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

[CarlS]

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]

I dunno...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And Mexico, but THAT invasion our leaders seem to want, even if the public opposes it.

 

[Delmar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.