Bring back draft

Redheat, i've disabled UBB code for this posting, so you can see the syntax for adding colors:

RED
BLUE
GREEN

The code within the brackets ( [ ] ) is recognized, as long as the syntax is correct, and as long as what is turned on is also turned off. UBB code will not work unless there is also a command to turn off the attribute which was originally turned on. This also works for various other attributes:

Italics
Boldface
Font Size--up to 24

I will post again after this, with the UBB code enabled, and you will see the result.

Use the "reply" button, not "quick reply". After typing, highlight all you want to color then click your color on the color bar. If you don't like those colors, click it the font color box that presently says "Default".

Under the default posting system, UBB code is enabled, and had i posted those encoded passages with the code enabled, you would have seen:

RED
BLUE
GREEN

Italics
Boldface
Font Size--up to 24

Roger is correct of course--if you know the code and are comfortable with it, you can post in the quick reply window as i am doing, and still add attributes to that which you type.[/b][/color][/size]

Hello Everybody-

Hope it's ok if I do a test run here. Just trying to figure out how this venue works. Thanks for your patience. Jo (who is Joanlee11 on Abuzz and I have been formal for so long, I think I'd be better to stay with that. Have e-mailed Jespah to find out how to switch back.) But in the meantime.....I will explore.

Hmmm I can't help but wonder how many servicemen (or women for that matter) you actually know. I've known and know many and can't recall any who were stupid or murderous.

Not that there aren't stupi/murderous people in the military - there are - just as there are stupid/murderous folks in all walks of life.

Thanks for all the help


I'm still getting a feel for the place.

I'm a bit intrigued by the idea of the President having to serve in some capacity in the military. I was in the Hospitality field for many years, and the best managers were the ones who actually performed each job. Maybe they wouldn't have to serve but they should be forced to go to a war torn area and witness first hand the perils of war. Fearing for one's life and seeing the blood shed with life lost could put a whole new perspective on contemplating war.

Clinton seemed to understand this even though he didn't serve. GWB on the other hand is so far removed from the reality of life that to him I'm sure it's like playing with his GI Joe's.

I also have to agree that woman should be part of the draft. Another reason I am against it. I would never allow my daughter to go to war unless it was for a good cause. WW2 was the last war that really had moral reasoning.

Let me be clear that I do not want either my son or my daughter to be drafted, but it seems awfully unfair that our wars, such as they are, will be fought by folks who don't have the advantages of a pampered middle-class upbringing.

I have no qualm with being sent to war and am entering the military voluntarily but I am vehemently against any draft as a matter of principle.

edit: typos

You just may be right, Craven. Is it possible that a population that won't defend it's country simply doesn't deserve to have a country?

I do realize that not all wars are defensive in the most immediate sense, but in some extended sense, it may come down to that, after all.

roger,
In America wars are very rarely defensive. Our conflicts are not always ours and I think the idividual should decide whether he/she wants to fight for that cause.

I also think that any country that does not allow the individual the freedom to choose whether to fight for it isn't worth saving. It's a line in the sand and no country is automatically worth dying for for all it's citizens.

To die for your country is territorial stupidity. I really woudn't mind fighting for my country but I'd much rather die to make all drafts in my country bansihed forever than for the stupid lines in the sand that make up my country.

Basically, I think fighting should be done for a cause, a piece of land can be a cause but it's not autoimatically valid. Intervening in another conflict is also certainly not gouing to be a cause that beckons all.

If my country drafts while I am in the military I will walk out.

Craven

Please clarify one thing for me----You are entering the military as we speak or are you just thinking of entering the military?

Not as we speak but on Tuesday I'll take the physical and sign the contract (as long as they have an MOS available that I'm interested in and I have no physical disqualifications).

I don't expect any difficulties there so I'll probably be in on Tuesday.

Craven
Good luck and may the powers that be look over you.



I am as sure as I can be that there will be no draft. However, If there should be how does one just walk out. That would be AWOL. Only Bush can get away with that.

AWOL is the least of what I'd feel like doing. I am also pretty sure a draft is unlikely in my lifetime. If it does happen my nationailty would lessen in value to my eyes.

Craven
I just want to add my best wishes in your new career---but please if you really believe you can just walk away from the military because you don't like something, you might want to investigate something a little less rigid in their rules. The military is not a democracy--or at least it wasn't the last time I looked--you might know something I don't.

You're a bright young guy so I know you'll be a success at what ever you choose.

A few 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.

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.

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.

perception,

I doubt that there is anything beyond a chance at an education that I will like about the military. I'm going in expecting torturous tedium and will do my time.

Drafts are not a small issue to me, if I were in the military it would not affect me personally. What I'm saying is that I don't want any part in a society that allows a draft and claims to be free. It has nothing to do with personal annoyance but rather my principles.

ash,

I can't agree more. A draft is counter productive in today's military and today's warefare. I don't expect to have to make good on my draft threats because the post vietnam military recognizes those facts.

Yes I can agree on the draft--I wouldn't like to see it brought back in. I was in the military when it was discontinued and I thought it was a "big" mistake because I just positive we would not be proud of the result. I am very glad to say I was completely wrong---this is a military we can be truly proud of.

I do believe that every young person should serve the country in some capacity for at least one year. Most young people are getting what I call a "free" ride but yet think nothing of calling those who do serve bullys and killers.