Isn't the draft selective? I mean, you have to register at age 18, but you don't neccessarily get drawn into ranks.
c.i
Disregarding the length of training time what do you think of the logic?
au, I agree with your logic. The national guard has outlived it's usefulness, and should be disbanded. As for the reserves, I think that's another cup cake. If their military work experience was recent, their use can be effective, unless there was a technology change. c.i.
The compulsory service soldiers in the USSR were not paid at all (they got small amounts of money for personal needs like cigarettes and toothpast). Those that decided to become professional soldiers after graduating the military educational institutions/courses, or after having served the compulsory terms, were paid better than majority of civilians.
A reposting of my earlier comments on the Draft
Would the nation benefit by re-establishment of compulsory military service? That depends a lot on what purpose the restored draft system would be expected to serve.
Are draftees required to insure our military superiority?
Probably not. Current military personnel are very well trained and disciplined. They are skilled at utilizing extremely sophisticated fighting systems that would baffle most draftees. The number of regular full-time volunteer military personnel is somewhat less than optimal. Some military specialties are decidedly understaffed, and others have difficulty in retaining highly specialized personnel. However, the human resources problems would be better solved by increasing the number of regular soldiers than in trying to fill the gaps with draftees. As hostilities grow more probable, Reserves are called up. Reserves bring with them the fundamental training, skill, and experience to bring our forces to a better state of preparedness. Draftees are useful as basic riflemen in the straight-leg infantry, but that isn't where the most pressing needs are. The existing volunteer force doesn't need a bunch of amateurs' under-foot when preparing to fight a modern battle. Should the army be larger? Probably. Should they receive better benefits and pay? Certainly.
To restore the draft would arguably decrease our military effectiveness. The cost of renewing the draft would take away money from already strapped budgets. It would divert needed professionals from direct service into training, thereby decreasing overall fighting manpower. The public debate over how a renewed draft should be structured would create chaos within the Defense establishent at a time when we need clarity. There are other arguements. Draftees might, on the other hand, serve to relieve military assets stationed within CONUS, for duty within one of the overseas commands preparing for hostilities. Draftees might provide some additional security around infrastructure targets within the United States.
I've heard that some of you believe Reserve Units are worthless. I don't agree. Reserve pilots greatly enhance our ability to control the skies and provide logistical support in distant lands. They are supported by other Reservists on the ground who have demonstrated their expertise already. Reserve units who provide fresh water, logistics, and a hundred other "non-combat" services played a vital role in the Gulf War, and they will do good service again. Don't underestimate the value of the Reserves and National Guard. They aren't full-time soldiers, but they have shown repeatedly that they can play an important part in active operations.
On balance, I don't think that a renewed draft would enhance our military capabilities much.
The Draft as a policy counter-weight.
I think this is what Senator Rangle was getting at. BTW, don't "dis" the man, he earned his real military honors fighting in Korea and deserves the respect of his countrymen.
Let's first get rid of a myth. The existing professional army isn't made up of the "lower classes" who had no other alternative. It's become hard to get into the military, and the various services are very selective. Only the best and brightest are truly sought after. Our military spends a lot of money and time in training it's soldiers to be the very best in highly technical fields. Even the average infantry grunt is brighter and better educated than soldiers ever were in our history. These are really first rate people.
Now, is the Executive and Congress more likely to send a wholly volunteer professional army off to fight, than it would if the military was primarily made up of draftees? The volunteers now serving come from every congressional district in the nation, and are the sons and daughters of folks who elect legislators. To they count less because they chose to serve their nation in uniform? I don't think many legislators would behave any differently if the military were conscript rather than volunteer. The Executive branch, I hope, will use the army responsibly no matter who is in uniform. Military involvement is a two edged sword. A quick and bloodless victory over undeniably bad guys is a political plus, for about three months. A bloody war that drags on endlessly when the People don't clearly understand and approve, is a prescription for political loss. All war is something of a gamble, and in the United States domestic policies tend to carry most weight. Win a war, but experience economic difficulties, and you might as well retire from the public arena.
I don't think that a renewed draft would effectively constrain military adventurism. I do think that the Democratic Party would like to obstruct and delay decisions related to military action by the United States. That's some of the value in having a two party system, it provides a counterweight by its very existence.
Other public policy benefits might accrue from reinstatement of the draft system.
Military service has, in this country, frequently served useful public policy purposes. Military service teaches young people the value of discipline, teamwork, and shows them that they can prosper by contributing to the larger group. The stories of successful men who were rescued from a life of idleness and crime by military service are legion. There were Draftees in WWI and WWII who wore shoes for the first time, and who learned to read as a result of being drafted into the US Army. The military has been a bootstrap upward on the socioeconomic scale for many. Integration's first great victory was Truman's directive integrating the military services of the U.S., and the military remains one of the best opportunities for minority advancement. By renewing the draft, many more young people who are just rattling around in the world might be given a chance to put their lives in order.
By exposing more people to military service, we might improve public education about military matters. I'm afraid that most people today get what passes for military knowledge from action movies. Most have no realistic idea of what is involved in waging war. Film soldiers never seem to get tired, or cold, or bitten by bugs, or have to march for twenty miles carrying significant weight. Film soldiers are heroes, villains, or cowards - in real life they may be any or all of those things, but usually are just the kid next door trying to survive. Those who have served in the military have a better understanding of what goes into a military operation. Those who have served, may in extreme circumstances provide the last line of resistance. By improving public understanding of military matters, the People will have a better basis on which to judge the policy actions of our sitting government.
What does it mean to be a citizen? The citizen receives the benefits of his State, while normally those who aren't citizens do not. What does the person have to do to qualify for the benefits of citizenship? Historically, and I expect Setanta to elaborate on this, there were three qualifications: 1) Be born within the State; 2) Obey the laws and pay taxes, and; 3) serve the State in a military capacity. A renewed draft would renew and reintroduce many citizens to their fundamental responsibility, especially in this nation founded on the idea that it is the People who make up the State, and not the other way around. I think we have lost some of that since the draft ended.
Finally, The Founding Fathers were terribly suspicious of standing armies. They felt that professional soldiers might owe more to the State, than to the citizens who in our system the State is supposed to serve. Within the United States there are strong prohibitions against military intervention in public affairs. Our fathers recognized that the strength of the State had to be restrained for the sake of individual liberty. Americans went unprepared into every war prior to 1960. Historically, at the conclusion of each conflict, we deactivate our armies, and maintain only a skeleton force. We have relied on saltwater walls to provide the nation time for a call to arms to be effective. After 1945, the time between the commencement of hostilities and our need to respond has steadily shrunk. During the Cold War, from missile launch off of Soviet Boomers to impact was as little as half an hour. There would be no time for volunteers to rush down to sign up.
The all-volunteer professional army IS without a doubt better than if we had continued the policy of conscripting a fair percentage of young men. Are we in danger of losing control over that force? Personally, I don't think so. Others might differ, and I'm sure that the Anti-Federalists would be horrified at the military we have today.
Well, Mr. Asherman has brilliantly summarized all the advantages and disadvantages of draft. But from purely military standpoint, taking into consideration the combat potential of the army, returning to draft, IMHO, is a disaster, and such an approach (in less emotional expressions) appears, to my mind in the above posting.
Let me be clear. I believe that restoration of the draft at this time would be counterproductive to our military capablities.
That is not to say that there aren't good arguments for establishing some sort of compulary national service, especially a service that provided basic military training, i.e., group discipline, small-arms skills, and basic tactics, etc. This isn't in my opinion the appropriate time to initiate such a program. In retrospect, such a program initiated back in 1985 might have made things easier for us now. No need to cry over spilled milk, and when the military situation is less demanding we may benefit from a national debate on the subject. NOT NOW.
Maybe, such a primary training should be incorporated into the high school curriculum, as it was in the former USSR? Such a course could be taught to the students by the former officers and Sergeant-Majors of the U.S. Army after their have been honorably dismissed from the active service.
Excellent idea, steissd. Not going to happen, but excellent idea.
Would requiring compulsory national service make us more or less free?
Then, if it is impossible to incorporate this into the high school curriculae, I think that such a training should be provided through youth organizations, like Boy Scouts (I mean such a training to be given to kids of 15-16 y.o., and not to the small ones). Maybe, some former commissioned and non-commissioned U.S. Army officers could volunteer to be instructors?
Yeah, that what they did in the GDR as well.
Quite funny, when thinking back to times, an US-American officer told us in high school, how glad we were living in a free and democratic country that WE mustn't do this.
The GDR school system did not differ much from the Soviet one, and it was the best of all the Warsaw Pact countries.
Yes, nevertheless I'm glad that I was educated in a free and democratic way. (And, btw, I had two co-students from the GDR in my class: they were glad, too.)
I agree with you. But, by all means, the Soviet education officials always envied their East German colleagues in regard of the results. But they understood that in order to have the same achievements they should replace all their students with East Germans, that in average were much more disciplined (I mean, self-discipline, accuracy and purposefulness) than their Russian age peers...
Tres, see comments under Other public policy benefits might accrue from reinstatement of the draft system above.
Citizen Soldiers Leave Big Gaps on Home Front
By DEAN E. MURPHY
ALBUQUERQUE, Jan. 30 — The printout of names on Sheriff Darren P. White's desk is his official worry list. Eleven have big red letters after them: Deployed.
The newly elected sheriff of Bernalillo County, Mr. White fears a personnel crisis in his first weeks on the job. About 10 percent of his 260 deputies belong to Reserve or National Guard forces. With the Pentagon mobilizing troops for a possible war against Iraq, the sheriff's roster is being depleted weekly
"At this rate, we will have lost 25 by March," said Mr. White, who added deputy No. 11, a cadet, to the red column on Monday. "It is not that we don't want our people activated; these are the type of people you want serving your country in this difficult time. But it is too much for us to absorb. We don't see any end in sight."
This is another reason why we should have a draft with people serving one year on active duty and 5 years active reserve. That will afford pool of young people to be called up in case of emergency instead of over age poorly trained ones. There of course will have to be exceptions for specific professions which require specialized training. When my outfit was called up during the Korean war most of the men were WW2 veterans and were over the age of people drafted in WW2 and released when it was found they were physically unfit for military service because of age. That is what you have in many instances with the present callup.In addition you will not experience the disruptions now being experienced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/01/national/01RESE.html?pagewanted=2&th
New Haven
Quote:I'm against the Draft.
That is your perogative. Any comment on the present system?
Reserve services exist in the countries where draft army service exists as well. I spend in average one month a year in the active reserve service. So, the draft army will not solve the problem.
