Will The U.s. Re-open The Draft?


PDA






SNBA
June 12, 2004, 05:29 PM
My post #1 was locked, probably because it lacked political correctness. This post from the same web sight addresses another hot potato. Both subjects will be intresting to follow as time goes on.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022704_draft_goff.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Will The U.s. Re-open The Draft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Warbow
June 12, 2004, 06:26 PM
No.

Waitone
June 12, 2004, 06:37 PM
No chance.

Waitone
June 12, 2004, 06:37 PM
No chance.

DMF
June 12, 2004, 06:59 PM
Your first post was locked because it linked to a website that presented an utterly ridiculous claim, and the text of your post perpetuated it. The mods most likely closed it to keep people from repeatedly flaming you for posting such obviously ridiculous items. Nothing PC about it.

I suspect there is a high probability this thread may end up the same.

Draft? Possible? Yes. Probable? Not bloody likely!

Hkmp5sd
June 12, 2004, 07:03 PM
To save a little time, you can safely assume that nothing you read on the "From the Wilderness" website is true. The dude that runs the place appears to have never stopped popping LSD from his time at UCLA back in the early 70s.

Lone_Gunman
June 12, 2004, 07:19 PM
No I dont think so at this time.

Bush has proposed pulling out 1/3 of our troops from South Korea to re-deploy them in other areas. This will help out a lot.

Probably a bad idea in the long run to pull out of South Korea, but I think we are too short sighted to see that right now.

WT
June 12, 2004, 07:54 PM
No.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2004, 07:55 PM
SNBA, leaving the birds and the bees out of it, where do you think soldiers come from? Could it not be that the law sets a limit on the numbers in the armed services and also budgets the amount of money?

If there is a shortage of active duty people, could not Congress authorize more troops? And budget more money for salaries?

Do you believe that authorizing more men, and budgeting the money to pay for them would not be sufficient for our needs, would not bring enough volunteer enlistees?

Nobody knows whether or not we might someday need several million more troops in defense of the country. That's why we have the SSS on standby, with occasional updates for methodology of a Draft. It's what they do, whether or not there is an immediate need.

It's part of the "what ifs" of life, just like the Pentagon wargamers and their plans to invade every country in the world, with allies and enemies varying all over the place. I'd bet there are plans for a U.S./Russia alliance against some "threat", as well as a U.S./China alliance. When you consider improbables, there are fewer surprises.

Regardless, a Draft would be political suicide for any serious proponents...U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel is not a serious proponent; he's playing politics.

Art

Ian
June 12, 2004, 10:06 PM
I can't see a draft without a serious change in the geopolitical situation (thank goodness).

Hkmp5sd
June 12, 2004, 10:46 PM
What is amusing is the Pentagon is completely frustrated by this rumor that refuses to die. They state they have not considered, do not need and have no intention of asking for the draft to be reinstated.

RevDisk
June 12, 2004, 11:38 PM
Unlikely. Soldiers are expensive. For some odd reason, they expect food, clothing, shelter and usually pay. Adding a lot of hastily trained grunts would not be the best thing at the moment. We have enough supply issues at the moment.

Anyything is possible. The real question is how likely. The answer at the moment? Not very.

(Thanks to all you draftees out there. Volunteers made the choice, you guys were ordered. Can't imagine how hard that was...)

mrapathy2000
June 12, 2004, 11:54 PM
the democrats are the ones that are trying to get a new draft proposed in house and senated. in house it has few co-sponsors in senate it is alone last I looked.

Firethorn
June 13, 2004, 06:46 AM
All services are handily making their recruitment goals. Waits of up to a year are not uncommon for entering the military, unless you're willing to enter in an 'any open job' type enlistment. This is where you get to fill any openings coming from people with CJR's failing out of Basic. Most common jobs are the Cook(Services), and Security forces for the Air Force, though you can get lucky. The AF is currently having to cut back, we're letting people out early, letting people transfer to the reserves/guard, and in somecases seperating them early.

History shows that we could more than triple our current force levels (yahoo, promotions for everybody!) while still remaining a completely voluntary force. Lower standards a smidgen to let people like Kim du'Toit and Misha in, and you could probably remain volunteer with 10x the forces.

The draft is, and should remain, a last ditch measure that should only be implemented after all volunteers are taken. It's definatly not required right now.

CarlS
June 13, 2004, 07:58 AM
Art and Firethorn stated it well an accurately. I will add, that as a former recruiter, when manpower gets short, the recruiting standards are lowered. For example, the services might accept a percentage of GED's instead of requiring a high school diploma. Waivers of more minor physical problems, waivers for law infractions, etc can be stepped up. Right now, the Pentagon estimates that 25% of all males of enlistment age have been on Ridlin (spelling?). ADD is considered by the military as mental disorder. Thus, having once been prescribed Ridlin disqualifies an applicant. More of these applicants could be waivered. In short, there are more ways to increase the number of those eligible to enlist without a draft, raising pay, etc.

For the record, I think ADD is bogus. I firmly believe school teachers demand Ridlin to drug students who are bored in our sorry classrooms - but that's another topic.

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2004, 10:54 AM
Why did we need a draft in Viet Nam?

CarlS
June 13, 2004, 11:07 AM
Why did we need a draft in Viet Nam?
The draft was already in place had been in place since WWII and through Korea. It had never gone away.

fix
June 13, 2004, 11:16 AM
Hi Moby, welcome to THR. You'll find it's quite different from DU in that we don't tolerate useless drivel. :)

Edit: Withdrawal of Moby comment pending. Having reviewed other comments from poster, it appears that he may be sporting the tinfoil hat, rather than the red beret. :scrutiny:

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2004, 02:13 PM
Carl,

That didnt really answer the question. I realize it was still in place.

Why was it still in place?

If enough people had been volunteering, they would not have needed to draft.

Partisan Ranger
June 13, 2004, 02:24 PM
Leftist extremists pine for a draft, as it would be a delightful way to bludgeon the president.

I put its chances of being enacted at about 1,000,000 to 1.

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2004, 02:27 PM
No i think the chances are better than 1 in a million, though I don't think its likely.

But if we did end up going to war with the rest of the "axis of evil", I suspect it would happen.

Can we fight wars with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and N. Korea without a draft?


If enlistment rates are still high, and supposedly could be higher, then why do we have the stop-loss thing going?

Waitone
June 13, 2004, 02:40 PM
Once again the military (or intelligence or LE or ???) takes the hit for a decision made by congress.

Congress is the constitutional body that has continuously drawn down the troop authorizations. Congress tells the military how many ships, troops, etc. it can have. Congress can then appropriate the money to pay for the new humans under uniform if it wants to. Authorization and appropriations are two different acts.

If we are strapped for boots on the ground, and we are, then it is congresses responsibility to either cut back on our committments in coordination with the executive branch OR increase the personel count. In any case congress has it p******er in the soup. To ignore congress' responsiblity is to avoid the real nature of the situation.

This discussion sounds just like the 911 hearings. Everyone in the loop get swatter upside the haid except for congress. . . . . .the self-same idiots who created the legal and political atmosphere that gave us WTC II.

WT
June 13, 2004, 02:50 PM
Lone Gunman - the draft was used to supply ground troops to VN because of the deliberate decision by President Kennedy and President Johnson NOT to use National Guard and Reservists. It was a political decision, not a manpower decision.

Additionally Westmoreland limited tours in the field to 1 year for EM and 6 months for officers. Such short tours resulted in very high turnover of personnel.

Something like 7,000-9,000 NG troops served in VN between 1961-1973. Not very many compared to what we see in Iraq nowadays.

Also note, at that time we had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Europe. They could have been used in VN but LBJ chose not to do so.

It would be politically unwise for the President to call for a draft, especially when it is not needed.

Hkmp5sd
June 13, 2004, 04:21 PM
then why do we have the stop-loss thing going?
To keep trained military personnel available instead of replacing them with a warm body fresh out of bootcamp.

CarlS
June 13, 2004, 04:40 PM
Lone Gunman, WT and Hkmp5sd are correct. Up until the creation of the all volunteer force, the Army depended on the draft, along with voluntary enlistments, to fulfill it's manpower needs. Because of the draft, the other services needs were met with volunteers. Pay scales were changed and enlistment bonuses added to meet the needs of the volunteer force. Prior to the Viet Nam build up, the Army still relied on the draft to suppliment its needs.

Stop loss was in effect during the first Gulf War also. The stop loss extended to all Army units including National Guard and Reserve units whether mobilized or not. Because of the miserable Viet Nam experince with the rotation system, the Army uses Stop Loss to help retain unit integrity and keep experienced teams together.

Edited to correct a typo - Carl

Frohickey
June 13, 2004, 06:09 PM
Doubt it.
A few MOABs will do the trick. :evil:

Sungun09
June 14, 2004, 04:40 PM
As someone noted earlier is in fact a "defacto draft".

With all due respect, I had heard the same thing put forth on shortwave radio that a draft renewal is being put into place for '05 and that funding has been increased for the selective service system.

who knows ?

CarlS
June 14, 2004, 05:35 PM
The "stop loss" thing
As someone noted earlier is in fact a "defacto draft".

With all due respect, I had heard the same thing put forth on shortwave radio that a draft renewal is being put into place for '05 and that funding has been increased for the selective service system.

who knows ?
The Selective Service did not go away when the draft went away. Funds for it increase every year - salaries alone increase, computers are replaced, etc. The authorized manpower for the Selective Service has not been increased and the manpower levels are not funded at 100%. This funding has not been increased either.

The services do not want nor need the draft. They are no longer set up to handle draftees and all the problems that go with that. Selective Service is in place and has been in place so that it can be expanded and brought on line if needed. There is no move whatsoever by the pentagon to ask for a return to the draft. This is a rumor fostered by the left to cast fear that Bush wants a return of the draft. Please read my previous post in this thread on ways the services can and do solve manpower needs when shortages occur.

Do you not think that the news media would be shouting it to the roof tops if Bush were considering reinstating the draft?

Stop Loss is in no way a defacto draft. Stop Loss affects military members only. They are already in the service and would not be subject to a draft if there was one. The draft affects civilians. Stop loss prevents experienced, trained service members from getting out for a specified period of time. It only affects those who are at the end of their enlistments or are eligible to retire. It is nothing like the draft and has nothing to do with the draft. Stop Loss has been applied when we had a draft.

fix
June 14, 2004, 05:38 PM
This is a rumor fostered by the left to cast fear that Bush wants a return of the draft.

They are the ones proposing it. I submit that they are trying to spark more opposition to the war in Iraq, and thus President Bush, rather than fear of the draft directly. Clever strategy, but definitely underhanded.

CarlS
June 14, 2004, 05:46 PM
They are the ones proposing it. I submit that they are trying to spark more opposition to the war in Iraq, and thus President Bush, rather than fear of the draft directly. Clever strategy, but definitely underhanded.

You are correct, Sir. Still the rumors on the street say Bush wants the draft.

Hawkmoon
June 14, 2004, 07:21 PM
Stop Loss is in no way a defacto draft. Stop Loss affects military members only. They are already in the service and would not be subject to a draft if there was one. The draft affects civilians. Stop loss prevents experienced, trained service members from getting out for a specified period of time. It only affects those who are at the end of their enlistments or are eligible to retire. It is nothing like the draft and has nothing to do with the draft. Stop Loss has been applied when we had a draft.
The reason stop loss might be called a de facto draft is that it represents involuntary service.

If I graduate from college and get drafted, I serve because the gummint tells me to serve, not because I choose to.

If I enlisted for a 6 year term of service and at the end of that term I chose NOT to reenlist so I could go back to being a civilian, and then I get hit with stop loss, I am no longer serving voluntarily, I am serving because the gummint says I must serve.

I see no fundamental difference. And I wonder if recruiters explain to enlistees that they may be subject to stop loss when their term of service expires.

CarlS
June 14, 2004, 08:05 PM
I see no fundamental difference. And I wonder if recruiters explain to enlistees that they may be subject to stop loss when their term of service expires.
Good question; it was explained to me along with the fact that I could be recalled as long as I had an MSO after I had gotten out following my two year hitch.

The biggest difference is that someone in the service has already volunteered/enlisted and should know that the possibility of Stop Loss exists. It's part of the package. Stop Loss also apples to warrant and commissioned officers.

Thumper
June 14, 2004, 08:50 PM
How come we didn't hear all this BS about a de facto draft back when Stop Loss and Stop Movement held me up back in '90?

Election years bring out the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.

XLMiguel
June 14, 2004, 09:50 PM
New draft? Not likely.

I was, however, really put off by my otherwise self-actualizing/strong woman's 'rights' neices (aged 14 & 17) whining when the subject came up last night.:rolleyes:

SNBA
June 29, 2004, 06:42 PM
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1860

fix
June 29, 2004, 08:26 PM
You do realize that we called up IRR personnel during the initial phases of the Afghanistan invasion right? Or were you just trying to stir up more anti-Bush sentiment? :rolleyes:

CarlS
June 29, 2004, 08:48 PM
"Rare" depends on the author's definition of rare. Since I don't know how he defines "rare", I will use a different word.

The call up of the IRR is not unusual although it does not generally occur unless there is a national emergency. IRR callups were initiated during Afghanistan and the current Iraqi war. The IRR was called up in the Gulf War. Every soldier who has been discharged from active duty and has not completed his/her military obligation knows that this is a possibility.

During the Gulf War, I personally initiated the call up of 33 retirees – members of the Retired Reserve. Some Retired Reserve members are being called up now, mostly on a volunteer basis.

This is no big deal. It is part of expanding the military in time of crisis; it is the price we pay for having a minimal standing active duty force. What is your point?

Waitone
June 29, 2004, 09:40 PM
So how long will it be until the Pentagon and / or its civilian handlers 'fess up and say, "OK, we're strapped. Our obligations exceed our assets both human and materiel. We've cut back since the fall of the soviet union. The defense budget has been a honey pot for big spenders in congress. What with all that free money we tried to pay for our socialist paradise.

Well now we are stretched beyond our ability to complete our mission. We need more humans."

I don't think it will happen until after the next election. No one wants to pay for more bodies. So until then we'll let those left behind fill in for the government's lack of spending. We'll just let the mortgage company suck up the loss when the $70,000 IT guru plays soldier at 1/3 the salary. Hey, we all gotta make sacrifices right?"

13A
June 30, 2004, 01:04 AM
The reason we are short people in the Army is because they don't want to pay for them. Rumsfeld has said as much many times. He'd rather pay for all that "transformation" equipment and rebuilding Iraq.

The draft won't change that.

But, we'll see what happens after the "stop loss" period ends and soldiers vote with their feet. Some reservists are on their second combat tour.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 03:41 AM
Lone_Gunman

If enlistment rates are still high, and supposedly could be higher, then why do we have the stop-loss thing going?
Small Unit Cohesion, Continuity of Command, and specialized skill sets.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 03:44 AM
Sungun09
As someone noted earlier is in fact a "defacto draft".

With all due respect, I had heard the same thing put forth on shortwave radio that a draft renewal is being put into place for '05 and that funding has been increased for the selective service system.

who knows ?
How exactly do you Draft someone who is ALREADY IN THE MILITARY?

"who knows ?" Definitely NOT the cranks on shortwave.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 03:51 AM
Hawkmoon
The reason stop loss might be called a de facto draft is that it represents involuntary service.

If I graduate from college and get drafted, I serve because the gummint tells me to serve, not because I choose to.

If I enlisted for a 6 year term of service and at the end of that term I chose NOT to reenlist so I could go back to being a civilian, and then I get hit with stop loss, I am no longer serving voluntarily, I am serving because the gummint says I must serve.

I see no fundamental difference. And I wonder if recruiters explain to enlistees that they may be subject to stop loss when their term of service expires. The reason you see no fundamental difference is that your very premise is fundamentally flawed.

Being subject to a Stop Loss (and Inactive Ready Reserve - IRR) is part of the Contract terms when you VOLUNTARILY Enlist. That the servicemember didn't plan on it, doesn't want it, or any other subjective concerns has NOTHING to do with the pre-existing binding contractual agreement to Serve at the behest / convenience of the Pentagon, once entered into.

The Pentagon is acting wholly within the Contracts freely entered into by the servicemembers.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 03:54 AM
fix
You do realize that we called up IRR personnel during the initial phases of the Afghanistan invasion right? Or were you just trying to stir up more anti-Bush sentiment?
That's it exactly. SNBA is a Dem pot-stirrer here to do nothing BUT that. Completely dishonest intent.
And nevermind the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of WW2 vets that were recalled to serve in Korea.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 04:06 AM
Waitone

So how long will it be until the Pentagon and / or its civilian handlers 'fess up and say, "OK, we're strapped. Our obligations exceed our assets both human and materiel. We've cut back since the fall of the soviet union. The defense budget has been a honey pot for big spenders in congress. What with all that free money we tried to pay for our socialist paradise.

Well now we are stretched beyond our ability to complete our mission. We need more humans."

I don't think it will happen until after the next election. No one wants to pay for more bodies. So until then we'll let those left behind fill in for the government's lack of spending. We'll just let the mortgage company suck up the loss when the $70,000 IT guru plays soldier at 1/3 the salary. Hey, we all gotta make sacrifices right?"
You also could not be more wrong in your automatic distrust.

Pentagon manpower study after study, all of Rumsfelds reorganization plans from the very beginning - well before 9/11 - emphasized a major re-ordering of US forces, particularly the Army's heavy Divisions. The intent was to reorganize them in smaller more mixed units, similar to the Marine MEU / MAU units, more flexible, more readily depployable, more sustainable during such deployments. Those plans are still continuing. We have pulled 1/3 of the 70,000 unneeded troops from Germany - a garrison that was permanently reduced during GW1, and is once again being permanently reduced - units deploying from Germany to Iraq will rotate to CONUS when their tour is completed. Reduciton of the 40,000 man 'speed bump' in So Korea has been spoken of since BEFORE 9/11 as well, and we are shortly pulling ~1/3 of the troops from there, and further redeploying the remainder from their speed bump position between Seoul and the Norks massed cannons into a position in central So. Korea - to act as a defensive point for massive / rapid reinforcement AFTER Seoul is destroyed.

We have something like 1/5th of our total ground forces deployed in Iraq. The only 'overtaxing' going on is in the force restructuring and the last 15yrs overdependence on shunting infrequently needed specialized jobs to the Ready Reserve - THOSE are the poor bastards that were activated during GW1, they are again the poor bastards be stop-lossed and activated today.

Our 'obligations' certainly do NOT exceed our current means.

And spare me the whinge about soft vehicles and body armor. It's a HUGE Military, with large operations. Such a bureaucratic beast will screw things up, any time and any place you care to critique it. And yes, it costs lives. Tell it to Napolean.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 04:11 AM
13A
The reason we are short people in the Army is because they don't want to pay for them. Rumsfeld has said as much many times. He'd rather pay for all that "transformation" equipment and rebuilding Iraq.

The draft won't change that.

But, we'll see what happens after the "stop loss" period ends and soldiers vote with their feet. Some reservists are on their second combat tour.
We've ALREADY seen what happens. Units already through Iraq are experienced the HIGHEST RE-enlistment rates in decades.

And your point about Reservists bailing out is meaningless - who WOULDN'T bail out when they've built a civilian life and family and debt that cannot be sustained on much lower military pay and long seperations and risk of death. It is a chronic, organic problem of the ReservesREGARDLESS of Iraq, regardless of any overhyped 'overtaxed military'.

rayra
June 30, 2004, 04:19 AM
My father was a 26-yr Navy man, Enlisted, 'Mustang', and another 20yr+ career in the Defense Contracting field. He enlisted in ~1960, did two Destroyer tours off Vietnam.
I myself have 8yrs in the Marines & Reserves, overlapping GW1, and also a few years in Defense Contracting.

In other words, I've spent almost all of my ~40yrs soaking in the US Mil sphere. I'm most specifically NOT saying that makes me automatically right about these things, just saying 'I'm well informed and know what I'm talking about'.
Most importantly of all, everything I've said is factually accurate, and can readily be verified with intellectually-honest research.
It ISN'T 'feelings', 'agenda', or bias-driven (although some of it may be harshly delivered).

Hal
June 30, 2004, 07:14 AM
Will The U.s. Re-open The Draft?
Unlike everyone else, I believe the draft will be back. It's just a matter of when.
I see private business putting a lot of pressure on the .gov. Right now, I believe our troops are made up of reserve and national guard units. Keeping a position open for an indefinate period for an employee serving is an enormous task.

*sigh* I hate to think it, but snatching someone right out of school, prior to entering the private job sector does make a lot of sense.

wingman
June 30, 2004, 08:00 AM
Unlike everyone else, I believe the draft will be back. It's just a matter of when.

I agree Hal and many here will scream but at this time I believe it would
be a good thing for "all" to serve 2 years. Look out here comes the "it's
slavery" people.:o

Firethorn
June 30, 2004, 08:09 AM
Just because under the current conditions you're worse off doesn't mean that you didn't sign the contract. This includes people who enlisted active and are nearing their end of contract, as well as the guard/reserve forces who joined the military knowing they could be called up or held longer.

I was informed when I signed my enlistment of the terms, including the ready reserve, stop-loss, and other terms. There has always been an extension clause in place for 'times of conflict'.

The reasoning for all of this? It takes time to train soldiers. During a worst case scenario, the IRR and war time extension would be used to provide NCOs and trained troops, while the new trainees fill the bottom of the pyramid. I'm not as familiar for how it works with officers, but I imagine it's about the same.

That being said, I don't see the draft being implimented until and unless there is a dramatic need for soldiers that can't be filled with volunteers even with cash bonuses, reduced requirements.

Just imagine: How many people could you get to sign up given: reduced education needs (go to accepting GED's w/o waiver or even no HS diploma equivalent), eased physical requirements(age, weight, vision, hearing, certain other medical conditions), and a $20,000 signing bonus?

Military service is actually very selective right now, since we're easily meeting recruitment goals. There are estimates out there that we could easily meet 10x the current force levels and still stay 100% volunteer, simply by giving waivers out a little more, accepting more people.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 30, 2004, 09:34 AM
In the 1980s we supported an all-volunteer force that had 800,000 more men than our present active duty force does today. No draft necessary.

There isn't going to be any draft. The Pentagon doesn't want one and we are a long way from the point one would be necessary even if we did want to dramatically increase the size of our military.

CarlS
June 30, 2004, 12:30 PM
In the 1980s we supported an all-volunteer force that had 800,000 more men than our present active duty force does today. No draft necessary.

There isn't going to be any draft. The Pentagon doesn't want one and we are a long way from the point one would be necessary even if we did want to dramatically increase the size of our military.
Well stated. As I stated in an above post, the millitary does not want a draft, is not set up to handle a draft, and does not have the basic training manpower and facilities in place to train draftees.

As also stated in an above post, lowering enlistment standards alone could greatly increase the size of the military without additional bonuses. Congress sets the limits on military strength by how many service members they are willing to fund, not the Pentagon.

Frohickey
June 30, 2004, 01:36 PM
I think that transforming the Army into a smaller, more mobile force is not a good thing to do.

You have the Marines which are the smaller, mobile forces, to get in and get get the job done. They are like the welterweight prize fighter, who swoops in, outmanuevers the opponent and puts in a 1-2 punch and makes him touch the canvas. After that, the Marines job is done.

The Army should be the larger, permanent force. Its job is to get in, take over from the Marine that softened the target, or put it down, and the Army keeps it down. They are like the sumo wrestler or Godzilla, who goes in gets angry, lumbers along and squashes the opponent just as soon as the Marine makes him touch the canvas.

Alas, the Army that goes in like a bull in a china shop is gone. Too many pansies want a sensitive PC army. If we had a WW2-style Army, Fallujah would be smoking rubble, almost indistinguishable from Dresden. But a WW2-style Army requires a draft, or lots and lots of soldiers.

fix
June 30, 2004, 01:53 PM
The Army needs to move in the general direction of the MEUs, but not to the extent that they become a huge Marine Corps. The reality is that we have progressed into the 4th generation of warfare, and adjustments do need to be made based on the threat assessment. We just don't need to do anything irreversible. We might have a need for a WWII style Army in the future, but it is much more likely that we will need a more mobile contingency force for the next 10-20 years.

Cosmoline
June 30, 2004, 02:32 PM
Good thread. The draft would make as much sense today as massed infantry charges with fixed bayonets. It would only come into play if faced with another conflict on the scale of WWII.

A more interesting question is, was the draft already an outdated idea in Vietnam? I seems to me it was. By that point the military needed smart, well-trained soldiers able to deal with an array of complex political and military situations with minimal oversight. The draft gave them extremely young, totally inexperienced recruits. And of course the one year rotation meant many were lost just as they started to figure out which side was up. Moreover, it fueled the anti-war movement like nothing else. THAT is why the left craves another draft. A draft would generate millions of new anti-war supporters.

Walking Wounded
June 30, 2004, 02:38 PM
The professional military has served us well. But sometimes you simply need a lot of troops, not for industrial era warfare but for occupation. We need lots and lots of soldiers today not for fighting big battles against one big enemy but for fighting lots of small battles over a large area.

We can do it without the draft, it just means spending more money or reducing commitments elsewhere (Korea, Balkans).

Frohickey
June 30, 2004, 03:28 PM
The Army needs to move in the general direction of the MEUs, but not to the extent that they become a huge Marine Corps. The reality is that we have progressed into the 4th generation of warfare, and adjustments do need to be made based on the threat assessment. We just don't need to do anything irreversible. We might have a need for a WWII style Army in the future, but it is much more likely that we will need a more mobile contingency force for the next 10-20 years.

I think that we are going to need a WW2 style Army in the future. We are going to be facing several million screaming ChiComs, and you cannot do that with MEU style forces. The ChiComs have always used massed attacks against us. Thats what was done to us in Korea.

Cosmoline
June 30, 2004, 03:43 PM
Not sure about the ChiComs. The only time you see massed Chinese screaming is in line at Pier 1 Imports (a huge hit over there) or one of the many new car dealerships opening on the mainland.

fix
June 30, 2004, 04:02 PM
They have to get to us first. With our AF and Navy, that is unlikely. The only enemy that is likely to actually lauch an invasion on our mainland already has: Al Quaeda.

Brett Bellmore
June 30, 2004, 04:31 PM
And Mexico, but THAT invasion our leaders seem to want, even if the public opposes it.

Delmar
June 30, 2004, 04:31 PM
The ChiComs have always used massed attacks against us.

And they would do so at their peril. Not likely we are going to be invaded by China anytime soon. They don't have the Naval forces necessary to accomplish it. Every time the enemy has massed on open ground in the last 30 years, the US military stomped a mudhole in their chest and walked it dry.

mrapathy2000
June 30, 2004, 04:54 PM
china is working on a naval fleet.

so far they have nuclear submarines with missle launch capabilities. working on getting carriers and all sorts of vessels.

china is the worlds number one importer of weapons and technology. they are getting anything they can even if some would consider it theft of Intellectual Property.

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewsdownload&sid=17

feal free to read a book written in china and translated to english. its called Unrestricted Warfare. pdf format. while I doubt china would all out assault the US they are working on NBC delivery to worldwide targets.

some day they may take taiwan back and korea and japan. who knows maybe some other countries.

http://www.uscc.gov/ US china economic and security review commission

http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/annualreport.htm

it wouldnt take china to defeat the United States. history is full of countries with large armies falling to small armies.

moa
June 30, 2004, 04:58 PM
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said emphatically over and over that he is not in favor of the draft. Actually, one statement was rather insulting in that he suggested that draftees made poor troops.

Do not understand that. Draftees got the same training as Regulars and National Guard when I was drafted in 1966. I think when someone is trying to kill you, it makes no difference if you are RA, US or NG, you have the same compulsion to resist.

I remember my NCOIC ask me one day why the draftees in his unit where better troops than the 3 and 4 year Regulars. I replied that as far as I was concerned, I was in the Army for only 2 years, so might as well make the best of it. He was satisfied with the answer.

Hkmp5sd
June 30, 2004, 05:27 PM
Being subject to a Stop Loss (and Inactive Ready Reserve - IRR) is part of the Contract terms when you VOLUNTARILY Enlist. That the servicemember didn't plan on it, doesn't want it, or any other subjective concerns has NOTHING to do with the pre-existing binding contractual agreement to Serve at the behest / convenience of the Pentagon, once entered into.

Not to mention, it is hard to feel sorry for someone that volunteered for military service and signed a contract stating their responsibilities when the GIs drafted in WWII fought for the duration of the war. Many of these same GIs left the service in 1945 only to be recalled to active duty and shipped to the Korean War.

moa
June 30, 2004, 06:09 PM
Some of my uncles joined the Maryland National Guard, 29th Infantry Division in 1940. Were on activity duty for the duration of WWII. They were mustered out in 1946.

The 29th fought in the European theatre and had 211% casualties in 11 months of combat. The 29th's casualty rate was only exceeded by the 4th Infantry Division which had a 240% rate.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will The U.s. Re-open The Draft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!