stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867 
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2020 11:31:53 GMT
raunchel , Zyobot , Could be wrong but I think there's crossed wires in your last two posts. i.e.
&
Zyobot, is suggesting that Kerry not Bush would push for a new draft as a major election measure. I suspect not as he would realise that it, at least as used in the Vietnam period would be politically suicidal as well as a bad policy. After all Kerry fought in Vietnam so he knows more about the problems it caused. After all that bid by a couple of Democrats to present a draft bill seems to have been largely to show how impractical it was rather than seriously get it reintroduced. raunchel, in her response is assuming that Bush has somehow gone for a new draft.
Its possibly Kerry [or Bush] might go for a broader draft, as used in previous US conflict. I.e. a proportion of men [probably including some women by this date although that could raise some complications] in say the age range 18-40 are drafted. This would avoid the social division of the Vietnam draft only falling on the very young, most of whom couldn't even vote at that time. However still likely to be politically very explosive as I suspect very few people would want to leave civilian life for a very chaotic war zone. Much better for either President if they use anger at 9-11 - although that would probably have dissipated considerably by 2004 - to encourage more volunteers, offering them possibly economic or educational benefits.
Personally I suspect by more efficient Kerry meant using the existing forces more wisely, such as not getting involved in Iraq or - once its occurred possibly trying to organise a new government and get out quickly. Or by using technology from a distance rather than boots on the ground - although that also has problems. I would say efficient doesn't mean larger and probably, at least for a politician is meant to mean smaller.
The US, to a degree like Britain has a love/hate relationship with its army, although probably more love than hate compared to Britain given their role in enforcing the expansion across N America. This hit a low after Vietnam and recovered somewhat under Reagan but has long been present. Using conscription again, especially if it led to larger forces being involved in a quagmire like the ME is definitely going to lower respect, but probably for politicians more than the professional military. There might well be an upsurge in support for the ordinary troops on the ground, especially those conscripted.
raunchel, has a point that having more troops is likely to see a government looking to use them. This might have a beneficial side in that you get something like the OTL 'surge' which helped suppress opposition in Iraq but that of course depends on how well trained and motivated those forces are and how their used. Going into Iran or something like that would be a danger, especially under a Rumsfeld influenced Bush I suspect. However that would be avoided as its likely to leave to massively greater deaths on all sides.
Steve
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jun 12, 2020 21:04:18 GMT
My thinking is whether or not the draft could feasibly (in a political sense) be implemented, not if it was needed.
It seems like if Bush had gone for it within a week or two of 9/11 it would have sailed through.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 13, 2020 3:13:39 GMT
raunchel , Zyobot , Could be wrong but I think there's crossed wires in your last two posts. i.e.
&
Zyobot , is suggesting that Kerry not Bush would push for a new draft as a major election measure. I suspect not as he would realise that it, at least as used in the Vietnam period would be politically suicidal as well as a bad policy. After all Kerry fought in Vietnam so he knows more about the problems it caused. After all that bid by a couple of Democrats to present a draft bill seems to have been largely to show how impractical it was rather than seriously get it reintroduced. raunchel , in her response is assuming that Bush has somehow gone for a new draft.
Its possibly Kerry [or Bush] might go for a broader draft, as used in previous US conflict. I.e. a proportion of men [probably including some women by this date although that could raise some complications] in say the age range 18-40 are drafted. This would avoid the social division of the Vietnam draft only falling on the very young, most of whom couldn't even vote at that time. However still likely to be politically very explosive as I suspect very few people would want to leave civilian life for a very chaotic war zone. Much better for either President if they use anger at 9-11 - although that would probably have dissipated considerably by 2004 - to encourage more volunteers, offering them possibly economic or educational benefits.
Personally I suspect by more efficient Kerry meant using the existing forces more wisely, such as not getting involved in Iraq or - once its occurred possibly trying to organise a new government and get out quickly. Or by using technology from a distance rather than boots on the ground - although that also has problems. I would say efficient doesn't mean larger and probably, at least for a politician is meant to mean smaller.
The US, to a degree like Britain has a love/hate relationship with its army, although probably more love than hate compared to Britain given their role in enforcing the expansion across N America. This hit a low after Vietnam and recovered somewhat under Reagan but has long been present. Using conscription again, especially if it led to larger forces being involved in a quagmire like the ME is definitely going to lower respect, but probably for politicians more than the professional military. There might well be an upsurge in support for the ordinary troops on the ground, especially those conscripted.
raunchel , has a point that having more troops is likely to see a government looking to use them. This might have a beneficial side in that you get something like the OTL 'surge' which helped suppress opposition in Iraq but that of course depends on how well trained and motivated those forces are and how their used. Going into Iran or something like that would be a danger, especially under a Rumsfeld influenced Bush I suspect. However that would be avoided as its likely to leave to massively greater deaths on all sides.
Steve
Those are some interesting points, but I did indeed mean that Kerry (and the Democrats) rails against the draft on the campaign trail in opposition to Bush, who presumably implements it. And, for reasons that raunchel and I have articulated, likely shoots himself in the foot politically for doing so. Plus, I think that questions raised over how authentic his military service was (specifically his time in the National Guard) would make him seem like a hypocrite in the eyes of those who accuse him of draft-dodging. Also, forcon, even if immediate hysteria is enough for Congress to approve Bush bringing back the draft, that doesn’t mean popular support will last long. In fact, I expect it to tank for both obvious reasons, and the possibility that the sudden manpower surge would embolden the US government to attack and occupy countries other than just Iraq, turning the Middle East into an even worse cluster-fuck than Bush did IOTL. While this would probably give the Democrats an armory to attack the GOP with (no pun intended), I don’t know whether a future Democratic POTUS would actually deliver on promises to ease up or withdraw in practice. At the same time, the American public’s trust in and patience with their government’s overseas adventurism seems like it would dip considerably lower. In theory, maybe they’d be more open to style of warfare that someone like Barack Obama applied IOTL—namely air strikes, commando raids and drone bombings aplenty? In practice, though, I wonder if people who are more keyed into the US’s warmongering might also see that approach as cold and mechanical to the point of being sinister. Especially when supposed ‘precision strikes’ start taking out civilians in droves, even if it means that America’s own young people are largely spared. But now I’m wayfaring into a potential longer-term ramification of this PoD. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2020 10:39:34 GMT
raunchel , Zyobot , Could be wrong but I think there's crossed wires in your last two posts. i.e.
&
Zyobot , is suggesting that Kerry not Bush would push for a new draft as a major election measure. I suspect not as he would realise that it, at least as used in the Vietnam period would be politically suicidal as well as a bad policy. After all Kerry fought in Vietnam so he knows more about the problems it caused. After all that bid by a couple of Democrats to present a draft bill seems to have been largely to show how impractical it was rather than seriously get it reintroduced. raunchel , in her response is assuming that Bush has somehow gone for a new draft.
Its possibly Kerry [or Bush] might go for a broader draft, as used in previous US conflict. I.e. a proportion of men [probably including some women by this date although that could raise some complications] in say the age range 18-40 are drafted. This would avoid the social division of the Vietnam draft only falling on the very young, most of whom couldn't even vote at that time. However still likely to be politically very explosive as I suspect very few people would want to leave civilian life for a very chaotic war zone. Much better for either President if they use anger at 9-11 - although that would probably have dissipated considerably by 2004 - to encourage more volunteers, offering them possibly economic or educational benefits.
Personally I suspect by more efficient Kerry meant using the existing forces more wisely, such as not getting involved in Iraq or - once its occurred possibly trying to organise a new government and get out quickly. Or by using technology from a distance rather than boots on the ground - although that also has problems. I would say efficient doesn't mean larger and probably, at least for a politician is meant to mean smaller.
The US, to a degree like Britain has a love/hate relationship with its army, although probably more love than hate compared to Britain given their role in enforcing the expansion across N America. This hit a low after Vietnam and recovered somewhat under Reagan but has long been present. Using conscription again, especially if it led to larger forces being involved in a quagmire like the ME is definitely going to lower respect, but probably for politicians more than the professional military. There might well be an upsurge in support for the ordinary troops on the ground, especially those conscripted.
raunchel , has a point that having more troops is likely to see a government looking to use them. This might have a beneficial side in that you get something like the OTL 'surge' which helped suppress opposition in Iraq but that of course depends on how well trained and motivated those forces are and how their used. Going into Iran or something like that would be a danger, especially under a Rumsfeld influenced Bush I suspect. However that would be avoided as its likely to leave to massively greater deaths on all sides.
Steve
Those are some interesting points, but I did indeed mean that Kerry (and the Democrats) rails against the draft on the campaign trail in opposition to Bush, who presumably implements it. And, for reasons that raunchel and I have articulated, likely shoots himself in the foot politically for doing so. Plus, I think that questions raised over how authentic his military service was (specifically his time in the National Guard) would make him seem like a hypocrite in the eyes of those who accuse him of draft-dodging. Also, forcon , even if immediate hysteria is enough for Congress to approve Bush bringing back the draft, that doesn’t mean popular support will last long. In fact, I expect it to tank for both obvious reasons, and the possibility that the sudden manpower surge would embolden the US government to attack and occupy countries other than just Iraq, turning the Middle East into an even worse cluster-fuck than Bush did IOTL. While this would probably give the Democrats an armory to attack the GOP with (no pun intended), I don’t know whether a future Democratic POTUS would actually deliver on promises to ease up or withdraw in practice. At the same time, the American public’s trust in and patience with their government’s overseas adventurism seems like it would dip considerably lower. In theory, maybe they’d be more open to style of warfare that someone like Barack Obama applied IOTL—namely air strikes, commando raids and drone bombings aplenty? In practice, though, I wonder if people who are more keyed into the US’s warmongering might also see that approach as cold and mechanical to the point of being sinister. Especially when supposed ‘precision strikes’ start taking out civilians in droves, even if it means that America’s own young people are largely spared. But now I’m wayfaring into a potential longer-term ramification of this PoD.
OK thanks for clarifying. I had totally misunderstood what you meant about Kerry making the draft an issue and agree what you say makes more sense. If somehow Bush supported the draft and got it passed I can see it being fatal for him in 2004.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 13, 2020 16:24:47 GMT
Those are some interesting points, but I did indeed mean that Kerry (and the Democrats) rails against the draft on the campaign trail in opposition to Bush, who presumably implements it. And, for reasons that raunchel and I have articulated, likely shoots himself in the foot politically for doing so. Plus, I think that questions raised over how authentic his military service was (specifically his time in the National Guard) would make him seem like a hypocrite in the eyes of those who accuse him of draft-dodging. Also, forcon , even if immediate hysteria is enough for Congress to approve Bush bringing back the draft, that doesn’t mean popular support will last long. In fact, I expect it to tank for both obvious reasons, and the possibility that the sudden manpower surge would embolden the US government to attack and occupy countries other than just Iraq, turning the Middle East into an even worse cluster-fuck than Bush did IOTL. While this would probably give the Democrats an armory to attack the GOP with (no pun intended), I don’t know whether a future Democratic POTUS would actually deliver on promises to ease up or withdraw in practice. At the same time, the American public’s trust in and patience with their government’s overseas adventurism seems like it would dip considerably lower. In theory, maybe they’d be more open to style of warfare that someone like Barack Obama applied IOTL—namely air strikes, commando raids and drone bombings aplenty? In practice, though, I wonder if people who are more keyed into the US’s warmongering might also see that approach as cold and mechanical to the point of being sinister. Especially when supposed ‘precision strikes’ start taking out civilians in droves, even if it means that America’s own young people are largely spared. But now I’m wayfaring into a potential longer-term ramification of this PoD.
OK thanks for clarifying. I had totally misunderstood what you meant about Kerry making the draft an issue and agree what you say makes more sense. If somehow Bush supported the draft and got it passed I can see it being fatal for him in 2004.
It's cool, no harm done  . That said, I do wonder what this TL's electoral map, assuming that Bush and Kerry go at it like IOTL, would look like. At least according to the Roper Center For Public Opinion Research, Kerry seemed to have a slight edge amongst moderates and/or Independents, so maybe introducing a revived draft would erase Bush's razor-thin edges in certain areas of the country, with even more right-leaning blocs of the electorate potentially voting Democrat if they think it means an end to conscription and senseless butchery in the Middle East. Though, again, that doesn't take into account whether a President Kerry would actually deliver on his promises to wage a more calculated, judicious war than his predecessor and restore respect for the United States abroad. If so, then I don't think he can just unilaterally cease military action in the Middle East, so much as gradual withdrawal of troops and replacing Bush's boots-on-the-ground approach with surgical strikes and cyber-weaponry to take out actual threats. But that's the best-case scenario I could think of thus far, with a much less favorable one being Kerry actually escalating drone usage, airstrikes and bombing campaigns like Obama IOTL. And, of course, the worst-case scenario featuring Kerry becoming another LBJ when it comes to warmongering, despite his initial promises to end it. Barring the public just being grateful that their own young people are no longer in the line of fire for the most part, that, I think, would have its own share of implications aside from coming about early thanks to Bush's draft. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jun 14, 2020 4:16:03 GMT
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? The original planning for 9/11 pans out, in that they wait till later in the day and hit lower on the Twin Towers; that alone could cause up to 50,000 casualties. They also planned with Flight 93 to crash into either the Capitol Building or the White House, with the Capitol being the most likely target. It is unknown to me whether or not the terrorists were aware of it at the time, but later in the day the Australian Prime Minister was due to give a speech before both houses of Congress, the entire Supreme Court, most of the Presidential Cabinet, and the Vice President. In effect, the entire Federal Government besides Bush and a few of his cabinet members could be taken out in one blow... |
|
. That said, I do wonder what this TL's electoral map, assuming that Bush and Kerry go at it like IOTL, would look like.