of course it's not going to happen anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
16. Noboby wants a draft.
I sure as hell don't. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Yes, I do.
I want a draft because Bush would be much harder pressed to wage illegal wars if the army was a drafted army. The country was torn apart by VietNam, as it should have been, because the soldiers were everyone's kids. A democracy needs a "citizen" army - not a mercenary one. If we wage war, it should not be with "throw away" soldiers. Every citizen should be required to do national service once in their lives and it would plug people into the decisions being made in their names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. What about the draftees?
I want a draft because Bush would be much harder pressed to wage illegal wars if the army was a drafted army.

I'm not sold. Why should I be forced to join the military against my will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. The draft...
was one of the things that tore the country apart during Viet Nam. Johnson and Nixon refused to call up the reserves back then.

It was decided (by whom, I'm not all that sure) to go all-volunteer and use the reserves for support operations in what were assumed to be short operations. This actually worked reasonably well in Gulf 1.

Several things...

They seem to still be arguing over the concept of the "two front war" but have pretty well given up on the idea of two major operations for now. Should we actually have two, or one really big one, the draft is only on hiatus, and can be quickly revived.

Much of the recruitment is now being done in Mexico. Recruiters are actually setting up offices down there, and find Mexicans eager to join for promises of green cards, training, and a paycheck and the military finds them somewhat more compliant than our own poor people.

While they "claim" active duty enlistment is doing well, they are not saying how the Guard enlistment is going. It doesn't seem to be going all that well, and I've heard of Guard hitches being extended by 10 years. We didn't use the Guard in Viet Nam because of the turmoil it would cause with families and careers, and we are seeing that turmoil now.

The dilemma they now face is that the volunteer military works with the smaller active forces we now have, but doesn't work that well with the major and extended operations they've been planning. If they reinstate the draft, which they would have to do if they want more war, a lot of voters will see their kids in the same position we were in during the 60's. I don't think all that many people would put up with it now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Can you show
me something that backs your assertion that "much of the recruitment is now being done in Mexico?" I don't believe that is the case.

Also, I have seen nothing that says Guard hitches are being "extended by 10 years." Can you provide a source for that was well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Well...
The Mexico item came from an article I read several months ago. Probably in the NY Times, but I'm not sure.

However, now that you ask, a quick search comes up with this:

http://rogueimc.org/2003/05/632.shtml

If this article is true, I stand corrected.


The thing about extending Guard hitches came form a woman calling into Talk of The Nation a couple of weeks ago. Caught the end of the call, and don't know if it's a friend/husband/son/other she was talking about, but she said he got the word last year that his Guard enlistment was extended for 10 years, and he got the word in May that his Iraq tour would be extended to 475 days. She was, in a word, pissed. And the guy, at 33, would pretty much have to start his life over again, with no job when he got back home. Maybe no family either.

Extending the Guard enlistment seemed odd to me, and did some checking, but wasn't able to come up with anything to confirm or deny it. I don't know his rank, either, and the terms of service terms have always been different between officers and enlisted, but I'm not sure of the latest situation. The various military enlistment web sites were no help at all, nor were a couple of calls to military types I know. I'm tempted to call a recruiting office and see if I get a straight answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Normal enlistment
period is from 4-6 years. I've seen nothing which extends a Guard enlistment out to 10 years, but one never knows.

Thanks for providing the info on the Mexican recruitment. I didn't think that sounded right, and it was decent of you to admit the error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
21. as more support services get 'privitized' and the economy tanks further
young people without means will have little choice but to enlist in the military or take jobs with corporations getting contracts to provide what the military used to take care of itself.

By privatizing the support structure, the neocons can claim:

1) They cut the federal payroll and therefore can afford tax cuts.

2) Claim that the private sector is creating jobs and therefore lend a false justification that the tax cuts served the porported purpose.

3) (big one here, folks) The CEO/donors can get big bucks running the companies getting the contracts, further raiding the US Treasury to maintain their greedy lifestyles.

4) Actually end up converting the US military into their own private security force to ensure their world wide dominance in controlling and selling all natural resources.

The taxpayer pays the bills whether it is the US Army of the privitized forces getting mega contracts from the fed treasury. The Corporate Facists end up with more cash and lower payrolls. (Hey, if the worker is doing something that is involved with national security, kiss collective bargining good-bye.) The young, entering the work force has fewer choices and the neocons have their serf population. The safety net must be completely abandoned cuz workers will not be getting as much $$ through privatization as when the government paid them directly as federal employees, thus there will be considerabily less payroll taxes. Sorry, Grandma, but no funds for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moosedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Thanks Havocmom...
Finally someone understood what I was getting at. You knew just how to explain it. Our only grandchild is going to enlist as he just can't get work otherwise or go to school either. I guess the rich kids won't have to worry. If there is a way to get around it....this outfit will think of itm won't they? Class warfare ! Mrs. Moose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
25. this article from the NYT confirms your theory...
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 12:03 PM by leftchick
<snip>
The slumping American economy has proved to be a boon to the Army's efforts to recruit the 100,000 enlisted soldiers it says it needs this year to fill its active-duty and reserve ranks, senior Army officials say, so far relieving concerns that the turmoil in Iraq could crimp new enlistments.

All the armed services say they will meet or exceed their recruiting goals for the fiscal year ending on

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/national/22RECR.html?...

One might even assume it is all part of the plan....
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moosedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Thanks Leftchick...
They sure are sly. It is so unfair. Mrs. Moose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
26. You're a day late and a dollar short, Moosedog
;)
Soft Economy Aids Army Recruiting Effort:

"The slumping American economy has proved to be a boon to the Army's efforts to recruit the 100,000 enlisted soldiers it says it needs this year to fill its active-duty and reserve ranks, senior Army officials say, so far relieving concerns that the turmoil in Iraq could crimp new enlistments..."


rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. Draftees just mess up the Army they have all along!
Them and Clinton have just about ruined the Army according to Rumbo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
33. Political reasons
Rove is smart enough to realize that if Repukes bring back the draft, they'll lose my generation's vote for all time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fatima Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. There is a kind of draft, called the "poverty draft."
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 07:53 PM by Fatima
The Armed Forces are meeting recruiting goals right now because of the dearth of available jobs for young folk, including those without college. Especially troubling is the news that young Latino men are being targeted for recruitment. This includes recruiting Mexican immigrants with the offer of citizenship.

However, I have heard talk in the ether of a possible draft should Chimpy McSmirk get another four years. A draft now would torpedo his re-election chances.

edit: how the heck many times can you use "especially" in two small paragraphs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supercrash Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
36. The draft...
It's right here. It's sitting on the shelf for now

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 21st 2014, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC