Should There Be a Draft? Should Women Register For It?

I certainly hope your soldiers are trained to kill or else they won't last long when they are called on to defend themselves, their fellow soldiers, and/or you from whomever intends to kill them or us. I'm guessing that Canadian soldiers, just like American soldiers, are also taught to respect and obey authority, to defend the Constitution, and see their role as the defender of freedom and protector of those who cannot defend themselves. Perhaps that's why most of our countrymen in Iraq are playing games with the children, helping to rebuild schools and infrastructure, and put their lives on the line to protect the defenseless far more than they are seeking out terrorists who they will kill if they have to, and who they don't unless they have to.

You and I enjoy peace, prosperity and freedom because men were once willing to kill on our behalf. To think that is all the military is for though is just not the case.

Meanwhile I'm still mulling over the benefit of requiring young people to devote a period of time in public service whether that be the military or some other service. I definitely think that might be the salvation of many young hoodlums; however the mandatory part bothers my libertarian soul. I'm still thinking on it.

I support a draft as a training exercise and not a trick to make up for shortfalls in the military manpower. If there is a war then the draftee should be given a choice to service in the war voluntarily. It should not be the small print obligation like those who are in the Reserves or National Guards being forced into Iraq which is very wrong. In a true national emergency there will be no shortage of volunteers I can tell you that. But in a war of presidential hubris such as the ones in Vietnam and Iraq there will a reluctance to volunteer.

I think I agree with you, talk. But it sounds like a figment, making such a thing actually work.

Historically, a lot of advocacies for the introduction of a draft in German countries were ... libertarians: pre 1814, it was thought to be a "libertarian" reform.

To use mandatory service for the 'salvation of many young hoodlums' is - in my opinion - downgrading the aims of most services, be it military or civil.

Another good argument against the draft.

You're absolutely right about the historical context of the introduction of a draft in German-speaking countries in the 19th century, Walter. Many other European nations soon followed the German example. But don't forget what the universal draft was intended to replace -- impressment gangs. When there was a war, these government-hired "gangs" would go into a town and quite literally kidnap as many young men as they could catch to serve as soldiers or sailors. The notion of a national draft was that the draft would replace this patently unfair method of providing cannon-fodder for the armed forces.

Forgive my military ignorance but it seems like most are forgetting the second part of the question of women being required to register in the event of a draft. I understand that women have proven themselves just as capable in military but my question is what happens to the children of parents who are registered for the draft in times of wars (if a draft was in place?) How would they decide who stays home or would both go and other arrangements be made?

Possibly and no.

The volunteer force has certainly been stretched to the limits, and when these conflicts are over, probably will be again from time to time in the future. There are certainly moments in history when a draft is necessary. Many countries have a year or two of obligatory service for males. Hence, my answer, "possibly."

As for women being drafted - no. Women are equal to men in entitlement. They not identical to men. It's ludicrous to treat men and women as though there were no differences between them, just because they are entitled to the same rights. Men should try to protect women, rather than putting them in mortal danger.

hell " there is an essay to be written " so far, I'm on 1300 words and still going " it's terribly complicated, because you've got left and right standing either side of the yes and no line as far as drafting goes. And there is a hell of a lot to look at.

But it's also really interesting.

I'll get back here as soon as is physically possible.

Just want to say a couple of things

I’m normally respectful of my elders, but like anyone, I don't appreciate being patronised. It makes me get the bit between my teeth " know what I mean?

I'm not interested in responding to individuals directly " I'm not into scoring points - especially if they haven't got it in them to refrain from trying to belittle people " because that makes me want to attack back " and it's a waste of creative energy.
So, if and when I post again " it will be a post addressed to all.

Apart from anything else, what I'm doing is a great exercise in writing (non-fiction). Hell " it's tough, but also pretty exciting. Trying to look at the arguments for and against rationally - who knows, i may learn something?

ps " thanks if you understood my sincerity (and forgave my exuberance) in that first post.

Peace (and why not?)

Endy

I could still show you how it's done -- but the procedure is top secret, and I'm not ready to compromise Germany's national security this way. Who knows if A2K is read by terrorists.

As I pointed out the landscape of warfare has changed dramatically as we have continued to modernize. It's not all bullets and grenades that we fight our enemies with.

T
K
O

not to put too fine a point on it , but ... ...
i think that the armed forces are there for the defence of the home country - at least under normal circumstances .
i don't think "invading" another country - perhaps under dubious pretext - should become their main goal .
imo the army is there "to defend" the home-country - kill if necessary while defending the country and its citizens .
or we might just as well live like in the days of alexander the great , the romans , the various nordic tribes - i'm sure you are famuliar with their history .
if you are interested , you are invited to look at the "afghanistan" thread .
i don't think i can express my point of view any better here .
hbg

http://able2know.org/topic/82057-1 (afghanistan , does it still matter ?)

A 2006 New York Times op-ed highlighted a study by Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen that analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample, and found that youths from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers while enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent.
In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.

The Washington Post notes that the percentage of new African-American army recruits has "slipped dramatically over the past five years.”

In fiscal 2000, blacks made up 23.5 percent of army recruits; that number had by 2006 fallen to less than 14 percent, a 40 percent decrease. The percentage of female recruits has fallen during that same period by 23 percent, from 22 to 17 percent.

A study conducted by Millward Brown, a marketing and research firm, found that the desire not to die or be injured in a combat zone or even go to war or a combat zone was the leading single factor for (all youths) not joining the military, cited by 26 percent of those surveyed.

Twenty-one percent mentioned hostility to “military life,” and 20 percent" a not insignificant figure " objected to the military as an institution. The latter group did not believe in war or fighting or considered itself “pacifist.”

Even Fox news reported on the decline of black recruits-

"According to data obtained by The Associated Press, the decline covers all four military services for active duty recruits, and the drop is even more dramatic when National Guard and Reserve recruiting is included."


Talk about the wisdom of youth.

Also - there is the fact that in a draft situation, the richer kids, with parents working in higher positions, will have much more access to means of escaping the draft. And even if that doesn't happen, it has been proven that richer kids don't find their way to the front in the same numbers as poorer soldiers.

So, saying that a draft will make things fairer for the poorer is not true. At present, poor youth are doing a pretty good job of finding other ways of living their lives without interference - thank you.

But we should be concerned for all youth - not just the poor. It is shameful to say - "Well - if they have to put up with it, so should they". There should be NO drafting at all.

Why? Because it is about peoples civil liberty. The right to chose. The right to live your life with the freedom to choose.




March 19 / 20, 2005
A Draft By Any Other Name...Is Still Wrong
Exposing the Coming Draft

By TOM REEVES
http://www.counterpunch.org/reeves03192005.html

Also from the above link

More and more nations are abolishing conscription. France, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, Austria and many other countries abolished their programs of military or national service in the late 1990s and since 2000--most also abolishing mandatory registration. Over 100 nations--the majority--now have no form of draft or registration, and about 15 have registration but not a draft

The 'urban myth' about the draft's return keeps getting stronger. Some rather hard military facts persist as well. The Washington Monthly piece put it starkly: "America can remain the world's superpower. Or it can maintain its current all-volunteer military. It can't do both."

"The reason to have a military is to be prepared to fight and win wars. That is our basic fundamental mission. The military is not a social welfare agency, it's not a jobs program."
Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S.A.

The much lauded fringe benefits to military service in terms of job training, education and healthcare, are really just another big swindle.

Only 12% of male veterans, and 6% of female veterans say they have made use of their skills learned in the military for regular jobs. Veterans actually earn less than non-veterans. The average post Vietnam-war era veteran earns between 11% and 19% less than non-veterans from comparable class backgrounds. Over 50,000 unemployed veterans are on the waiting list for the military's "retraining" program. The Veteran's Administration estimates that one-third of all homeless people are veterans.

Soldiers must pay $1,200 into the Montgomery G.I. bill during their first year, while their pay is as low as $700/month. Bureaucracy tends to delay paying soldiers up to the first three months in college. Only 35% of recruits receive any education benefits from the military, that means about two-thirds don't. Only 15% of military recruits graduate with a 4 year degree. The American Council has attributed a drop in black college enrollment to military recruitment.

You can wait for months for an appointment with a VA medical center. In some states, veterans who are not disabled cannot use the centers. In 2002, an infestation of mice, maggots, and flies caused the removal of the director and deputy director for the VA medical regional network for Missouri, Kansas, and southern Illinois. Janitors had not touched food storage areas or the cafeteria for over a year. Maggots had nested in the noses of two comatose patients. Bush slashed the VA medical budget by $275 million in 2002.
Military recruitment is a big business. The U.S. federal government spends $2.4 billion dollars a year to recruit soldiers for what is the most capital intensive army in the world. It costs the U.S. Department of Defense about $11,600 to recruit a solider. In addition to the cost of recruitment, training and equipping the average solider costs an additional $50,000. The U.S. Army estimates that each increase in the size of the army by 10,000 soldiers increase costs by $1.2 billion a year.

The U.S. military spending is $395.2 billion, with an additional cost of the current war of $74.7 billion. To understand the kind of money we are talking about, the annual budget for the U.S. Department of Defense (not including the current war) is three times the combined military budgets for Russia, China, Iraq (before the U.S. invasion/occupation), Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Syri.

Blood Money: The Human-Capital Equation of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
by Stephen "Flint" Arthur | NEFAC.net

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36926

Really? What were they teaching you at West Point? Bee-keeping?




i dunno - working in a garden center might not be so bad



That's either a barefaced lie - or an ignorant one. Either way, i can provide plenty of evidence to the contrary. How about being left to lie in your own **** while 'recovering' on home soil? How does that grab you?

During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional:

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."

This taken from a speech by Ron Paul who said:

"But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century."

Or you can take the position that your own homeland is not the only people deserving of peace and prosperity that might need to be defended or obtained via military might. Do you take the position that your own family is the only one you are obligated to protect, or if you have opportunity or moral duty to protect somebody not in your own family, would you not do so? Do you let a Hitler overrun other countries or exterminate millions of Jews with impunity just because that is none of your business? Or in hindsight, do you think use of your military might be justified in preventing that from happening?

If a free and independent Iraq where rape rooms, torture chambers, and the worst kinds of fear, oppression, and brutality are not the norm, where terrorism is no longer exported around the world, where neighbors no longer need to fear what a tyrannical dictator might do, when hundreds of millions of people do not find their economy shattered or their heat turned off in th dead of winter, etc......if all that can be achieved, do you not think the Iraqi people and their neighbors and all others affected at some point will know that it was all worth it.

We can all second guess the propriety and/or necessity of military force, and history will always be the judge in the end. And yes sometimes history will be kind and sometimes harsh. Conquest for gain is no longer acceptable in our modern world, but defense of necessity has become a very broad term. Those who live under the worst that man is capable of doing to man know that the absence of war is not necessarily peace.