This guys really knows how to kill a shift in power.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

A Democrat wants to reinstitute the draft. Yeah, that is a good way to use that renewed power. That is just what the Republicans need to get things back in their favor.

Rangel’s been calling for the draft to be reinstituted for years. I believe his reasoning is that if no one gets waivers because of schooling (only health reasons can apply, maybe conscientious objectors), the government will be less likely to send our troops out meaninglessly. He thinks they’re sent out now only because they’re usually poor and usually minorities.

I think its a great idea in terms of what he wants to achieve: people would definetly think twice before supporting a war because it _will_affect them personally. People didn’t give a shit about Iraq until it did.

The fact of the matter is, people are complacent and won’t lift a finger to oppose political bullshit as long as it affects someone else. This is a very direct way to wake people up and get them off their asses.

I’m with Sin on this.

Also, what I find funny about this is that a country like USA that has such a large military doesn’t have a draft, while Sweden does. Unless there’s a medical reason or the recruit is too much of a pacifist (and able to convince the grand phoobas of that) not to, most males here are required to have at least 80 days of military service.
We’re scaling down so much we couldn’t protect our own country if needed (:P) but it’s still funny since we haven’t been in a war for two centuries.

If the draft gets reinstituted, the Republicans will immediately play the “bad government, get off our back” card. However people won’t be that willing to commit to new wars when there’s a very tangible possibility their ass will get on the battlefield.

Weiila, 80 days? :stuck_out_tongue: 11 months in Greece.

Re-implementing the draft would be senseless and self-destructive.

Everyone’s assumption is that war is wrong and bad, and therefore we should attach negative consequences to it. Why is war bad? Presumably because it harms innocent people.

So what you’re all proposing is to make it harm even <i>more</i> innocent people – and it won’t just be those abstract “Americans.” It’ll be you yourselves, accustomed to playing RPGs in cozy armchairs, who are summoned to a war that <i>you morally oppose</i>. <i>You</i> 18-25 year-olds will be the ones who die to teach a country what’s wrong with war.

The problem is that all you’ll prove is that you can make a war worse than it already was. So the draft will soon end, and people will say, “This war business isn’t so bad at all, compared to the draft!” And the war will continue, and many of you will be dead.

I agree completely. And I would also add that, if you claim to uphold a democratic ideology, you should oppose an institution that gives the government more control over your life than just about every other law put together. The only thing that will be accomplished by reinstituting the draft is an even greater militarization of society. After all, even the draft didn’t stop the American government from starting the Vietnam War. Yes, that war eventually became unpopular, but that was only after 50,000 American casualties and <i>millions</i> of Vietnamese.

I understand the guy’s reasoning about how the current system is biased towards making poor people and minorities fight wars. However, the answer to this is not to institute some kind of equal-opportunity militarism, but rather to get rid of militarism completely.

Rangle also believe the wealthy won’t be able to keep their sons and daughters out of the draft. They’re rich. They have connections. They will find ways for their sons and daughters to be tied to the National Guard or have easy desk jobs back at home.

My grandfather supported Vietnam, but my father and uncles did not. They ALL found ways around the draft, each in his own clever way. If my grandfather were willing, which he wasn’t, but if he were, he had enough pull to keep his sons out of Vietnam. He had plenty of connections, and he was only a dentist. Think what a politician could do. Think what truly wealthy people could do. Those in power would still be able to shield their children from having to go to war.

I don’t think putting them in the National Guard will work this time since the National Guard is deployed as much as the reserves now. Hell, some National Guard units are getting ready for a second tour in Iraq. Yeah in Vietnam the Guard didn’t go over, but that has changed now.

Ignoring the philosophical reasons for the draft and how it will hurt or help the country. The biggest problem is that this can swing for the Republicans easily. Bringing back the draft would be wildly unpopular for anybody to bring back. The Democrats just got control of Congress again and this could shift things back to the Repulicans.

As for the draft, I’m agaisnt it period. With a volunteer force, the people sent to war are more motivated and wanting to go. It also ensures more highly trained troops since the troops get much more training and experience before being deployed. Also, units are together longer before being deployed so comraderie is built up more. Besides, there are other options to increase our military strength before instiuting a draft (such as increase the size of our military). I know of many guys that want to stay in, but can’t because there are regulations on getting promoted to certain ranks by certain years in service and the amount of guys sent to boot camp is sometimes limited since they have to wait until spots open up. Like each unit has a certain number of people in each job that it can have. Increase those numbers or reopen closed units and that would free up some units.

EDIT: Just to give an idea about how much smaller the military is now. In WW2 the Marine Corps had about 500,000 Marines. Now, the Marine Corps is about 220,000 compbined out of active and reserve. The Army has over a million active, reserve, and guard (hell their reserves is bigger than the entire Marine Corps). So our numbers are significantly lower than they were in the past. Now yes there was a draft, in that time, but opening up new units would be a first step and could help ease some of the problems without a draft.

Fine. Nix National Guard and replace it with Coast Guard. Or something. They’ll still get out of the front lines/dangerous situations.

I’ve always been against the draft (unless it’s really needed) because it floods the forces with conscripts who lack the motivation of a volunteer. In today’s warfare, a guy with a rifle, a few weeks of basic, and a grenade isn’t an effective fighting force.

Besides, the U.S. simply does not have the facilities to handle a massive influx of draftees. They closed down and consolidated military bases throughout the 1990s - hell, they’re still closing them down today. So unless a massive world war breaks out and we start building more bases, our current facilities couldn’t support so many new recruits.

Also factor in the logistics of housing, clothing, feeding, and caring for the new draftees. That’s billions of dollars the Pentagon won’t have to spend on its next wonder weapon…

But it’s also stupid for the Democrats to even suggest this. I’ve always said that Democrats make terrible politicians, simply because they don’t know how to play the game (see the Pelosi disaster last week). The GOP are great politicians but terrible leaders…

Seconded.

Same here, although we may also escape the draft by going to a college or university.