Looks like we're going to have a "draft" after all
 

During the presidential debates, a return of the "draft" was one spectre thrown out by both sides, each accusing the other that he would re-institute the draft if elected. Bush denied the "rumors on the Internets" that he was going to reinstitute a draft.

But this question is a lot more complicated than it seems. Consider:

1. The Selective Service is now admitting that it will be instituting a kind of military draft. This won't be a draft of soldiers into combat, but a draft of doctors, nurses, engineers, plumbers, mechanics, etc. etc. into the military to support the Iraq operations.
2. There is no doubt that if the U.S. starts another war, it will not be possible to fight it without reinstituting a draft of soldiers into combat. That's because Iraq and Afghanistan are currently stretching the military to its limits.
3. There already is a back-door draft. Recently 40,000 National Guard troops were told that their enlistment extends another 26 years. Many of these people enlisted under a one-year obligation.
4. The politics of the draft are complex. People in favor of a draft have argued for instance:

--a draft would force everybody from all socioeconomic levels to participate in combat, rather than working class and minorities that are currently overrepresented in the volunteer military;

--a draft would make politicians more careful in making decisions to go to war, since their children would also be subject to the draft (ideally);

--without a draft, there's basically no antiwar movement. Sixty percent of Americans oppose the Iraq war, but they aren't doing much because they're willing to pay volunteers to fight it. If there were a draft, the antiwar movement would be immediately mobilized.

Says Charles Rangel:


So here are some questions for debate. We already essentially have a draft that is immorally forcing working class people and minorities (the bulk of the volunteers) to serve for many years, in some cases decades, beyond their initial contractual agreement. Plus we're soon going to have a draft of skilled laborers who will be sent over to Iraq.

Wouldn't it be better if we just made all this completely honest and above board by reinstituted a full military draft, without deferments? That way (1) everybody, male, female, rich, poor, black, white would have to share this burden; and (2) we would find out very quickly how prepared American citizens and their elected representatives really are to continue fighting this Iraq war.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ion=6.0.12.857
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1209-12.htm

I read this article as well....but decided to refrain from posting it here.

After reading it I must say I was quite pleased to be approaching 40. Not that I have any of the specialized skills this is likely to start off with. The statements by those in the know....that another front in this War would create a shortage of "Grunts" kinda hit home though.

Huh? Draft? Are you crazy? Bush promised not to have one!

It's called Freedom Duty. If there's no "draft" in the name, it can't be a draft. You're not anti-Freedom, are you?

Please
 

This type of reply is becoming more and more prevelant in this forum....and leads to nothing but further trolling.

I will ask that we show some level of Maturity and contribute more productively.


Because:

This is nothing but a Freakin' Troll

True. My apologies.

MOD EDIT: (content removed) Nice try, but you don't get the last word. Not this time.

I think there should be mandatory military service for all males in the Unided States. At least 1 year between the ages of 18 and 24.

And if the DPRK strikes a deal with Al-queda giving them some nukes we better damn well have a draft. But like I said before, we won't invade the north koreans, we'll just nuke the communisim right out of them.

Any attempt to Impress me will be viewed, by me, as an attempted Enslavement, and will be resisted with all nessesary force. A Draft is unConstitutional ( Involuntary Servitude, remember? ) and amounts to nothing more than armed Slavery.

If you live in this country, and you love this country, and you believe in what this country stands for then you should have no problem fighting for this country.

No free-loaders.

I have two things on this.

First, this is old news, before the election even. You can't really whine "but Bush promised...." when you see that this news goes back to last year.

If it is such a big issue to you, why weren't these comments bigger news before the election?

Second, the following quote was purposely left out of this discussion:
User: tfp@noname.com Pass: 1234tfp

Common Knowledge: There is always a plan for a draft, this is not news. This is not a Bush thing, a Clinton thing or a whoever is running in 2008 thing, this is a defense thing and should be treated as such. Not thrown out to try and further bash Bush.

However, I notice that nobody bothers to mention that little tidbit of information.

This quote right here really gets me:
Oh, we are huh? This has now gone to a plan that is always in place (and on the shelf) to actually gonna happen?

And then we have this from the RS article:
Uh, duh. Selective Service has always had the means to draft you, if Congress puts the plan into action.

This is really weak.

While I do so enjoy bieng called a freeloader, as it gives wonderful insight into the thought process of the individual that would issue such a statement....I will take exception in this case.

Personally, I would consider military service were my country (which I indeed love) under threat in some way that I could see, and accept as real. It would be "My Duty" to my loved ones, as well as the society I am a part of. I would not, however consider such if I felt the actions of my country were not justified.

This my friend, is part of bieng a citizen of the World.

If every soldier in every army was able to question the leader of the military and decide what battles are and are not worthy for his fight, no one would have a strong army. It is not up to the individual soldier to decide which threats are "real". It is the soldier's duty to follow orders.

All I am asking is one year. One year of following orders, giving to something more than yourself, one year of standing by your fellow countrymen prepared to serve when duty calls. Thats all.


--oh before I forget, what thought process would that be?

I assume that you are currently in iraq, protecting our freedom.

You need not be on the battlefield to serve your country. I am not asking that everyone serve on the battlefield, only that they serve. It is up to the leadership to determine where that service shall be.

My apologies....I thought I had placed enough care in my reply to avoid being overtly critical. A thought process is that which we use to formulate an opinion, and I generally enjoy using a form of reverse engineering to guage the way an individual thinks, based on commentary. I find this somewhat handy, when deciding whether to continue a dialogue.

"the leadership." heh...I can't help but think of Big Brother when I hear a term like that used to describe the president and the rest of government.

The way I see it, with a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it is impossible for those in government to be "the leadership." They (theoretically at least) get their orders from the citizenry and, thus, WE are "the leadership." All approximately 300 million of us. If the government is "the leadership" (and I don't mean to discuss de facto standards here, because we all know the government has been ACTING like "the leadership" - with our willing complacence of course) then it is no longer a government FOR the people, but a government ABOVE the people. Any government that can TELL me to go die (let's face it, that's what it's doing) as opposed to explaining, and explaining well, why I should feel genuinely threatened and want to fight for my country is not a government SERVING me. It is my master.

Another case of the post title not matching the facts presented.

The only thing I saw that could even remotely be called a back-door draft is the extending of enlistment periods, which I don't know enough about to know if what was said is true. (In otherwords, I would like to see more information on it, but I am doubtful since the rest of the article is obviously spinning already known things to a dubious conclusion.)

The rest of what is presented is, as another poster said, weak.

The government has always had plans to draft people it needs in the event of a major war (geez, don't any of you watch M*A*S*H? :D)

tec....thanks but I know what a thought process is. Perhaps I wan't clear. I want to know what wonderful insight into my thought process was gained by reading my previous statement.

SecretMethod...by "leadership" I was referring to those in the military. Granted, the prez and the sec. of defense have great influence on where, when, and if military action is taken, but where I serve is not immediately determined by either one of them, but by military brass.

and the gov't is not there to serve you. It is there to protect you and your way of life. But the government can not do that alone, for the gov't is made of the people, by the people, and for the people as you so eloquently quoted. So it is up to the people to stand up when they are asked, without question. That is why we have elected officials, so they can make those decisions for us. It's called delegating. You can't have it both ways. You can't participate in the democratic process and when it doesn't work out the way you like you can't just go about refusing to follow the rules.

stevo, I gotta tell ya, man...that statement just sends cold shivers up and down my spine. That's truly frightening.

one year is nowhere near the amount of time one would need to be able to provide military service. I don't care what your occupational specialty would be.

As a conservative, I'm against the govt mandating military service on all young adults. However, the service does offer a lot of characteristics that can make a person more successful in civilian life (discipline, honor, work ethic, ect...)

So the only reason you're not currently fighting in iraq is because of where you were assigned?

If you must get personal, its because I am "permanetly ineligable." Not because I didn't call up a recuiter. My family has been in the military (one form or another) for generations, right down to my brothers.

So bill, what do we have elected officials for then, if not to make the big decisions? Do yout think its easier if we all decide individually what is in our nation's best interest? That would get us nowhere.

I do not serve now nor will I unless there is an actual threat to my freedoms. Calling someone a freeloader just because they do not serve in the armed forces is about as personal an attack as you can throw out there. I pay my taxes, theres more to being an American than simply joining up and performing your duty, but because I choose not to serve in the military I'm a freeloader. There's no need to be bitter because you can't go play war with the others.

I'm not trying to offend you. It's just that it seems that many of the war's most vocal supporters lack the intestinal fortitude to actually contribute anything to the war effort beyond a "support our troops" bumper sticker.

That being said, i don't think iraq was any threat to our freedom. I would gladly fight in a war i believed in.

as a person who wears the uniform everyday... the last thing i want is to lead troops who don't want to be there. it is my opinion that a draft should be instituted only when our fundamental national survival is at stake. if congress wants our military to continue at this frenetic pace (the reserve is now on a schedule that exceeds 24 month deployments)... we really need to rethink our force size/structure.

Reasons aside, a draft always has, and always will be on the backburner in the gov't. Like KMA said, if the gov wants you, they can get you. Always.

It does no good to worry about it until it actually happens. I don't think it will happen, but I could get a card in the mail tomorrow. I will admit that I am a bit uninformed on the draft issue itself, because it is terribly difficult to get an account of the facts of the situation without a political spin. I mean both to the left and the right, I don't want to spark a lib/conserv war.

Until it happens I am not going to sweat it. And yes, I will go if I am called, no questions.

Talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

Typical.

I'll tell you what, I WILL NOT go in the event of a draft. This whole situation is bullshit to begin with. I don't support this war, I don't support the troops in this war and I don't agree with Bush's actions, his policies or anyting he had done that has gotten us in this mess. Freeloader my ass. It's called standing up for what you believen in and not being a blind waving flag holder.

Go die for Bush?? Fuck that. I'd rather go to jail.

Before we go all anti-bush here, let's remember that the draft comes up with every conflict. And also remember that the current Iraq situation was a long time coming, and is not entirely his fault. Granted the handling of it could be better(in fact a whole lot better), there is still a lot of history behind the thing.

Thank you for this...refreshing example of how we should act in this Forum.

Pretty clever though nonetheless. :p

I think part of the problem may be they way our military institution is structured.

I think in theory, there should be no need for a draft as we should have a professional standing armed forces. At least this is what I had always though and assumed.

1. What I do not understand is, we have one of the largest and advanced armed forces in the world, so then why are we "stretched so thin"? I always assumed our military's pre-eminence but it seems like were either sitting ducks or weak or something. Plus we spend an incredible amount for defense. What gives? Where is the money going then if were still so "weak"? I find this a bit disconcerting and alarming and I'm concerned that we're being called out and the world is seeing our vulnerabilities.

2. While in theory the draft would give equality in socio-economic terms, it would still not address the issue of quality - EX: unwilling soldiers make poor soldiers.

Here'a a radical and abstract idea: One solution would be to make distinctions in our war planing. For example, if there is no determinant cause (direct threat/clear & present danger) then the choice to go to war and ensuing costs should be billed to those that instituted that war. EX: Iraq - No clear and present danger, not a priority war. No problem, bill the $300 billion to the Republican party, Halliburton, cheney etc. Bill the Sudan (Black HAwk Down) debacle to Clinton's administration, Democrats etc. Bill the Europeans for Bosnia. With accountability and responsibility, decisions will be made with more careful consideration instead of recklessly. We are more careless and reckless with other people's lives and money so put it on the line.

3. If you sign up for the Armed Forces (regardless of your intention) you did so knowing your obligation. So, since we can't pick our "war" then either don't sign up in the first place or fulfill your end of the bargain. People who complain of the draft always whine and say the're moving to Canada but they never do. We all know of the draft since the day we sign the Selective Service form when we turn 18. I don't think it's going to happen, I think it's a "we reserve the right" thing. I suppose if we truly gave a shit, it would have been made a real campaign issue long ago.

I agree completely.

it really doesn't matter how strong a military is... there will always be limitations. our military supremacy is, literally, unparalleled in the history of the world. even so, our strength lies in technological innovation and well-trained personnel... not in numbers. i think it's a popular misconception (one i'm not saying that you, specifially, hold) that the U.S. military is some monolithic thing with millions upon millions of troops. in fact, our force size is relatively small when compared to the diversity of our missions. there are plenty of militaries around the world who have more people in them.

the money in the budget that goes to defense is spent on maintaining our distinct technological advantage and maintaining a well trained/paid/educated fighting force. it does not, however, stretch far enough to have all those things and also have millions of soldiers at our disposal.

if the military is tasked with:
fighting a war in afghanistan...
fighting a war in iraq
prosecuting a massive drug interdiction campaign in south america
maintaining a forward operating presence in europe and asia
providing tsunami relief across the pacific
being on-call to defend homeland targets
defending embassies and american interests abroad
being a major component of ALL united nations operations
composing a majority of all NATO forces
etc.

all the while balancing the mission with its people... having enough people to accomplish these objectives (and MANY more) while making the lifestyle livable so people will stay in an all-volunteer force. you can see why they are spread so thin, especially in light of all the many personnel drawdowns brought about in the 90s.

our policymakers deploy our military at an unprecedented pace with an ever-broadening scope. and still they ask that they do so with fewer and fewer people.

trust me, the american taxpayer is getting their "bang" (pun intended) for their buck. still, there is a point where it can go no farther... either we must begin to accept how much bang we can wring out of a buck, or shell our more bucks to get more bang.

Irate,

Thanks for the thorough reply. It paves the way for continued discussion in a thoughtful manner.

So, I admit, I did have a sort of monolithic view of our military, I suppose it's something I always took for granted (but grateful for).

In that case, can we say our hypothesize that our military institution needs to change or shift to adapt to new objectives. In other words, a major paradigm shift. For example, do we need to keep and maintain "x"-amount of tanks? Do we need to redefine our objectives and mission statement?

In regards to the draft (original thread topic), if we shift our objectives, presumably we would focus on qualitative measure as oppose to quantitative. If so, then a draft is definitely not necessary. Then, we have a finite limitation to the "quantity" of missions as well.

For example: to redefine and implement our US military policy and strategy, in the given case - Choice of missions: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea, Tsunami. If we only have resources for three out of the six, then our decision making process becomes critical and more scrutinized.

I dunno, sumthin' like that. Let me think about it some more and come back.

Inherent autonomy (the fancy shmansy name for everyone who don't do anything unless they are effected directly by something, namely most Americans) will no longer be a problem if a draft comes a knockin'. Will we have another draft dodge? I know I'll be gladly burning my draft card.

-btw-

"United States vs. O'Brien" keeps us from claiming the First Ammendment for draft card burning, so be ready to be convicted right along with me. I'll see you there.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=391&invol=367

I am 19 and most likely would be one those drafted if it was re-enacted. If the draft came back I would not engage in military service. Fighting for my nation is not worth risking my life to me. I would either be a contentious objector, leave the country, or find a way to not serve active duty. Do not get me wrong, I love America. But, I should not have to fight. My family has paid in blood for my right for freedom. The debt I own to my country has already been paid for me. My father spent seven years in Vietnam. I have an uncle that was in Korea and died in a POW camp. My grandfather served in WWII. One of my great-grandfathers and my great-uncle served in WWI. My family paid my debt to this nation for my freedom and no one else in my family should ever have to serve.

What about your children, grand children, and great-grandchildren? If all of those people before you died for YOU, what about those who come after?

I have a similar background, going back even further than the Revolutionary War. So far, almost every male in my family has served, both peacetime and wartime, and served proudly.

I don't think the debt is ever paid off, just whittled away at in installments.

Not to pick at your comment, it just made me think, now that I am a father.

I would never let my son think that his duty or obligation to this country has already been paid and that he owes this country nothing.

Who knows what the future holds for us. Who knows the enemies we will face. Who knows the sacrifices our children will need to make to further ensure the freedom of their children.

See that isn't the logic that most of us share, at least I don't think it is. I simply will not fight because those in power want to invade a foreign land in order to spread the greatness of Democracy. If it came down to us being attacked by an aggressor then I wouldn't need a draft, I'd be there of my own free will.

So...you enlisted on 9/12/2001?

This is actually difficult to quantify. I'm not sure we should "account for debt" in terms of service. It's like trying to measure who's more patriotic or who's more American. If you use military service as a measure, than many people who have lineage that goes far back but didn't serve or family didn't serve can't claim to be as American or patriotic then?

What if you're the cook or chaplain in the service? Do you have to serve in combat for it to count? What if you're in intel or the diplomatic coprs? What if you're the driver for Rumsfeld?

I think it's best to just "do" what you can do, in your capacity. Otherwise it's too hard to say who's "served" per se. I mean, what if you joined but never saw duty and instead went AWOL in the Texas Air National Guard and they "lost" your service record? The draft doesn't necessarily equalize things - the priviledged can still find ways to "duck service".

I just wanted to illustrate some of the challenges of this particular debate.

Another reason why I won't go in the event of a draft. When dumbya sends his daughters (and I hear that women are fair game this time) MAYBE then I'll think about it.

I will most likely be joining the Marines before 2005 is out. However, I find comments such as Stevo's disgusting. Being forced to serve is absolutely NOT what my view of America is about. That kind of shit reminds me of Soviet Russia. What next Stevo? Political officers to make sure the scum are doing what they're told? Ridiculous. I would not want to have someone beside me in combat that never wanted to be there in the first place.

I won't serve in the military. Being a consentious objector just means I don't get placed on the front lines, instead i'm on a ship somewhere which still is unacceptable to me. Leaving the country is cowardly. So I have decided this if there is a draft and I am drafted, which I cannot legally get out of (say with student status), then I will report directly to jail. Anyone want to share a cell with me?

talk about having family members that served in the past is a debt paid for our country is the exact reason why a draft is the worst thing that could happen to our military. serving in the military is not about paying off a debt to live here, its about believing in what america stands for and keeping that belief alive as you spread that dream to others around the world.
My grandfather served in WW2, my uncle in vietnam, I served in the USMC for 6 years. I didn't serve so my son would not have to and my family didn't serve so I wouldn't have to. It was a choice to defend what I believe in.

lebell, WMA: I'm looking at the big picture here, as is the Rolling Stone article. If you take everything into consideration, as the article tries to do, the picture you get is a military in significant trouble. We simply cannot continue along the road we're on much longer, with the current global state of affairs.

And it's not just about the future, it's about right now: there are critical, dangerous shortages right now, directly caused by the war in Iraq. Some substantial changes are going to be necessary. It's not a question of whether, it's a question of what.

The U.S. is really at a major crossroads right now. We have to make some hard decisions. In my opinion, it comes down to (1) pulling out of Iraq very soon and taking the time to reanalyze, regroup, and reassess our overall strategy on the "war on terror," or (2) a full military draft. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it could be some combination of the two, but both of these possibilities should be on the table right now.

The lessons of Vietnam compells me to agree with you. There s no better
way to end the madness of the Bush/neocon/Christian right agenda than
to institute a full military draft that will hasten the monetary bankrupcy of
the U.S. treasury while it is triggering a backlash of protest and resistance from those whose lives are suddenly disrupted, some shattered, by compulsory service in Bush's drive to spread his cancerous version of freedom throughout his growing list of rogue states.

The conscription of young men in the 1960's who then were sent to fill the
ranks of foot soldiers ordered to fight and die in Vietnam caused a backlash
that ended the presidency of LBJ, and finally the war. Boys of modest means who weren't sheltered by college draft deferments, disproportionately minority and not deterred by Cheney's "other priorities", or Bush's "go to the head of the line" pass, into the Texas ANG, in between volunteer work in political campaigns of his daddy's friends, or by flights to Washington at the invitation of Nixon to date his daughter Trisha, were the fodder whose ended up as the names on the black granite wall on the D.C. mall. Bush and Cheney got to live on and make names for themselves, and now are making a list of names for a future black granite, memorial wall.

Would that a merciful, all knowing, all seeing, Almighty, have seen fit to reverse this outcome; quietly overseeing an equal opportunity conscription 35 years ago, displacing the names of two boys of less advantage and influence, and no "other priorities", way back then, to inhabit that black granite memorial wall, with the names of George and Dick? If these two had had the privilege of "fighting for their" country in Vietnam, and giving their last full measure, instead of the two who took their places, how many would avoid needless suffering or death, today? We will never know, because God has obviously chosen to watch Bush's back, as he kills in the name and at the direction of the Almighty.

"Bring em on"....so that Bush has a reason to bring on a draft ! It's a great day to die for our PFCFRA....patriotic fundamendalist christian fascist of America.

You read my mind. What worries me is that where the protests actually had a serious sociopolitical effect in the 60's, now it just seems to be laughed at and dismissed by most. The forms of non-violent protest that were once effective no longer have the effect they once had. Standing on a street corner with a flag and shouting at traffic won't stop this. Gathering at liberal colleges and shouting at more people won't stop this. IMO, non-violent protests/civili disobediance needs to evolve. There has to be a more large scale way to get the message out there to people who just watch CNN and FOXnews. Those are the sheeple that are the problem. We need to remind people of alternate media (like Free Speech TV, dish channel 9415), the media that isn't relying on funds from AOL/Time Warner. We need to reach people over the internet. We need to boycott irresponsible news networks.

We have a responsibility to ourselves, our children, and our country to make sure that we the people remain in power. This country is supposed to be a democracy, in other words the people in this country are responsible for the activities of state. Our state is torturing people, invading countries in order to control world oil, banning and destroying civili liberties and a lot of people are simply going along with it. It is not the government's responsibility to regulate itself, it is ours. Checks and balances doesn't work when all three branches are afflicted.

I would like to applaud you on your eloquence there. You took an absolutely valid argument and didn't turn it into an anti-bush rant.
Even as a Bush supporter I have an open mind on criticisms to his policies, actions, what have you. They are a whole lot easier to take sans the words anti-christ.

Thanks. Somehow Bushbashing didn't seem like it would help the argument. It seems like I made the right decision. Also, your signature made me laugh outloud.

What do you think about civil responsibility? I tend to believe that eventually all government should be in the hands of every American, but the problem is that so many sources are trying to sway, trick, and control us. It's a difficult situation.

It's KMA by the way..

This would be a valid point of discussion, however, after reading your title for the thread and your original post. I don't see you trying to make this argument at all. I see continuation of scare tactics, rumor spreading, etc.

What is the title of the thread? "Looks like we're going to have a "draft" after all"

I'm gonna have to call BS on this one.

You were not trying to look at the big picture, quite the other way around.

Rolling Stone is not trying to look at the big picture either. I got my last issue yesterday and have since canceled my subscription. After having a RS subscription for a long time, I have grown fed up because they have no clue what a big picture even looks like.

This argument has been going on for a long time, well before Iraq.

The whole "military stretched too thin" argument has been used many times over the past 20-30 years.

It is used by the side that wants to increase the size of the military, saying that we are too weak.

It is also used by the other side, saying we are stretched too thin as an argument against whatever the military is being used for.

Both sides using the same argument dilutes it for me.

i believe we could drop several of these things, tsunami relief has everyone else in the world helping, it can afford to not have us still be there
we dont need to continue to fight the drug war down south, that is an easy easy fix.
I Dont want to go to iraq, however if drafted ill go and ill fight my damnedest because even if i dont want to be there, i might as well try to stay alive and keep soldiers around me alive to improve all our chances.
For the unfairness in draftees/dodging i think capitalism has a big part in that and i for one hate it, to me its just taking advantage of other people.

Hmmm, that's a toughie willtravel. It has changed with my realization that unfortunately my generation is one of the laziest and most disrespectful. I don't remember who said it, but unwilling soldiers from my generation, with some exceptions, would make bad soldiers. So in my opinion the draft for military service probably won't get the desired effects. What I think would probably be more effective is a draft for a service. Example, packing supplies to be sent over to our troops. Becuase I would at least hope that every American would want the troops to be as well supplied as possible, I don't think that this would meet with the same resistance as military service. Also it could be very easy to fit into a schedule, say, 8 hours before a given date at the local national guard armory. Just a thought.

Uh, don't look now, but on the site you keep plugging, it says this (yes, I edited it slightly--you can check it yourself if you think I distorted it):

"Jackson had as a member of the executive branch been responsible for actions that would not draw the praise of some civil libertarians. He had planned for the arrest of citizens of German and Italian descent who had been involved with subversive organization such as the German American Bund. Jackson had also argued for the Alien Registration Act and the peacetime Selective Service Act."

You shouldn't be so offended. Soviet Russia was not the only place where militarty service is mandatory. Although there are many positives to an all-volunteer force, there are few places where a person can learn like they can in the military. I don't wish people who don't want to be there to make a career out of it, but I don't see anything wrong with requiring a year or two of service. I know I'm in the vast minority here, and my opinions probably won't get much if any support. But you sound like you'll make a good marine. Thank you.

A citizen who does not question is a bad citizen.

The government and the way of life exist to serve the people. Insofar as the government and the way of life do not serve the people, they are not good.

No. You elect officials so they can look into issues, and figure out what would be best. Ideally everyone would make those decisions, but that takes too much work.

There are rules, then there are the reasons behind the rules. When the rules cease to follow the reasons behind the rules, the rules should be opposed.

The post title I think accurately reflects both the tone and the content of the RS article that it quotes.

Whether one agrees with it or not depends on one's assessment of the big military picture; i.e. whether one agrees with people like Charles V. Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, or James R. Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve.

If you are seriously interested in this topic, you might want to click on the second link (on the National Guard) provided in the thread-starter post.

This story on the Army Reserves is also relevant, and was quoted in the RS article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-...?oneclick=true

Well I'm sure the American Medical Association is aware of that TV show. But when word got out that the Selective Service was in the process of reactivating procedures to draft medical personnel, the AMA was so alarmed that they voted to maintain a continuous dialog with the agency for the duration of the Iraq war.

Feel free then to make a reasoned argument. It's difficult to see what stance you're taking in your short posts in this thread. For example,

-- do you disagree with Army Reserve Chief James Helmly that the Reserves have degenerated into a "broken force"?

-- do you disagree with National Guard assessments that its recruitment goals for 2004 were not met, and that it is seriously behind recruitment goals so far in 2005?

-- do you disagree with Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo, who believes that volunteer soldiers should not be subject to coercive re-enlistment tactics, and that force reductions in the 1990s after the cold war "went too far and too deep"?

-- do you disagree with Charles Pena of the Cato Institute (a Libertarian think tank) that a military draft is a possible outcome of any serious worsening of the situation in Iraq (let alone at other global flashpoints)?

-- do you think that President Bush has the power to keep his promise that there will not be a draft, regardless of military requirements? Isn't that a decision that is thrust upon us by our enemies, rather than one we are free to make depending on the direction the political winds are blowing?

Well I think we definitely do "give a shit," but only when the time comes when you're forced to get in the bus to boot camp. Until then, it's just a theoretical possibility that you don't really take seriously. It's like every time you get into a car you could die a horrible death, but you never take the risk seriously until you see the headlights speeding your direction down the wrong side of the road.

Definitely true. So does that mean that whenever we're in a war where we have a shortage of willing soldiers, we should pull out? If so then you could make an excellent case that that particular argument applies right now to the Iraq war.

Eh you got me, but it sounded good didn't it.

I thought I was pretty clear. Why write a book when you can make your point quickly?

No, I don't disagree with him. I have voiced my opinion of the reserves in the past. War time or peace time, reservists are a waste of uniforms. I was regular and served with some reserves when I was in the Gulf, sorry, you can keep them in the states to make sure the Alabama border doesn't get over run.

See above. I am more concerned with the recruitment numbers for regulars.

To the first part: That is party of serving in the military. I was made aware of the policy, I accepted, took the risk and did my time. This is no secret. Also, the idea behind "stop loss" is to further protect lives, and I support that 100%. This is not some great conspiracy like you would like it to be. My enlistment could've been extended without my permission, but that is part of serving in the military and they tell you this up front.

I belong to the "quit yer whining and do yer job" crowd.

To the second part: I couldn't agree more.

Yes I do. We are stretched thin, but not so thin that a draft would be needed for Iraq.

I don't know. If Congress were to try and institute a draft, does the President have the power to stop the draft?

Can't answer the second part, it is too hypothetical.

Anyway...

I stand on the point(s) I made when I first responded in this thread. I also agree wholeheartidly with Lebell's comment about the thread title--it was very misleading. When that was pointed out, you changed your position. Now, it sounds like you are back to your first position.

Now I am confused--which position of yours on this subject am I supposed to be refuting?

On a different note: You might reconsider using David Qualls in your argument. Using him to help back up your position doesn't bode well for your argument.

More importantly, does your opinion change?

Since the requirements for you to enlist were met and you didn't enlist, is it safe to say that you are against serving in the military regardless of the circumstances?

There is nothing wrong with that, if that is your true feeling. While I think all men should serve, I don't think it should be mandatory.

KMA...i understand you personally may not think reservists are terribly effective, and i will offer no opinion one way or the other on account of a total lack of standing to do so.

But we are deploying them. A lot of them. Granting your position for the sake of argument, ahow is this not a sign of alack of regulars?

Like everyone here I have opinions. Whether they are correct or not is a whole different discussion.

Personally, I would send reserves to other parts of the world and have the regulars do the fighting. However, the regulars have more of a say in where they go and the reserves don't, so it is easier to send reserves sometimes.

Without knowing actual troop levels and where these troops are stationed, it is really hard to say one way or another. Who knows, maybe if more regulars were brought into Iraq from other stations we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

That's kind of a tough one to answer.

I do think Daswig had a point. Make the military more attractive and recruitment will go up.

Yeah, and this time, no hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard for the fortunate sons.

Feeding troll meat to trolls serves no valuable purpose....please keep that in mind

Well, if you guys do have a draft and you don't want to be part of it, then I invite you all to move north to Canada. Unless it's WW3, odds are, we won't be getting involved because it will be a waste of time and money.

Canada did really well the last time that the states had a draft. Something like 125,000 young men decided that they weren't going to die for no reason in Vietman and made the trek north. A great many are still here today and are some of our best and brightest.

^^
Slight problem: Your PM signed a deal with our President way back in 2001 which requires Canada to extradite draft-dodgers to the US. The "Northern Railroad" doesn't work anymore.

Well if reservists and guard are a “waste of uniforms” then 40% of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq are a “waste of uniforms.” That’s a nice way to phrase the sheer magnitude of our current military fiasco.

If we follow your advice and send the reservists and guard back home to the Alabama border, then we will have cut the Iraq force by 40%. Those soldiers left to man the fort wouldn’t be too happy about that situation, would they? At least the surviving ones wouldn’t be.

If we’re going send the poorly trained, largely unwilling support troops back home, then we might as well fold up the Iraq operation completely and send everybody home.

This statement completely ignores the fact that recruitment targets for regulars are dependent on the targets for non-regulars. And vice-versa. They’re all interdependent. Whenever any subset doesn’t meet its target, that’s a problem for the entire military. Especially during a time of war.

Again, 40% of the active force in Iraq is non-regulars. When 40% of an active force, during a time of war, is not meeting its recruitment and retention goals, that’s not a trivial problem. That’s a problem that the entire military has to deal with.

In practical terms, that simply means that the current manpower fiasco is only going to get a lot worse, and very rapidly.


Then you’re contradicting yourself. First you say that the reserves aren’t qualified to do their job and should stay in Alabama to guard the border, then you tell them to “quit yer whining and do yer job.”

I can think of several scenarios where a draft could very quickly become needed for Iraq. Or for Iran, or Syria, or North Korea. Can’t you? If you can’t, then you certainly disagree with Pena and just about every other military analyst.

If the president and Congress will never institute the draft under any circumstances, then why not just eliminate all doubt and kill the Selective Service Commission? Why not abolish the draft registration law?

The answer is obvious: just about everybody wants to have the draft as a last-resort option. And last resort means when the U.S. is truly threatened and must immediately respond in order to eliminate that threat. In other words, for exactly the reasons that the Administration gave us for going to war with Iraq.

So either the reasons are bogus, or we desperately need a draft, right now.

Well it may not be hypothetical tomorrow, or next month. But if you don’t feel comfortable thinking about it, by all means don’t.

David Qualls is just the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon is going after just about everybody. After they’re done with Gulf War I vets, then presumably they’ll go after Vietnam war vets, then Korean war vets, then WWII vets, then they’ll be calling the two surviving 100-year olds who served in WWI.

Plus in addition they're threatening current volunteers in various ways to force them to re-enlist.

Pointing out that this strategy creates unwilling and poorly trained soldiers just as effectively as a draft does, at least recognizes the nature and scope of the problem.

On the other hand, simply telling these people to “quit yer whining and do yer job” meaning to fight and die, while at the same time telling them that they’re a “waste of uniforms” is not going to solve anything. In fact it is oblivious even to the existence of a problem.

You might want to read up a bit if you are going to continue to use this guy to help bolster your argument.

Hint: How did the story end????

As to the other stuff: no i don't like reserves and I am allowed to have that opinion. The whining comment is nowhere near contradictory, check again. I realize that you have flip-flopped through this thread, but I am fairly consistent. Don't try and turn it around.

We are going nowhere and this has now become tedious.....

ehhh, forget it....

not worth continuing....

Hola Senior. Recepción a México.

Oh crap. Here we go again. O'Rights and I agree on something ;)


Stevo. . . seriously, your statement is encouraging people to allow themselves to be dominated by an oppressive government. Any time you obey the orders of a government without even asking yourself if it's a good idea, you're doing nothing short of begging for repression. You must realize that governments do not always have your best interest at heart. If more were aware of this, our current situation might not have happened.

There is not going to be a draft. The idea was brought up by a democratic senator who voted against it himself.