US 'will have to face military draft'

[Edge]

US 'will have to face military draft'
Washington
June 13

The United States will "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties result in persistent shortfalls in US Army recruitment, a top US senator warned on Sunday.

Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months.

"We're going to have to face that question," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" television show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft. "The truth of the matter is, it is going to become a subject, if, in fact, there's a 40 percent shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality," he said.

The comment came after the department of defence announced on Friday the army had missed its recruiting goal for May by 1 661 recruits, or 25 percent.

Similar losses have been reported by army officials every month since February.

But experts said even that figure was misleading because the army has quietly lowered its May recruitment target from 8 050 to 6 700 people.

That has prompted charges that the real shortfall was closer to 40 percent, which in turn has led to questions about the future viability of the army as a force, if it continues to be plagued by lack of new recruits.

Since October, the army has recruited more than 8 000 fewer people that it had hoped to, which amounts to a loss of about a modern brigade.

The army, navy and marine corps reserves also fell short of their monthly goals by 18 percent, six percent and 12 percent respectively, according to the figures.

Recruitment at the Army National Guard was down 29 percent while the Air National Guard fell short 22 percent.

The United States abandoned the military draft in 1973, following mass protest during the Vietnam War, and switched to an all-volunteer force.

Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but resumed in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

About 13.5 million men are currently registered with the US government as potential draftees.

During the 2004 election campaign, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry repeatedly accused President George W Bush of planning to re-instate "a back-door draft," charges the president vehemently denied.

But while admitting that restoring the draft would be politically "very difficult," Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something will have to be done because the situation with recruitment was not likely to improve.

"If you think you have trouble getting recruits today, you're going to have far more trouble six months from now," Leahy predicted on CBS's "Face the Nation" programme. "It is not going to get better. That's going to get worse."

Republican representative Curt Weldon called the recruitment shortfalls "troublesome" and "unacceptable". But he urged the military "to find ways to fix the current system" and to attract more recruits with the help of new incentives.

Nearly 1 900 US troops have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere since the beginning of the war on terror in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

I'm curious:

Do you think this is really likely to happen?

Is there anyone here who would be eligible to drafted, and if so, what would your response be?

[Cail]

It'll never happen. We (Americans) don't have the political will to sustain a draft over Iraq. It's being used as a scare tactic by Democrats, but I can pretty much guarantee that no one has got the balls to introduce a "Draft Bill", because that'd be the end of their political career.

[Avatar]

While that's good to hear in one sense, namely that I'm totally opposed to the draft, in another it's almost a pity, in that if they tried to introduce it, it would almost certainly increase disaffection with the administration.

Still, there are some sort of "eligibility" programs or something in place, aren't there?

--A

[[Syl]]

I don't know, with things going the way they are, a draft might be necessary whether it's politically beneficial or not. There's stop-loss in effect (the backdoor draft, keeping soldiers in after the end of their contract), raised enlistment bonuses, shorter contracts, etc. and they're still having problems. We either curtail the number and scope of our deployments, or... Less than five years after 9/11 and Uncle Sam's recruitment capital is spent. I think that's what Biden is really saying.

[Avatar]

But surely the necessity thereof isn't going to make it any more palatable to the public? Afterall, if all these attempts are failing, forcing people to join isn't going to make them view it any more favourably, is it? Quite the reverse, I would think.

Just to clarify here, are you suggesting that what the guy is actually saying is that the scope of deployments should be limited, in order to prevent the necessity of another draft?

--A

[Cail]

I watched the interview with Biden on Sunday. He's a relatively typical hack who seems to be attempting to get as many jabs in as possible on the administration.

I think Syl's got it, they're going to have to curtail operations if the current enlistment trend continues, but it'd be political suicide to try to reinstate a draft.

[Avatar]

Just asking, but what about the fact that "political suicide" may not be a consideration for a president who is already into his second and final term?

--A

[Damelon]

The President might not have to worry but the congressmen would.

[Cail]

Correct. The GOP would howl over a Presidentially supported draft.

[Sheriff Lytton]

How odd to hear that the military is having trouble recruiting.

After all, with nearly 2,000 soldiers killed and about 12,000 wounded in an undeclared war with a country that wasn't a threat to America in the first place... you'd have thought people would be desperate to join up.

Is it a lack of patriotism ? Or could it be that when confronted with the prospect of dying or being maimed, people want to know it's for something worthwhile ?

This could be interesting, because as Sylvanus pointed out - without a draft then sooner or later there's going to be no way to sustain the current military presence.

[Cail]

I think that may be part of it, but I also think it's indicative of our culture. I wonder if people would be lying about their age to get into the military if a war were to come up like WWII?

I really doubt it.

[Lord Mhoram]

I seriously doubt there'd be a draft. As has been mentioned, it'd be stupid politically (no one would be very pleased, in Congress or the citizenry); plus, historically it's not a good way militarily to raise an army.

Not gonna happen, IMO.

[[Syl]]

I seriously doubt there'd be a draft. As has been mentioned, it'd be stupid politically (no one would be very pleased, in Congress or the citizenry); plus, historically it's not a good way militarily to raise an army.

Israel has a draft. Very successful military. Germany and Switzerland also, IIRC.

[Plissken]

I think that may be part of it, but I also think it's indicative of our culture. I wonder if people would be lying about their age to get into the military if a war were to come up like WWII?

I really doubt it.

Nope. Not since Vietnam. Iraq hasn't helped either.

If we'd stayed focused on the hunt for Bin Laden, you might've seen some post 9/11 patriotism in effect, but for this under-planned, under-committed, under-equipped, terrorist-generating, morally-ill-defined mess in Iraq?

This Administration has blown the goodwill generated by 9/11 - around the world, and at home.

[Edge]

Do you really think a draft is less likely than the administration withdrawing all troops from Iraq - in effect saying to the world, 'we lost our War on Terrorism'?

[Plissken]

More likely that the "War on Terror" will be re-re-defined to once again mean "War on Terrorists" instead of "War-that-may-generate-more-terrorists-but-at least-we-get-to-go-after-that-guy-who-took-a-potshot-at-Daddy".

[Ryzel]

I will just chime in with my comment here. I feel I am entitled to an opinion on drafts, having served my 11 months and 3 weeks in the Norwegian armed forces, which is a 'mandatory' draft here in Norway. Or at least it used to be, until the memory of world war two faded enough. (I.e. the guys who lived through it retired from politics.)

The thing that is the greatest problem with a draft, at least here, is that it is unfair to the people that get drafted. Even in my time in the forces, only about half the eligible men actually served, giving them an edge of about a years worth of education or workplace experience when compared to those that served. And I believe that most of the people that got out could have served in the forces, but the government was looking for any way to give them walkover, to save money. I notice from the piece at the start that only 13.5 million people are actually eligible to be drafted, isn't that quite few in a nation with almost 300 million inhabitants?

I do not know how it is in Switzerland or in Israel, really, but I get the impression that military service is so common in Israel that not serving might actually cause a social stigma.

[Plissken]

The thing with Israel and Switzerland is this: Switzerland has no potential enemies, so their standing army is for defense only, and Israel is fighting what it considers to be a defensive war.

Can anyone else find the keyword in creating popular support for a national draft?

[Edge]

I believe the keyword is 'mandatory'.

As in: laws aren't enacted only after their popularity has been polled and established.

Politicians have a tendency to do what they think is best; after all, the fact that they were democratically elected means they have the tacit consent of the people to use their own discretion.

Whether or not you think they have cart blanche, they assume they do.

[Plissken]

I believe the keyword is 'mandatory'.

As in: laws aren't enacted only after their popularity has been polled and established.

Politicians have a tendency to do what they think is best; after all, the fact that they were democratically elected means they have the tacit consent of the people to use their own discretion.

Whether or not you think they have cart blanche, they assume they do.

That's a good description of some Governments, but not a democratic one. On something as basic as "We are going to train your children to kill and die" polititians are going to need more than the power of their "discretion" to make it happen.