Draft post 9/11?

[forcon]

Something got me thinking; how plausible would it be for Bush to enact the draft following the 9/11 attacks?

I understand there isn't much reason for him to do so, but at the same time, there would probably be major support for it post 9/11 if he chose to go down that route for whatever reason, at least for the first few months.

Thoughts?

[lordroel]

Jun 4, 2020 13:37:18 GMT forcon said:

Something got me thinking; how plausible would it be for Bush to enact the draft following the 9/11 attacks?

I understand there isn't much reason for him to do so, but at the same time, there would probably be major support for it post 9/11 if he chose to go down that route for whatever reason, at least for the first few months.

Thoughts?

Would there be a need for it, did the US not have enough power in its forces to deal with the Taliban and Al qaeda without the draft.

[stevep]

Jun 4, 2020 13:37:18 GMT forcon said:

Something got me thinking; how plausible would it be for Bush to enact the draft following the 9/11 attacks?

I understand there isn't much reason for him to do so, but at the same time, there would probably be major support for it post 9/11 if he chose to go down that route for whatever reason, at least for the first few months.

Thoughts?

  forcon,

  He might have the broad support but its likely to be a divisive issue and as lordroel, says I can't see any need for it.  Also the US military has gotten used to a full time regular army and I think most of them prefer that.  While conscription was essential to nations at war or to those in continental Europe faced with a threat of immediate invasion its been less attractive to the maritime powers because it comes with costs.  Both economic and social as Vietnam proved, although that was in part because of the misuse of conscription, and also for the armies themselves.  They spend a lot of time training and working with conscripts who have often barely learnt their jobs when their period of conscription is over.  I have read that much of the British military was glad when conscription ended because it meant a lot less hassle for them and they could concentrate on what they considered their real job.

  Steve

[lordroel]

It seems that in 2004 a bill to reinstate the draft came to the floor of the House of Representatives but was defeated 402-2.

[stevep]

Jun 5, 2020 19:27:45 GMT lordroel said:

It seems that in 2004 a bill to reinstate the draft came to the floor of the House of Representatives but was defeated 402-2.

  Well that kind of settles the issue.  Assuming it was a bill pushed by a few Congressmen rather than the government but definitely not popular and that's really before the long duration of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were realised. 

  Which makes me think of another point.  Initial plans were for short wars with the US quickly withdrawing so conscription, which would take men away from the regular forces while their training those conscripts who probably wouldn't be ready for active service for at least 6 months. 

  Plus introducing conscription here after a long period without it, would repeat the error of its misuse in Vietnam.  Where the US, instead of moblising a number of conscripts of all valid ages sought to just use each new draft.  Which meant the conscripts were all young men in their teens, a primary cause of the level of discontent among the young that developed during the conflict.

[lordroel]

Jun 6, 2020 10:35:50 GMT stevep said:

Jun 5, 2020 19:27:45 GMT lordroel said:

It seems that in 2004 a bill to reinstate the draft came to the floor of the House of Representatives but was defeated 402-2.

  Well that kind of settles the issue.  Assuming it was a bill pushed by a few Congressmen rather than the government but definitely not popular and that's really before the long duration of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were realised. 

  Which makes me think of another point.  Initial plans were for short wars with the US quickly withdrawing so conscription, which would take men away from the regular forces while their training those conscripts who probably wouldn't be ready for active service for at least 6 months. 

  Plus introducing conscription here after a long period without it, would repeat the error of its misuse in Vietnam.  Where the US, instead of moblising a number of conscripts of all valid ages sought to just use each new draft.  Which meant the conscripts were all young men in their teens, a primary cause of the level of discontent among the young that developed during the conflict.

If you can read it, here is the NT Times link to the bill in 2004: Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House

Seems it was a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service.

[stevep]

Jun 6, 2020 10:40:08 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 6, 2020 10:35:50 GMT stevep said:

  Well that kind of settles the issue.  Assuming it was a bill pushed by a few Congressmen rather than the government but definitely not popular and that's really before the long duration of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were realised. 

  Which makes me think of another point.  Initial plans were for short wars with the US quickly withdrawing so conscription, which would take men away from the regular forces while their training those conscripts who probably wouldn't be ready for active service for at least 6 months. 

  Plus introducing conscription here after a long period without it, would repeat the error of its misuse in Vietnam.  Where the US, instead of moblising a number of conscripts of all valid ages sought to just use each new draft.  Which meant the conscripts were all young men in their teens, a primary cause of the level of discontent among the young that developed during the conflict.

If you can read it, here is the NT Times link to the bill in 2004: Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House

Seems it was a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service.

  Thanks.  Sounds more like the plan was to try and embarrassed the Republicans about the stress the continued commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq were creating for the military and make political capital about the fears generated for the young especially about its possible return.

[lordroel]

Jun 6, 2020 10:57:02 GMT stevep said:

Jun 6, 2020 10:40:08 GMT lordroel said:

If you can read it, here is the NT Times link to the bill in 2004: Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House

Seems it was a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service.

  Thanks.  Sounds more like the plan was to try and embarrassed the Republicans about the stress the continued commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq were creating for the military and make political capital about the fears generated for the young especially about its possible return.

So i doubt it would work in 2001 ore even 2003 after the invasion of Iraq.

[James G]

Have Bush 43 listen to his dad, Bush 41, about the perils of appointing Rumsfield as SecDef.
A different SecDef might have been in favour of a Draft: Rummy was the one who was convinced everything could be done on a shoestring.

[stevep]

Jun 7, 2020 11:36:15 GMT James G said:

Have Bush 43 listen to his dad, Bush 41, about the perils of appointing Rumsfield as SecDef.
A different SecDef might have been in favour of a Draft: Rummy was the one who was convinced everything could be done on a shoestring.

  Possibly but its still going to be bloody unpopular and going to be a resource sink for at least say 6 months.  Which means the government is publicly committing itself to a big and long war.  Which might be OK if they actually and realistically plan for that but this seems unlikely.  Also if they use conscription as they did during the Vietnam war, which seems pretty much certain under the circumstances, i.e only conscripting teenagers in the 17-19 age group its going to cause even greater social divide over the issue again.

[raunchel]

Jun 7, 2020 12:51:08 GMT stevep said:

Jun 7, 2020 11:36:15 GMT James G said:

Have Bush 43 listen to his dad, Bush 41, about the perils of appointing Rumsfield as SecDef.
A different SecDef might have been in favour of a Draft: Rummy was the one who was convinced everything could be done on a shoestring.

  Possibly but its still going to be bloody unpopular and going to be a resource sink for at least say 6 months.  Which means the government is publicly committing itself to a big and long war.  Which might be OK if they actually and realistically plan for that but this seems unlikely.  Also if they use conscription as they did during the Vietnam war, which seems pretty much certain under the circumstances, i.e only conscripting teenagers in the 17-19 age group its going to cause even greater social divide over the issue again.

Committing to a long war alone would be politically costly, and such a signal would be something that would upset a lot of people, particularly middle-aged middle class voters who would see their children being called up. These were the heart of Bush's base, and losing them would mean a certain loss of reelection and a slaughter in the midterms. Add to that the Vietnam trauma and it would really take someone politically blind to choose to reinstate it.

And then there is the issue that it would call into question the huge funding the US military has had for all those years. If all this high-tech stuff still requires spending the lives of 'real people' and not just those from social groups that are far away, then why even do all that?

[James G]

In the absence of a Draft, the Rummy led Pentagon managed to keep manpower levels high for Afghanistan and Iraq. National Guard units saw much duty and there were enforced lengthening of service obligations for regular soldiers too: really long ones resulting in many failed court cases.

[Zyobot]

Jun 11, 2020 7:56:29 GMT raunchel said:

Jun 7, 2020 12:51:08 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly but its still going to be bloody unpopular and going to be a resource sink for at least say 6 months.  Which means the government is publicly committing itself to a big and long war.  Which might be OK if they actually and realistically plan for that but this seems unlikely.  Also if they use conscription as they did during the Vietnam war, which seems pretty much certain under the circumstances, i.e only conscripting teenagers in the 17-19 age group its going to cause even greater social divide over the issue again.

Committing to a long war alone would be politically costly, and such a signal would be something that would upset a lot of people, particularly middle-aged middle class voters who would see their children being called up. These were the heart of Bush's base, and losing them would mean a certain loss of reelection and a slaughter in the midterms. Add to that the Vietnam trauma and it would really take someone politically blind to choose to reinstate it.

And then there is the issue that it would call into question the huge funding the US military has had for all those years. If all this high-tech stuff still requires spending the lives of 'real people' and not just those from social groups that are far away, then why even do all that?

Considering that at least he ran on a platform of conducting the Iraq War in a more competent, judicious manner than Bush, I'm guessing that John Kerry--or probably whoever secures the Democratic nomination in 2004, really--would make draft reinstatement a front-and-center campaign issue for that reason? It's IOTL that he narrowly lost by a 251-to-286 margin, and assuming that he squares off against Dubya in this one, I think he might have a real chance of winning. Whether Kerry (or TTL's stand-in for him) would actually deliver on their promises to bring actual aptitude to foreign policy and make America respected abroad again, or turn into another LBJ who continues the warmongering to the point where it blows up in their face, I don't know.

Even leaving purely electoral issues aside, your second point makes me wonder if Americans' cultural respect for the armed services will greatly decline, especially since they'd now know that the cluster-fuck in Vietnam wasn't a one-off. Granted, Middle Eastern military action has already proven the king of quagmires IOTL, but throwing conscription of America's youth into the mix could really solidify its reputation as the quagmire emperor in the public's eyes ITTL.

[raunchel]

Jun 12, 2020 2:33:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 11, 2020 7:56:29 GMT raunchel said:

Committing to a long war alone would be politically costly, and such a signal would be something that would upset a lot of people, particularly middle-aged middle class voters who would see their children being called up. These were the heart of Bush's base, and losing them would mean a certain loss of reelection and a slaughter in the midterms. Add to that the Vietnam trauma and it would really take someone politically blind to choose to reinstate it.

And then there is the issue that it would call into question the huge funding the US military has had for all those years. If all this high-tech stuff still requires spending the lives of 'real people' and not just those from social groups that are far away, then why even do all that?

Considering that at least he ran on a platform of conducting the Iraq War in a more competent, judicious manner than Bush, I'm guessing that John Kerry--or probably whoever secures the Democratic nomination in 2004, really--would make draft reinstatement a front-and-center campaign issue for that reason? It's IOTL that he narrowly lost by a 251-to-286 margin, and assuming that he squares off against Dubya in this one, I think he might have a real chance of winning. Whether Kerry (or TTL's stand-in for him) would actually deliver on their promises to bring actual aptitude to foreign policy and make America respected abroad again, or turn into another LBJ who continues the warmongering to the point where it blows up in their face, I don't know.

Even leaving purely electoral issues aside, your second point makes me wonder if Americans' cultural respect for the armed services will greatly decline, especially since they'd now know that the cluster-fuck in Vietnam wasn't a one-off. Granted, Middle Eastern military action has already proven the king of quagmires IOTL, but throwing conscription of America's youth into the mix could really solidify its reputation as the quagmire emperor in the public's eyes ITTL.

Oh absolutely, I could easily see Kerry winning because there would be quite a few defectors from Bush's voters. Lots of parents wouldn't vote for the man who took their child and sent them into serious danger. 

What you mention about the respect for the armed forces is very interesting indeed. I think that it would utterly destroy the Reagan-era glorification of the military because again, it failed to do what it should by itself. It's a given that it will be a quagmire in the Middle East, and quite a few soldiers will die (more than OTL I would suspect, if only because there would be more going out in the streets. Another thing would be that some of a prewar regular formations would basically remain untouched while draftees get sent out to danger. That would also seriously strain credibility.

And then there are the other dangers. Having a much larger manpower pool makes arguments against overstitching less powerful, and we could even see a further expansion of the War Against Terror. After all, there are countries from which supplies come in. And if somehow, the Bush administration maintains enough political clout to actually push this through, there might even be escalation towards Iran or other countries in the area. But that might also just be my overactive fantasy.

[lordroel]

You know, if you replace these attacks mention in the clip with the 9/11 attacks and have the US government go crazy, it could turn out like this.