0
   

Why Not Draft?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
There's all sorts of avenues that we could allow foreign countries/gov'ts to take oevr. The UN is working on that as we speak.


I doubt that education and/or knowledge matters, but ... the UN is an international organisation with 191 foreign member states - and the USA.

Education does matter and despite the world body, a sovereign nation that is being threatened has the right to defend itself. You obviously count yourself among the educated and as an educated person, I am sure you are familiar with the concept of 20-20 hindsight. Even if you are one who ascribes to the notion that Saddam never stockpiled WMD, the prevailing intelligence at the time of the initial U.S. invasion was that Saddam did possess WMD. As to the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the Middle East, the U.S. and the rest of the world, and perhaps as a student of American history, you would entertain some of the admonitions and warnings from key democratic leaders at that time and several years leading up to the U.S. led Iraqui invasion.

If you like, I will be happy to post it again for your review.


Well, I didn't say anything like that. I only poited at the fact (sic!) that the UN and WTO are two different organisations.
And gave hints what they do.

I'm not a "student of American history"
but studied history at an university (actually three universities).

Does that mean that u studied history at 3 universities,
but avoided studying the history of America ?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:35 pm
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I don't have any problem with defense of America, but I refuse to believe that offense = defense!


So tell me,does that mean that you would have opposed the allied landings in North Africa,or D-Day,or Sicily,or any of the other invasions carried out by the allied forces in Europe during WW2?

What about all of the US invasions in the Pacific during WW2?
Those were clearly offensive actions,yet they were carried out in defense of this country.

So,were those actions wrong,or do you see how offense can = defense?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:48 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I don't have any problem with defense of America, but I refuse to believe that offense = defense!


So tell me,does that mean that you would have opposed the allied landings in North Africa,or D-Day,or Sicily,or any of the other invasions carried out by the allied forces in Europe during WW2?

What about all of the US invasions in the Pacific during WW2?
Those were clearly offensive actions,yet they were carried out in defense of this country.

So,were those actions wrong,or do you see how offense can = defense?


No, none of those actions were carried out in defense of the country.

Let's get this clear: a defensive action is when the opponent attacks you, an offensive action is when you attack them.

We decided to go on the offensive against the Axis powers. It wasn't done in 'defense' of the country at all.

Offense Not Equal Defense!!!!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I don't have any problem with defense of America, but I refuse to believe that offense = defense!


So tell me,does that mean that you would have opposed the allied landings in North Africa,or D-Day,or Sicily,or any of the other invasions carried out by the allied forces in Europe during WW2?

What about all of the US invasions in the Pacific during WW2?
Those were clearly offensive actions,yet they were carried out in defense of this country.

So,were those actions wrong,or do you see how offense can = defense?


No, none of those actions were carried out in defense of the country.

Let's get this clear: a defensive action is when the opponent attacks you, an offensive action is when you attack them.

We decided to go on the offensive against the Axis powers. It wasn't done in 'defense' of the country at all.

Offense Not Equal Defense!!!!

Cycloptichorn


So,using your logic,any attack carried out against an aggressor or invader is considered an offensive attack and cannot be a defensive attack to drive out an enemy force?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:56 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo said...

Quote:
I don't have any problem with defense of America, but I refuse to believe that offense = defense!


So tell me,does that mean that you would have opposed the allied landings in North Africa,or D-Day,or Sicily,or any of the other invasions carried out by the allied forces in Europe during WW2?

What about all of the US invasions in the Pacific during WW2?
Those were clearly offensive actions,yet they were carried out in defense of this country.

So,were those actions wrong,or do you see how offense can = defense?


No, none of those actions were carried out in defense of the country.

Let's get this clear: a defensive action is when the opponent attacks you, an offensive action is when you attack them.

We decided to go on the offensive against the Axis powers. It wasn't done in 'defense' of the country at all.

Offense Not Equal Defense!!!!

Cycloptichorn


So,using your logic,any attack carried out against an aggressor or invader is considered an offensive attack and cannot be a defensive attack to drive out an enemy force?


This isn't a difficult concept.

I'm not arguing about the neccessity of having to go on offense for a while. Far from it. It can be quite neccessary.

When in a castle, and the opponent attacks your walls and gates, and you beat them back, that's defense.

When you sally out into the field to attack them directly, that's offense.

North Africa, D-Day, Siciliy, and the entire WW2 response after Pearl Harbor were offensive attacks. There could be some arguments made about the Battle of the Bulge, but that's about it.

There really isn't any such thing as a 'defensive attack,' not without twisting what the word 'defense' means.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:59 pm
Lets use this example you gave...

Quote:
When in a castle, and the opponent attacks your walls and gates, and you beat them back, that's defense.

When you sally out into the field to attack them directly, that's offense.


Now,after you have driven them away from your castle,what about if you sally out and drive them out of the surrounding town and away from your supplies?
Is that still considered defense,or do you consider that offense?

What about if you drive them away from your source of water and food?
Is that offense or defense?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 03:05 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Lets use this example you gave...

Quote:
When in a castle, and the opponent attacks your walls and gates, and you beat them back, that's defense.

When you sally out into the field to attack them directly, that's offense.


Now,after you have driven them away from your castle,what about if you sally out and drive them out of the surrounding town and away from your supplies?
Is that still considered defense,or do you consider that offense?

What about if you drive them away from your source of water and food?
Is that offense or defense?


Pursuing an enemy you have driven from the local field is offense.

Let us say that this same enemy is besieging the next town over, and you go break the siege (food and water as you say), that is an offensive attack by your force.

Sometimes it is neccessary to go on the offensive during part of an overall defensive campaign; for example, your country is under attack, the enemies have marched through 3/4 of it, and have fortified and occupied behind them; you have to defeat the enemy at some point, and then go on the offensive to drive them out of your country, even though the nature of the campaign as a whole was defensive on your part. It is important to remember that while there are many ways of looking at the same situation, in general the army which marches to attack the enemy on ground he holds is considered to be on the offensive. Though it can get muddy....

I recommend picking up a copy of Sun-Tzu's Art of War and giving it a go. A nice afternoon's reading, and a lifetime of contemplation of just how correct he was 3500 years ago....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 03:46 pm
Quote:
I recommend picking up a copy of Sun-Tzu's Art of War and giving it a go. A nice afternoon's reading, and a lifetime of contemplation of just how correct he was 3500 years ago....


I have read it.
It still is recommended reading at both Annapolis and West point.

His ideas and concepts still hold true today.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Dec, 2006 01:24 am
The best defense is a good offense.

Neville Chamberlain did not agree with that.

David
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Dec, 2006 10:12 am
Jim Valvano did.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Dec, 2006 01:20 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
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.

Couldn't agree more! The National Guard is just that, for the Nation, which is why they weren't home, when needed; see Katrina. Israel has a 2-year, compulsory service. Why not America? If someone chooses not to fight, they could join a 2-year farm, teaching, medical service, for example. My family has served with and without a draft. Americans should be duty-bound to serve, that way, it would be fair and equitable to all citizens. Cool
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 06:18 am
Can the Army grow without the draft? The quality of the recruits the army now gets is below what it was before Bush's War. Will they have to drop the standards ever lower to gain more recruits? If so what does that do for the quality of the army?

Quote:
General Says Army Will Need To Grow
Iraq and Afghanistan Are Straining the Force, Chief of Staff Warns

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 15, 2006; A01

Warning that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations, the nation's top Army general yesterday called for expanding the force by 7,000 or more soldiers a year and lifting Pentagon restrictions on involuntary call-ups of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, issued his most dire assessment yet of the toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the nation's main ground force. At one point, he banged his hand on a House committee-room table, saying the continuation of today's Pentagon policies is "not right."

In particularly blunt testimony, Schoomaker said the Army began the Iraq war "flat-footed" with a $56 billion equipment shortage and 500,000 fewer soldiers than during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Echoing the warnings from the post-Vietnam War era, when Gen. Edward C. Meyer, then the Army chief of staff, decried the "hollow Army," Schoomaker said it is critical to make changes now to shore up the force for what he called a long and dangerous war.

"The Army is incapable of generating and sustaining the required forces to wage the global war on terror . . . without its components -- active, Guard and reserve -- surging together," Schoomaker said in testimony before the congressionally created Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.

The burden on the Army's 507,000 active-duty soldiers -- who now spend more time at war than at home -- is simply too great, he said. "At this pace, without recurrent access to the reserve components, through remobilization, we will break the active component," he said, drawing murmurs around the hearing room.

The Army, which had 482,000 soldiers in 2001, plans to grow temporarily to 512,000. But the Army now seeks to make that increase permanent and to continue increasing its ranks by 7,000 or more a year, Schoomaker said. He said the total increase is under discussion.

"I recommend we continue to grow the Army so that we have choices," Schoomaker said, cautioning that it is ill advised to assume demand for American troops overseas will decrease. "Our history is replete with examples where we have guessed wrong: 1941, 1950, 2001, to name a few," he said. "We don't know what's ahead."

In light of such a sober assessment, Schoomaker voiced skepticism about the idea of an infusion of U.S. ground troops into Iraq, a message sources said he and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff delivered to President Bush at the Pentagon on Wednesday.

"We should not surge without a purpose, and that purpose should be measurable and get us something," he told reporters after the hearing.

Schoomaker's highly public appeal for more troops and reserve call-ups appeared to be part of an Army campaign to lobby incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is to be sworn in Monday, to approve the desired policy changes as well as a significant increase in the Army budget.

The Army estimates that every 10,000 additional soldiers will cost about $1.2 billion a year, up from $700 million in 2001 in part because of increased enlistment bonuses and other incentives. The Army will have to "gain additional resources to support that strategy," Schoomaker acknowledged.

Democrats, who will take charge of Congress next month, said yesterday that they plan to hold hearings on the "urgent" and "critical" readiness problems of the Army and Marine Corps. "Readiness levels for every unit must be raised and maintained at the highest possible level," Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (D-Tex.), incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's readiness panel, and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) said in an opinion article released yesterday. Two-thirds of Army units in the United States are now considered not ready to deploy.

The Army's manpower dilemma stems in part from current Pentagon policies: Although 55 percent of soldiers belong to the National Guard and the reserve, Defense Department guidelines require that reservists be mobilized involuntarily only once, and for no more than 24 months.

As a result, out of the total of 522,000 Army National Guard and reserve members, only about 90,000 are still available to be mobilized, according to Army data. "We're out of Schlitz," declared an Army chart depicting the shortage as a depleted barrel, saying this leaves "future missions in jeopardy."

Compounding the problem, the Pentagon has restricted repeated involuntary call-ups, leading to deeper and deeper holes in Army Guard and reserve units. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers have been mobilized for Iraq and Afghanistan. So when a unit is called to deploy, the only soldiers who can go are volunteers and new soldiers. The remainder are often drawn from dozens of units across the United States.

The result is systematically "broken" and "non-cohesive" units, said another Army chart titled "OSD-mandated Volunteer Policy Stresses the Force," referring to the office of the secretary of defense.

For example, Army Reserve units now must take an average of 62 percent of their soldiers for deployments from other units, compared with 6 percent in 2002 and 39 percent in 2003, according to the Army data. In one transportation company, only seven of 170 soldiers were eligible to deploy. The other 163 came from 65 other units in 49 locations, said the commission chairman, retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold L. Punaro, who quoted a Marine Reserve officer as calling the policy "evil."

"Military necessity dictates that we deploy organized, trained, equipped cohesive units -- and you don't do that by pick-up teams," said Schoomaker, a decorated veteran of the Army's Delta Force who served in the ill-fated Desert One rescue mission in Iran in 1980.

"We must start this clock again . . . and field fully ready units. . . . We must change this policy," he said, banging his hand on the table for emphasis. He said later that he had detected "some movement" by Pentagon policymakers who have so far rejected a change on the politically sensitive issue.

In an interview yesterday on C-SPAN, Thomas F. Hall, assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, said that under the current authority Bush can mobilize up to 1 million reservists for no more than two "continuous" years, but the Pentagon policy under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has been more restrictive, limiting the time to two "cumulative" years. "The law does say 'continuous,' so you could have a break and recall them," Hall said.

Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn, chief of the 346,000-strong Army National Guard, said yesterday that his force is "poised for remobilization."

Vaughn said he thinks state Guard leaders will accept fresh call-ups sooner than planned as long as the deployments are limited to 12 months and draw on units that have been home the longest. He said the Guard could tolerate having units deploy for one year out of every five, instead of out of every six.

"One year is absolutely critical," he said, explaining that the 18 months it currently takes for a Guard unit to mobilize, train and deploy means too much time away from jobs and families. Schoomaker indicated that the Army is working on reducing the duration of Guard and reserve deployments to one year.

Since 2001, the Army Guard has deployed 186,000 soldiers and the Army Reserve 164,000 soldiers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and in homeland-defense missions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121400803.html
0 Replies
 
minipb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 03:49 am
Re: Why Not Draft?
Yes.


In many European countries, draft is compolsary.


In USA it should be also.

Anybody in teens or in twenties should be in.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Dec, 2006 12:56 am
A question to all interested:
What is the "politically correct" (I hate the term too, but here it seemed to fit) perspective on the draft? See how even Bush's Secretary of Veteran affairs doesn't seem sure...


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/veterans-boss-backtracks-on-draft/20061221190309990006?cid=2194
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Dec, 2006 03:52 pm
Official: Agency testing machine, but draft not imminent
POSTED: 11:36 a.m. EST, December 22, 2006
Story Highlights
• Selective Service to conduct first "readiness exercise" since 1998
• VA Secretary doesn't support draft, but says "society would benefit"
• Machine "on the shelf" until Congress and president approve draft, official says
• New York Democrat plans to introduce bill next year to reinstate draft

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.

The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft. (Watch why experts think troop levels are dipping )

The Selective Service "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.

"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf" until needed, Campbell said. "Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."

The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.

A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty. (Watch how Gates is to report back to Bush with a plan on expanding the Army and Marines )

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.

The unpopular war in Iraq, where more than 2,950 American troops have already died, complicates the task of finding more recruits and retaining current troops. To meet its recruitment goals in recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.

In remarks to reporters in New York, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels. He said the draft "does bring people from all quarters of our society together in the common purpose of serving."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has said minorities and the poor share an unfair burden of the war, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that reinstating the draft would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list, and the White House said Thursday that no draft proposal is being considered.

Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn't because of funding constraints.

Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.

The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.



Yeah, I believe they are not preparing to re -institute the draft. But than I also believe in Santa Claus.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Dec, 2006 04:12 pm
I just discovered this thread, haven't read all of it. So please forgive me if I'm echoing what anyone else might already have said.

If we are talking about the principle of compulsory military service for all those who are able-bodied, of sound mind, and of a certain age, I am in favor of it. I think it is the duty of a citizen to help guard and protect his/her country. For one thing, I don't trust a professional military. Their loyalty all too often is to their commander, not to the people they're supposed to protect. Coups de'etat aren't staged by draftees, as a rule.

But I think that what a lot of people here are talking about is not the principle of a draft, but the question of whether such a measure should be taken at this precise time. I agree with Setanta that Rangel is just grandstanding. He knows very well that there isn't the ghost of a chance that a draft could come about at this time without major disturbances all over the country, approaching a revolt. It's a shrewd political move, that's all. Our fearless leader, Dubya, has painted himself into a corner yet once again. He can't institute a draft at this time without losing even the last dregs and vesiges of credibility that he might still enjoy among the unbelievably gullible.

It's a stalemate at this point. But, in general, I think a peacetime draft is a laudable idea. Unless, of course, we come up with a sure-fire way to do away with armed conflicts in toto. But that's not only Utopian thinking; that's an entirely different subject.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Dec, 2006 07:00 pm
Good evening to yall.

Mr Rangel is a showman. No doubt about that, but I wouldn't write him off on the topic of a military draft.

I can't readily provide the numbers-perhaps someone else can. But voluntary enlistments are flat to down a bit. Reenlistments are also flat. The number of folks in the reserve isn't growing.

We can not continue to send the same folks back for a third or fourth tour.
And there is talk of sending a "surge" of US troops and Mr Gates today seemed to suggest we will be in Iraq for "a long time."

Which brings us back to Mr Rangel and the draft.

Should we start talking about a draft? I think we should. How would we structure it such that some kids find loopholes to get out while the kids without the connections are the first to go? Basic traing would need to be changed, of course, back to the way it was when johnboy went through it in 1968.

A draft would be a tough sell, perhaps even an impossible sell, to the American public. But I sure hope we are thinking about it.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 10:48 am
We need to increase the size of the military, and the draft may be the way to accomplish this. After all, we have a lot more enemies in the world since Bush took office.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 03:21 am
I think it would be easier for me to accept the characterization of Rangel as just "grandstanding", or a "showman" if he had started making known his views on a military draft after shrub started nosediving in the polls, and painting himself into a corner. But Rangel has been totally consistent in his views before, during and after the shytstorm in Iraq - it is just more newsy, now that we have to recruit 42 year olds with low IQs, police records and tattoos.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 08:14 am
I would be more receptive to a larger military if there existed a practical need. Right now, we are engaging in a series of wars that could have been handled some other way. Why reward the politicians with more troops and more money? How about enforcing a bit of statesmanship on them?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Not Draft?
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 07:21:12