The "back door draft"

Status
Not open for further replies.
that story is from Fort Carson.

Some 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment soldiers claim they were told that if they didn't re-enlist in 3d ACR, then they would be transferred to a brigade on post that was slated to deploy to Iraq.

Fort Carson's story is "3ACR non-re-enlistees would have to go somewhere else on post other than 3ACR, and the only place they could go is that deploying brigade, meaning they would be stop-lossed and instead of getting out in 2 months they would deploy for a year, but hey, that's not THREATENING them..." :rolleyes:
 
And why would 3rd ACR non-reenlistees have to go somewhere else on post? This makes zero sense. I was stationed stateside for a full year before being sent to Vietnam. We had plenty of guys who didn't want to reenlist, and they just stuck with us and did their jobs until the day they were done. Then they went home. No big deal.

That's what I hated about the Army. They have so many ways to screw the troops. When the recruiting NCO came to see me about re-upping I told him I'd do it if he'd arrange a commission as a full bird Colonel. He said he didn't think he could do that (duh!), so I said I didn't think I could re-up.

We had that discussion about ten times before he stopped asking. I think he thought I was joking ...
 
I briefly heard some story on the morning on TV ABC network news that the military is threatening troops with being sent to Iraq if they do not re-enlist.

Anybody know anything about that? I do not trust anything ABC says.
Click to expand...

It's not Army wide policy. What certain commanders and/or retention NCO's are saying and doing is another story. I've heard stories of it happening, but don't know anyone personally that it's happened to.


I do know of another legal but unwise scam that is going on. People are getting out of the Guard, and getting called up to active duty with the Active Army. Usually the active Army units give these former Guardsmen the crap details or work them like pack mules, because they're considered not part of the team by the units they are attached.

That's scary. I don't think non-military people would get the exact implications, but going into combat with people you don't know would be deeply unnerving. The entire point of sending entire units at a time is teamwork, and people watching each other's back. Having no buddies when the bullets are flying is rather unhealthy.

It's legal, but it's not a good idea. Calling up former Guardsman, tossing them in with Active Army units, treating them poorly, and leaving them out to dry is a sure way to lose credibility. What do you think those Guardsman are going to tell every young kid thinking of enlisting? One could shrug off morale issues, and say "Suck it up and drive on", but it will be costly in the end.

Just my opinion.


That in and of itself is the problem. Our government can declare a national emergency, they just don't have to tell anyone about it.
Click to expand...

They can do so, but such a national emergency wouldn't count. The courts shouldn't let the government get away with War Power Act actions without an official declaration of war and/or national emergency. The military can't act in certain manners without said declarations, and unit commanders usually don't sign any paperwork that might damage their career. Ironically, fear of damaging one's career keeps the military chain of command very honest usually.

I'm trying to think of the last officially declared war. Anyone know offhand?
 
Wasn't it actually WW2?

Korea wasn't a "war." Vietnam wasn't a "war." Greneda and Panama weren't "wars."

Was there a declaration before (or during) Gulf War numero uno?
 
They weren't wars? What were they, film festivals?

If Congress repeatedly votes to fund a war, then doesn't it stand to reason that they support the war?

Or are you insisting that a vote be taken: WAR; vote yes or no?

John
 
They weren't wars? What were they, film festivals?

If Congress repeatedly votes to fund a war, then doesn't it stand to reason that they support the war?

Or are you insisting that a vote be taken: WAR; vote yes or no?
Click to expand...

They were considered "police actions", "interventions" or half a dozen other terms.

Officially, only Congress can declare war. So, yes, I am insisting that vote be taken.
 
And "conscientious objectors" should be discharged and forced to pay back any and all benefits.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You teach them to be medics and then send them to attend the wounded on the front lines, maybe armed with a pistol.

A little history, the Seventh Day Adventist, conscientious objectors all, used to, and maybe still do, had training facilities to train their members to be medics and they would then join the military. They served their country but did not do battle. I salute them.
 
They weren't wars? What were they, film festivals?

If Congress repeatedly votes to fund a war, then doesn't it stand to reason that they support the war?

Or are you insisting that a vote be taken: WAR; vote yes or no?
Click to expand...
No, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, DESERT STORM, Kosovo, OEF, and OIF were/are not wars. I thought everyone around here loved the Constitution? You all might want to read up on Article I Section 8 which states only Congress can declare war, and then read 50USC1541 (War Powers Resolution) which clearly differentiates between statutory authority from Congress to use the military in combat operations and a declaration of war. Congress has not declared war since we entered WWII. Anyone that loves this country and Constitution should recognize that reality.
 
For some reason, every time I hear the phrase "back door draft," an image pops in my head of someone wearing long-johns with the trap door open.
 
I disagree. You teach them to be medics and then send them to attend the wounded on the front lines, maybe armed with a pistol.
Click to expand...

Desertdog, do you really want conscientious objectors on the front lines with people relying on them in any capacity?

How dedicated to saving lives do you think they will be when the bullets start flying?
 
Desertdog, do you really want conscientious objectors on the front lines with people relying on them in any capacity?

How dedicated to saving lives do you think they will be when the bullets start flying?
Click to expand...

In one word: "Very."

There were a lot of C.O. medics when I was in Vietnam, and they were very dedicated to saving lives. In fact, that was the whole point of their status -- they didn't believe in killing. They were not cowards, they were principled men who took the teachings of their religion, and the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," very literally and very seriously.

And they would not carry even a handgun. Their status as C.O.s forbid it, and no commander could (lawfully) order them to carry a weapon, or to pick up a weapon and use it against the enemy.

The genuine C.O.s were true heroes in Vietnam. I served with an M-16 and I came home with a couple of ARCOMs to hang on the wall. Big deal. In my heart I didn't believe we should be in Vietnam, but I didn't have the courage to stand up and refuse to be inducted. I was the coward. The C.O.s were far braver than I. They remained true to their conscience, and they were sent in harm's way WITHOUT any weapons.

If you have a problem with that, there's something seriously wrong with your outlook.
 
There were a lot of C.O. medics when I was in Vietnam, and they were very dedicated to saving lives. In fact, that was the whole point of their status -- they didn't believe in killing. They were not cowards, they were principled men who took the teachings of their religion, and the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," very literally and very seriously.
Click to expand...

I think SOME conscientious objectors, such as the ones you've described above, would make good medics. But do you want the city kid who joined to Guard to pay for his college degree and now has suddenly developed moral scruples about war conscientious objector to be responsible for coming out under fire to patch you up? I sure don't. I think that is what Lone_Gunman's point is...
 
I think SOME conscientious objectors, such as the ones you've described above, would make good medics. But do you want the city kid who joined to Guard to pay for his college degree and now has suddenly developed moral scruples about war conscientious objector to be responsible for coming out under fire to patch you up? I sure don't. I think that is what Lone_Gunman's point is...
Click to expand...

Here's a clue. Not everyone is John Wayne, even the ones that volunteer for combat. Until the bullets start flying, you never really know how people will react. No one truly knows how they themselves will act until they start getting shot at. My general rule of thumb is to stay away from the macho "guts 'n glory" folks, they tend to be bullet magnets.


Still, I give the most credit to those C.O.'s who entered combat refusing to carry a weapon. A coward would take the rifle even though his religion was completely against it. I certainly would, even if it was against my religious beliefs.

Some people just aren't wired in the head to kill people. Whether they want to or not, they just can't. I don't blame them for it. Don't really understand them, but I really don't blame them.
 
There's much more to Article 1 Section 8 than the ability to declare war. For instance, powers are also granted for military actions other than a declaration of all-out war. You can't pick and choose the parts that appear to support your argument, you have to read the entire thing. The following are copied in the order in which they occur. John

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
 
I was referring to people who were abusing "conscientous objector" status to avoid combat duty.

At about the start of Gulf War II, there was an active duty person who suddenly declared himself a "Conscientous Objector". If he was a conscientous objector why did he ever join the military in the first place?

This is the kind of person I was refering to.
 
I was referring to people who were abusing "conscientous objector" status to avoid combat duty.

One could make the same argument against some people who seek out combat arms MOS's.
Are they all a bunch of trigger-happy-action-star-wannabes?
Nope. More than likely there are some people like that in uniform, but I would bet that most volunteer for combat arms MOS's for a variety of better reasons.
 
There's much more to Article 1 Section 8 than the ability to declare war. For instance, powers are also granted for military actions other than a declaration of all-out war. You can't pick and choose the parts that appear to support your argument, you have to read the entire thing. The following are copied in the order in which they occur. John

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
Click to expand...
You're digressing to irrelevancies. I'm not picking and choosing just what I like in my reference to Article I Section 8, I'm pointing that the pertinent text is in that Article which defines the powers of Congress. Sure there is a lot to Article I Section 8, but the pertinent part for this discussion is the sole power of Congress to declare war. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, and therefore combat actions after WWII are not wars. No other authority in our government has the power to do declare war. Once again, statutory authorization to engage in military operations IS NOT a declaration of war, and Congress made that quite clear in 50USC1541.
 
At about the start of Gulf War II, there was an active duty person who suddenly declared himself a "Conscientous Objector". If he was a conscientous objector why did he ever join the military in the first place?
Click to expand...

One of two reasons, most likely. Either he was a coward, or he did not believe that the second Gulf War was a righteous war. Since he was willing to serve his country, I'd lean more towards the second choice until I hear proof that it was the first choice.
 
At about the start of Gulf War II, there was an active duty person who suddenly declared himself a "Conscientous Objector". If he was a conscientous objector why did he ever join the military in the first place?
Click to expand...

One of two reasons, most likely. Either he was a coward, or he did not believe that the second Gulf War was a righteous war. Since he was willing to serve his country, I'd lean more towards the second choice until I hear proof that it was the first choice.
Click to expand...

He wasn't "willing to serve his country". He joined for the benefits. When you join, you take an oath. That oath doen't include how righteous you feel something is.
 
I am not saying it applies in this case, but "compelling Government interest" can be legitimate.
 
a bit of a side bar

to touch on teh side bar of CO as medics...

I have to disagree with Lone Gunman's first post, and Phantom Warrior.

The bottom line with the medic you guys are talking about is that he is willing to put his life on the line with no means to defend himself, walk into a life threatening situation to try and save your backside. I hope no one here or no one we know will need their services, but when you do, I don't think you're going to turn him down because his reasons for enlisting don't meet your higher standards. He's going where you went without the advantages you had to get there, and he's doing it to get you or your friend help when you can't do it yourself.

I don't care if someone changes to CO an hour before you need him. If he's still willing to go where he has to to meet the need, then that's all that counts.
 
I don't care if someone changes to CO an hour before you need him. If he's still willing to go where he has to to meet the need, then that's all that counts.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle. The case being referred to here, I believe, is the one of the sergeant (who had clearly been in long enough to rise to the rank of sergeant, which doesn't happen overnight even in today's Army) who went home on a 10-day leave, then went AWOL and disappeared for something like 5 months. When caught, his defense was that he had become a CO.

This individual did not follow any accepted protocol for filing to change his status to CO. Rather than going to his commanding officer and/or chaplain, and volunteering to be reassigned into a non-combat MOS, he voted with his feet. IMHO this individual was not a CO but a coward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
US gearing up for draft Could it be true?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
M
  • Locked
U.N. draft: Acts 'amounting to torture' at Guantanamo
Replies
11
Views
579
Headless Thompson Gunner
H
W
  • Locked
(sigh) more on Kerry
Replies
9
Views
666
jefnvk
J
S
  • Locked
Kerry's Navy Discharge (Was it a DD?)
Replies
6
Views
616
Rebar
R
S
  • Locked
Constitutional protections? BWAHAHAHAHA!
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
ArmedBear
A
Back
Top