Need and political acceptance are two different issues."Out of curiosity, what do you think will "make" US public "see the need for draft"? I mean, global conflict of scale, intensity and duration of WW1 & 2 are unlikely and (if I understood your post correctly) you don't think that GWOT needs it."
The military's need is for increased manpower in the Army and Marines generally and in critical, highly trained, specialties where there are shortages. Say, for example, certain language skills. Most people across the political spectrum, though not all, agree that such a need exists.
Filling that need is a question of costs or trade-offs. The draft would entail real costs, not simply provide a ready supply of less expensive manpower so Congress should look at possibly a combination of options, including outside the box ideas, instead of eliminating anything a priori. It may very well be that a new draft isn't the best way to go in terms of utility and I think public support would be lacking right now.
Speaking of which, what would make the public " see" the need? Frankly, a military disaster on par with a second 9/11 and nothing less.
Bush could have had the Army and Marines expanded in the wake of 9/11 by issuing a call for volunteers. Congress would have given him a draft, had he asked or nearly anything else at that particular moment in time. Public political support hinges on mass emotional reactions to conflict at the moral level, not statistical or factual arguments. Factually, the U.S. needed a large military build-up prior to Pearl Harbor but FDR, as Tom pointed out, could only muster support for a barebones effort by a single vote in Congress. On Dec. 8, FDR could ask for, and get, the moon.
I know. I was asking under what circumstances (or events) would US public support the draft because they would think it's necessary. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
OK. Do you think it's feasible that a combination of draft/volunteer armed forces would come along? Certain slots are filled by long term professionals (pilots, Marines, airborne....) and others by conscripts who serve outside US only if they volunteer to do so?
also now Arab/Farsi/.... speakers have to be persuaded to join, with draft they would get in armed forces anyway and it would be only a matter of persuading them to stay in. Might be easier.
OK, that was my original question. Thanks.
But do you think it would last a long term? Assuming there is a draft and Iraq is invaded in march 03 anyway do you think that people (troops, families....) would say "Hey, we agreed to draft to fight terrorism but Iraq is something else"?
Historic-Battles forum moderator
I agree that there is a need for increased manning levels in critical specialties. However addressing that need is a function of the individual services and of congress. One can not mass produce competent linguists any more than one can mass produce Special Forces. Again, if we need, and I believe that we do, additional intel, linguists, FAOs, and the like it can be addressed using the current volunteer force system. The individual services need to identify the need and congress needs to legislate the billets and fund them.
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
Keep in mind that there is a liberal perspective to raising the idea of a draft.
** First, if a Democrat supports it he can argue that he's not soft on defense.
** Second, from a liberal perspective it makes great social sense because we can get the rich involved in the nation's defense - social justice.
** Third, if a draft is implemented it can make it theoretically more difficult to go to war because it affects more people.
Ray
Bookmarks