Why Not Draft?

From the Chicago Tribune (21.11.2006, page A3):

Related (online) report:

Democrat's draft bill faces uphill fight in next post

0 Replies

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- A prominent Democrat's call for reinstating a military draft ignited a mini-firestorm Monday as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle rushed to denounce any notion of a return to conscription.

Incoming House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has been rebuffed in previous attempts at bringing back the draft and is encountering considerable resistance to his pledge over the weekend to try again.

But as the Democrats prepare to take control of Congress in January and the military grows increasingly strained in Iraq, the debate has taken on a new twist, and leaders in both parties have not shied away from speaking out against the highly unpopular proposal.

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday that she did not support a draft and the Democratic leadership would not back its return. Pelosi said Rangel's proposed legislation is not actually about reinstating the draft but is instead "a way to make a point" about social inequality in America.

In announcing his intentions Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," Rangel said he was confident that the war in Iraq never would have been started if there were a draft. The congressman said politicians who commit troops to a war but do not want their own children to serve are hypocritical.

"I just don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," he said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), departing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Monday that recruitment efforts are sufficient and a draft is unnecessary.

"Right now the military is meeting all of its goals on re-enlistment and accessions into the military. We're doing very, very well," Hunter said.

Although it has been more than three decades since the military last used a draft, men ages 18 to 25 are still required to register with the Selective Service System, leaving the framework in place in the event of a future draft. About 16 million men currently are registered.

Unlike some previous bills, Rangel's proposal would not necessarily require military service. Rangel said draftees would "commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals."

Rangel, a Korean War veteran, introduced a bill in 2003 that would have required a military draft for people ages 18 to 26.

When House leaders brought Rangel's bill to a vote in 2004, it was defeated 402-2. Rangel even voted against his own proposal, accusing the GOP leadership of political maneuvering to stymie support for the bill.

When rumors of an effort to reinstate the draft resurfaced in June 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Rangel introduced another military draft bill this year, which also went nowhere. Polls indicate that about 70 percent of Americans oppose a draft.

Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociology professor emeritus who is an ardent supporter of a draft, said he does not expect a draft to be reinstated but called Rangel's proposal "a noble proposition" because it seeks to distribute the responsibility for fighting wars across the socioeconomic spectrum.

"If you draft, you have to start from the top of the social ladder to make it acceptable," Moskos said. "A country will accept casualties only when privileged youths are putting their lives on the line [too]."

Moskos said that if privileged youths are at risk of being drafted, it would make politicians less likely to start wars but more likely to stay in ongoing wars to achieve victory.

Though prospects for a draft appear slim, the demand for troops is high.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and some other politicians say increasing troop levels in Iraq is the only way to achieve anything resembling a victory. But an already overstretched military, with many reserve soldiers serving multiple tours of duty, may be hard-pressed to commit tens of thousands more troops to the unpopular war.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Alternatively, how about a Starship Troopers style system - one in which only those who perform state service, are given the right to vote? All are eligible, only some choose to, and it's never too late to change your mind and become a voting citizen - all you have to do is put in a year or two of work in a wide variety of areas.

I was goint to try to ignore this, but i won't. Robert Heinlein was a racist, sexist, ultraconservative pig, and a poor writer into the bargain. I read Heinlein when i was a boy, and loved it. Then when i was 30, i reread Starship Troopers, and came across that "you don't serve, you don't vote crap" on the first page, and was disgusted. Then i re-read Farnham's Freehold thereafter, and realized just what a racist and sexist gobshite Heinlein was. What's really ironic is to compare Heinlein's politics and yours.

What about people who can't serve? What about someone with physical disabilities, should they be denied the vote because they sit in a wheelchair? What about women who have children by the time they're 18, and can't leave them to serve, should they be denied the vote?

That's just a stupid idea. Sorry, Cyclo, but i don't think you gave that very much thought.

When I say 'state service' I don't mean 'military service' neccessarily. I also mean public works, environmental service, whatever we feel is important at the time.

There is little doubt that jobs could be found for thsoe who can't walk, or who have kids - it wouldn't really be any different than the jobs they have today. I don't think there is anyone who 'can't serve,' it is just a matter of finding the right way to let them help out.

I realize Heinlein was not a good man... but I don't think the idea of trading a couple of years of public service for voting rights is that terrible of an idea.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I didn't say it - I was saying that's what I thought bohne was saying....

Got that, snood.

0 Replies

By the way, on the topic of conscripted soldiers versus "professional" soldiers, i think it is perfectly reasonable to say that conscripts aren't as good as volunteer soldiers. In American history, the militia have proven largely worthless. Volunteers have proven to be far more reliable, but need lots of campaigning experience to do as well as the professionals. Volunteering has a long and proud tradition in the United States (Tennessee calls itself "the Volunteer State"), but all military commanders have recognized that even new volunteers lack the necessary experience which long serving professionals or reservists already have when a conflict breaks out.

In his book The Second World War, Churchill comments that he told FDR that soldiers need at least two years training experience to be effective in combat, and preferably three. I agree with him. There is an interesting book on the 29th Division, known as the "Blue-Gray Division," because it was a formation made from a Maryland National Guard Regiment, a Virginia National Guard regiment, and the National Guard regiment from Baltimore. In the book, Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Division in Normandy, the author makes a similar point, although that is not necessarily what he was attempting to do. The 29th Division was shipped to England in 1942, but did not see combat until 1944, when they landed at Omaha Beach with the First Division. They fought a savage campaign against the German paratroopers of the Sixth Falschirmjäger Brigade, four regiments of tough, battle-hardened troops who had marched from Brittany to Normany to oppose the landings. The Germans had to walk, because the Allies had air superiority, and their trucks and horses were all shot to Hell on the first day. They learned to march at night, and to fight at night. The 29th Division eventually took St. Lo, their objective, after five nightmarish weeks of mostly night-fighting. When they got to St. Lo, there were fewer than 7000 troops left, and they had left England with 15,000 infantrymen--many of those 7000 were replacements who joined the division after they had landed in Normandy. In March, 1945, a ceremony was held in Normandy to dedicate a cemetery for the 29th Division. The Division commander wanted to form a color guard (the boys with the flags) from each regiment for the ceremony, and wanted to use only men who had landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944. Nine months after the landing, they were unable to find ten men from each regiment who had landed who were still alive and not disabled. The 29th Division suffered 300% casualties in the Second World War. They had trained in England for two and one half years before boarding ship to land in Normandy. You'll never convince me that draftees with six months training can do those sorts of things, and not disintegrate under the pressure.

Reservists and National Guardsmen (and women) can be relied upon, because they actually have far more training, usually, by the time they go to a combat zone, than draftees ever have. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a conscripted soldier, they just don't serve long enough to get the training and experience that professional soldiers and reservists have.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Israel has a mandatory military service requirement for male and female Jewish citizens with some exceptions. It basically makes all jews a part of the military and reserves. Not so much a draft, more like a fact of life due to the continuing threats against Israel from the Arab coountries surrounding Israel.

Yes, but they still call it a draft.

I'm not sure I get your point, though. You seem to be saying that Israel needs a strong army due to the continuing threat from its neighbours. Therefore they need the draft.

By implication, that would mean that America's enemies are less of a threat to the USA than Israel's enemies are a threat to Israel, and therefore the US don't need such a strong army, and therefore there's no need for a draft.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When I say 'state service' I don't mean 'military service' neccessarily. I also mean public works, environmental service, whatever we feel is important at the time.

There is little doubt that jobs could be found for thsoe who can't walk, or who have kids - it wouldn't really be any different than the jobs they have today. I don't think there is anyone who 'can't serve,' it is just a matter of finding the right way to let them help out.

I understood that you didn't necessarily mean military service. I still don't think it is a well-thought-out idea. Look at Walter's graph--more than 10 million Americans were conscripted in the Second World War. When you add the volunteers and National Guard and reservists who fought, you get a total of over 15 million. But the population of the United States in 1941 was 150 million. You are either faced with putting people into industry by conscription (even closer to Thomas' slavery argument), or "make-work" projects on a vast scale. This would be even more true in times of peace, when we maintain fewer than 2,000,000 service men and women in the armed forces. What are you going to come up with for public service for the other, literally, hundreds of millions of Americans who justifiably would want the right to vote?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
When I say 'state service' I don't mean 'military service' neccessarily. I also mean public works, environmental service, whatever we feel is important at the time.

There is little doubt that jobs could be found for thsoe who can't walk, or who have kids - it wouldn't really be any different than the jobs they have today. I don't think there is anyone who 'can't serve,' it is just a matter of finding the right way to let them help out.

I understood that you didn't necessarily mean military service. I still don't think it is a well-thought-out idea. Look at Walter's graph--more than 10 million Americans were conscripted in the Second World War. When you add the volunteers and National Guard and reservists who fought, you get a total of over 15 million. But the population of the United States in 1941 was 150 million. You are either faced with putting people into industry by conscription (even closer to Thomas' slavery argument), or "make-work" projects on a vast scale. This would be even more true in times of peace, when we maintain fewer than 2,000,000 service men and women in the armed forces. What are you going to come up with for public service for the other, literally, hundreds of millions of Americans who justifiably would want the right to vote?

Enh, you're right, issues I hadn't thought of

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We GROK ya, setanta.

0 Replies

I only grok 'im when he ain't lookin'.

0 Replies

I suspect that references to ice nine and Cat's Cradle are becoming obscure as we age, and youngsters increasingly don't read Vonnegut.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Or for those of you in favor of the privatization of our military, check out the Middle Eastern job opportunities at Halliburton.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I don't support the privatization of the military. I support an all-volunteer army, which is something different.

0 Replies

It was part of an article I cut and pasted. And referenced.

0 Replies

I read the first few pages and then skipped to here, so I'm not sure if this point has been made.

My take on it is that there should not be a draft based on a shortage in recruits.

There's a shortage of nurses in the country too. Should every 18-29 year old be required to work as a nurse for 2-4 years if their number gets called? Would you want the likes of Gus' kids anywhere near your bedpan?

There's a shortage of teachers. Should every 18-29 year old have to teach for 4 years if their number gets called? Do you want Kicky in a classroom??

Not everyone is capable of being a teacher or a nurse. Same goes for being a soldier. I assume at some level that those that do willingly join the military have done so knowing what they are getting into, knowing if they have the brains and balls to do it and at the least having issued themselves a challenge to accomplish something through their enlistment. You don't get the same kind of commitment from drafted soldiers as you do from those enlisted. Same as for any other career, the person has to be committed to doing it.