The new Draft?
 

While this is just a proposal from the office of selective services, it is interesting to see the direction they were considering. The draft would include women and the age is pushed up to 34 for a cut off.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188854


My questions are as follows-

How do the women at TFP feel about this?

How would we all react to a mandatory military stint?

If sent to Iraq, who would conscientiously object?


As I am over the cut-off age, I would not be required to go, but my wife could be drafted. I would NEVER let her go into the military, even if it meant a move out of the U.S.

That article has nothing to do about reinstating the draft, just about forcing women to register with selective services just like men. I see no problem with that.

If women want equal treatment they should also get that :rolleyes:

But honestly though, the cut off age is a bit high IMO

The thing is, IMO, the draft creates negative vibes among citizens

Not all citizens want to fight, even those on both sides of the spectrum (so cut the politics), and many are more than willing to help the country in other ways

A professional all-volunteer force that knows what they are getting into and trained for fighting modern wars IMO is going to be a much more effective fighting force than a massive drafted army with poorer morale and poorer training due to the larger numbers

And to be honest, the only time we would really need a draft is either in a large national emergency (in which case, more than likely volunteers would be available in large numbers anyways) or in a very unpopular war (in which case, the question beckons... why are we there if no one wants to fight?)

I'd have to agree, the draft would be a HUGE mistake right now. Consider that the American armed forces are based upon technology and highly trained, highly skilled personell and not just sheer numbers. I doubt you would have as an effective military with the draft. This generation learned all too well from the previous generation about drafts...

Although, i don't quite understand how the draft ever worked. Getting someone to fight in a war that they didn't sign up for is pretty strange. I'm not sure what really keeps people in line in that situation. then again, i understand fear of consequences for goign against the draft/service orders, but seriously, to send people out as canon fodder..not cool.

sorry, not making much sense right now, it's kinda late adn im' tired...


but one last thing: 34 is a horrible cutoff date..by that time, you're asking men adn women to go away after the birth of their second child and after only 9 yrs of marriage (based on averages of wehn people get married/have children). It just seems very....shall i dare say, Hard on families/family life/careers/etc...

26, i can understand, any later and you've got people well into careers and families...

It pissed me off when I was forced to register for selective service that women were exempt from it, and it still does. I see no reason why they shouldn't also have to register and I will support all attempts to make it so they do.

There are plenty of non combat, non technical jobs in the military. I see no problem with women being a part of registering for Selective Service and no problem with them being drafted.}

Additionally, the cutoff age of 34 is fine. If there's a draft I would join the service without being drafted. I'm already on the fence on whether I will sign up with the National Guard right now. I will be 34 in August so there's not much chance of me being drafted but you can join the NG into your 40's in some instances.

I believe 2 years of service, whether in the military, or Peace Corps, or AmeriCorps (or some other service organization) should be mandatory when you graduate high school or deferred until after 4 years of college.

I agree with the other posters that the terms of the draft are horribly outdated. 15-20% of service members are women, and I see no reason why 26-34 year olds couldn't be drafted.

As far as the Ladies go, maybe a poll in the Ladies Lounge would grab their attention more than one in Politics. hint hint...

I completely and utterly disagree with this. Frankly, I disagree with the draft altogether, but I feel if we're going to force people to register for it there's no reason women shouldn't need to register as well.

However, ultimately, I would like to see no draft and no selective service registration in the first place. A country whose people don't love it enough to join the military and fight for it VOLUNTARILY doesn't deserve to be fought for.

I don't think federal service should be absolutely mandatory, but I think you should not be allowed to vote untill you have served your country in some aspect.

You've read Starship Troopers too many times :D

Seriously though, I have no problem with the idea of selective service, as long as there are specific rules for implementation. Such as imminent invaision by the enemy. Something that calls for more troops then the army might otherwise have.

Note I said some type of service, not necessarily of a military nature. Germany does this - I have a friend who worked in an old-folk home - Does that bother you as well?

Women should have to register for the draft. If they can be on the front lines, and demand equal rights, then they can do the same thing every other male US Citizen is required by law to do, register for the selective service. I'm not for or against a draft, as citizens we don't get to make that choice. If there is a draft, and I get called. I'll be the first one there. Anyone else who woulden't do the same thing, well, your just a gutless ass-clown.

Sometimes I wish I would have joined the military, but physcial limitations won't allow me to. (No sense of smell).

Someone has to cook the dinner and vacuum the tanks, am I right?

A draft could work only if you arm and train the average American, so that in event of a draft we have a bunch of people who know what they're actually doing. Liberals would never let the militarization of our society happen though, so we can only give untrained/poorly trained people a gun and scoot them out to fight the enemy. That doesn't really work unless you're China.

I'll try to respond without acknowledging the incredibly misogynistic first paragraph by saying that you would probably be surprised that front line troops make up a small minority of the Army. The rest are devoted to support roles like fuels, transportation, services.

There are over 200 jobs in the Army, a small number of which are combat. Misconceptions like this and "if someone drafts me, that means I'm being sent to Iraq" and such annoy me...

I have no problem with girls getting drafted, but only if they're not on the front lines. If going to war I'd want our army to be the best it can be, I believe most girls couldn't handle war.

Most girls I know would probably handle war better than I would ;)

The Selective Service is very necessary in order to plan for ALL possibilities, including another large war.

The proposed changes only make sense.

You guys need to calm down because no one is proposing drafting you.

I'm not sexist, I'm just not a fan of women being in combat roles. I don't know if that would exclude them from the draft, I don't think it should.

In general though I am not a fan of the draft unless dire circumstances call for it such as an all out world war, not some Vietnam bullshit. An army of volunteer's is 10x better than an army of conscripts who don't want to be there.

With the exception of WWIII a draft in the United States will not happen. It would be political suicide. Anytime a politician brings this up is just so he can get on TV and blabber on about his precious opinion.

Yep exactly

Personally the Selective Service, despite being only for the most dire circumstances, is also a bit redundant

Because if the circumstances were truly that dire... I would imagine most people would be supporting a war on that scale or importance if it affected the country as much.

And if no one wanted to fight... then the war wasn't supposed to have been fought...

Its only that way way way out there situation that could even need it and it seems unlikely in today's world

actually, i think i totally misread.

women signing up for selective services: good. Equal rights and all.

Draft for military for *this particular war*..Bad unless circumstances become so dire that we would honestly need that many people to avoid being taken over. I probably would have opposed the draft for Vietnam, but i would support the draft for WWII. I'm not as certain about a WWI draft, but if i were alive at the time, i probably would have been about as patriotic and country service minded as you could get. Maybe i love the older version of america and want to go back to that. I don't like the jaded nature of today's society as much and i believe i get swept into that...

yikes, what rambling, edit if you wish

Just out of curiosity, how do you define "sexist?"
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

I know it might sound contradictary...

But lets be realistic, women are not as strong physically as men, it's a fact of nature. I know if I were in the trenches and I got shot, I would rather get pulled out by a man. I don't know how a women who is 5'5" 130 would handle me getting out of there. Not to mention that in the context of the military women's PT training is a lot easier then men's. There seems to be this romantic notion that everyone is equal, that is not the case in the world, however everyone is deserving of the same respect and dignity.

if mojo_peipei's reason for not wanting women in combat roles because of their comparatively weaker physical abilities... then that is an opinion based on fact rather than attitude or stereotype.

I'm sure that anyone who has served can tell you that there are physical requirements for soldiers. While I grant Mojo_PeiPei's statement that women's PT is easier than men's, if we want to place women in combat roles, we do need to make the requirements the same. That may mean that there would be far fewer female than male soldiers, but if they can meet the same standards, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in combat?

I completely agree.

So long as physical and mental* standards are NOT lowered, I think they should be allowed to serve.

(*mental from the angle of withstanding what a woman POW would have to endure)

I never registered for the draft. I don't plan on it, either.

It's wrong. I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I don't give a shit if it's my "duty" to serve my country in that manner. My life is my own, and if someone thinks they can order me to go fight and possibly DIE, they can kiss my ass.

I don't think service should be mandatory. Those who do not want to do it should be given that freedom of choice. After all, freedom is what this country was founded upon. If military duty was mandatory and I just so happened to be shipped off to Iraq in a time like this, I'd be pretty f'n pissed. I'd rather go AWOL and spend a few years in jail than possibly losing the only life experience I have on this planet. If you volunteer for it, that's one thing, but to FORCE someone into fighting and dying is no different than me walking up to a random person and shooting them in the face.

There are also extreme psychological consequences for just putting someone in a situation like that that doesn't want to be there.

Besides, there's more than enough volunteers going into the military. Considering the death toll in Iraq is only 500, they're nowhere near a shortage.

Not to mention, almost all wars from now on will be fought with Technology (laser guided missiles, etc..) as opposed to grunt infantry like we saw in Vietnam, so I'm not too worried.

Because you have discounted the social aspects of the problem. There are gender issues that cannot be ignored.

Look, the military is a utilitarian organization. I will grant that women can be just as good as men in combat, but what do you gain by allowing them to fight? Nothing.

As a combat arms officer, the last thing I want is another issue to deal with when the bullets are flying...

One can never read Starship Troopers too many times :D

I'm glad less people thought this way in the 40's. I'd be pissed if the Japanese invaded unimpeeded and executed my family because noone had the spine to stop them.

Riiighht like the Japanese were going to invade the U.S. to begin with

The Selective Service mattered little in World War II honestly - despite drafting hundreds of thousands what counted the most was the fact that the entire country was behind the war because it was just (they fucked with us first attitude).

Guess what, 12 million Americans joined the Armed Forces to make the largest force ever.

Great exaggeration I must admit though :rolleyes: :p :lol: :crazy:

What did you gain by allowing black men to serve with white men? By the same argument, nothing. Why not segregate units so you'll have even less issues to deal with, officer?

Way to miss the point champ. A++, would miss the point again.

You seriously see nothing wrong with taking someone and putting them in the front lines completely against their will and expecting them to lose their LIFE? I'm surprise more people aren't against it. They'd be depriving me of my freedom to live. I'm not a sacrificial lamb. I'm sure others may volunteer to be, but it sure isn't gonna be me!

We only get ONE chance to experience life, and it would be a shame and a complete waste to lose it fighting in something you didn't want to be fighting in to begin with. I know there's this whole thing about pride, honor, and yadda yadda, but in the end, it's pointless.

Think of it this way, you take 100,000 people randomly and basically tell them, "you're going off to war, and you're most likely going to die. here's a gun, here's your mission." That's such a waste. There's no way they're gonna get the job done better than an army made up of volunteers, in fact, you'll be wasting a LOT more lives.

Either way, it's a moot point because the army has so many volunteers at this point in time that the draft is pretty much non-existent.. unless China were to invade or something.

[edit]
That's not say there isn't anything I'd fight for... if the country got invaded and there were enemy soldiers running down my street, then yeah.. because either way I wouldn't have a choice.

But to fight in wars like Vietnam or Iraq where the cause for war is pretty f'n pointless and doesn't affect us at all whatsoever, then no. Yeah yeah, rid the world of communism, yeah yeah, get rid of a Tyrranical leader.. but if you run out of resources, then don't come crawling to me. Swallow your pride and back the hell out. There's no chance I'm gonna waste my life over that.

If you pro-military folks want to drone on about how wonderful service is and how there are over 200 jobs and blah blah, that's fine- but I am not less a man, less a person, less a patriotic, God-fearing (in my case), democracy-loving, peace-minded human being because I do not think I should be FORCED to enter the service with you.

I am not ungrateful of my past and my present, and I know exactly what you all do for those of us who choose not to serve. That choice is our right. How can one engage in extolling the virtues of service as being the "protector of our freedoms", while simultaneously trying to abridge them?

From a purely "i want to win" standpoint- I'd also point out that an army of people who do not want to be there will not do nearly as good a job as, and will pose a threat to, the good people who volunteer for this very important role.

I see your point quite well sire I just find it funny the kind of example you used for how far out it is.

Good question, but a poor argument. When military units were desegregated it was politicaly expedient to do so, and yes it caused alot of problems. That is in the past, in todays Army (I cannot speak for the other branches) racism is pretty much a moot point. The social dynamic of race, however, is a far cry from that of gender. Women, or rather the gender issues surrounding them, cause enough problems in support roles in the military, let alone if they were placed in combat units.

So...it was a problem when the units were desegregated, and now things are fine. But if we had women serve with men, the same thing wouldn't happen, because "the social dynamic of race is a far cry from that of gender"? I think you found your poor argument.

No, quite the opposite. You see, in the Army black men and white men don't fuck each other. Hell, by your reasoning maybe we can even enlist fungus and marsupials. In a few years there should be no problem, because all situations are analogous, right?

If you really need a more in depth explanation please tell me, and I will be happy to oblige.

Race was a pretty bad example...

The gender thing ins't so easy to go by much due to biological and social stuff out there