Military draft... What do you think?
 

This post was partially prompted by a post by lordjeebus in another thread. There have been small preparatory steps taken to allow for the activation of draft boards recently. This is in response to increased American commitments overseas as well as a constriction in manpower that has taken place over the last 10-15 years. In essence, more international responsibility spread among fewer soldiers.

So...

1. Do you think the draft is a good idea in the sense that it will solve more problems than it creates? (this can be from a practical, ethical, fiscal, etc. point of view)

2. Do you think that its unfair to ask American reservists and guardsmen (guardspersons?) to do 15 months consecutive duty overseas?

3. Do you think the draft will actually make a comeback?

1. Yes, under certain scenarios (ie no more rich kid/college deferments, 2 new divisions, adding women to the selective service act). I also think that the draft serves as a useful first test of a man's character. I judge many of today's politicians on what they did in regards to the draft (volunteered, got out of it in any number of ways).

2. No. What I think is unfair is to have them do a year in Afghanistan, send them home for 3 months, and pick them back up again for another year. The dependence the U.S. Army has on its Guard/Reserve components is shameful. I read today that 60,000 of our 138,000 troops in Iraq are Guard/Reserve.

3. I doubt it.

First I don't think these supposed steps are to reinstitute the draft, it's my understanding that these are things done semi-regularly to maintain that as an option should it be needed.

1. Yes. I may even be in favor of mandatory military service.

2. No, it's not unfair. You know there is this possibility when you sign up. Is it the ideal way to operate, no.

3. No because I think there would be more than enough volunteers if we were truly faced with a need to drastically increase the size of the military.

1. No -- I consider the draft an unethical form of involuntary servitude. Considering the low pay, it's one step away from slavery. I think that if we can't raise enough volunteer troops for a conflict, it's not a fight worth fighting. I doubt that the US would have trouble recruiting people to defend against a direct invasion of the country. I also believe that imposing the military mindset on those that are not willing to be a part of it stinks strongly of fascism.

2. Unfair, no. Unwise, yes. The military needs to consider the risk of losing its reservists and guardists if it does not treat them in a way that they would consider fair.

3. I don't think so. I don't think that much of the military top brass wants that. The president at the time would practically give up their chances of reelection also. Now if that president were serving his second term...*shudder*


According to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...3_draft08.html the Pentagon made its "first formal request to reestablish draft boards since the draft was abolished in 1973." Although I doubt there will be a draft, I think there's more behind it then routine.

It would be political suicide.

But it would benefit my country - Canada immeasurably since there would undoubtedly be a wave of young talented American men who would say F you and head north like what happened in Vietnam.

There was a show on the CBC a while ago and it traced the lives of many Vietnam Draft Dodgers who came to Canada. It was amazing to see what these guys amounted to. Since most stayed in Canada, the benefit was ours.

So, I say, please, re-establish the draft, it will give us an incredible talent pool of immigrants to pick from. These guys would all be English speaking north Americans with skills.

and apparently tails... since they would be tucked between their legs.

Good point that. Thankfully I live in England, and so there is no chance of the draft ever making a comeback in this country.

However, if the draft does make a come back in the USA then Bush should volunteer to do some front line service - and not bravely protect Texas from invasion. It would be interesting to see how long wars go on for if politicians had to do some fighting themselves.

Wow, 2 posts in a row saying a draft would end a presidency.

Actually, looking back at the 60's we've got:

Kennedy: shot.
Johnson: Didn't run for second term.
Nixon: Resigned.

Okay, maybe it isn't a good idea...

1. No. There is no need. There are plenty of qualified volunteers. The dicipline problems that result from people that don't want to be there are not worth the extra manpower pool you get.

2. Yes. They signed on the line and took an oath. It's an oath they must keep. I know, they thought "easy money" and "one weekend a month", but reality happens.

3. No. See 1.

It's interesting that I haven't heard a peep about this from my Manpower Requirements buds in BUPERS or OPNAV. I'll ask the question I guess.

I am with Peetster on this one.

We are a long way from a draft, but I think the military needs to adjust, we need more on the tip of the spear and less behind it. The logistics tail behind a fighting division is huge. The support troops (often doing jobs that could be handled by contractors, etc.) out number the front line troops like 11 to 1.

If the need arose (like the shit hitting the fan) things will be done that have to be. In my view if it’s a scenario that’s just and isn’t built on a foundation of controversy I think there would be plenty of volunteers.

As far as reservists go; they are volunteers that understand when they sign the dotted line that is a possibility, so if someone is going to collect the benefits they had better be prepared to serve. Even with full active duty once discharged (provided it was honorable) still have an obligation; I had a four year reserve status that I was obligated to after being discharged. I didn’t have to report like standard reservists do, but in the event of a war I would be eligible for a first round of drafting. That’s something I knew ahead before signing.

Yes, I'd say that it's a call based on need. When it is necessary then it must be. Until then, we are better off with a volunteer army.

Compulsory service of some kind, however - non-military or military - could be a very good thing.

I'd be more than happy to therve along thide thothe hunky military boyth! ;)

1) A draft has many benefits, and while many people say military service is horrible, that's almost slavery, many people find lifelong friends in the military, they gain more understanding of the world around them, gain a strong work ethic and sense of responsibility. The military is also paid pretty well considering room, board, and basically everything else is taken care of. (I'm still for giving our soldiers a pay raise however.)

2) No. It's been done before, and it's part of being a soldier.

3) No, unless we go to war with China, or WWIII starts (would actually probably be the same thing). The main problem about implementing the draft right now is that it would be career suicide.

I don't see a draft being viable for a couple reasons...

1) it would be virtual political suicide for the sitting president that approved it to go forward

2) it would lead to an overall degradation in the commitment of the average soldier and result in losing some of the edge the u.s. military currently enjoys due to the highly specialized training that is possible through the volunteer program

1. When is the draft ever a good idea? If a country cannot find volunteers to do the work of the noble then maybe the idea isn't as noble as the country thinks. When as anything "compulsory" been a good idea? Especially something compulsory on the same level as serving in the military?

2. Nope. Even Guardsmen and Reservists volunteered for their role. They may not have appreciated the scope, but they volunteered all the same. Not to say that I don't empathize with the mixed up schedules and long tours, but such is the life of a journeyman soldier.

3. I seriously doubt it, but then again stranger things have happened. And, like it was pointed out, the draft boards are being re-established....and I find it hard to believe that our government does anything "semi-regularly" other than vote themselves raises. ;)

1. I didn't think the draft was a good idea at first, but now I do. Not just for the military, but for noational service of some kind. People could have choices -- the military, urban education programs like City Year, working in ambulance crews, conservation projects, and so on. One thing we've lost in this country is the sense that we're all in this together. We have to remember that the common good is everybody's business, not just the people we hire to do it. Second, as a lot of old liberals are saying, military service sucks in every way you might think of, but it does introduce you to kinds of people you would never, ever have met , who come from different backgrounds and think entirely differently than you. We don't have that anymore; there's increasingly no place in our society where different classes of people mix. Even racial segregation in schools is at its lowest point in 30 years. Parts of our society are increasingly isolated from each other. In the long run, that ain't good.

The draft would have to be fair, of course -- everybody goes. And the hard duty -- armed forces, etc. -- would have to be shared equally by all socio-economic groups.

2. I'm pretty sure that most Guardsmen believe that they're signing up to protect the homeland, not fight overseas. It's probably a possibility they accept, but only in an extreme national emergency. This isn't one. If the country sends them overseas for long periods, the country had better be prepared to help them pick up the pieces at home, because unlike the family of an active-duty military person, guard families don't have the support struture -- institutional, financial, etc. -- in place to handle long absences without hardship. But so far, the Guard are being treated like the temps of the military -- use 'em, then lose 'em.
As for the reserve, the armed forces of this county have been drawn down to the point where the military no longer has enough of certain specialist units to handle large military operations, and _must_ call in reservists every time. I think this is wrong. While I believe we spend too much on the military, I think we could have five or ten billion a year off some of these boondoggle black projects we're not supposed to hear about and both beef up military numbers and military training, support, and wages.

3. Will the draft make a comeback. Maybe as national service, eventually. After all, most of these supposedly effete European countries have national service -- again, not strictly the military, but also other types of service -- and I see no rioting in the streets.

The middel- and upper-classes haven't pulled their weight in a war since (and including Vietnam). In Vietnam, much of the fighting was left to lower-class draftees. Since then, we've been hiring our soldiers. While I'd say that most of them are patriots, the most common motivation for going in seems to be educational benefits, job training, and so on.

Will the draft make a comeback? Don't know. But as someone who does not agree in rushing to war, I think it should come back. Because I think people in this country will be more thoughtful about going to war if more of them have loved ones and friends in service.

The Roman empire has compulsory military service. They didn't do too bad. :)

...until it collapsed partly due to the campaigns initiated to keep the gigantic military busy...

What about the Spartans? How did their society do with their compulsory career military service? When and why did things start to break down with them?

You really belive that a draft could be fair ? Not a chance, those with the power and wealth will make damn sure their sons and daughters will be kept far away from any dangers.

The Draft was never even talked about by Bush or any Republican.

I hate to say dem. vs rep. because I'm neutral, but it was Democrats who put this out in order to subvert the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was to cause discussions like this and to make people look back to Vietnam.

1) Only in cases such as World Wars or against militaries that equal or are greater than our own does the Draft have benefits. In a non-draft military moral is FAR better than draft. Its the difference between making and active choice and believing in what you're fighting for (if only a little bit), and being forced into something. Americans tend to get pissed when they feel they're being forced.

Everyone knows what happened with draftees in Vietnam, there's a reason our officers aren't being shot in the back in Afghanistan and Iraq. Say what you want about the people that joined the military for college money, but they KNEW the possibilities when they signed up.

2) I think I stated my opinion in #1 here. They KNOW exactly what they risk while signing up. No one gives things away for free, and using "I didnt think we'd go to war" is not an excuse.

3) No the draft will not happen unless North Korea suddenly invades South Korea. Then we'd have a giant 11 million man army to go up against.

And no, a female draft will never happen unless China gets involved. As its obvious by now I'm in the military, I did not sign up so that I'd have to see my sister, my girlfriend, etc. get called into action. Not that I'm sexist, it's just something I'd fight to the end to prevent.

It wasn't "the dems" it was a specific democrat who fought in Vietnam and thought that reinstituting the draft would be a good deterrent against us ever getting into an unnecessary war like Iraq again.

Thing is, the sons of wealth used to go to war a lot -- as officers, sure, but they went. I remember reading that some rather large number of males from Ivy League colleges did military service up through the '50s. Now hardly anyone from the Ivies goes in. Same with congressmen. I just read this somewhere: back 25 years ago, something like 325-350 of 500 congresspersons had military service under their belts. Now it's down to something like 125.

So, that says something about our country. Used to be everybody felt the obligation to get involved. Now, we just send in the little people. If somebody made a direct attack on the U.S., would the children of privilege then sign up? I really have my doubts.

So, like you, I'm pessimistic on that level. On the other hand, national service on the European model also includes non-combat and non-military service. So okay, the sons of the rich would still be kept out of the line of fire, but maybe most of them could be doing some socially responsible job for a year or two that would broaden their brains. Except maybe if Daddy's so powerful he can get junior a soft appointment flying obsolete jet planes in the Texas National Guard or something...

i disagree with the draft, because not all men are in the position to go. but i am in favor of national programs where all men of legal age are required to do 2 years active seervice. it would create better health, higher repsonibility, tougher men, greater morals, and also allow men to gain some money

Well, I can't seem to find any Romans to refute that.....:)

o god my they never draft again

that said there are so many ways i could get out of one if it happened

not the lest of witchis my elipesy

I have very mixed feelings about the draft. On one hand, I agree with the sentiment that its wrong to force someone to serve and potentially die for a cause they don't believe in. On the other I can see how it might be considered a duty for all citizens to serve its country in a time of need. Of course, I think the latter is limited to times of our country being invaded or in times of eminent security threats.
A deeper and more pertinent issue for me is whether or not voluntary service is racist or classist. A great number of military personal are their because they need the college money or because its the best paying job they can get. This makes it so that its the poor and minority classes are the ones that bare the brunt of American militarism. You can look at the numbers and see this is clearly the case. Its not fair, but it would seem that the only solution would be compulsory service, but this doesn't take care of the problem of involuntary service. What do you folks think of compulsory service?

1. Hell no! If it's an invasion and this country actually needs to be defended, I might volunteer (though I would probably be more useful in an administrative capacity. Let's face it, I can't run for shit. Never could.) but, with the possible exception of WWII, the draft is used to provide bodies to unjust and ill considered wars.

2. They paid for your college, yet you begrudge them a couple of years of service? Of course it's fair. That's what reserves are, the troops you use when your standing army is fully comitted. Of course, it's going to cause recruitment problems down the road, and might lead to an intelligent president having to make some tough choices about what's really important enough to risk lives on. Or an unintelligent presidet reinstating the draft.
3. Well, that depends. Shrub wins in 2004, look for the draft by 2006. Someone with more than a teaspon of grey matter wins, then it'll never happen.

My buddy the colonel's wife warned me about this. This is not just your standard fill up the selective service boards. This is gearing up. Shrub doesn't know his ass from his elbow, but Dick knows they're overextended.

1, It can be... as long as it truely is needed.. which leads to 2.

2. No, its not really unfair.. we're a citizen, should we receive a call to defend our nation... we should receive it.

3. I hope not.. I could kill if I had to, but I'd really hate to have to. Right now lots of people have joined, especially after 9/11.. assuming we don't go out and get everyone we have killed.. we won't need to.

Like Dragon2Fire, I could probably get out of it. I have really bad allergies, and asthma to boot! Those two make military people say "Well Darn" and keep walking. Oh yeah.. my vision sucks too :) That just means I get those Beer Goggles though. heh

alli know is i am scared of the draft, especially for a war that is a little questionable... im 17, so one more year... maybe ill be too tall or somethin.

i also heard that bush wants to pull out of iraq now, kinda interesting after all this talk about how great the war was going

I just read an interesting op-ed from the Times that described our use of reserve troops as a check on questionable wars. The writer argued that, due to the disruption deploying volunteer troops causes to families and communities, the public will think more critically and respond to the elected officials negatively if our nation keeps engaging in questionable affairs. It was a pretty good read and should still be around from yesterday.

1. I think that military/government service should be mandatory for two years. If your not about joining the military join the peace corp. That way kids will be productive, be making money, and get a better education.

2. Reservists joined the military, they gained the benefits from it, now its time for them to pay it back. Sure it might suck, but they must've known what they were doing when they signed the papers.

3. I doubt there will ever be a draft unless there is a full scale world war.

wow, good responses from a range of views on this thread. some things i've noticed...

thegreek, where on earth did you get that idea about Bush wanting to pull out? besides, the war is over. did you mean the continuing operations? were you referring to the overall "war on terror?"

The reason I asked about question #2 (about the reservists) is this. I believe that when most of them signed up for the reserve, the maximum foreign tour of duty was 12 months... but Uncle Sam extended it to 15 months in the middle of their contracts. I mean seriously, the government couldn't have anticipated a war less costly than the Iraq war. I mean seriously, their army folded quickly and there is always an occupation/rebuilding process afterwards. It sounds like the government is taking advantage of their position to strong-arm our reservists. If the politicians expect the military to have a global presence to enforce their policy, they shouldn't have to call up every reservist and guardsmen, while screwing their contracts for such a relatively minor conflict (in the grand scope of things).

are they going to mobilize the league of women voters if North Korea gets feisty? Only joking...

Re: Military draft... What do you think?
 

1. I think a draft is a terrible idea, even for the Bush administration. It would create a labor shortage, and guess who would be blamed for that. It would be another Vietnam, and the opposition to Bush would be increased exponentially.

2. I do not think it's unfair to the reservists and guardsmen. They signed a contract with the military or whoever to be ready to fight if they are called upon to do so. If they didn't want to go to war, they shouldn't have joined.

3. I do not think the draft will make a comeback anytime soon. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to do that. The division would hurt the country.

We are a long way from a draft -- to call a draft without an obvious encroaching enemy would be political suicide (reference: Charles Rangel) not only for a president that signed the authorization but for every congressman and senator that voted in favor of the motion.

Not only that, but the long term risk to the economy would greatly diminish the likelihood of a draft motion surviving Capital Hill.

On a side note, I've always felt that the draft process is incredibly descriminatory -- not on a race basis, but more on gender. I feel strongly that women of age should also be required to sign a draft card, not with the possibility of frontline duty, but on a limited service level. There is no rational explanation, in my opinion, why there should be legal rights for everything else except this. Women are quite capable of serving in the military in both times of peace and war in behind the lines capacities-- and even on frontline posts were the need to arise. Why am I required, as a male, to enlist in a process that carries with it an incredibly burden, but women should be excluded? I understand the logic behind preventing women from "frontline service" (whatever that means in this current day and age of biological weapons and ICBMs) but I don't understand why a women couldn't be drafted into military manufacturing or supply/maintenance roles. I know this happens anyway, but why am I compelled by law?

But, that's my little soapbox...

Here is the link to see the preparations
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

tritium, i agree with your viewpoint on women being drafted. certainly they should be required to sign up for a similar service requirement that would keep them out of physical combat roles.

so few people express compassion for reservists on the grounds that if they didn't want to go to war... then they shouldn't have joined. i would agree if they were complaining about going to war at all, but that isn't the case. the complaint often lies with the government changing their commmitment requirements in the middle of their service contracts and/or unfairly presenting the criteria for their deployment.

This surprised me about the responses as well. I think people tend to forget that these are all 18-20 year old kids, signing probably the first contracts of their lives. Ask 4 out of 5 of them if their recruiter lied or misrepresented facts to get them to join, they'll say yeah. And please don't say Caveat Emptor to me, say it to the 18 year old in an afghani foxhole.

This made me laugh. A post like this coming from Seretogis is just so unexpected.

Coming from a country where all men go through military service (unless you know what to say to get out, and a skinhead with a humpback I had in my platoon that had to try out for three consecutive years before getting accepted) I don't think it's a bad idea.

It would, however, most likely not work in the US considering the current foreign policy. Drafting to support nation-building would most likely cause bad PR domestically.

The US has a big enough population to build a satisfactory professional defense force without a draft.

yeah, i'd say our defense is satisfactory.

That link to the SSS administration goes to an annual report detailing the effectiveness of the program and its readiness as a whole. It says nothing of a preparation to enact a draft ...

If you don't mind my asking, are you male or female?

As to the questions brought up about misrepresenting facts to get men to sign the dotted line, yes, it does happen. And it happens to a fair number of enlistees...

male

::in comic book guy voice:: shortest post ever

The present military is different than that of years ago. Im not commenting its better; there is just more applicants. This element does go in cycles as well. When more military commericals are seen an expansion push seems to be needed. This is a double edged sword though. With a larger military; making higher ranks becomes more competitive than it already was. This is especially true for higher ranks. This may result in a higher quality of military officer and NCO staffing, but it can effect overall morale. THe bottom line is IMO; if you see a draft happen (Im meaning people who no intention of signing up) it will result in a situation that the shit has definately hit the fan on all levels--and probable national survival depends on it. Equally present is the recent need to have an adequate amount of presence in America for an attack here. Special operations in all branches is also being expanded.

There were times when I was in I hated what the situation was. There were times I was scared out of my mind. It would ahve been easy to blame it on the guy who recruited me. The reality was, is and always will be it truly doesnt matter what the recruiter says; everything your guaranteed, entitled to; have the potential of getting or going is spelled out in in clear easily understandable print.

Ive heard that it maybe a 17 year olds first contract; very true. A person must have a certain score on a militry entrance exam called an ASVAB to get in. One of the sections tested is reading. If a person has made it far enough to even be accepted for entering a legal agreement with the military; they have basic reading abilities.

If a person doesnt read every inch of what they are about to sign and then is going to complain about it . . .--no comment

If a person signs their contract and the government falls short---hey. . .take em to court and more power to them; theres no reason why they shoudnt win or even deserve to.

Id be interested to know if anyone has or knows someone who has taken the government to court for a lawsuit over the military not fufilling their part of the enlistment process.

Its really simple-- if a person doesnt desire the even remote possibility of being in harsh conditions with their life in their peers hands and their peers in theirs; they should not under any circumstance even consider signing up with the military-- period. Student loans and similiar benefits are an OK side benefit. but there is other ways of obtaining such aid.

Its just my opinion that more credit should be given to a person that finally has the legal status and proven themself academically that they should have the level of intelligence to empower their own descisons and deal with the direction it takes them with given level of accountablilty. Once in if they want to ride "this isnt what I signed up for" there IS ways out for such individuals, but it will not be an honorable (legal discharge status) departure. DO you really think it should be?


**Sorry for grammatical and spelling errors--Im tired but had to post this tonight before crashing. . . .

I think the assumption that most are 18 to 20 years old is mistaken. While this may be true of the infantry, it's almost certainly not true of the reservists and national guard troops in Iraq. They are typically either former military or already established in their careers, not right out of high school.

Even if your statement was entirely true, at 18 you have a pretty good idea about what the military is about. And you certainly do not go into an MOS like infantry without a real good understanding of what it means.

hmm what can i say, im Costa Rican- Canadian, so at the first wiff of draft in canada my parents smell and my brothers and I pretty much get shoved on a one way flight back to the tropics.

as to the situation in the states, this is how i see it.

Reservist are getting shafted pretty much in every fasion.

And i must also say i feel very sorry for all those 18 year olds who were pretty much forced into signing up into the armr because the goverment failed them in providing them a stable economy and actual chance at a higher education that lead to *real* jobs.

I mean from my perspective if you are 18, white, and live in some small rural area in the US , your are pretty much left with no alternative but to sign up with the army, not because this was your dream when you were five, but because you have a belly to fill.

take a look a Jess Lynch and many others like her.

disregard me if i made no sense, im falling asleep as i type this.

Im not attempting to approach you from a frictional angle; Im just curious as to what data has led you to these conclusions?

And how do you feel reservists are getting the shaft?

hmm from what i know reserves are to be used when they definatly needed.

reasons for war(and needing reserves):
saddam got big bombs and passing them out like candy to terrorist.

but as we knew all along that was bull.
reserve got called up, getting killed for crap, there never was an immediate WMD threat.

that is how i see them getting the shaft.

draft away

I think it has been fairly clearly demonstrated by the past couple decades that a military based on enlistment rather then drafting makes for a better military, at least for the united states. ask any military officer if they'd like to lead drafted soldiers into battle. The training and motivation are always better with career military troops rather then with draftees.

Anyway, I dont think there will be a new draft in the united states unless there is a major attack on the united states (by major attack, i mean a coordinated military operation by another country's military, ala Pearl Harbor, not ala september 11)

Allow me to relate a story to you:

Many years ago I was attending scout school at Ft. Knox, KY (OSUT for 19D, arguably as hard if not harder than the 13 series OSUT).

A friend of mine, who washed out due to poor eyesight, was asked by his recruiter if he "liked to go camping". When he replied yes he was enlisted as a Cav Scout. He was 22. Recruiters are about as trust worthy as car salesmen.

That being said, they do a very important job, and without them I would be up Shit Creek....

i'm canadian and if the US was going to give citizenship for joining the American Army(like they did for Canadians during Vietnam) i'd say sign me up, because even though i don't agree with thier foriegn policy the US does provide thier troops with the best equiptment possible to do the job.

While this is true with the grunts, its just the opposite for the medical people. The military pay for docs is pretty bad and they recruit on the premise that you can be lazy (I kid you not) and not worry about getting sued. As such you either have young doctors just out of school paying for scholarships with their time, and a lot of guys who couldn't cut it in private practice. Now I'm sure there are some great docs in the military, but on average I'd stay away. At one recruitment event I asked the recruiter if I'd be working on base personnel’s children if I signed up. He said unless I was stationed overseas I most likely wouldn't be since in the states they get private insurance and take them off base.

What did his contract say and did he bother to read it. He was 22 right?

Wow, you sure have a lot of degrees!

Anyway, in terms of the medical care, I don't know anyone who went "off base." My family always went to military hospitals because it was 100% coverage.

The doctors were top-notch and had excellent equipment. Given that we invest a huge amount of money into training and maintaining our troops, it shouldn't be surprising that we would want to keep them healthy!

I don't even know what you mean by "private practice" since the days of people seeing patients in their homes ended like 50 years ago. AFAIK, med students are groomed for their future as soon as they start their training. In our university, for example, the students are trained in the hospitals and pretty much know where they are going to go after graduation. I suspect that military medical staff enlist before they embark on their training, not after they "discover" they can't make it in "private practice."

"Private Practice" doesn't mean practicing medicine out of your home, it just means practicing medicine through a non-academic organization, like doctors running their own businesses.

They don't enlist, but they do commit themselves to a certain period of service in exchange for scholarship money. They can opt out of service if they can come up with the cash to pay back the scholarships plus interest. They attend the same medical schools as other med students and the education is the same until residency, when they complete residencies in the military system as opposed to academic hospitals.

This is my understanding of how it works although I may be slightly off. I know that each of the services does things somewhat differently.

I was being facetious. The point I was making was that almost all of our doctors are trained and employed by public insitutions or wealthy, private corporations--they don't run their own businesses. That is, the closest we have to doctors in private practice are people who went through education systems like Harvard and work at Sharp's, Gottschalk's, or any other affluent private hospital. They don't go through years of medical school and languish in some private office on a street corner. the exeption to this might be in rural areas but, obviously, someone wouldn't be unable to "make it" if they were the only doctor within a 50 mile radius.

I may have misused the term "enlist" but I was thinking of the process you described. We evidently agree that military doctors enter medical school with the intent of working for the military long before they fail to succeed in private practice. I suspect that the allure of education funds, guaranteed job placement after graduation, and excellent benefits account for their decisions moreso than them being a bunch of lazy, incompetent doctors who couldn't make it in the "real world" as Ustwo suggested.

And your friend never once in his 22 years saw a movie, read a book, or watched a documentary that showed what the infantry did? Further, he never bothered to talk with or research the MOS he signed up for beyond just what the recruiter told him? I don't think so.

Recruiters can be bastards. I got screwed over by a recruiter when I got mono right before completing the second phase of OCS for the Marine Corps. He assured me that I would go to the later class the summer before my last semester in college. He lied and it put my status back a full year and added 4 weeks onto the training I would have had to do. I ended up choosing not to go through with OCS because I didn't want to wait another year. I could point to him as the reason I didn't start a military career, or I can be more realistic about it and say, yes he lied but I didn't go the extra mile and make sure I got it in writing that I'd be in the next class. It's as much or more my fault than it is the recruiter's fault. I know you already know this but it's worth saying, a recruiter isn't your mother, he/she isn't your friend. A recruiter's job is to get people into the service. Some do it while being completely above board while others are selective in the truths they share.

At 22 both your friend and I were old enough to know not to believe everything you hear and to be damned sure about any document that you sign.

His contract said:

1. 19D10
2. 13F10
3. 11B10


Pretty clear, huh?

You are failing to see the bigger picture. Recruiters are E-5 (at a minimum), have years of experience, and are experts at their jobs. Recruits are not. They do not have the knowlege, or the access to the information that recruiters have.

It is very similar to sitting down at a table with a lawyer who does not represent your interests and trying to work out a contract.

I am not saying that all recruiters are dirtbags, quite the opposite, but many recruits have been shammed into jobs they are not prepared for by a recruiter looking to make his monthly goal.

Now, that being said, once you raise your hand and swear in you are obligated by you oath of enlistment to fullfill whatever duty you may have been duped into. Such is life.

I spend 6 years as a regular! Where will the money come from to finance the draft? At the rate of closing bases, where will they train? One advantage though would be we could have people on home ground to enforce a tighter border. But then I think there are probably enough people here who would volunteer for that job.

1. No, this will cause many more problems that it will solve. First, you will have thousands of people who have no desire to be there in the first place causing major morale issues and affecting the effectiveness of the individual "solider."

2. No, because they signed up for it. Isn't there a provision somewhere that states that extended duty may be required in dire needs? Well, as fucked up as Bush is and as fucked up the reasons for starting war #1 and soon to be war #2 are they current servicemen should serve. They signed up for it.

3. If that fucker actually starts a war with Iran and ESPICALLY if it's over the same reasons and with the same "evidence" that he gathered in Iraq, then yes, there will be a draft. Once again proving dumbya a liar. I personally, will be either in a jail cell in the middle of the riot demonstration.

Anyone care to join me?

It seems to me that the people supporting the draft the most are on the left, and they are doing so in order to drum up support against Bush.

Does anyone else see this?

It will certainly increase immigration to Canada. Maybe help to reverse the brain drain...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I want some of what he's smoking!

Um.... No.

Most people on the Left are pretty much against the war I'd think. I'm definetly on the left and why would I support the draft to drum up support againt lord bush? There's enough of resintment towards him to go around already.

janey, I've also heard that Canada will send the draft dodgers back this time. The US gov't's thought ahead this time and very quietly established an agreemetn with Canada to send the dodgers back home. It's a very messed up situation.

I say fuck Canada. Go to Mexico. They don't care and they have cuter women.

1. No, I think we'll see extreme civil unrest if the draft comes back.

2. Yes. 15 months of duty overseasis a little excessive for a reservist if you ask me, let alone a full-time soldier.

3. Yes. There's no way we can do Iran/Syria without a draft or using foreign troops.

I said that they seem to support the draft in order to drum up support against Bush and by extension, the war.

I believe Host has said as much and I know that Democratic senators have brough the issue up for just such purposes.

That's how it seems to me.

From the Democrats in Congress creating the bills to reinstate the draft, to the Democrats bringing up the issue throught the election, it seems that many believe that by getting a draft through they can get support against Bush, even when he isn't the one pushing for it.

I don't think it's the majority of the Democratic party, just like it isn't the majority in most cases of charges brought against groups by the public. However, just enough to be annoying :)

Nope, I think it's just you.

Actually, the people on right are the ones supporting the draft...

Stompy -

"the people on the right" do not support a draft. Name one person, just one, to support that allegation.

Lebell, however, makes a very good point.

Who has been bringing up the idea of a draft as a scare tactic?

Who keeps claiming a draft is imminent, even after two years of making the same claims?

Who tried to pass a bill about the draft?


The answer to the above questions is the same.

Show me otherwise.

There is real evidence to support Lebell's assertion.

Where is yours?

Among Americans in general, there is little support for the draft, and that support is about equally expressed in Dems, Repubs, and Independents. There have been several polls in the last year showing this.

The Rangel bill was of course a ploy; Rangel himself did not vote for it. Its purpose was simply to attempt to assert a dramatic point: namely that if there had been a draft there never would have been an Iraq war.

The primary voices in favor of a draft traditionally are military hawks, who are primarily conservative. However, it's difficult finding anybody these days who publicly advocates the draft, regardless of their private opinion on the matter. It's just not good politics.

There are people on the right within this very forum who support mandatory military service. And I'm sure I could do a Lexis search and find several Republicans who have advocated a draft. But what would be the purpose of naming them?

During a time of war such as this, discussion of the draft is always worthwhile.

Canada won't end up sending draft dogers back. They said they didn't support it last time either. No way we would stop a brain drain from the US

I think the draft will create far more problems than it will solve. The only problem it can really solve is a potential shortage of military personnel.

The problems it can (and most likely will) create are:

• The obvious violation of rights.
• Filling the military with people who are pissed off about being forced to serve. Imagine what that will do to morale.
• The time and money that would have to be spent tracking down and dealing with the inevitable problem of draft-dodging.

It's fair as long as the reservists and guardsmen are made aware of the possibility of long-term deployments before signing up.

Yes, but the politicians who vote for it will probably give it a more politically correct name than "the draft" and it will likely allow/require some of the slaves to serve in a non-military/humanitarian capacity.

Well, you know, they could leave their rural home towns for places with more economic opportunities. If you're willing to get sent off to foreign lands for a paycheck, what's the big deal about moving to Arizona or something?

Why institute a draft? Why not just raise military salaries $10K across the board? If you pay people a decent wage to join the military, they will.

If there were 100 people employed by the US military, that would raise the budget by 1 million dollars. 1000 would mean ten million. 10,000 would be 100 million. 100,000 would be a billion dollar increase. Does anyone actually know how many people collect "military salaries" so that I can see just how unrealistic this suggestion is?

As for the whole debate as to who is bringing up the draft: The people on the right think the left is doing it. The people on the right think the left is doing it. Maybe no one is doing it. Maybe no one is actually bringing it up. That would be nice, because it means we could stop bickering about who is bringing it up and why.

considering that we spend 400 BILLION a year on the military, and that starting pay is, IIRC, already in the 13,700 range for a new E-1, yeah, it'd increase manpower costs, but certainly less than implementing a draft would.

Well, to be fair, that $13K+ is already a decent wage considering the military feeds, clothes, and houses you IIRC, making that more like $23K-$25K already.

However, just like anything else, if you increase the pay you will increase the demand for the job.

I'm sure there are things that can be cut in the military budget if need be for this (maybe projects in Democratic districts ;)).

Uh huh. Tell us, if a guy is in the military as an E-1, with a wife and one child, will the family qualify for foodstamps? Answer: YUP.

I don't think your math tracks. If we upped salary by 10K, people would join on their own at a rate of 23,700. If we drafted people, they'd start at 13,700. We still need the same number of new people whether we get them at 23,7 or 13,7, right? So increasing the pay rate would make things more expensive.

Not that I'm saying military personnel don't deserve a raise, but I don't think your idea is feasible. Also, I think about a quarter of that 400 billion is salary, the remainder is, you know, tanks 'n stuff.

There's a lot more to a draft than just paying the conscripts. You'd have to factor in things like financing the draft boards, financing the physicals for all potential draftees, et cetera. Additionally, draftees serve for a very finite time and then wave "Bye-bye" to "tha G". Pay volunteers more money, you get more volunteers, better motivation to perform, better retention (which means less "meaningless" training like close order drill is required) , et cetera, ALL of which lowers costs of an all volunteer force over draftees. It would also increase morale, and have a far lower POLITICAL cost associated with it.

I agree with this in principle, but in practice it doesn't seem to fly the way we would like it to.

Our volunteer military requires a willingness to serve regardless of the financial benefits. If the only reason somebody is serving is the monetary advantages, then he's not a soldier, he's a mercenary.

If you're going to be a mercenary, why work for the U.S. military? You could work as a security guard for Halliburton in Iraq, and make 100x the money.

1. No, it will create more problems than trying to solve any.

2. Yes, these people have families it is ridiculous to not give them a little break in between.

3. Yes and No. If we commit ourselves to Iran, Syria, or the dreaded North Korea country we will be forced to open a draft. But if Bush can get his thumb out of his ass and cool it maybe we will get out of Iraq before we get into another country.

Really? So those kids who joined up for the money for college program/GI Bill are mercenaries?

People who would like to serve but don't want to rely on foodstamps to feed their family might very well join up if they got decent pay. And people who are already in may very well stay if they were paid a true living wage.

!!!!!!!! I'm not cute??????????? :eek:

Sorry about that Janey, didn't mean any personal offense. It's Just a preference. :)