« Tyler Cowen Is Making Sense | Main | Crime-Facilitaring Speech »
Draft Mechanics
Interestingly enough, there are actual plans and procedures in existence governing how a draft would work. To be clear, these plans are not part of a nefarious Bushian plot, they were set up a ways back. Noteworthy features:
- They'll assign a number 1-365 to each day of the year, with people drafted according to birthday.
- They'll take 20 year-olds first. If they need more people, then they start in with the 21 year-olds. Then 22, then 23, then 24, then 25, then 19, then 18.
- No more student deferments! You get to finish the semester or, if you're a senior, finish the year. Then it's off to war you go.
UPDATE: And no women. The Supreme Court okayed it in, I think, 1981, though it's possible that the O'Connorified Court would have another take on this, since she has a habit of siding with the liberals when women's issues are on the table. Folks want links. Go here and start clicking around.
October 19, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83459f88669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Draft Mechanics:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 5:54:02 AM
Comments
Link?
Posted by: Tbag | Oct 19, 2004 3:21:48 PM
As a 24 yr old student I say LINK! ;)
Posted by: Tbag | Oct 19, 2004 3:24:06 PM
Indeed. Link!
Posted by: El Gringo Loco | Oct 19, 2004 3:26:29 PM
So during leap years either those born on 29 Feb or 31 December get a free pass?
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 19, 2004 3:26:56 PM
I also read that there was (at least some discussion) of a plan to include those older than 25 in the draft. Where does that stand? Anyone know?
Posted by: eric | Oct 19, 2004 3:28:01 PM
Matthew, shame on you for playing the Dem game and posting this 14 days before the election. Could you tell us why you didn't post this in 2003, or in June 2004 or ? I know, but I would like to hear your doubletalk.
The fact you noted this was not a Bushian plot is not an adequate answer!
Posted by: Noodles | Oct 19, 2004 3:34:02 PM
Perhaps some lucky draftees will be able to use their free time during basic training explaining to their fellow grunts-to-be that there wasn't any difference between Bush and Kerry, and that's why they voted for Nader.
Posted by: alkali | Oct 19, 2004 3:44:06 PM
Can this really be right? They draft every 20-year-old before they draft any 21-year-old?
Posted by: neil | Oct 19, 2004 3:57:32 PM
I'm twice as outraged as Noodles by Matt's rancid partisanship. We all know that Bush IRAQ would never IRAQ start a war IRAQ that would require IRAQ hundreds of thousands IRAQ of new troops.
Posted by: grytpype | Oct 19, 2004 4:08:29 PM
I am not crazy about this scheme. One of the reasons Vietnam was a mess is that if draft randomly, what you get are grunts only suitable for combat. But not great at combat. Can we come up with better?
1) Eliminate marriage/children deferments
2) Draft up to age 30 or even older
3) Draft skillsets:mechanics,truckdrivers,nurses,electronic technicians, language skills,even managers
The draft was designed for an era when the army did its own cooking and cleaning; either redesign the army or use the draft differently.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 19, 2004 4:17:57 PM
Allow me float my hyper-liberal idea that only women and gays should be allowed to serve in the army. Also marriage. I am willing to waive all of my rights, and my son's rights, in those regards, for generation upon generation.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 19, 2004 4:22:39 PM
Zizka provides the solution to radical Islamism, in the creation of a Western antithesis. For after a century of women and gay soldiers, we straight men would be forced to cover ourselves from head to toe, lose our rights to vote and drive, and maybe get circumsized.
We would be hidden in seraglios smoking from hookahs and waiting for a call, adventurous young English women would disguise themselves, sneak into the harems, and paint provocative pictures of plumpish studmuffins in diaphanous gowns.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 19, 2004 4:40:32 PM
I remember back in '74 getting my number. I'd sure like to review what it was (anyone have a link?), but IIRC it was over 300 - say 330? I was very relieved. My college roomie came in at under 10, and he was checking out options real big. Luckily they never turned the draft back on after, what, '70, but there is nothing like getting your card and finding out your number to make political situations REAL topical. Oh, yeah, things become, like, real *pertinant*.
Personally I'd love it if they drafted the keyboard warriors 101st division first, but maybe that is just me.
Posted by: Tripp | Oct 19, 2004 4:51:57 PM
Can you trade draft choices?
Posted by: Al | Oct 19, 2004 5:52:50 PM
No women?? Didn't you see the NYT story about a draft of medical personnel? It's true that there are more male nurses than ever before, but not nearly enough to allow for a male-only draft of nurses. (Nationally, roughly 7% of nurses are men.) Plus, a lot of physicians these days are female. If this is implemented, you'd better believe women will be included; the numbers just don't work otherwise.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD | Oct 19, 2004 5:59:54 PM
I really don't understand why the 20 year olds go first. . .they can't even legally drink. . .whew, glad I'm going to be out of the woods soon. Esp. since I think if applied, it will be applied to women. . this war has been fought by plenty of women.
Posted by: saheli | Oct 19, 2004 6:04:19 PM
Warning - undue abstraction about matters such as a draft will lead to making a fool of oneself similar in spirit to the foolishiness endorsing Iraq. Remember?
Posted by: pwax | Oct 19, 2004 6:07:53 PM
I have a better idea!
Instead of trying to scare people with libnut draft mongering, I can dress up as Karl Rove for Halloween and chase Matt around with a copy of the Patriot Act screaming "Bwahahahahahahaahaha!"
Someone check Matt's underwear.
Posted by: Steve Irons | Oct 19, 2004 6:17:16 PM
Let's all welcome our new moron brownshirt fuck.
Hi Steve! Enjoy your stay!
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 19, 2004 6:56:19 PM
I thought I was resident MBF.
Posted by: Ugh | Oct 19, 2004 7:03:22 PM
After the past few wars' drafts of only males, perhaps in the interests of equity the next draft should include only women.
I can see it now: a thousand screaming, heavily armed GI-ettes descending on a stunned Iranian training camp. Talk about "element of surprise." (And a serious photo opp.)
Posted by: eric | Oct 19, 2004 7:51:17 PM
I thought I was resident MBF.
With all due respect, I don't think so. I'm clearly the choice for that honorific.
Posted by: Al | Oct 19, 2004 9:51:07 PM
Odd, it reminds me of when I was in college. I didn't watch the first lottery--I had convinced myself that my lottery number would be 81. Fortunately--for me--it was much higher.
Enjoy, kids.
First they came for the doctors....then they came for the......
Posted by: raj | Oct 19, 2004 9:51:38 PM
Yeah it sounds like 1970 all over again. I was #58, part of the last year of the college deferment. I seem to recall the drawing was on radio. First dibs on the broadcast rights of this ultimate lotto.
Everyone was in the first pool, 19 through 20-something. Local draft boards went however high they needed to to meet their obligations. I recall my area in upstate NY went to about 125.
I think the drawing should be done by computer with a weighting system sort of like the NBA lottery. Only each potential draftee would be given one 'ball' for each $1000 of parental income. This would help insure that those who benefit the most from military adventures would serve proportionately.
Posted by: Nat | Oct 19, 2004 10:20:29 PM
Yeah... Maureen kinda-suggested that us draft aged folk should start a conspiracy that, if drafted, we'll claim to be gay, regardless of the truth of the matter. This could either force the gays-in-the-military issue (political progress, even if it doesn't get us out of service) or get us out of fighting a stupid war.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 19, 2004 10:25:14 PM
