salon has a piece up on the bush administration's under-the-radar campaign to fill the draft boards. it's very speculative but one point interested me:
In the last war fought by a conscript army, draft deferments for students meant that nobody who was in college had to worry about being called up until after graduation, and until late in that war, it was even possible, by going to grad school (like Vice President Dick Cheney), to avoid getting drafted altogether. In the Vietnam War era, college boys could also duck combat, as George W. Bush did, by joining the National Guard.
But that's all been changed. In a new draft, college students whose lottery number was selected would only be permitted to finish their current semester; seniors could finish their final year. After that, they'd have to answer the call. Meanwhile, National Guardsmen, as we've seen in the current war, are now likely to face overseas combat duty, too.
personally i think that's a great change, put the choice to everyone: 1 year in iraq/iran/north korea or 5 years in leavenworth. that said, i still doubt that anyone with strings to pull will end up in a combat role.
Posted by drewish at November 4, 2003 02:26 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://drewish.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/803
that being said, how do you feel about rangel's argument about drafting middle age men and women? personally I agree with it. if you're going to insitute the draft, then draw from the broadest segment of the population that's possible. not only does it make sense to have an array of personal working on whatever needs to be worked on, but it's also better for the home population.
Posted by: kate at November 4, 2003 09:36 PM
i haven't given it a lot of thought, but off the cuff i think i'm against drafting across the board. i'd support drafting women for non-combat positions but i think 25 is a good age cutoff.
the main benefit to drafting the 18-25 year olds is that they're, by-in-large, unattached. based on these numbers (last two columns of page two), that i could be totally mis-interpreting, it would seem that by drafting from this age range you'd be disturbing fewer families than an across the board draft would, at least until you get to the 50+ group. i'd be happy to be proved wrong on this point. i found my numbers on the census's children's living arrangements and characteristics.
i'd argue further that young people make better soldiers, that they're easier to train and more physically fit. the main benefit i see to an across the board draft it would be that it would almost never be used. every congressman that voted to authorize it would face certain reelection peril.
Posted by: andrew morton at November 5, 2003 08:06 PM
right. so I had this really great post that I just deleted by accident. what I meant to say was that from an evolutionary standpoint, the draft isn't the smart. if you erradicate a large amount of the male population aged say, 18-25, you decrease the diversity and quantity of births. pulling out all the guys who are in the best physical shape means that the next generation may not be that healthy. that's an extreme example, but you get what I mean. you should check out the german governments policy on children after world war I. a friend of mine's grandmother was given a medal by the government because she exceeded in having children.
as for the across the board thing, I was thinking more along the lines of drafting for skill and not for age. so instead of spending time and money on training some 18 how to jet maintainence, you draft an airline mechanic, etc. it would save time and money, and it would save the younger, healther soldiers for fighting. personally, I don't really like it. I mean, I don't want to be drafted when I'm in my 30's because I was an EMT when I was 22, but it's pretty logical. and I agree with you about the politics. it wouldn't be an easy thing for people to swallow.
Posted by: kate at November 5, 2003 09:08 PM
wow, apparently I've lost the ability to proofread. that smart, 18 year old on how to do jet maintenance, etc.
Posted by: kate at November 5, 2003 09:11 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)