[TheeBadOne]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75387,00.html

WASHINGTON — Trying to head off a proposal to reinstate the military draft, the Pentagon Monday disputed charges that blacks and poorer Americans bear an unfair burden in fighting the country's wars.

"Contrary to myth, data show that the enlisted force is quite representative of the civilian population," the Defense Department said in an 11-page paper arguing the merits of the all-volunteer force that has been in place for nearly 30 years.

[TarpleyG]

I'll take volunteers over draftees any day. At least volunteers are there because they WANT to be, not because they HAVE to be. I know I am not alone.

GT

[Blackhawk]

The Pentagon doesn't HAVE to argue against it. The facts do a pretty good job of that all by themselves.

[Blackhawk]

I'll take volunteers over draftees any day. At least volunteers are there because they WANT to be, not because they HAVE to be. I know I am not alone. True, you are not alone. Many people who haven't got an inkling much less a clue say the same thing.

Think about it for a minute. Why would any sane person WANT to be in combat?

I was drafted, then volunteered, and I served in combat with draftees and volunteers. What's the difference then? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

However in noncombat duties, there was a difference. Draftees were far less likely to kowtow to the ranking jackasses running things because they weren't worried about keeping their 201 files pristine in order to make rank. Their concern was getting back to civilian life.

[Delmar]

Blackhawk, you just made a very convincing argument to reinstate the draft. I don't think its necessary to have one to protect the country at this time per se, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with the military knowing there are people there who do not want to be there and who will not put up with a lot of the mickey mouse we all know and did not/do not love. I enlisted during the draft and was in after we went to a volunteer military, and can tell you the difference was remarkable as well as depressing. In a war, there really isn't much difference between a draftee and an enlistee-they both bleed red, but if we are going to have a military capable of destroying its own people, I want to have all the people represented. For my own part, I saw draftees promoted to leadership positions more regularly than with enlistees, who were generally older and had better common sense.

[Joe Gunns]

I think that end of the draft was a politically motivated mistake, a cheap effort by the Nixon admin to declaw the anti-war movement.

AS Blackhawk's experience shows there are potentially positive effects of drafting soldiers, airmen, sailors, perhaps even Marines.

A draft maintains the connection between the civilian population and the military. There are more individuals in the civilian population who have served and have an understanding of the service life and mind-set. There are in the military population individuals who, as in Blackhawk's case, maintain a different viewpoint than the careerist. Both civil society and military effectiveness benefits from this cross-fertilization.

Some draftees find out they love the life, and make it a career. This strengthens the military. All-volunteerism prevents this mutually beneficial discovery.

[Joe Demko]

Conscription = Slavery

[Delmar]

Golgo 13-be advised that a people who are too good to serve their country, like it or not for a couple of years, may find one day the wrong people are in charge!
I'd like to see the country go half way-bring the boys and girls home from the places we do not need to be, of which there are several, shrink the active military to minimum strength, institute a draft of male and females, a short time on active duty followed by reserve duty to a specified age to be determined

[Blackhawk]

For my own part, I saw draftees promoted to leadership positions more regularly than with enlistees, who were generally older and had better common sense. Delmar, mind if I take that sentence out back and put it out of its misery? :D

You're saying, are you not, that the draftees were generally older and had better common sense? :confused:

[Joe Demko]

So you only want to enslave some people for a little while?

[Delmar]

Sorry bout that Blackhawk-I am saying or trying to say the draftees generally had better sense about them than the enlistees, and I promoted them on average a bit faster than the RA's. Wuz tryin to trouble shoot a Chicago problem and post at the same time-not a good day to multitask?:o

[Correia]

I think the draft is constitutional in cases of national emergency. As in we are getting invaded. Other than that I think it is a bunch of hogwash.

When other countries conscript all their young folks we call it slavery. Yet when it is proposed here I see all sorts of people supporting it. I got into a very hot argument once upon a time on TFL because another poster said we should draft all young people for mandatory service because it would "build character".

If it was a moral and just war, then I honestly think you could have 10 million volunteers. All they would have to do is ask.

Remember the week after Sept. 11th? Recruiters were swamped. And the President never went on TV and begged the nation for recruits either. If he had then I have no doubt that he would have had enough new recruits to take on the world.

Look at some of our own guys. ArmySon or Spectre or the others like them. They both dropped their good paying jobs and signed up, ready to fight. Because they felt is was the right thing to do.

Now if you have a war where we are propping up one sleazy government over some other sleazy government in a third world trash hole, then we had better reinstate the draft! No sane person is going to volunteer to fight in that. That will show them!

[Delmar]

Thats right Golgo-I figure if its worth living, its worth contributing. One thing I do see since the draft was dropped is a sense of country. People seem to spend more time complaining than getting the job done. It is easy to spot those who served-they react predictably to mickey mouse in the companies they work for, and know the difference between a stupid thing and a necessary thing they do not like when told to do it. For most people, their military service will be as close as they get to the federal government, and many will state freely they do not want to get any closer! And that is fine. What we really need is participation from most of the people, not just some. As it stands right now, we have some long, unprotected borders and seemingly nobody to put on them. At this stage, I am reluctant to put active duty military on our borders for a number of reasons, mostly of which this would go against their training. On the other hand, draftees could be properly trained to fulfill that need.

[Correia]

Delmar,

The reason the borders are unprotected is because the government lacks the fortitude to do so. It has about nothing to do with man power.

"Thats right Golgo-I figure if its worth living, its worth contributing." Exactly, that is why if the cause is just you will have more volunteers than you know what to do with.

And the Building Character argument comes up once again. Darn these young folks today. They are all lazy and stupid, not like in my day at all. What we need is mandatory military service. That will whip them right into shape.

I'm going to have to disagree on that one big time. I must have missed the part of the Constitution that said it was the government's job to build character and install morals and a work ethic into our kids.

And as far as military folks out in the business world, some of the best and worst employees I have ever seen were ex-military. Same as the civillians. Go figure. Mickey Mouse hasn't got much to do with it. The biggest laziest moron of a boss I have ever had was former Army. I have seen it go both ways.

You say that there isn't as much of a sense of country now with out the draft. How do you measure that? Last time we had the draft we had hippies and the beginning of the liberal movement.

[Delmar]

And the Building Character argument comes up once again. Darn these young folks today. They are all lazy and stupid, not like in my day at all. What we need is mandatory military service. That will whip them right into shape.
Not my words, sir. Those are yours. No guarrantees that military service is going to improve a person. Are you stating that not serving will? Most, but not all, veterans I know and respect have stated their military service was an important part of their life, and not necessarily combat service, but the chance to earn their way to a college degree after they had matured a bit in the service.

A sense of country? Despite hippies and liberals, it sure got a whole lot of people really interested in the government's reach on the average person. BTW, the draft ran continously from 1940 to 1974, and the problem with the draft commenced with the governments bungling of Vietnam, not the draft itself.

As to the manpower issue, do the math. Unless you are going to put everything from Special Forces to the chaplains assistant on the border, its gonna be tough.

Not that it matters, but were you/are you in the military? Just lookin for perspective.

[Tamara]

"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!" -Robert A. Heinlein, Annapolis grad

[Frohickey]

What would be good is if there is a draft, but only for domestic assignments within 50 miles of home. Akin to what the Swiss have.

Make it a draft, 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, 50 miles from home-maximum. You do this til you are 45 years old, then you can volunteer to stay longer. You do it for no pay, but are compensated by lower cost FHA home loans, and ammo and gunsmithing work on the 'Homeland Security' rifle/M16A2 that you take home with you. This rifle becomes yours after the age of 45.

For overseas deployment, you would have to volunteer.

Lets see someone try to invade the US.

[Sean Smith]

Some thoughts...

I volunteered to go to West Point. I volunteered to go to Airborne school. I volunteered to go to Germany, knowing there was a good chance it would get me sent to Bosnia (it did). I volunteered to go to go on a deployment to Macedonia soon thereafter when I didn't have to. I served beyond my service obligation for my "free ride" :rolleyes: at West Point.

(Random observation: my pay increased by about 50% the second I became a civilian... and I was an officer!)

Why do I bring this up? Because the constantly recurring implication is that people who oppose the draft are self-absorbed, cowardly, Gen-X/Y/Z slackers, and so forth. Which leads to my point...

The peacetime draft is an abomination. It is militarily stupid, and its social "benefits" are a chimera. Since when has preferentially placing sons of the poor under threat of death over the sons of the rich been a good idea? My Dad and several of my other relations wound up somewhere in or around Vietnam in the late 1960s-early 1970s, which probably wouldn't have happened if their daddies could have afforded some candy-assed "out" for them. Hell, they couldn't afford lunch.

You could argue it did some of them some good, like my Dad. Or you could argue it was a living hell, which it was for my Dad once he burned most of his face off (he got better... no, really :) ). Or you could note that it also screws alot of people up really bad, and get alot of them killed for stupid reasons. That happened in my family, too.

Sure, lots of people from relatively poor backgrounds volunteer from a motive of self-improvement. I consider that a positive comment about their character, by the way, though some people would somehow think otherwise. How different do you think that kind of person would be, on average, compared to what you'd get, on average, through forcible conscription? :rolleyes:

[2dogs]

the Pentagon Monday disputed charges that blacks and poorer Americans bear an unfair burden in fighting the country's wars.

http://www.no-quarter.org/html/jake.html

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND...
88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
Religion of Dead: Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none -- 6.7%

[Sean Smith]

Side note... in combat arms, the people are disproportionately WHTE, and the more dangerous it gets (e.g. Special Forces), the whiter it gets. Dunno why, just an observation.

[El Tejon]

2dogs, thanks for posting that! Refreshing.

Anyone got the racial stats on SF, Rangers or the STs who are fighting the WoT?

[Blackhawk]

"... If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!" -Robert A. Heinlein, Annapolis gradPardon me, but who asked? Heinlein was an acclaimed science fiction writer. Somehow his accomplishments don't rise to the level of somebody whose natterings are something worthy of deference, especially those about the military after only having served for 5 years during a time of peace between WWI and WWII.

Surely there must be somebody more credible whining "conscription is slavery" that can be quoted in the face of the SCOTUS, which said it isn't.

[wingman]

"Conscription = Slavery"




Nuts.!!!:fire:

[Tamara]

SCOTUS has said many things, and some of them weren't even assinine. ;)

As far as what conscription is, and whether it is slavery or not, I have my opinions on what to call it when men with guns tell you what to do under pain of death, and others have their own opinions...

[Sean Smith]

Blackhawk,

SCOTUS has also said in the past that black people are property and that gun control laws are constitutional. Great track record... :rolleyes:

You have yet to justify the draft on any terms other than "those darn kids today..." :rolleyes:

[Blackhawk]

Thanks, 2dogs.

The stats on the ages of draftees are interesting too, but I don't recall them with specificity. The liberal "18 year olds were drafted to die in Vietnam" wail is bogus.

[2dogs]

Blackhawk

DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS...
25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
Reservists killed: 5,977
National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.
Total draftees (1965 - 73): 1,728,344.
Actually served in Vietnam: 38%
Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.
Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.


Same site as my last post. Also gives socio-economic breakdown (mostly lower-middle).:)

[Blackhawk]

You have yet to justify the draft on any terms other than "those darn kids today..." Sean, where have I made any attempt to justify the draft?

The thread title is "Pentagon Argues Against Draft" to which I responded:The Pentagon doesn't HAVE to argue against it. The facts do a pretty good job of that all by themselves. Have you got me confused with somebody else? :confused:

[Delmar]

Well, I don't think I'd worry just yet about a draft-the military does not want it, a lot of people think its wrong, and I must have been out of my mind to even think about having a reserve which might be called up in case of a national emergency. How stupid could I be? After all, its not like the country has been attacked?
(sarcasm off)
Most folks never thought 9/11 were even possible, and so far as I can see, having two teenage sons, one of which wants to enlist right after high school for some specialized training, and the other might follow him, the young folks I have met, by and large, are not adverse to serving. About half of those who spoke to me said they would go if their number was called. For those of you who have not served, it does take a while to train people to do their jobs effectively, and basic + AIT does not = GI Joe.
A lot of Americans have been needlessly slaughtered in "just" wars because the soldiers did not know their jobs and the leadership did not know theirs. I do not see how that is somehow acceptable to some.

[Chris Rhines]

There is no possible defense for conscription. The comparisons to slavery, or more accurately to the ancient practice of 'press-ganging' is perfectly accurate.

Quite frankly, there isn't much of this country I'd be willing to fight for nowadays. And that's sad. I wish I could live in a country that I could be proud of.

- Chris

[Blackhawk]

2dogs,

The stats I remember aren't in there. I saw some that had the ages of draftees during Vietnam broken down as numbers and percentages. I could probably find them if they were important enough to me.

[Blackhawk]

I wish I could live in a country that I could be proud of. Do you know of one?

[WyldOne]

Well, I'm glad that the Pentagon has said this; although, I'm not sure if I agree with their reasoning. And anyway, I thought this was a rich-poor issue, more than a black-white issue? Or is that just me?

Delmar,


Golgo 13-be advised that a people who are too good to serve their country, like it or not for a couple of years, may find one day the wrong people are in charge!

Um, the wrong people are already in charge.

[Blackhawk]

Tamara,As far as what conscription is, and whether it is slavery or not, I have my opinions on what to call it when men with guns tell you what to do under pain of death, and others have their own opinions...Believe me, your opinions have much more credibility with me than Robert Anson Heinlein's ever could.

[Correia]

Delmar, your right, it doesn't matter. My personal perspective and back ground matters little. Lets stick with arguments and logic rather than a contest of who served more. I'm just a cake eating civillian, but I have some pretty strong opinions on what is right and wrong. I think slavery was wrong two hundred years ago, and calling it by a different name doesn't make it any more right today.

You could watch every single person crossing the border with our existing Border Patrol if we ended the welfare stage, because there would be a fraction of what there is now. Let the property owners on the border protect their land. (but that is a discussion for another thread). We don't need a million draftees garrisoned in Texas.

I agree that for some people military service is the best thing that can happen to them. And you may know many veterans who felt as if that was a very important part of their life. However as a free people shouldn't we be able to decide for ourselves what the important parts of our life are going to be?

Sure you can go into the service to put yourself through college. Some of my best friends did that. More power to you. I put myself through college by working full time and supporting a small family. I suppose that may build character as well, and you know what? It was my choice because I'm a free man.

I think often times when somebody speaks out against the draft people will think that that person is some how anti-military or anti-American. Nothing is further from the truth. I happen to love this country and God bless our warriors. We just think that the draft is wrong. I have enough faith in my countrymen that I believe that more than enough men would step up to the plate if they were asked.

[Correia]

And as for having a group of already trained folks to call upon, I think that was what the "well regulated" part of the 2nd was all about. Everybody should have at least the basic knowledge and skills neccesary to be in the militia. To bad our leadership doesn't see it that way.

[NewShooter78]

Does anyone really think there would be another draft? Certainly not for anything that is going on now. No matter what, it will always be abused by those in power. I seriously doubt any Senator's son would ever be a basic infantryman no matter what times we are in. Military service is a great thing for a lot of people, but there are plenty of people I would not want to see maning the lines.

[Blackhawk]

I thought this was a rich-poor issue, more than a black-white issue? Or is that just me? WyldOne, I don't think it's just you. During the Vietnam years, the rich could take advantage of the many ways to sustain deferments by going to college, grad school, etc., and without resorting to the marriage/kids route. But that's just conclusory based on logic.

My own experiences belie that, however. The draftees in my Basic Training company were spread spectrum across the socio-economic scale. Wealthy sons of doctors, Hollywood celebs, policemen, and the whole bit. The enlistees, however tended to be the poorer ones. The great majority of the draftees were white with 1 black in my platoon and a smattering of Asians.

[Chris Rhines]

Blackhawk - Nope. I remain cautiously optimistic about the future, though.

- Chris

[Rangerover]

I wish I could live in a country that I could be proud of.
I have a strong suspicion that any country you could "Be proud of" wouldn't exist for very long.

[Sean Smith]

Blackhawk,

Probably from this part:

Surely there must be somebody more credible whining "conscription is slavery" that can be quoted in the face of the SCOTUS, which said it isn't.

:p

[Blackhawk]

Sean, to conclude that I was justifying the draft based on my comment about Heinlein isn't just unfounded, it's not even in the same solar system! :D

[Blackhawk]

Chris,

The disaffection with what was happening in the country during the late '60s and early '70s gave rise to this bumper sticker:

"America, love it or leave it"

followed shortly by this one:

"America, fix it or lose it"

The latter one stuck with me, and I'm still in that mode. If we don't make individual efforts to fix it through the means provided through the Constitution, we will surely lose it.

Sadly, this cliche is also true, IMO:

"People vote themselves the government they deserve."

Now that's scary! :what:

[Tamara]

The sad part is that they vote it onto folks who don't deserve it, either. :mad:

[Blackhawk]

Well said, and it's truly sad. :(

[Powderman]

I have absolutely no objections to a draft. I served in the Army, my wife served in the Army, my son is a Marine.

However, I'll quantify that:

I have no objection with a draft--as long as it is ACROSS THE BOARD, with NO preferential treatment or assignment for ANYONE.

Also, ALL US CITIZENS, AGED 18-45, SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT. This includes ALL public officials, and their children thereof.

Personally, I think that the powers that be would be a LOT less hesitant to throw us into combat if they knew that their sons AND daughters (hey, why stop with the guys?) would be thrown onto the gun line with Joe Schmuck from the inner city, and John Ragweed from the farm.

Oh, yeah................

One poster somewhere above said that "conscription was slavery". Why? Are you too good to pay back Uncle Sam for some of the freedom you enjoy?

Another said that they wish they could be proud of this country.

Sit back and think, friend.

Literally MILLIONS of men and women have died since this Nation was founded--just so that you could have the FREEDOM to say words like that--in public, on a public forum--without worrying about some government "reeducation specialist" knocking on your door.

What makes you too good to serve?

As a matter of fact, for all of you that object to the draft, calling it slavery,

What makes ANY of you too good to serve?

We meet here to talk about one of our freedoms--the right to keep and bear arms. We all believe--and hold--that this right, along with our other God-given rights, are sacrosanct; inviolable by any man. I have seen most of you openly declare your intentions by slogans like "Molon Labe!"

You decry any attempt to regulate our most powerful recognized right--the right to bear arms to insure our self governance.

Yet, you say that if this Nation--this land in which we live--this great Country, where people routinely brave the tortures of the damned just to ATTEMPT to enter;

Where freedom rings so true and so strong that hundreds died in a foreign country (Germany) just for the chance to cross a brick Wall, to stand on soil that bore some resemblance to America;

Where people from Asian countries endure dehydration and starvation, locked in cold metal containers in cargo ships--on the chance that they, too, might stand somewhere on the shores of the Land of the Free;

And where fools like me, who once stood looking at Communist troops with a rifle in my hand on foreign soil, now sit and wait, dying a little each and every day as our sons, our beloved children, now take up the battle--and who break down in tears at any mention of folded flags.

What gives you the RIGHT, or the moral compass to stand in judgement?

Here's a wake up call for you. Here's your assignment:

1. Go to the Firing Line library. Look up the post "Stupid to go to prison or die over pieces of metal and wood" started by a gentleman named "cornered rat". Read the first post by a gentleman named Dennis.

2. Find your local Federal Cemetery. Stand in silence, and study the headstones of the people whose blood spilled, and who now lie at rest. See the Stars and Stripes wave in mute witness to their sacrifice. Think of these men--and women--who died--some quietly, others screaming in pain and terror; some of old age and sickness, others in the prime of their lives. Think of the fact that ALL of them endured this for an idea. A belief. A dream--and, at the same time, a reality.

After you do that, then come back here--if you DARE--and tell me that conscription is slavery. I beg to differ.

Service to this Nation is not slavery. It was--and is--the breath and blood of Freedom itself.

[Tamara]

What makes you too good to serve?

:banghead:

Why can people not get it into their heads that just because one is opposed to conscription it does not mean that they "think they're too good to serve" or "hate the military"?

Service is noble when offered voluntarily.

Loyalty is meaningless when compelled.

[Chris Rhines]

Blackhawk - I agree completely.

"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis

- Chris

[Correia]

Powderman, I'm the guy that compared conscription to slavery. I stand by that. Slavery for a good cause is still slavery.

I agree with your sentiment. I have relatives in those federal cemetaries. Some were volunteers, some were not. I respect everybody who has ever fought for this country.

However if the cause is just then people will serve willingly. If enough people are not willing to make the sacrifice then there is something either wrong with the war or their country. If the cause is just then Americans will fight for what they believe in. We always have.

I don't see any of use who are against conscription saying that we are too good to serve. In fact you have a bunch of folks who have served honorably who think it is a bad idea.

If my country needs me to fight then I will go. However it should be my choice. We are a free people.

How can we say we fight for freedom when our people are given the choice to fight or go to prison or die by the hands of government agents. How is that representing the ideals of freedom?

[Blackhawk]

However if the cause is just then people will serve willingly. If enough people are not willing to make the sacrifice then there is something either wrong with the war or their country. If the cause is just then Americans will fight for what they believe in. We always have. Actually, we haven't, unless WWII doesn't rise to the level of "just cause" in your estimation.

Take a look at the stats page 2dogs posted a link to. 66% of the U.S. armed forces in WWII were drafted. There's also the myth about Americans storming the enlistment offices on December 8, 1941 to join up. Didn't happen then, before, or later during WWII.

If WWII wasn't a "just cause" fostering voluntarism for the military, what would you say one was?

[Correia]

As for my understanding of WWII, pretty much every single teenager in the country knew that they were going to go. My Grandfathers knew this. Why enlist when it was a given that they were going to send you a letter telling you when and where to report. (actually one of my grandparents didn't get a draft notice so he went down the the recruiters to sign on. They wouldn't let him because he was a dairy farmer and Roosevelt said that they were needed at home).

It wasn't like you could show up as an 18 year old farm boy with no skills and say that you wanted a certain MOS. :)

I think that if there hadn't been a draft then more people would have enlisted for WWII. Just a guess on my part since I wasn't alive then.

And yes in my opinion that war does meet my definition of just. I would have went in a heartbeat.

[Delmar]

When this country is invaded, and I suspect it eventually will-after all, we are occupying the same dirt everyone else is, it will be interesting to see who thinks they are too important to go, and for those who think they are ready and have never seen the elephant, you won't need to pack much-you won't last that long against a professional army whether you went to gunsite or not.

[Powderman]

To Tamara:

Here, I must disagree with you--at least in some aspects.

I fully agree that conscription should NOT be necessary--however, I also believe that it IS a necessity. Changing moral beliefs, moral directions, and a complete sea-change in the attitudes concerning patriotism, rights--and even education!--
ensure that if it were left to volunteerism, we would NOT have enough to serve.

Also, I know that registering for the draft at this time is mandatory. I also am sure that there are so many loopholes that will allow "certain" individuals to duck out of the draft if the time comes, that it makes Selective Service in its present form a joke.

And, why should some Senator's or Representative's son get a preferential assignment in the rear with the gear? Oh, heck no!! Let's get those boys out as mud puppies, string dummies, cannon cockers and rail apes. Let's get down and dirty in the bush--ALL of us--not just some of us.

Correia, I agree with you. However, due to the changes in levels of patriotism and moral discipline in this country, I do not think we would see as great influx of enlistees, even for a "just" cause--as you believe.

Oh, and by the way--for all concerned--I do NOT support this upcoming war with Iraq. I really don't know just HOW involved Iraq is with terrorism.

I think that George W. is kinda spoiling for a fight--unless he knows something that the American people don't know just yet. If this were the case, I sure hope he lets the cat out of the bag.

And, if we go to war, I believe firmly that George W. should be walking point on the first patrol in, with the rest of his Cabinet members walking slack. I WOULD put GEN Powell in as patrol leader--at least they would have the best of leadership. However, I wonder how fast they would be to put this Country at war if they had to go?

[Beer for my Horses]

Why enlist when it was a given that they were going to send you a letter telling you when and where to report.
Because if you enlisted in WWII you could choose which branch of the armed forces you served in. If you didn't think you'd make a good infantryman, you could choose Air Force instead of the Marine Corp.

[Beer for my Horses]

p.s. it's good to see that some topics never die, just cross over from the TFL and continue to spawn the same "arguments". . . or lack thereof.

[Blackhawk]

I think that if there hadn't been a draft then more people would have enlisted for WWII. Just a guess on my part since I wasn't alive then.That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

During Vietnam, the draft itself drove enlistments, including volunteering for the draft. Enlisting gave you the choice of branch even though you had a longer active duty obligation. Volunteering for the draft gave you some advantages as far as training went, but one of my best friends did that but ended up leading LRRPs for the 1st Cav.

Enlisting in the Army gave you the option of choosing the training you wanted, but a lot of volunteers found that they didn't qualify for it on their test scores so they ended up alongside everybody else.

IMO, WWII was the same way. If not for the draft, enlistments would have not been anywhere near what was needed. That was the thinking after 1939, which resulted in the draft being instituted in 1940.

Americans operate under a well honed sense of "enlightened self interest." That's what makes the economy, and America itself, work. Volunteering to pull combat duty when the Huns are at the gate is one thing, and I share your opinion on that score. But the just cause of WWII wasn't that type of thing. Neither was Korea, nor Vietnam. "Get drafted or volunteer" is what's manned our combat forces prit near from the git go, because volunteering for combat in some miserable corner of the earth just isn't something that Americans have done in large numbers nor are they inclined to do so.

[Delmar]

btw Correia, asking you whether you served or not was not a lead in for trying to slam you or anyone else on this board for not serving. Don't think for a minute that just because you weren't in the military that your opinion is slanted one way or another by it-lots of my vet friends think the draft was an abomination.
Especially a couple of ex drill sergeants who were up to their ears in draftees and a big shortage of instructors.
The stories they tell trying to train em up with more trainees per instructor and less time to do it in so's they could ship them off to the fight left them feeling none too good about it. They weren't as worried about the politics of the war, as about the quality of the soldiers they produced-namely, that they had enough training to have literally a fighting chance.

So, begging the question-how do you train up a large reserve force in case they are needed without conscription and before all hell breaks loose so you have time to teach them what they need to know?

[Blackhawk]

So, begging the question-how do you train up a large reserve force in case they are needed without conscription and before all hell breaks loose so you have time to teach them what they need to know? That's the question that's been faced time and time again, and the answer comes up "draft"!

We were woefully understaffed and underequipped before we entered WWII DESPITE having about every signal that we'd be in it you could imagine!

A "just cause" indication satisfactory to all those imaginary volunteers seldom appears before everything's vetted and ready.

We hire leaders to get and keep us ready for the perils the nation faces. Whatever it takes....

[Gray Peterson]

One poster somewhere above said that "conscription was slavery". Why? Are you too good to pay back Uncle Sam for some of the freedom you enjoy?

Excuse me, but "Uncle Sam" nor the US Government gives me the freedoms I enjoy. Those are inalienable rights that all people are born with.

[Joe Demko]

Are you too good to pay back Uncle Sam for some of the freedom you enjoy?

How much involuntary servitude do you calculate I owe?:rolleyes:

a couple points:
1. I don't have to "pay back" anything. I already contribute a substantial portion of my income every year to Uncle. For the record, that is mostly involuntary too. The way I see it, Uncle should be paying me back for years and years of extortion on his part.
2. As somebody else already mentioned, Uncle doesn't give me those freedoms. They are my inalienable rights as a human being. All Uncle is required to do is stay out of the way; and he isn't even doing that.

You might want to soft-pedal this whole "are you too good" bit, as many of the members who are opposed to the draft did, in fact, serve as volunteers. That would include me.

So far, the only reasons for a draft I've seen given in this thread are "these kids today!" and "the ends justify the means," and I'm not buying either of them.

[2dogs]

how do you train up a large reserve force in case they are needed without conscription and before all hell breaks loose so you have time to teach them what they need to know

One way might be to have folks going into service who already know how to shoot. Maybe an active and advertised Civilian Marksmanship Program, or just encouraging regular citizens to own and use weapons.................

whoops, sorry- wrong planet.:rolleyes:

[Correia]

All valid points that I don't have an answer for. Maybe I just make the mistake of assuming the best about my countrymen. All I know is that if we were asked to go, out of me and the people I'm around you would get a host of volunteers. Maybe it is because I hang out with gun people, and we aren't exactly normal to begin with.

For a core of well trained people, I think that if our culture was to cultivate a militia in the original sense of the word then we wouldn't have a problem. You would take land navigation and MOUT and other things like that in high school. Of course there is no chance in hell of that ever happening.

I just want to say that this is the most civil discussion we have ever had on the draft. :) Thank you.

[2dogs]

http://washtimes.com/commentary/20030115-98184772.htm

Draft debate: Back to the 18th Century



Philip Gold

It happened more than 30 years ago, but I still recall the cold and absolute fury with which I received my draft notice. How dare they? I barely glanced at my "Greetings" before stuffing it back into the envelope and scrawling, on my finest Yale University stationery:
"I am returning this to you. I will never serve in the United States Army, so please stop wasting my time, your time, and the government's postage. Sincerely yours. P.S. I recently joined the Marines."
But that was then. This is post-then. And Democratic Congressman-for-Life Charlie Rangel wants to restore conscription, with "nonmilitary options" for those who don't feel like it. And already the debate — if such it can be called — has developed along predictable lines.
Militarily, the idea's nonsense. Limited-term conscription produces semiskilled, transient, expendable labor. In military terms, cannon fodder, adequate for Industrial Age mass warfare but utterly unsuited to our 21st-century needs. Eliding this fact, conscription's backers offer a hiphop of cliches about equality and burden-sharing, as though there could be equality between combat and other necessary but less extreme tasks, or between military service and tutoring disadvantaged youth or emptying bedpans.
Very well, then. Conscription, we are told, has to do with citizenship, usually defined as service and/or sacrifice, presumably leading to deeper patriotism and maturity. At its most extreme, advocates of compulsory national service desire a massive new federal bureaucracy to force the young to appreciate their country while performing all kinds of "socially desirable" services (en passant taking millions of jobs from those who need them most).
To the American Founders, this would be worse than nonsense. But it does raise two evocative questions regarding the meanings of citizenship then and now. First, is there any longer a connection between what the Founders knew as citizenship and what it means to us today? And second, does citizenship have any rational relationship to national defense?
The answers point to the possibility — no more, but no less — of a recovery of genuine citizenship in post-September 11, 2001, America.
To the Founders, citizenship meant far more than rights and liberties, although these obviously mattered greatly. It also meant more than the sullen discharge of externally imposed and distasteful duties. The Founders saw active citizenship as part of a fully human life. Defending the polity, along with voting, jury duty, discourse, and occasional officeholding, were things citizens did as normally as they attended to their private affairs. They objected to standing armies less from fear of military dictatorship than from a sense that professional militaries detached the citizen from one of the prime manifestations of citizenship.
But — and this is crucial — their understanding of defense was quite different from our pre-September 11 conceit. To the Founders, as to most of the world today, there was no clear break between individual self-defense, defense of family and community, and war. That's why they cherished the militia, with its multiple and overlapping law enforcement and military duties. That's also why they enshrined the individual's, not the state's, right to bear arms. War might be an occasional thing, but the citizen's obligation to protect and defend was constant.
Only in the 20th century did law enforcement become the virtual monopoly of the state, and war the private preserve of the federal government. And only in the 20th century did we presume that foreign and domestic threats could be compartmentalized, and that legal barriers had to be erected to keep our agencies of law enforcement and defense separate.
No more. Reality has brought us back to the Founders' world. But has it — can it — bring us back to the Founders' concept of what it means to be a citizen?
Yes. And perhaps the best way to begin the recovery of citizenship from its current rights-and-entitlements-encrusted passivity, is to reaffirm the Founders' understanding of defense as a continuum, with foreign war as only one aspect and the federal role as only one part. But what does this mean in post-September 11 practice? Nobody wants a nation of snitches and snoops; nobody wants to turn the population into a paramilitary horde. What to do, once you accept that to be a citizen means to be active in defense?
Very simply, you defend. For example, it should be lawful for every law-abiding woman and man in this country to bear and maintain arms for in extremis personal and communal defense, along with voluntary free training to make this new militia "well-regulated" (an 18th-century term meaning "proficient in marksmanship"). And is it not also a duty of citizenship to be prepared for the consequences of terrorist attack, in order to make yourself less of a burden on the system and to help others? Private emergency preparations, of the kind you would make for an earthquake or hurricane, ought to be considered acts of citizen defense. Why not require basic first aid and CPR training as part of teenage drivers' education, and periodic recertification when renewing the license?
The examples could multiply, but the point is clear. Defense is now, once again, something we all must tend to. But we don't need conscripts. We need citizens. And once we get a taste of active citizenship again, we might even find we like it the way the Founders did. And who knows where that might lead?

Philip Gold is a Seattle-based writer and author of "Evasions: The American way of Military Service."