Restoring the Draft: No Panacea

[Monsoon65]

I love Murtha's idea of paying draftees less! What a jerk.



By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON
Sat Jul 21, 12:00 PM ET



Even as there's talk inside the Pentagon of extending the troop surge in Iraq well into 2008, the U.S. military remains in a vise, crushed between the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have made recruiting more difficult. Right now, there are only two real ways to extend or even increase the surge: call up more reservists - always tough to do in an election year - or extend active-duty combat tours from the current morale-wrecking 15 months to an even more painful 18 months. But Marine General Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reassured GIs in Afghanistan this week that 18-month combat tours are not, as has been rumored, in their future. "An 18-month tour has zero, zero, none, nada, squat, nothing, no validity, OK?" he said. "I want to make sure you got that."

So then what about the third, most controversial option - is it time to reinstitute the draft? That option has a certain appeal as the Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15%. It is the second consecutive month the service's enlistment effort has slipped as public discontent grows over the war in Iraq.


Bringing back mandatory service has been the refrain of many who want to put the brakes on the Iraq war; if every young man is suddenly a potential grunt on his way to Baghdad, the thinking goes, the war would end rather quickly. It's also an argument made by those who are uneasy that the burden of this war is being unfairly shouldered by the 1.4-million-strong U.S. military and no one else. But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week makes clear that resuming the draft would be no panacea.


The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.


"Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.


The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.


If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs.

[QRQ 30]

This is the same argument used to do away with the draft. Then they said the well to do and connected had ways around the draft and less fortunate served.

Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world.

Be careful what you ask for. A draft woll remove the need for higher pay incentives. When I joined I got $72/month. Jump school was a real incentive since it almost doubled our pay.

[The Reaper]

Young men?

I don't think so.

The next time the draft machine fires up, half are going to have to be young women, or a whole lot of laws are going to have to change back.

How can you have a national service requirement and half the population is automatically exempt?

Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.

TR

[Pete]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

....Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.

TR

And that's exactly what the Democrats want. Plus the added bonus of massive demonstrations around the country, burning draft cards & American Flags - Oh, yeah, I can see it now.

[kgoerz]

A Military Draft? Are you saying that our Country will actually ask it's Citizens to sacrifice and give back to the very Country they live in. Force common Citizens to shoot Guns.....at real people. All for the purpose of this Country's survival in a time of War. In the year 2007. Know thats just Crazy Talk

Seriously, IMO there are many who will step up and answer the call to duty. But their dedication will be overshadowed by the you cant make me do it or I have rights crowed. Something has to be done.
The volunteer force was never designed to fight a long term war by itself. Isn't the all volunteer force expected to fight a one front war for about three years max? Seems there should be more talk about a draft and winning this war. Then talk about pulling out. I guess most think that Iraq is the war to end all wars. My Kids are only 12&13. Me and my wife already discussed the possibility of them being drafted in the future.
More and more people are convincing themselves that the Enemy just got lucky on 911. It won't happen again. We are over reacting. Recent foiled attacks seem to prove the opposite.
The WWII Memorial in DC has 24 Panels surrounding it. Each one represents a Front, Commitment, Battle, Industrial Movement or Major Campaign during WWII. The 24 Panels represent this country's total commitment to victory. Today our country is having a hard time to what is equal to just a couple of those Panels.

[Fiercely Loyal]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.

So Sir is it safe to say you are against the lowering of the standards for entrance into the military? And what do you think would happen if instead of the draft they let gays openly join and serve the military. Or other such options that increase troop numbers?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Loyal

So Sir is it safe to say you are against the lowering of the standards for entrance into the military? And what do you think would happen if instead of the draft they let gays openly join and serve the military. Or other such options that increase troop numbers?

I think if you read my posts, you will know what I think.

Read more, post less.

TR

[RTK]

I'd rather do twice the work shorthanded with people that want to be in than have this happen.