Voted : No, Very Unlikely
not before he runs for a 2nd term
Voted : No, Very Unlikely
How can you be a free country and force people to kill/die?
Voted : No, Very Unlikely
HE BETTER NOT.
Voted : No, Very Unlikely
There would have to be a declaration of war for there to be the draft.
Regarding the seemingly contradiction between being a free country and forcing people to join the military - the word "country" implies, in the most basic sense, organization in which people give up on some of their liberties in return for security provided by the organization. That's the obligation that a country can't "escape" from. For the actual ballot, and in the spirit of my previous sentences, Obama can't simply expose the American people to threats like terrorism, he has to find solution (If indeed the safety of the public is threatened, and I think it is). But draft is not the only way, and is certainly not the most popular way. An alternative just for increasing the recruitment numbers is to increase the salaries, for example. And increasing recruitment for the military is not the only answer to terrorism.
"organization in which people give up on some of their liberties in return for security provided by the organization"
Spending time in jail for not wanting to join a war hardly qualifies as giving up liberties.
(re:forcing someone to kill or be killed)
The liberty you give up is the liberty not to join the military (and potentially kill / be killed). If you refuse to do so, you can be sent to jail, I don't think you'll be shot, or lose your citizenship for that (at least not in most "free countries").
Keep in mind that what I've written is what I know as the basic concept of a country, I also think that this principle is legitimate. You should seperate it from the question of whether Obama will (or should) reinstate the draft. The basic right to do so is there in my view, but it's more of a world war class material, and I don't think we're there yet.
^Is there anything worse than to be forced to kill or be killed? You may be freedom to bare arms but a country with a draft lacks fundamental freedom.
The right not to be killed doesn't come cheap. It sometimes costs you the liberty not to kill. Do you really believe that if any country is attacked and the situation is dire enough so the lives of all the citizens are threatened - that this country won't impose draft? That's what seperates countries from anarchies.
Hypotheticals are nice but let's deal with history. The last time the draft was enforced in America was for the Vietnam War. America's liberity wasn't being threatened but low and behold 58000 troops were killed.
I was mainly making the hypotethical point there. Countries do have the RIGHT to impose draft, as part of their OBLIGATION to protect their citizens, in my opinion. In democratic countries, exercising that right (and even whether they stood in their obligation) is subjected to public opinion etc. - and that's where you can argue with specific drafts. Now, I agree that the Vietnam situation wasn't a DIRECT threat to America, so it falls in the area in which the government can make a decision how to best protect Americans - and as history showed, the decision was wrong.
But I guess that without the latter historical perspective, and in the given situation, I would probably support the war, and even the draft. That would make me (or the government) wrong, and the sanction might be not being elected for another term, but not legal manners of overstepping authority or something like that.
^not you think that people should have had the choice whether nor not to risk their life on their government decision? If you look at WWII, after Pearl Harbor, the U.S didn't need to force people to join. I don't that would change if America was invaded. Give the people a choice the people probably are more "with it" than the government.
^that should be "don't you think...
another case in point:
After 9/11 military enrollment numbers spiked in the U.S, Britain, Canada and Australia. Numbers sagged after the Iraq War. Again, the people are pretty good at making the call.
Ultimately, people (who lives in organized countries...) don't have that choice. They gave it up as citizens of their home country.
Of course it's preferrable to rely on volunteers etc. but sometimes it's simply not enough. In your first example - during WWII, the US had drafts. 5 million is nice, but to win a world war you'll need 20 million, and the US used drafts to fill these gaps.
You can look at it like taxes - nobody voluntarily pay taxes, especially if only 1.5 million Americans out of 300 million did (military proportions...). Regarding taxes - there are budget expenses that are must, under the same logic - as the defence budget, which should be sufficient to support the military needed for the protection of the country. Other expenses are at government discretion, but a government can't decide it drops defence budget all toghether, and exposing the citizens to external threats (as opposed to, for example, education budgets, social welfare etc.).
Oh, and you should keep in mind that point: The government is obliged to provide security for its citizens. For that it has the rights as I presented before. But given these rights, every government has a large ground of adopting the security needs to the extent of protection if offers. The American people has a consensus around the 1.5 million strong (0.5% of population), totally voluntary military it has today, with defence budget of around 500 billion dollars (20-25 percent of the budget). I think it's enough for the US. In my country - Israel, it's harder to provide security. Our enemies can swarm the nation and conquer it all in a matter of a day or 2. We can't afford to say - lets keep the military at 0.5% of the population, and if Israel will be invaded, we'll count on volunteers to swell the lines. You've got to keep your reserves trained, and in large enough numbers. In Israel you do find compulsary service, of generally 3 years of active service for males over 18, and 2 years for females, and every male soldier who finished his active service, remains as a reservist until his early fourties (and can be called, under regular situation to at least, say, 14 days of active service every year). Oh, and during your compulsary service, your salary is ~100 dollars a month - which is about 4% of the average wages. That way you get a military of 200,000 active soldiers plus half a million reservists, which in times of war can be fully mobilized in no more than 2 days. That accounts for about 10% of Israel population. The military spending, largely thanks to the rediculous salaries for the compulsary service soldiers - is kept at 20% of the budget.
Having said that, when Israel faced military defeat, and Arab invasion in 1973, the first thing the defence minister proposed was to simply draft all the rest - males in ages 16-60 to simply hold a rifle. I'm sure that if the situation would have been dire enough - females in these ages would be drafted too. The alternative is simply holocaust.
In 1939, Poland probably had some form of compulsary military service, but it wasn't enough. The country was taken in a month, and by the end of the war, 17% of all Polish citizens were killed, including over 85% of its Jewish population. The bottom line - the Polish government failed in its most basic mission - to protect its citizens. In retrospective, it could enlist in advance, half of the population - getting a military of 15 million, and simply arm them to the teeth with whatever resources or loans it can put up together, and maybe then, they could have evaded disaster - The question is - would you oppose this possible action?
ww2: I was saying the U.S didn't need to force people to join after Pearl Harbor. Enrollment spiked on it's own and continued until the 9 months later when they forced people against their free will to join.
"and simply arm them to the teeth with whatever resources or loans it can put up together, and maybe then, they could have evaded disaster - The question is - would you oppose this possible action?"
I would absolutly oppose this action. Poland would have bee crushed by Germany regardless of whether or not their was a draft. The only difference being if their was a draft the death toll would have been much higher.
^(there) was a draft
From wikipedia: Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_II:
"The WWII draft operated from 1940 until 1947 when its legislative authorization expired without further extension by Congress. During this time, more than 11 million men had been inducted into military service"
Regarding Poland - you don't know that. They could've done that in like 1935, and pacify Nazi Germany long time before their military build up kicked in. Of course not everything is possible (though in Poland's case it's reasonable in my opinion), but the duty of your country remains - and to do so, it's allowed to force their citizens to join the military.
^Wikipedea is correct starting in Sept 1940.
If you're belief is Poland could have defeated Germany then this conversation is going nowhere.
You keep mentioning the draft as a requirment for security. Since it hasn't been used in 35 years in the U.S does that mean that the U.S has been less secure all this time? Why do you suppose the draft has been banned in some countries?
^Wikipedea is correct starting in Sept 1940 (my mistake).
Draft isn't a requirement for security, but it's a right the government has, in order to achieve its primal goal - security for the citizens.
To some degree the US has been less secure... But these issues can only be evaluated in historical perspective - and refering to the actual results on the ground. Did the US government succeeded in providing security for its citizens? I think that ultimately it did. The most significant event in the last decades was the 9/11 attacks - and it's an interesting question what's the responsibility of, say, Clinton and Bush's administrations for this failure to protect Americans against foreign aggression.
I gave Poland as an example for what I see as a failure to fulfill the mission of protecting the citizens, and I don't accept your assumption that "they couldn't have done anything about Germany" - but I agree that it's not the issue here.
I would be surprised if any country "banned the draft", and I'm sure that any functioning country will reinstate it, if needed. Again, this whole issue is just another parameter by which nations under democratic regime evaluate their governments, and the draft isn't popular. But I believe that it's a right of every country, democratic or not. If you show me a supreme court decision, to ban the government from using the draft - then I'll be really surprised, as if the government puts restrictions on itself and does so, it can be more of an elections stunt, then profound withdrawal from the right to draft.
"Clinton and Bush's administrations for this failure to protect Americans against foreign aggression." But as you pointed out the draft was in place prior to Pearl Harbor and the US was still attacked.
here (at the bottom of the page) is a list of some countries that abolished conscription.
There conscription means that active military service is not obligatory. Note that the US is also marked as such (in the map, right?). If you have a more clear cut evidence there, quote it, and I'll relate to it. Also note that "no armed forces" doesn't say that they government withdrew its right to recreate the military.
And regarding Pearl Harbor - the US was raided, not conquered. If, say, Hawaii (I'm relating to it as a state, I don't know it's exact status by the time )was occupied, like the Philipines, and American citizens in Hawaii would be killed by the Japanese - then this is the exact failure I'm talking about. To prevent this scenario, the US could keep there a much larger military forces - as much as needed.
And regarding Pearl Harbor - the US was raided, not conquered.
You seem to be paying with word here. Because in your example about 9/11 you can't say America was conquered, right?
There is a big difference between Peral Harbor and 9/11. One is terrorism, the other is just sneak attack. One targeted American citizens (whose ultimate goal of the government is to protect them), the other was plain military blow. A foreign occupation is a state in which you can't assure the safety of your citizens in areas taken from you, and that's the main issue. In WWII, all in all, the US did well protecting its citizens (though this mission was a lot easier for the US than for Poland, France, USSR and the UK). I can't say that about 9/11. The Al Qaeda threat was practicly neglected, especially after the African embassies attacks in 1998, which were handled ineffectively.