Bring back draft

dys, What point? It is, after all, a voluntary draft. c.i.

i think Rangel was quite simply looking for a means to have people look at war- with the understanding that it could be their sons and daughters rather than the vague and ambigiuous "them"

Tartarin - While it might be true that some politicians would be less likely to back military action if their own flesh and blood would be put in harm's way, it's also true that politicians historically supported war when they deemed it necessary, even when the US had a draft.

dys, That goes without saying. The biggest problem is that GW doesn't have any children in the military.....and they'll never get that connection! ;( c.i.

GW was of age and he got out of it anyway! See, they is always a way around it.

Ho Chin Mihn

Vietnam was French Indo-China. It was a French colony. Politically, we were on the side of France. Ho Chin Minh made a deal with the US. He would use his soldiers as an ally of the US against Japan. In return, after the war, the US would support the Vietnamese' wish to be free of French domination.

In 1944, Life magazine had a cover photo of American allies that included Ho Chin Minh and General MacArthur. Unfortunately FDR died and Truman wanted no part of being a spokesmand for a communist revolutionary. And so began the long French-Indo China war ended in ignominy for the French in Dien Bien Phu. So then we took our turn.

Post Script: I was working as a bank guard when we had about 700 advisors in Vietnam. During a coffee break, I told the dozen or so coffee breakers that the historian Henry Steele Commager cautioned that if we weren't willing to put five million men on the Indo-China peninsula, we shouldn't put five men on. There was a young bank employee who was a veteran who had recently served in Vietnam. He replied that Commager was wrong and that "when we throw five thousand marines in there, those gooks won't know what hit them."

Some things you never forget. I joined the anti-war movement.

BillyFalcon, WELCOME to A2K. It surprises no one that the US was there to help the French in VN, but the French is never there for us. But how can we blame the French for not supporting GWBush on Iraq? c.i.

I see no linkage of Vietnam and Iraq, except maybe France has learned a lesson that Bush has not.

Edgar,

Could the linkage be that we are being lied to and manipulated to go to war to benefit certain wealth centers in the United States. Could it be that we have always been manipulated into war by the interests that profit most by war?

We wave the flag, we measure peoples patriotism by the support they give, and the profit centers ... profit. War is big money!!

I think Bush and the administration have created 95% of the crises we are in now to profit the people that invested in his election. It's "business as usual" !!

I'm looking forward to tonights State of the Union. I expect my Bullshit Meter to spike to 95%!!

Anon

No, it is not possible, unless you want to argue that no person was ever unfree, no group ever fought for freedom, and no freedom ever needed to be defended against tyranny.

That is not to say that every war is warranted or fought for a noble cause, but you would throw out the baby with the bath water, and the baby is still dirty. :wink:

Army is not an instrument of social engineering, it has another functions, mainly pertaining to national defense. If the U.S. Army under the present conditions is able to provide adequate response to the existing threats (I do not mean, by the way, prevention of the particular terror attacks, this is the task of police, FBI and counter-intelligence), then no change in recruitment policies is needed. Professional army may develop better level of individual soldier's skills than the drafted one: it can merely fire those that do not meet the requirement and stimulate the successful ones.
Israel does not have a professional army for a very simple reason: she is a very small country (ca. 6 million of population, including 1 million of Arabs who are not drafted for national security reasons), and does not possess required number of people that want to be in military that would provide adequate number of soldiers. But in more than 250-million-strong USA there are enough people that may conscript voluntarily to provide an adequate manpower base for the army.

Steissd, that is a cogent, rational answer--which, of course, means it has nothing to do with the politics of the situation. Those calling for a renewal of conscription in the US are attempting a political coup to undermine support for a war in Iraq. I agree with your assessment, i'm just trying to be realistic about why this topic has arisen in the US.

My background is a military professional (though, in low ranks, my best achievement is an office of the company commander), and I wonder, how do the "professional civilians" having proven their brightness in many different areas, provide pronouncedly goofy proposals regarding the army issues. Maybe, it is necessary to spend some time in the army in order to understand it better from inside; only then some proposals for military reform should be offered.

Streissd, if you're referring to Rangel when you're talking about civilians making goofy proposals, he did serve, and was decorated for valor.

I did not refer to anyone specifically, I referred to the general idea of the discussion, and support it gets here, on A2K. Mr. Rangel is a politician, and the latter sometimes utter the things that contradict their own beliefs, just in order to affect their political opponents. I served 4 years in Afghanistan myself as a Soviet Army infantry officer (I am in Israel only since 1990), and I also was decorated, and I give all the necessary respect to any of the war veterans. But when any politician makes any proposal on any issue, I strongly doubt his/her sincerity. Politics is the dirtiest occupation in the world, IMHO, even dirtier than prostitution.

I'd have to go along with that, Steissd. I have no personal opinion on Rangel, and i don't doubt that he is unknown to you. And i agree that expedience is the consideration which weighs with politicians, without regard to military experience. That being said, i'd rather that the military was not unfettered in their activities.

Steissd,
Many of us did serve in the service and are not talking about something we know nothing about.
I do believe that a draft and military training is needed. And why because we must always have a trained force waiting in the wings when the need arises.
The current system of reserves and national guard is flawed. When called up are they a viable fighting force? I doubt it. Many have never had actual military training while others are to old to fight.
IMO people should be drafted and spend one year being intensively trained and than if they want out be placed on active reserve for five years. The present reserve and national guard systems don't cut it in today's world. In time of need the trained young people are needed not the untrained and over the hill gang that in many instances now exists.

au, I'm not sure about the one year intensified training part. Most basic training is about three months total in the US Air Force, and the enlisted are the support troops, while the officers do the fighting. I guess it depends on what branch of the service one serves. In the army, they must be trained in the specific war machine they will use in combat, and that probably takes longer. I have no idea what the training period should be. In the air force, I was trained in nuclear weapons, but it was an on-going training for the four years I served. c.i.

Have you ever assessed how much does it cost? And are you sure that the USA needs 5-6-million-strong army (this number stems from my assessment of probable number of people eligible to service that reach the draft age every year in the country with population exceeding 250 million people)? When there was a total draft in the USSR, the Soviet Army personnel exceeded 5.5 million, and the population number was 270-280 million (in '80s)

steissd, Isn't it also true that the Russian military is either grossly underpaid or not paid at all? c.i.