Do You Feel a Draft?

[unhappycamper]

Do You Feel a Draft?
May 21, 2008
Military.com|by Colin Clark

In an exchange sure to send ripples of anxiety through the all-volunteer military, the Senate's senior defense spending member asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen if it is time to "consider reinstituting the draft."

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, asked Gates and Mullen the question he said no one wants to ask: "Is the cost of maintaining an all-volunteer force becoming unsustainable and, secondly, do we need to consider reinstituting the draft."

Inouye cited the ever-increasing pay and benefits paid to active and reserve service members, noting that it now costs an estimated $126,000 per service member.

Gates and Mullen both said they thought the current volunteer force was the finest the U.S. has ever fielded. Gates said he "personally" believes that "it is worth the cost."

Mullen was not quite as sanguine.


Read the rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/do-you-feel-a-draft.html

[Ian_rd]

1. There will be no draft.

The person who brings back the draft destroys their political future and possibly that of their party for a long time - especially considering high unpopularity of the war, not the least of which is the fact that most Americans think we shouldn't have started it in the first place. Our government is far more willing to keep increasing signing bonuses to insane amounts and throwing wounded and mentally-damaged soldiers back into the frying pan to save face. They will do absolutely anything to avoid a draft - including losing the war and allowing terrorists to run Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consider the reasons for a draft:

1. It would make it easier to win the war.
2. It would lessen the burden on soldiers that have been fighting it for several years.

But these reasons hold no water with the administration. They are funded and advised by forces such as the major oil corporations and military industrial complex - these people have a vested interest in the conflict not only continuing, but getting worse - it means more money for military hardware and higher oil prices. Therefore: The Bush administration has NO REASON to institute a draft, because enriching their friends will always take priority over everything else, including victory.

[elocs]

2. Agreed--no draft, no way.

Not only the person, but the party that pushes or promotes a draft is screwed. Lot's of luck trying to sell the notion of a draft to the American people.

[rakeeb]

7. I am considering your reasons and neither make sense:

1. It would make it easier to win the war.

How would having conscripts make it easier to train Iraqi forces?

2. It would lessen the burden on soldiers that have been fighting it for several years.

Just increasing the size of the military would do that, whether there was a draft or not....
most folks seem to forget that the active duty Army of the 1980's was about 65% larger than it is now, (and enlistment standards were a helluva lot lower).

[unhappycamper]

8. "and enlistment standards were a helluva lot lower"

We had a 20% waiver rate in the 80s? And less than 80% of enlistees had high school diplomas? Really?

[rakeeb]

10. yes...

and the minimum allowable ASVAB score was also much lower when the active Army was at about 850,000. You even saw felony convictions in the Marines back then. It wasn't until the drawdown that brought the Army down to 429,000 by 1993 that you saw a 100% high school diploma requirement for the first time in the active Army.

[Ian_rd]

9. ...

1. Draft = more troops = better chance of winning. Please don't tell me that requires explanation.

2. Well, the size of the military is being increased as much as the Bush administration can possibly increase it without a draft. That's the whole point of lowering "standards" and increasing signing bonuses. And yet, they are failing to attract as many recruits as they want. Therefore, a draft would increase the military where other options have failed, and hence, lessen the burden of soldiers who have been fighting since March 2003.

I don't get your point about the 80s. There was no draft in the 80s or today, so what does it have to do with a draft?

[rakeeb]

11. I'm going to assume that you aren't a veteran, so I'll explain

what I meant.

1. Draft does not equal more troops; a Congressional authorization equals more troops. Once Congress authorizes that higher number, you can then fill those ranks through enlistment or draft.
More troops does not equal a better chance of "winning"...in that the overwhelming majority of the work over here now is being done by Iraqi troops with U.S. advisors. That being said, there are about 130-140,000 U.S. troops in country. We have 1.2 million troops on active duty and another 1.1 million in the reserves for a total force of about 2.3 million; i.e. about 6% of our total force is in country right now as the "surge" is tapering off.

2. the administration doesn't authorize the size of the military, Congress does. And yes, when you increase the size, you do have to lower the standards. And every branch has met it's higher recruiting goals with every authorized increase.

The point about the 1980's was that the active Army was about 850,000 troops, all volunteer, compared to 429,000 in 1993 after the drawdown and about 500,000 today.

From the end of the draft until the drawdown started, the Army was able to maintain an active force between 800 and 900,000 with lower standards; GED's, or promising to get a GED during your first enlistment, lower ASVAB scores, waivers for misdemeanors and felonies, etc.

But you are right, since we have been able to maintain an active Army almost twice the size we have now without a draft in the past, we will see no need for a draft in the future.

[TahitiNut]

3. I wish there WERE a draft ... both male and female.

Sadly, we'd rather think ourselves "above that" ... "involuntary servitude" and all that is just for "lesser" folks.

:puke: :puke:

[jpertello]

5. Those who are above that

would find a way to get out of it.

[TahitiNut]

6. Uh-huh. So, do we condemn them or are we ENVIOUS of them?

When the draft was made FAR more equitable, it seems to me that folks were more interested in expanding the "privileged class" (to include themselves, of course) than in sharing the burdens of national service. Thus, we have a "managed" level of unemployment and a deliberate exclusion of some from our health care system ... all of which creates a (convenient) coercive force to cause some to enlist. For many, it's presented as the most (or only) feasible way to get food, shelter, housing, clothing, health care and an opportunity for an education.

When such economic conditions create a level of oppression that many can benefit from, we have tyranny.

Indeed, we seem to have very "convenient" attitudes regarding military service. I never noticed many "feminists," for example, arguing for inclusion of women in the Selective Service system. We seem willing to pay taxes to maintain a global military in a constant state of war but only seem to manage a few minutes a year of our valuable time to 'protest' it. It's "convenient" to say one is opposed to such militarism - but as long as one's ass isn;t on the line, well, what the hell. Let Jose do it. Yup.

[jpertello]

4. Yeah. I just read this article too.

We are the only country in history who has ever launched such an expensive invasion and maintained this level of occupation for such a long time with an all volunteer army. And this all with no sacrifice from the citizens. No rationing like in WWII. I am not saying I am for the draft. No way! I have an 18 year old son. But this war is not sustainable as an expensive neocon hobby. Even a good game of Risk ends sometime.
Perhaps rather than ask if we all feel a draft they should be asking if we all feel a CHANGE in the air? The answer is not to draft. The answer is to end war as a method of controlling the behavior of rogue dictators. It is messy, expensive and ultimately ineffective.