US War Czar calls for a Draft

Well, I'm one of the two.

In my worthless opinion, if we had a draft right after high school, we would be solving many problems, and helping many young people (believe it or not). The following are just my opinions; you might agree or disagree:

First, by having a draft, we could inundate an area with soldiers, where we have a military presence, to the point where we can minimize loss of life, because we could have enough personnel needed to deter an enemy.

By having a draft, right after high school, we would be eliminating the unfairness that existed previously with a draft, whereby college students got a student deferral.

By having a draft, right after high school, young men would gain the maturity to benefit more from college after military service. The government would possibly assist the veteran financially as a veteran college student.

By having a draft, the other branches of the military would have more enlistees, since some young men would choose not to be a soldier, but rather an Air Force techncian/airman, or a Navy technician/sailor. Also, a percentage of enlistees do make the Air Force/Navy a career. The country then benefits, since the larger pool of enlistees, these services would get, would result in a higher quality of re-enlistee, since that service would attempt to keep the "best" enlistees (by promoting them and more likely inducing them to make that service their career).

As a nation, a draft will get many to realize we're all Americans, and we really owe this country some time for the privilege of living here.

A draft would likely result in fewer immigrants coming to the U.S. that just wanted a better life, but not wanting to assimilate to become an American. (If immigrants knew their sons/grandsons would have to be in a draft, they would probably not be coming just for "the good times," so to speak.)

A draft would aid the cause of peace, since any enemies of the U.S. could not think that a good strategy against the U.S. is to make us spread our military too thin. We would not have our military spread too thin with a draft.

Many young men would find a worthwhile career in the military that they wouldn't necessarily find in civilian life.

I'm done. A draft is good in my opinion. Good for the country; good for Americans.

Yoohoo! War Czar! You seem to have disappeared. Yoohoo!

A major benefit of a draft, which should be truly universal, would be to put pressure on the administration to eschew preemptive wars. For instance, had Bush thought that there was a good chance that the twins would be drafted, he would not be such a war mongerer.

Do you really think the children of high ranking politicians are "put" in the front lines?

Good point! However, perhaps Bush would have been unhappy to see the twins playing any role in the military. But I guess noncombatant roles would not bother Bush.

I'm a 28 year old male, in decent enough shape, and I would serve under the military if a draft was enacted.

However, I'm 100% positive that if a draft were enacted for the war in Iraq, that the war would end before the 1st drafted troop was sent over there.

I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd go (assuming that certain financial obligations I have that the military salary wouldn't suffice for (a military salary wouldn't even cover my mortgage) were deferred or taken care of).

THe onlt people that have proposed legislation to bring back the draft have been dems.
The President and the DoD dont want a draft.

Of course the president dosent want the draft. If it was instituted his profit motivated war would come to an abrupt end.

In the 20th century, only WWII had males drafted that were older than the draft ages for Korea and Vietnam. (I believe WWI had only younger males too, if there was a draft then?) The maximum draft age during Vietnam was 26. Many selective service boards had already filled their quotas with younger men, by the time the 26 year olds would have been needed. Most drafted males were between 19 and 20. If they graduated college and were 22, yes, then they could be drafted quite soon. Since there was a percentage of young males that were in college because they wanted that 2-S student deferment, when they graduated, some just joined the Air Force or Navy. And, around 1967, or so, a draft lottery, by day of the year (their birthday), was instituted, so some men of draft age, if they had a high enough draft lottery number, and there were many other young males in their selective service board with lower lottery numbers, may have avoided the military through the luck of the draft lottery.

Anyway, that most recent draft of the Vietnam Era went on for ten years, and it went on and on and on. Only because they were drafting males that had graduated college were some of the college students so organized against the draft, I believe. If the draft was before college, for all 18 year old males, there would likely not be a college anti-war effort, I believe.

There was also that peace time draft that Elvis was part of. So, if there was a universal draft (all males - no student deferments), any military action that began would not need any popular acceptance. Your contention, I believe, is the popular notion, but history doesn't prove it correct.

Also, there were deferments for some jobs, I believe teachers was one. Some males became teachers at that time to avoid the draft.

Anyway, I believe a draft has other values, beyond manning a military conflict. Since some young males joined the Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard to avoid the Army, these other services were able to induce a percentage of these young men to make a career there. It benefitted the country, since that service had a larger pool to choose from, as to who they would promote and possibly induce to make a career of the military (some young men, before their 4 year stint in the Navy or Air Force was over had financial responsibilites after having gotten married during that first enlistment). In effect, these other branches of the military had more of a higher quality enlistee, to choose from, for motivating to make a career of that branch of the service.

Also, we'd get more legal immigrants that wanted to assimilate to the American culture, once drafting their sons was an obligation of coming to the U.S. Fewer would be here just for the "good times" and better standard of living, in my opinion.

The War Czar has disappeared along with anything approaching public discourse on reinstituting the draft. Thank goodness on both accounts.

For the most part it was a cynical discussion in any case. Liberals who made noise about restoring the draft only did so as a perfectly silly way to confront supporters of the Iraqi War, and trot out the canard that only the disadvantaged now serve in the military.

Those in the current anti-war camp don't have quite the same strength of argument as we did back in the Vietnam days. The people now serving in Iraq volunteered to join the military. Most don't have a fundamental problem with doing their duty. Those that do probably should not have voluntarily joined an institution that essentially exists to fight wars.

It's similar to the equally idiotic argument that goes like "If you are so for the War, why don't you send your kids to serve there?!"

This of course ignores the fact that irrespective of anyone's opinions about the war, they can neither force their children to join the military or abstain from doing so. It also ignores the fact that quite a few supporters of the war do have family members serving in the military, and in Iraq.

A more acceptable argument might be "If you are so for the War, why don't you join the military and fight in it?!" Of course this doesn't work well with supporters of the War who are also members of AARP, but at least it has some traction.

Finn, thanks for making our point. The Reps are so warlike, but they are completely unwilling to make any sacrifice for their wars. They will not even raise taxes to cover the cost. And, of course, they make no effort to encourage their kids to serve, much less themselves.

Your welcome although I can't, for the life of me, see how I made your point for you. Maybe you should try reading post again.

Are you actually being so silly as to say that there are no republicans serving in the military?

Let's stop calling military involvement a "war." The last Army that invaded the U.S. was when? Something with Mexico in the 1800's? Not much of a war either.

Military involvement is, in my thoughts, sort of like "well care." Preventive efforts to make sure the day doesn't come when the U.S. finds itself a mighty nation like some banana Republic. (nothing against banana Republics; just used in the way of sarcastic example).

So, our military, again in my opinion, will never just be a bunch of military posts only inside the borders of the 50 States. Not that we're the policemen of the world (a canard), but we are not playing jump rope where every nation gets an equal turn at having hegemony.

Doesn't our military give our diplomats a more attentive audience?

What makes you think you'd be welcomed?