Why Not Draft?

Re: Why Not Draft?


Let's see,

First, I don't want to go to war to kill people who never did anything wrong to me, and I don't think I should be forced to do so.

Second, if the military is too badly stretched, perhaps we should retreat. People make it sound like the end of the world, but I can think of dozens of countries who either lost of basically tied wars, and they seem to be doing okay today. So I don't believe the hyperventilating of some on that issue.

Third, there is little doubt that the kids of the rich wouldn't go anyways - this certainly seems to be the case historically. I ain't no Senator's son...

Now, what do I support?

I would happily join a local militia to protect my region from armed invasion or gov't fascism.

I would happily support a mandated Service requirement. Upon graduating HS, you have to put in 1-2 years of state service, either in the armed forces, the peace forces, environmental reconstruction teams, WPA-style groups, whatever.

Cycloptichorn

I would possibly prefer a draft to sending National Guard out of the country. Only thing then is, it would create a huge anti war move from the young, who may now be silent, but don't want to go. Plus, for the ones who think as I do, that the wars we mostly get into are the wrong fight at the wrong time, and totally f'ed up by the leaders, that they would be criminalized for not signing up. It's tough. I know that the majority of National Guard did not sign up with the expectation of going to Iraq, at least before the war began. I prefer getting us out of Iraq and keeping it all volunteer.

It doesn't mean diddly squat since draft dodgers from all over will continue to avoid service if they do not want to serve (I include both Clinton and Bush in this). If the draft is reinstated, the people with money and political ties (among others) will find their way out of service. Unless the draft is brought back with tighter restrictions for excusing persons, it is merely a squawk box for Rangel to continue his eternal and infernal babbling.

Why not a draft? Cause I don't want one of my cubs coming home in a box. That's that.

To right, Sturgis. So many smart kids with funds for college got college deferments in the VietNam era that we developed a special word to describe them. We usually call them "Boss".

Of course, there were other deferments.

just watched frank sesno and susan page on CNN talk about charlie rangel's proposal .
frank sesno is both a special correspondent to CNN and a lecturer at george washington university .
sesno said that he makes it a point of asking his students if they have served in the military or if they intend to sign up after graduation .
he claims that so far he has not yet found a single student who has either served or is planning to serve in the military .
in his opinion there is a complete disconnect between most young people and the military and the war in iraq . it's something they don't seem to be very interested in , he said .
hbg

Naturally, they've changed the rules so that college is no longer a deferment.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not going to comment on Rangel, other than to say that i suspect that he supports a draft as a means of embarrassing his political opponents.

It cannot be denied, though, that government has to tread carefully on this issue, and that the institution of a draft now would undoubtedly bring a huge backlash. I am sad to say that i agree with Sturgis that the wealthy and powerful would find ways to evade the draft, and the poor would be left to flee to Canada or to live underground.

The problem is, as it always has been, that those who make wars either don't have to fight in them themselves (nor do their children), or they glory in war, and don't care how much blood is spilled as long as they have their opportunity. (Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for fighting in Cuba, and their can be no doubt that he was courageous and provided genuine leadership at a crucial point in the fight at San Juan--i also consider that there can be no doubt that the Spanish War was a case of beating up on a weak reed because we could get away with it, and a handful of powerful men could profit from it.) You can read The History of the Peloponnesian War, written almost 2500 years ago by Thucydides, and see that little had changed. Many young guys who are eager to read military history are disappointed when they read Thucydides, because so much of it is political. But Thucydides makes the point again and again about powerful men who either arrogantly exploit their power for their own ends without regard for what it costs the people, or of demagogues who whip up the people to achieve similar ends.

Plus ça change . . .

Cyclopticorn:


But you live in a society that depends on the sacrifices of those who fight and die in your place.



You're much too smart for airheadedness like this. If we don't have enough troops to handle the conflicts our politicians commit to, then we should just retreat, or settle on a tie? This would work if we were talking about a game of Risk. I'm talking about real solutions for real problems.



True that more of them would get away with not serving, but still, more of them would serve than are now. During the Vietnam conflict, there were about 200,000 cases of Draft Law violation, and about 50,000 people fled to Canada. But everyone was made acutely aware of the potential sacrifice of their own lives or their children's lives. Colleges had protests, because those students knew their asses might be on the line. And some ofthose boots on the ground in Vietnam were filled by the "fortunate sons".



I don't even know how to reply to someone who thinks each individual community gets to decide which wars are worth fighting and which ones aren't.



So, you would support some mandatory service, but you just wouldn't do the "war" part? You speak like someone who has had more of the kind of "fortunate son" choices than he might think.

(Just curious- did you think most of those stranded during Katrina were on the roof of the SuperDome because of some poor personal choices?)

I find the class part interesting, especially in terms of whether a draft would actually be an equalizer or not. I think the richest and most connected would get off, as always (senator's son), and I think the poorest and those with the least prospects would be most likely to do it, as always*, but I think the middle class would be the big difference if there were a draft. There are a whole lot of people who would never consider entering the military who also don't have enough clout to avoid it if there were a draft, I think.

As Bear says though, getting them aware and getting them active carries WAY too high of a price. Perhaps this is perfect -- just bringing up the possibility, so that people who might be affected actually have to consider what that would be like -- without actually making it a reality.




*Not saying that only poor people with few prospects join the military -- there are always your Pat Tillmans and people who come from military families who have a strong sense of pride in the job, etc. But I think it's established that the military these days is made up in large part of the people I refer to. Yeah, found this for example:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html

As far as I am concerned, drafting people is tantamount to slavery. I believed that the US abolished that practice in the 19th century, although concription was still utilized until a few decades ago.

I DO think though that if a war was fought that had some relevence to U.S. citizens, many more people would join the military. If US citizens really believed that there were a serious threat to the country, enlistments would escalate.

Yes, that is a good point, and you have articulated the point well.

Hahah, enhance your calm...



It does? I can see that at one time it did. I can see that from time to time we are attacked here in the US, and there is a need for defense. I however have a hard time believing that our society depends on the sacrifices of those who are dying in Iraq.

It isn't that I don't honor them (I do, tough s.o.b.'s) but that I don't think their mission is essential to our survival, at all.



So am I. Yes, we should either retreat or settle on a tie. If the people won't support what we are doing in great enough numbers to join the army, it is an obvious sign that the country does not agree with the course of action chose by the politicians. In an actual gov't which respected the wishes of the people, this would lead to an ending of the armed conflict.

It is the jobs of the politicians to convince the American public that wars are worth fighting, because the common man (who is the one who will get blown up) never sees any personal interest in doing so. If the gov't has failed in this, it isn't the fault of the common man, but the fault of those in governance.

I honestly don't believe it is neccessary to start listing historical examples of countries who either lost aggressive wars they started or ended with Pyrrhic victories/ties. Do you?



I don't believe you can use college enrollment as a deferral anymore. But this is besides the point, because protests and anti-war sentiment aren't neccesary if people just refuse to pick up the guns and fight for a war that isn't worth fighting.



Militias don't fight wars. They defend their land and people from armed invasion to the best of their abilities. It isn't as if the Berkeley town militia would get together and decide to solve the North Korea problem once and for all. That would be ridiculous. On the other hand, when someone lands on our shores (unlikely) or the gov't decides to send in a few divisions to quell the resistance, then you will find me answering the call of the town warning siren with my 30-06 in one hand and a rucksack in the other.

I don't have any problem with defense of America, but I refuse to believe that offense = defense! If people think it is neccessary to go on the offensive to solve our problems, then let them go do it. I do not. I think there is a great hubris in the thought that we can solve problems through the mass killing of people (essentially what we're doing in Iraq). There are times when one has to take up arms in defense, but taking them up in offense is far different and I for one refuse to do so.



I don't have a problem with mandatory service, because I believe that we are all a part of America and that we need to work together to make things better for everyone here. This includes personal effort in our gov't, our enviornment, and to a certain extent, our defense.

That's not the same thing as picking up a gun to go kill a foriegn man, because some elected official says that his people might be a threat to ours sometime in the future. I don't trust their judgement, for the simple reason that they have been very wrong very often.

As for Katrina - that has nothing to do with our conversation at all, now does it? For the record, I don't believe that blanket generalizations about groups of people are accurate very often. I'm sure that some of those stuck in the Superdome were there because of poor choices, some because they had no choices, and some because they thought it would be a good choice to do so (and had every reason to believe that, so it wasn't really their fault). Let me ask, why did you bring this up? It has nothing to do with the draft, or state service, or anything like that at all.

Cycloptichorn

From the online resource "The History Guy," a page of links on the topic of conscription:

Issues: Military Draft/Conscription

The introductory paragraph on that page:

I think we should tie citizenship to some sort of govt service. It should be a give something in order to receive something. You don't have to serve in the military because there are many different branchs of the govt.

I would like to see longer times of service for those that don't serve in the military.

A few comments on the Draft

Would the nation benefit by re-establishment of compulsory military service? The size of today's professional military is insufficient to meet the demands of the military component of the War on Terrorism. We abandoned the force structure designed to counter the demands of the Cold War as too expensive, and now we pay the price of maintaining a small military. Rangel has been in favor of compulsory military service for a long time Senator Rangel earned real military honors fighting in Korea and deserves the respect of his countrymen, and so again we revisit the policy of how America's military is recruited and structured. First, lets review some of the positive arguments favoring the compulsory draft..

The Draft as a policy counter-weight.

Why should we be considering a return to the draft? The obvious reason is to relieve the pressure and dislocation of such a heavy reliance on the Reserves and National Guard. Both forces have provided yeoman service, and their military readiness has been invaluable. Still, it has been demonstrated that a larger military is necessary. The draft proposals tend to focus on a rapid build up of U.S. military forces, but that is only one of the draft's several positive elements.

Proponents argue that a military draft would more equitably staff the military, and that the Executive and Congress would be less likely to engage in military adventurism. I don't think so. The volunteers now serving come from every congressional district in the nation, and are the sons and daughters of folks who elect legislators. Young people from every strata of society serve in the military, many of them for patriotic reasons and others for opportunity. Do 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 a year. A seemingly bloody war that drags on endlessly loses the support of people who expect instant gratification. When enough people don't clearly understand and approve of military action they make their feelings known. The People may be wrong, but they are the ultimate policy force in our system. 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. I don't think that a renewed draft would effectively constrain military adventurism, nor would it be more equitable.

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, 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 ocean 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.

Back in the old days the average draftee could gain important skills in a reasonably short time. That imight still be a reason to have some sort of national service requirement for most youth after high school, or after dropping out of school. Teaching young people discipline and the value of being useful members of society sure wouldn't hurt.

There has been a lot of criticism of the Reserves, but they have provided valuable service since the end of the Cold War. Reserves have completed Basic Training, and have received some ongoing training while living normal civilian lives. Reserve pilots are a godsend, and reserves are an important component in the logistical element of most contingency plans. Reserves have proven themselves in battle, and I think they deserve more respect than many would give them. Draftees might increase the numbers of Reserves and Guard available, but the real source of their strength is from the active regular military.

Why a return to compulsory military service is not a good idea.

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, or relying on a militia (National Guard). Current Joint forces Doctrine requires much more sophistication and precision than in the past. Computers and other advanced systems aren't easily learned, and require extensive training for a soldier to become accomplished. Our current volunteers are almost unbelievably lethal out of all proportion of their numbers when armed combat is called for. Today's non-coms have the skills and training that in earlier times was expected of company grade officers. Part of our problem is that the War on Terrorism is a unique mission and environment that the military is still learning to navikgate. Numbers in today's military mid to high intensity environment don't count for so much as education, training and skill. Draftee armies are terribly expensive.

Draftees in this environment would almost certainly wind up as cannon fodder, and might be as dangerous to other U.S. soldiers and foreign civilians than the professionals who have trained for years. Draftees are a temporary fix and their short enlistments return them to society just about the time they begin to become effective soldiers. They aren't in the military because they want to be there, and so they seldom have their heart into learning what the military needs will be.

Inducting, training and managing draftees would be terribly expensive. Abandoned military bases might have to be brought back into service. Who will train the draftees? If we had to provide 90 days training for 1,000, 000 draftees in a year, that is 250,000 every three months. If a training battalion would consist of 250 persons, then there would be 1000 training battalions in operation at all times. It would take at least 10 D.I.s for each battalion, or 10,000 regular highly trained non-commissioned officers needed elsewhere. Finding officers to lead an inflated military would be difficult. Of course, everyone could move up a step or two, or three in the chain of command. A regular sergeant might become over night a commissioned Lieutenant of even a Captain. They weren't trained for that, but they are wonderfully adaptive soldiers. The result would be an even greater need for non-commissioned officers who are already in short supply. In addition, officers and all the support services to manage those 250,000 persons would be diverted from assignments where they are already stretched thin. Those 1,000,000 draftees would have to be fed, clothed, provided medical coverage and armed. BTW, imagine how much more difficult it would be to integrate women into draftee formations. Ninety days training is just not enough to prepare young draftees for combat

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 less than optimal, but that only means that the forces should be increased. 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 have grown, Reserves and the National Guard have been called up. Reserves bring with them the fundamental training, skill, and experience to bring our forces to a better state of preparedness. Both the Guard and Reserves have done an outstanding job, but the dislocations required have been far greater than anticipated. 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 while engaged in a unique modern conflict. Increased benefits and pay might go along way to increasing the size of the military, but that would take time to accomplish.

No one should ever think that the military isn't a hazardous environment, it is. War and training for war greatly increase the risk that some will be injured or killed. That's part of the job description. A certain number will suffer from disorders resulting from their being unable to deal with the stress of combat. A certain number will die as a result of accidents and friendly fire. No one wants those sort of bad effects, but then war is one of the most trying of all human endeavors. Finding and retaining those who make the sort of volunteer soldiers is always difficult, straining them out of hundreds of thousands of draftees isn't an efficient way of fielding the sort of military we need.

Our society tends to place individualism above sacrifice and devotion to duty. Why risk your neck, or your child, to a profession that isn't highly regarded? Soldiers don't often become rich. It is far easier to play computer games than to spend a chilly night in a swamp being eaten by mosquitoes. Anyone who has been in the field eating MRE's and going without a shower for a month really does appreciate Mom's cooking and clean cloths that aren't Utilities. Many seem to want the military to either become a spirited game of croquette, or go away altogether. Then who will protect us from the Hitler's, Stalin's, Bin Ladin's, Saddam's and Jong Il's of the world? A Radical Islamic Movement whose followers are willing to die to defeat us today threatens our way of life. How many of our young people are willing to die to defend the nation and the values we all cherish? The voluntary military is filled with young men and women risk their lives for you every day. They leave their families for months at a time for less money than your gardener is paid. For this, some regard those fine young patriots as fascist storm troopers.

On balance, I don't think that a renewed draft would enhance our military capabilities much, and might even degrade our regular militaries effectiveness.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Why is Rangel trying this again. He tried this crap back before the 04' election and when it came to a vote he voted against it. Why start a bill then vote against it?

Rangel is an asshole for doing this. He doesn't mean it so why try.

I only mentioned Rangel because he reminded me of the debate. I'd appreciate it if this didn't turn into a pro/con Rangel session. There's plenty of room to disagree just over the pros and cons of instituting a draft.

Sen. Rangel is a serious man, a man who has served his country well for most of his life. He deserves our respect, even when we don't agree with his politics or some of the policies he supports. There are many reasons that a Senator might decide to vote against a bill that he introduced. Bills evolve, sometimes in directions far from the original intent. They get saddled with amendments that a bill's author can not abide, or the times change.

With the stresses on the Reserves and Guard, it probably is timely to revisit the conscript questions. Rangel had his doubts about an all volunteer standing army, and I don't doubt that he still has those same doubts today. Many, on the other hand, applauded and still applaud the improved quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the current system, but have long argued that the size of the military is too small. The character of the current conflict challenges the traditional mission of the military. I think we should be discussing how the nation can best counter the strategy of our enemies, the Radical Islamic Movement centered mostly in Southwest Asia. Our experience over the last four years seems to clearly indicate the need for reassessment of force sizes and perhaps some doctrinal changes in post conflict management.