When Called: Conscription

[#shooter]

I think there should be mandatory two year full-time or four year part-time military service at eighteen years of age for everyone (with medical and mental exceptions). Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.

1.By making military service a requirement it would be less likely the military would be abused because there are more stakeholders.

2.If military action is needed then there is a ready supply of troops.

3.Overtime the population would be familiar with military equipment and tactics thus making the general population better prepared for an invasion.

4.Likewise if there is a coup d'état the population would be prepared to resist.

I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Of historical relevance (part 1)

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court martial before whom the same shall be assessed, to the marshal of the district, in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies; and also the supervisor of the revenue of the same district, who shall record the said certificate in a book to be kept for that purpose. The said marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent, which costs and manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the state, in which the same shall be, in other cases of distress; and where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the marshal of the district or his deputy may commit such delinquent to gaol, during the term, for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States, may be committed.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the supervisor of the revenue, in the district in which they are collected, within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum, as a compensation for their trouble; and in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any court of the United States, of the district, in which such fines shall be levied, having cognizance therefor, to be sued for, prosecuted and recovered, in the name of the supervisor of the district, with interest and costs.

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several districts and deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs, and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.

APPROVED, May 2, 1792.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Thin Black Line]

(part 2)

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lots, to be drawn by them before the Commanding officers of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company or detachment.

IX. And be it further enacted That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense.

X. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.

And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.

XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias.

[Act of February 28, 1795, made small revisions in Sections 2, 4, 5, and 10 of Act of May 2, 1792. The 1795 act was the authority for ruling in Houston v. Moore, 1820. Other revisions were enacted April 18, 1814]

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, [omitted in 1795: "who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war"]: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: [words added in 1795:] and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

Sec. 10. [revised to read:] And be it further enacted, That the act, intitled "Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.

APPROVED, February 28, 1795.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Glockfan.45]

I wont read all 5+ pages of this, I dont need to. I am 100% against the draft, or any other form of consciption. No man should be asked to die for what he does not believe in. Would I join up to fight a war in Asia over a test bomb? NO. Would I join up to fight a unjustified war in the Middle East over a supposed bomb? No. Sorry to anyone who did but this is the way I feel. Would I join up if China were invading? You bet. Some things are worth dying for, others are not. What I think is worth the cost of my life someone else may not, and should never be forced to give it for a cause not held true in their heart.

I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.
__________________

Preserve freedom from what? Korea was a threat to our freedom? Vietnam was a threat to our freedom? Iraq was a threat to our freedom? I dont trust my life or the lives of my loved ones to the governments ability to decide when war is needed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You and I have gone around on this point before. I will maintain that the Spirit of the Consitution on this matter was such that we were not to maintain far-flung garrisons on a continuous basis throughtout the world and promote it through a never-ending series of Executive Orders.

OK, I didn't realize you were arguing that the current situation violated the spirit intended by the Founders. That is a different argument from implying that a specific part of the Constitution (appropriations for army) is being ignored.

You have been open and honest about your position about America's place in global politics and your support of a certain strain of globalism as a result.

Well, I have certainly tried to explain my position; but it is quite obvious you still don't understand. Think of it this way - do you blame the weatherman when he tells you it is going to rain? Do you believe that the weatherman wishes for more rain every time he forecasts it?

Your distaste for globalism is irrelevant; because the overwhelming majority of Americans want a lifestyle that cannot exist without globalism. They might not think of it like that - they probably think of it as things like easy communication, cheap consumer electronics, inexpensive gasoline, low-priced heating oil, etc. As long as the voting majority wants a lifestyle that is dependent on globalism, you'll get more globalism.

So, you can stand there and shake your fist at the sky and get wet or you can start putting up a tent. Your choice.

 

[roo_ster]

Those who advocate the draft come in two primary groups. First are the Democrats and closet Socialists who want to use the threat of a draft against the administration for political reasons. The next are older men who think the draft is a good way to "toughen up" the slack-jawed youth of today.

Not quite. I wrote down in what conditions and why I would support a draft in an earlier post. Your two reasons ain't it.

Not to pick on you in particular Cosmo, but such an attitude is what perenially leaves us unprepard for the next war

But what possible set of circumstances would lead us to draft ten million men, form them into tight lines, and march them at the enemy with officers at the ready to shoot any shirkers? It's well and good to say "we don't know what the future will bring." But I think we can rule out flying monkeys, Swiss pikemen and Napoleonic style battles.

We went to war with an hegemonic, expansionist, ~facsist, xenophobic asian power over 60 years ago. Despite not being on the mainland of the asian continent, that effort put a premium on infantry. They had to be dug out and killed toe-to-toe, despite our material superiority.

Can you think of any such rising asian power that is xenophobic, rapidly re-arming, industrializing, and sucking up western technology like a crack whore on a crack pipe? When that power decides to implement a 21st-Century "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" and conquers or intimidates our allies (many of which are liberal democracies, nowadays), what will we do? We did not have enough volunteers in WWII to do the job in either Europe or the Pacific, despite that being a "good" war (in rose-shaded, 20/20 retrospect). We will need to draft even the shirkers and make men of them. It can be done and has been done.

No, that is not the dreaded flying, pike-wielding, Corsican monkey menace. But it will require conscription to deal with.

 

[Zrex]

I don’t see how anyone can claim they are for freedom when they are not willing to serve to preserve it.

Thats a pretty oxymoronic statement. Thats like saying "Prove you are a virgin by having sex with me."


Also, don't you think that the "serve the good of the country" is a rather collectivist sentiment? Maybe you would hate it more if it were "for the children"?

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

When the Chinese hoard(or who ever else) comes rolling up our shores you can count on my rifle being behind one of those blades of grass---but until then-- my old-diabetic-arse is staying home.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.

In a perfect world this would be ideal. Unfortunately, we are not and the
way I have personally seen this played out is that aspiring politicos who
have taken the military route to pad their resume for a future office run
are either kept in safe places like CONUS or packed like fragile eggs in a
deep comfortable bunker in the warzone. These ppl have never been on a
ground convoy let alone actually in condition red for any reason.

COL Hackworth (RIP ) often noted the games of the "perfumed princes"
during their military "service." We have a crop of ppl who are in or recently
held public office from the Vietnam era who did what they could to
manipulate their actual military service. I don't see this changing.

The days of Yalies flying planes like they did in WWII are over. This is what
happens when a Republic goes into cardiac arrest. Everyone either
ponies up to their responsibilities for real just causes of defending this nation
rather than advancing personal/family profit or we're going to see a flatline
soon.

 

[roo_ster]

I would note, again, that libertarianism is at odds with the COTUS and (small-"r") republican government. Many replies here prove that out. Truly, such folks who write such as, "I wouldn't care if the Constitution specifically allowed the government to conscript soldiers, I would still do everything in my power to escape its grasp," do not expect to uphold their end of the bargain and ought to be run out of polite American society.

Uh what bargain did I make with society?...

...Why does the weight of the bargain fall solely on men in a certain age group with no means to get out of it? Society has no expectations of women or older people? Sound pretty prejudiced to me.

Did you vote in any election? Did you agree to abide by the results even if your representative did not win? Did you decide NOT to murder the winner if he was not to your taste? Have you exercised the liberty that was paid for with the blood of patriots?

Yes? Then you have, like most of us, enjoyed the blessings of liberty. If folks aren't willing to help preserve them, they have no claim to be looked upon as anything other than free-riders.

Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men. In extremity, we may have to draft a Codger Squadron, but if we still have young men about, they are preferred.

 

[Thin Black Line]

When the Chinese hoard(or who ever else) comes rolling up our shores you can count on my rifle being behind one of those blades of grass---but until then-- my old-diabetic-arse is staying home.

Welcome to the State Militia in a Total War in CONUS scenario. In the sticks
where I live, any invader would be advised not to ever underestimate the old
guys with the shotguns --a signficant portion are Vietnam vets and they're
now being replaced by OIF/OEF vets

At least our global forays have had that as an indirect benefit. However, it
is that very experience as veterans that a gov't is most afraid of when
it leans toward tyranny. I remember statements from one of the legislators
regarding an AWB (years back --can't remember if it was Federal level or in
CA, but it was pre-94) to the effect that removing AWs would be good for
public safety "because there's vietnam vets who know how to use them"!

The State giveth and taketh away from its population, but weapons are still
the tools of the State's armed forces be they volunteers or obedient
conscripts.

 

[roo_ster]

Markets Are Not Omnipotent

Ya know, there really is a free market solution to this. If you can't attract enough volunteers, raise pay and benefits to get what you need. It works for private business, why not the military?

Or are all the pro-draft people also anti-free market?

Well, that has worked pretty well since 9-11. It may fall apart, however, in an extended, large-scale conflict...as markets tend to do.

WWII is an example of the market not being sufficient to the task. The gov't was coming out of a depression and had limited funds. It deficit spent hand over fist during the conflict to pay for war materiel. It sold bonds to US citizens to cover the deficit. Paying more to conscripted servicemen would mean more bonds issued...which would be repayed by those servicemen after the war in the way of taxes.

I am doubtful any amount of money would have gotten the requite numbers of men to win the war. You'd end up with worthless bonds & dollars at the end of it all, too, as the bonds were issued and dollars printed to cover both material and "market rates" for volunteers.

Also, complex markets beyond the level of a farmers' markets & black markets require stable conditions and rational laws to exist, for the most part. War is pretty much the opposite of that.

 

[STAGE 2]

The purpose of the constitution is not to make a list of what the government cannot do, but to make a list of what they *CAN* do. If the constitution does not specifically allow the federal government to perform an action then it is not allowed to do so, it is left to "the people" and to the states.

Which isn't any different that what I said. The government has the government has the authority to raise and maintain an army and has all the powers necessary and proper to carry this out. Since you apparently know something that I and every other jurist in the country that has ruled on this issue dont, please explain to me how a nation is going to raise an army if they cant conscript troops. Asking pretty please

AKs and ARs and bullets are ARMS. The right for the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed seems like a pretty clear statement.

About as clear as the power to raise and maintain an army. As far as I see it, the constitution only grants the power to own muskets since it doesn't say anything about semi auto rifles.

The first ammendment clearly prohibits any restriction of free speech or the press, television and the internet are methods of speech.

Again, says who. Speech is standing on a corner talking. The internet isn't the press and it isn't a person standing on a corner talking. See how ridiculous this is beginning to sound.

The entire basis of your arguments here is that the forefathers didnt think of everything because computers and AK-47s didnt exist when it was written, this argument is deeply flawed in two important ways.

1) Conscription *did* exist when the constitution was written.

Yup and while they addressed the quartering of soldiers you don't think its funny that they didn't bother to address conscription while at the same time giving congress the power to raise an army.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy into that.

Like I said. Argue all you want, but everyone that has ever faced this question in a legal situation, most smarter than both you and I, all agree that the constitution allows conscription.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men.

I agree with that. I wish more young men would enlist, but instead we
have mothers and grandparents serving in the warzone. I have nothing
against them and was proud to serve with them, but quite frankly our
soldiers need to be young (and preferably unmarried) men. The psychosocial
factors for this I won't get into here, but at a base level it's physical strength
and endurance. Yeah, that's not PC. So what. War is about survival and
the young are usually the strongest and fastest and that's who's
going to SURVIVE. I'm not saying grandpa can't be ruthless, but when I
have a MAJ complaining about needing closer placement to the portajohn
because he hasn't had a BM in four days due to his age and "all this
traveling", let's get real.

I look back at my own grandpa, who in his early 20s, stood in a line around
the block and volunteered for WWII. He ended up getting his 4 battle stars
and getting enough points for an early out. I am still amazed with that
golden generation.

So the big question then becomes: Why do America's young men today shun
military service? Easy. They don't see any of their own benefitting
from it. Our society, our media, our political establishment are not promoting
the young heroes from this generation. No one is brought forward to INSPIRE
them.

I know we have some Audie Murphy's out there. I've met young people who
have done incredible things in Iraq. Some were also in the 3ID. Other than a
short spot on Lou Dobbs show, you just don't see or hear about them.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

One thing being overlooked is those that both do not volunteer for the military and do not end up getting drafted. If the population of this country reaches the point where insufficient numbers are willing to defend it, then the country no longer deserves to exist. Do you really have the right to force another person, at threat of imprisonment or execution, to be inducted into the military and fight to defend the nation, when you yourself refuse to do so?

 

[Tommygunn]

Quote:
AKs and ARs and bullets are ARMS. The right for the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed seems like a pretty clear statement.

About as clear as the power to raise and maintain an army. As far as I see it, the constitution only grants the power to own muskets since it doesn't say anything about semi auto rifles.

Quote:
The first ammendment clearly prohibits any restriction of free speech or the press, television and the internet are methods of speech.

Again, says who. Speech is standing on a corner talking. The internet isn't the press and it isn't a person standing on a corner talking. See how ridiculous this is beginning to sound.

The constitution doesn't say anything about muskets, either. It says "keep and bear arms." A musket is an arm, as is a Winchester lever rifle, as is an Ar-15, even an M-16.
Speech is the free uncensored expression of idea. And where does it say you have to be "standing in a corner talking?"

Yes, this is becoming ridiculous. And I don't think it's reached it's nadir, either.

 

[brerrabbit]

JFRuser

Did you vote in any election? Did you agree to abide by the results even if your representative did not win? Did you decide NOT to murder the winner if he was not to your taste? Have you exercised the liberty that was paid for with the blood of patriots?

How is not murdering some an exercise in freedom? The patriots part gets me. Many of the patriots whose blood was shed would not have been there willingly.

Yes? Then you have, like most of us, enjoyed the blessings of liberty. If folks aren't willing to help preserve them, they have no claim to be looked upon as anything other than free-riders.

Considering the overwhelming majority of Americans are as the freeloaders you describe you do not make a good argument. This is not about volentary service, but about conscription. Conscription is anathema to freedom.

Your second question is pretty easy: young men make better warriors than women or older men. In extremity, we may have to draft a Codger Squadron, but if we still have young men about, they are preferred.

Then I would have to say that athletic young black men must make much better soldiers than young white men based on white muscle tissue/red tissue percentages? Why do we then not make up our draft solely on the back of the blacks? Because it would be considered very racist.

If all members of society share these freedoms, and those not willing to serve are freeloaders, by your own arguements, We must effectively conscript every breathing person in the US fight a war. Anyone who does not fight is a freeloader.

Now we talk about the freeloaders, most of the people drafted in the last few conflicts were on average 19 years old. What obligation to society did they incur? In most states and by federal law they where not even full adults. They did not even have the full freedoms we prize and yet you deem they had an obligation to serve for it? A 50 year old man has likely incurred a debt to society, moreso a fifty year old woman, but you are saying we must lay the debt on kids?

The primary reason I understand drafting young men, because if you tell them to do something stupid like taking yon hill with the embedded machine guns and mortars, more than likely they will try to do it. They havent learned enough to say "@#$ you sir".

Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.

 

[roo_ster]

Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.

The argument for/against conscription in time of peril is not dependent upon if I wear BDUs or business casual.

The insistence on such criteria, "Men can't comment on abortion," "Unless you wore a uniform you'd best pipe down on military issues," and the like is an unworthy debating tactic used to shut down the opponent. I try not to use such as I'd rather debate the merits.

How is not murdering some an exercise in freedom?

They were all examples of how folks accept the bargain/deal/whatever that comes with representative government. If the opponent wins, I don't stage a coup. If I win, the opponent doesn't try to shoot me down in the street. Yeah, it sounds basic, but is darn rare in human history to be able to transfer power without bloodshed. Needless to say (write?), it is taken for granted here in America.

Then I would have to say that athletic young black men must make much better soldiers than young white men based on white muscle tissue/red tissue percentages? Why do we then not make up our draft solely on the back of the blacks? Because it would be considered very racist.

No, first and foremost, it is absurd. The red/white muscle fiber ratio changes as one travels from west to east across sub-Saharan Africa. In the west, more white fiber & more/better sprinters. In the east, more red fiber & more/better distance runners.

The transatlantic slave trade brought mostly west Africans to the states. But, even if we were to place white muscle fiber on a pedestal as the be-all & end-all of warriordom, our black population is only partly African. In places where folks really care about such things (S Africa, etc) , American blacks would be classifed as "colored," not black because of the large white, indian, and other influences...not "black." No telling how those other strians would effect the overall red/white ratio.

Anyway, red/white muscle fiber ratios are not why young men make better warriors. One of the main reasons is that they don't break nearly as much as women of any age or older men.

Considering the overwhelming majority of Americans are as the freeloaders you describe you do not make a good argument. This is not about volentary service, but about conscription. Conscription is anathema to freedom.

So what? We have no need for a draft at the moment. If the Chicoms cast their eyes on Taiwann, Japan, & S Korea, the circumstances likely will. Then, salty NCOs will do what they have done for millenia: make warriors out of young men.

Conscription may be the only thing that will preserve freedom, in case of national crisis. Or do you think the USA would be free-er today if we had not resorted to conscription in WW2 and let the Japanese maintain hegemony of east Asia and allowed Germany to control Europe from the English Channel to the Urals? With the UK comeing to a separate peace and the US unable to hold on to Midway & likely Hawaii? I'm thinking that the world and the USA would be poorer and much less free.

 

[brerrabbit]

The argument for/against conscription in time of peril is not dependent upon if I wear BDUs or business casual.

The insistence on such criteria, "Men can't comment on abortion," "Unless you wore a uniform you'd best pipe down on military issues," and the like is an unworthy debating tactic used to shut down the opponent. I try not to use such as I'd rather debate the merits.

Only a woman can have a baby, so mens beliefs in birth control do not carry the same weight as theirs. Pretty much anyone can sign up in the military short of handicaps that they cannot hide or mental illness.

But at a fundamental level, very fundamental, vets see it quite often, non vets arguing military matters. The primary reason I asked was whether or not I consider you worth my time. If you are a non-vet, arguing for the draft, as a vet,I really do not consider your opinion relevent.

If you are a vet, I might actually ponder what you say a bit.


Your basic argument for the whole thread is that the draft is constitutional and is based in the constitution. Your argument state that it is constitutional based on the ability to raise an army. Yet the weight of the service is often mandatory, but curiously is not mentioned in the constitution. I feel that the founding fathers when drafting the constitution would have mentioned in the document the ability of the government to make people forcibly serve their country.

It would be much like rounding up people at gunpoint to vote or putting them in jail for failing to vote. The constitution mentions voting for offices, but does not mention forcing them to vote under pain of law.

You state that there is an obligation to fight otherwise you are a freeloader, but again, the weight of fighting falls on a small percentage of the population while the rest are not considered freeloaders.

As far as WWII induction, there were quite enough people volunteering to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor. Germany never attacked us, and in all likelihood would have fallen to the USSR eventually. In all likelihood, the only difference if we had never fought WWII against the germans would have been the face of western europe, and quite likely a faster defeat of the nips.

 

[Zrex]

Originally Posted by brerrabbit
Just by your gung ho retoric, you sure better be in a military uniform, or at least have worn one in the past.

While jfruser and I are polar opposites on this issue, his opinion is valid regardless of his prior military status. That said, I believe jfruser wore a Black Beret back when it meant something.

 

[Cosmoline]

Can you think of any such rising asian power that is xenophobic, rapidly re-arming, industrializing, and sucking up western technology like a crack whore on a crack pipe? When that power decides to implement a 21st-Century "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" and conquers or intimidates our allies (many of which are liberal democracies, nowadays), what will we do?

So we need to have the draft to counter China's military threat. That's pretty weird, since if we really wanted to deal with that threat we'd just shut down their imports. The only thing China might invade is Taiwan, and a draft isn't going to help there. You can't draft ready made fighter pilots.

As far as the Japanese analogy, the Pacific battles were intense but called for the opposite of a conscript army. These battles, even more than the battles of Europe, called for elite troops trained and motivated. For example, the first wave of Army troops called up to man the posts up here suffered from so much poor morale and illness they were all but declared combat ineffective. The 7th ID had to be pulled off training in California to push the Japanese off our soil. Warm bodies forced into uniform DO NOT GET THE JOB DONE. If you don't have motivated troops you don't have a prayer, esp. these days. The problems with a conscript military have gotten worse these days, when even low level grunts are expected to work with high tech equipment.

Folks, we have changed. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. We are no longer a nation that can accept a mass conscription. We're far too cynical and far too estranged from government. I know the military really needs skilled people, esp. those skilled in computer science and engineering. But conscription is a dangerous game when you're dealing with these people. Just imagine the damage a conscripted geek could do if forced out of a six figure job into a specialist's position. We're not talking about urinating in the DI's boots. And what are you going to do to stop it? Have some regular army folks standing behind him with pistols? They won't even know what's happening.

I think there should be mandatory two year full-time or four year part-time military service at eighteen years of age for everyone (with medical and mental exceptions). Rich, poor, black, white, urban, or rural; everyone serves at a service of their choosing.

How is that working to preserve freedom? Two year conscription is SOP in all socialist and communist nations on the planet, and has been for a century. It's a way of ensuring a docile population and reminding everyone of their place BENEATH the power of the state. It gets them used to looking to the state for guidance and support. That's not "supporting freedom," that's learning to be a serf.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Only a woman can have a baby, so mens beliefs in birth control do not carry the same weight as theirs.

100% wrong. The ability to have a baby does not contribute to moral or political wisdom.

Or, we can limit the draft conversation to those who do not want to be drafted.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Think of it this way - do you blame the weatherman when he tells you it is going to rain? Do you believe that the weatherman wishes for more rain every time he forecasts it?

There's a difference between forecasting it vs leaving the windows open
and not fixing all the holes in the roof.

Your distaste for globalism is irrelevant; because the overwhelming majority of Americans want a lifestyle that cannot exist without globalism. They might not think of it like that - they probably think of it as things like easy communication, cheap consumer electronics, inexpensive gasoline, low-priced heating oil, etc. As long as the voting majority wants a lifestyle that is dependent on globalism, you'll get more globalism.

Yes, thanks for making my point of the Roman Bread and Circus lifestyle and
culture that this country is now embracing like a drunkard with a cheap
harlot. This is the same kind of re-emerging culture that demands cheap
goods/resources and wants someone else to ensure that they get it.
Hence, the lack of volunteers for the military and the wide resistance
to a draft no matter the cause --just or not.

Before you poo-poo my personal distaste for globalism as "irrelevant" you
might want to consider how many soldiers have a similar distaste.
After all, we are the ones who put the gun in gunboat diplomacy and
when we tire of going out again and again and there is no one who will
step up to replace us, what do you think that will do to the strength of
the USD$ overseas?

The brits are already getting deep into this kind of culture which explains
some of General Dannatt's recent comments:

* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."

Emphasis mine. Many recently retired US generals have likewise warned
of "breaking the Army" too.

Since this is a conscription thread, this is my opinion as to why conscription
will be inevitable if the people living within the "borders" of this former
Republic want to continue this lifestyle. You give me no new illumination
that my opinion on globalism is irrelevant to them as it is obvious.

However, you and the rest of the people lounging around on the divan
eating grapes had better heed my opinion on how it will play out for the
armed forces, ie, some of you will have to get off your butts and actually
put your lives on the line if you expect this hedonistic party to
continue and your supply of cheap grapes to go uninterrupted.

There are plenty of neo-cons who are thanking you for your loyal global
cheerleading. Now it's time to put down your grapes, pick up a rifle and
eat some sand. This superpower still prefers volunteers rather than
conscripts.....today at least......personally, I can no longer stomach the
hypocrisy.

 

[longeyes]

The trouble with the glories of globalism is that it is a short-term binge. This will be the last generation of Americans to enjoy, without penalty, the misbegotten policies we have permitted to become economic gospel.

I have long wondered, frankly, how long the covenant between our military and the hedonistic hordes would hold. A few Spartans, one hell of a lot of Sybarites. I sense a Rubicon crossing up ahead, that's all I'll say about that.

 

[deadin]

I guess it’s time to rejoin the fray.
First off, my posting of the Twin Towers picture was merely meant to emphasize the point that just being half way around the world does NOT insulate us from attack by a determined enemy (even those of limited capabilities.) Some of you got this, others just knee-jerked to the “Saddam didn’t do it” mantra. In no way was I either condemning nor endorsing Iraq.

Now to “conscription” (I like the term “conscription” instead of “draft”. It sounds so much more nasty and unfair.) I think that Thin Black Line has summed it up quite well. I will add that the old saying “TANSTAAFL” applies here. (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Somebody’s got to pay for our lifestyle and it really irritates me that some seem to think it should be someone other then them.

For those that seem to want the US to “pull in its horns” and go into an isolationist mode, stand by. I’m getting the sickening feeling (if you care to believe the current “polls”) that we may be about to get a bilssninny Congress. I hope everyone is prepared for everything that will go with this.

Then there are the respondents that are saying they will only take up arms when the “BG’s” are knocking at the door and have already invaded. Trust me, your “Super-Pooper” .357 CCW and your hunting rifle aren’t going to cut it when the RPG’s are coming through the windows and APC’s are knocking down the front door. (Red Dawn non-withstanding.)
What is needed is an army trained in combat arms. (And training takes time and investment) Where is this to come from if everyone is unwilling to serve? (or may be willing, but only if they are allowed to decide what they support at the time.) (You know, they’ve only invaded California, and I’ve never cared for that State, so the H*** with them.) (Of course, if we lost California, the supply of grapes (as mentioned by TBL) will dry up and maybe this would get some off of their divans and into the fight.)
I also find it interesting that, after the shame of the way our country treated the military of ‘Nam, there has been this big “I support the Military” movement. Unfortunately, it’s beginning to take on the smell of hypocrisy.
It’s becoming more and more “words only” and no “put your money where you mouth is”.

The answer to all of this? A volunteer, professional military is a great idea, but is it feasible? We are seeing that even professionals burn out without relief. They can’t “stay on the line” constantly and are decimated by casualties. (after all, it is combat and people will get killed and injured).
They need relief and replacement. Where are these to come from? Some have already made it known that they wouldn’t serve at any price, so just “paying” more doesn’t seem to be the answer. (And for those that would serve “if paid enough”, I tend to think of them as self-centered, money-grubbing mercenaries. Not exactly who I would want to depend on in combat. They’ve already shown that they can be “bought” for the right price.)
If we can’t or won’t support a volunteer, professional military, we either draft or pull back into an isolationist posture and take whatever may come from this. (Read TBL’s predictions. I think there is a lot of truth there.)