<p>Think there will be a draft? My government class has had a debate on this a few times, and we would say, yes there will be.</p>
<p>To view the bill go to
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/%5B/url%5D">http://thomas.loc.gov/</a></p>
<p>and type in "s89" in bill number. There is also the house version. Type in hr163</p>
<p>Yeah, Bush even said something about it. It was an internet rumor, he laid it to rest a few months ago.</p>
<p>Get over it, Bush won. It makes no sense now to bring up this rumor again.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to oppose Bush. He's my president so I support him. It's just that it can be possible that there will be a draft. With the war in Iraq rising. Along with many other countries in war, such as Israel, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia. After Iraq, Iran will probably be next followed by Saudi Arabia. And the bills are still going through legistation. Like I stated, im not against Bush, im just saying the reality is there, and it could happen.</p>
<p>oh boy this is the draft bill that the Democrats brought up to scare people.</p>
<p>WOW. Why are we still having this discussion?</p>
<p>Perhaps not these bills, perhaps not even the comming 2005 year. But perhaps a different bill, and perhaps 2006.</p>
<p>I thought this was a more of a liberal board, being that most are from the Northeast, and California :)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif%5B/url%5D">http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif</a> <--basically, true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I thought this was a more of a liberal board, being that most are from the Northeast, and California
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right. It is.</p>
<p>the point here isn't the pre-2004-election bill that was never going to pass. i think the OP's point is that a draft may be inevitable for any president (even if kerry had won). that's definitely possible and not liberal or conservative, but realistic.</p>
<p>I really don't think a draft is likely. A friend of mine made a very good point that the armed forces reject people to join because there are too many. Obviously if there needed to be more people in the armed services, then they wouldn't reject people left and right...
Further more, it's sister bill in the house got rejected 2-402... Yes, that is a 400 vote margin... You would have to be high on something if you think that this would ever pass...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't think a draft is likely. A friend of mine made a very good point that the armed forces reject people to join because there are too many. Obviously if there needed to be more people in the armed services, then they wouldn't reject people left and right...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right about the armed forces rejecting many people, but keep in mind that most of those rejections come from high-tech fields (AKA ones that require previous experience, officers commission, etc.) Trigger Pullers, on the other hand, are always in high demand.</p>
<p>The bottom line is: the draft is very unlikely. The reorganization/redeployment of US forces in Europe that is currently in the process (which Clinton should have done 5 years ago) will free up manpower for continued operations in current hot-spots around the globe. Plus, the new high-tech era of our military and increasing reliance on networking, GPS, and digitized units means less manpower is required to achieve an even greater amount of capabilities (even when compared to as recently as a decade ago).</p>
<p>As it stands now, a draft is unlikely, although govt officials have said that the military may not have the manpower to deal with a new crisis, should it arise.</p>
<p>There is kind of a "backdoor draft" going on right now, by not letting officers retire, extending tours of duty for reserves, etc. </p>
<p>The time for a draft is kind of ending anyway though. There is still a need for basic "trigger pullers" as Ameechee said, but the military, rather than depending on large groups of unspecialized soldiers, are becoming more dependent on small forces made up of highly trained soldiers to operate equipment like missiles and stuff.</p>
<p>The current administration's vision for the military is a more streamlined, high-tech, wired, mobile supersoldier type of thing. Like, one soldier destroying a company by calling an airstrike. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea =p
Much more reliance on powerful, precise (hopefully accurate, too) weaponry, fast armor, stealth, and infantry that are highly trained.</p>
<p>A draft sorta creates a military that's like a messy mob of barely-trained guys that just get massacred. Part of the problem today is trying to shift to the new type of military while trying to occupy a country--a stealthy commando can't create much visibility and a sense of security compared to a division of infantry with patrols on every street.</p>
<p>I don't think a draft is likely at all, except for peacekeeping--in that case, its the local population that'll prolly be drafted.</p>
<p>A draft is VERY unlikely. It's just another hysterical rumor cooked up by the anti-war movement to get attention and support. It seeks to create fear among the general public that they or their children will be sent to fight in Iraq.</p>
<p>It would require an act of congress to revive it, and it would be political suicide for any congressman who voted for it (except in jest, as Charlie Rangel did with a no-chance draft bill he introduced to protest the Iraq War)</p>
<p>More likely, the government will raise the number of recruits by increasing the enlistment bonus and cutting social spending.</p>
<p>it's not so much that our new, streamlined military won't need more soldiers, it will need less: to combat another countries army. However, if our role is to be peacekeeping in a nation of 25 million, then people with guns around are necessary to keep the peace. It won't be for decades, if not centurres, before robots can be fully automated to work in the field. Until then, there has to be infantry on the ground to react quickly and work with people. You can't watch everywhere with spy planes and sattelites, buildings and sheer tracts of land do not allow that. </p>
<p>is a draft possible, yes. Is it likely, perhaps.</p>
<p>Guys, the draft ended in 1972 and we've been able to keep an all volunteer force ever since. What you may be forgetting is that we keep a much larger military before it was cut dramatically in the late 90s to take advantage of the "peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union. There's no indication that we couldn't recruit an all volunteer military back to that size or larger again if we needed to. Which I assume we all hope we won't.</p>
<p>If you believe that we can recruit sufficient numbers of soldiers, then why is the military resorting to stop-loss and the recalling of reserves? I think that there may have been something veiled in Pres. Bush's speech at Camp Pendleton yesterday, in which he acknowledged the growing insurgency in Iraq and the need for more troops. I may be paranoid but I think that was a step in a general direction of announcing the need for some kind of draft.</p>
<p>Don't worry you paranoid people, there will be NO draft. If there does happen to be a draft, there is one way to avoid it: ENLIST</p>
<p>"If you believe that we can recruit sufficient numbers of soldiers, then why is the military resorting to stop-loss and the recalling of reserves?"</p>
<p>Stop-loss is aimed at retaining trained personnel. While it's no big deal to bring new recruits up to standard in peace time, for certain positions or situtations, it takes too long during war conditions. </p>
<p>Heck even 30 years ago when I considered going into the Air Force (just after the draft ended and when recruiters were truely desperate), the recruiter warned me that what ever my enlistment time, the military could keep you as long as they needed you in time of war.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe that we can recruit sufficient numbers of soldiers, then why is the military resorting to stop-loss and the recalling of reserves?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Strick is completely correct. There is simply a need to understand basic military organization here.</p>
<p>Before the Cold War ended, the active military was a MASSIVE organization of forces designed to fight huge engagements against the Soviets on the plains of Germany, etc. But once the COld War ended, it became economically unfeasible to maintain such a powerful force. As the military was drawn down, a significant reorganization of the military took place. Dedicated combat units (armor, infantry, artillery,etc) were retained in the active forces, ready to deploy (albeit slowly) against threats. However, many of the specialized forces (logistics, command/control, etc) and the new breed of advanced digitized units were moved to the Reserves and National Guard positions.</p>
<p>As Strick11 mentioned, deploying reserves (and particularly the Individual Ready Reserve) is aimed at retaining those trained and experienced personell who work in the very specialized fields. It is NOT an indication that our military is in trouble and a draft is imminent.</p>
<p>Good, I hope you're right. Is the same reasoning behind the recalling of reserves who have not been in the military for quite some time? (per 60 minutes broadcast Sunday, e.g.)</p>
