The Draft: Should it be brought back?

Our military could make a man out of Milhouse.

Could it make a man out of Sherrie and Terrie?

Modern medical science being what it is, probably.

The question is however if it is worth the expense to pick people, force them to serve, to train them, and then get one year of service out of them.

If your only goal is to make rich people join the military then you need to reexamine your own concepts of equality. Treating the military as punishment duty for a lack of total equality is foolhardy.

 

You just can't take a guy who is used to being a bank teller and have him ready to fight in Iraq in 2 weeks.

Duh!

If there is a chance that more troops seems likely to be necessary, than draft people in a decent interval before hand in case they are indeed necessary.

Would you limit the choices of draftees to certain non-critical jobs, or would you really assign someone who doesn't want to be there to operate a 12 missle volley of MLRS cluster bombs?

Draftees could be assigned based on many factors, i.e. what they are interested in, what is needed, what their skills are, etc.

 

It says roughly 30% of the enlisted structure is made up of minorities, and 13% of the officer ranks are minoriites.

Bit of a gap there, don't ya think?

EDIT: To be fair, it doesn't distinguish between those who had a degree prior to joining, and those who earned one in-service.

Thank you for being fair because that's an important distinction to make.

 

By drafted soldiers, I take it you mean American soldiers? Most of the ADF guys in Vietnam were drafted and as statistics show, they basically brought the Allied kills-to-shots-fired ratio down...

E_S

 

Again, though, I don't know if such an idea is completely compatible with the modern miltary..

Farraday seems to hit on the main concerns?

If it is viewed as a punishment, how would the quality not go down?

Secondly, what time frame would the service entail, because again, a year would be completely worthless.

For example, just to be a crewmember on an Abrams tank, the training takes 13 weeks, for a basic level of skill..

Gone are the days of WII, where the Army could train a tank driver in 2 weeks.

That doesn't even cover skills like nuclear submarines, or AWACS radar, or AGEGIS operator, etc... that take 52+ weeks just for training..

Thank you for being fair because that's an important distinction to make

Well, your point seemed more accurate if this was 1972, rather than 2004.

Maybe public perception is slow to adapt, but it doesn't mean it represents reality.

 

Darth-Seldon: No matter how powerful the nation is, it cannot take over a people with strong nationalism. These wars cannot be won. And they never have been.

Just chiming in...China has always been highly nationalist, and was when they were conquered by the Mongols in 1268, as was the empire of the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258. And then the more recent and most glaring example (which is why I think you intentionaly left it out of your considerations for evidence to prove your point)...the Japanese Empire from the First World War until 1945 was very nationalist and very conquered until the end of US occupation.

Special_Fred makes a beautiful point. The draft seems to be ideologically contradictory to the Social Contract that democracy uses for legitimization of law. While it may not be slavery in the sense that the term is often used accurately, it does eliminate individual choice and assumes that the individual is not capable of making the rational choice of going to war in defense for defense of the common good. I think this is the result of the gov't having a strikingly different version of the common good than do the common. Otherwise wouldn't we all volunteer?

 

Let's talk details.

What would the age ranges be? Would the draft cover just young men, or would women be expected to serve as well?

Would someone like me, who is in post-graduate training, be forced to give up two years of my life? I don't particularly care for the idea, as medical residencies are long enough as it is.

I would say no. The best armies are the ones that have inspired volunteer soldiers. I would also have a problem with those who have not partaken in military service instituting a draft upon the rest of us, ie many members of the Congress. Additionally, would it be disproportionately targeted against poor minority men?

A lot of questions to ask, a lot of problems to solve.

Peace,

V-03

 

No. The military has about 1.4 million personnel right now and that's enough. True about half are involved in conflicts now, but we still have enough reserves and troops available.

No need for a draft.

 

If a draft was instated, it would most likely be specifically for non-specialized deployment; ie field grunts. The military pays a lot of money to train specialists; so they'll grab fresh high school grads to ship to the front lines.

EDIT: No. The military has about 1.4 million personnel right now and that's enough.

The population of New York City is over 8 million. This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but realize that the amount of personnel in the military is relatively small.

True about half are involved in conflicts now, but we still have enough reserves and troops available.

No need for a draft.

Out of curiousity, what leads you to believe that we have enough reserves and troops available?

 

Out of curiousity, what leads you to believe that we have enough reserves and troops available?

Because Shane's figure only covers troops on active duty.

Adding in the reserves, the US military has a pool of 2.5 million members.

The number of troops serving in just the Army reserve forces number 613,000.

Considering that 56,000 reserve troops are currently deployed, the military is a long way from its saturation point.

I provided the personnel breakdowns on the first page.

 

Mr44 provided the answer stryker. Active military are clearly enough right now. People seem to think we have all our reserves called up and fighting overseas. Wrong. Alot of the activated reserves and guard units are being deployed to cover for the active army units involved in the fighting.

The Pentagon has said we have enough active duty personnel to fight a two-front war simultaneously and have a winning outcome.

That is enough for me.

If anything, the military should be downsized.

 

If anything, the military should be downsized.

No, unnecessary foreign policy initiatives requiring large amounts of troops should be downsized.

The military is more stretched now than it has been since Vietnam.

 

The military is more stretched now than it has been since Vietnam

That is not true.

The draft should not be reinstated as all hell would break loose. No one has the right to tell ME that I have to risk my life because some idiot wants to avenge his father for doing something equally stupid.

The draft, IMO, is unconstitutional. I'd sooner leave America than join the army.

 

No one has the right to tell ME that I have to risk my life because some idiot wants to avenge his father for doing something equally stupid.

If you consider gathering dozens of countries in a massive coalition and assisting a tiny country in kicking out a much larger invader stupid, I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you use.

At any rate, I know I'm against the draft being reinstated. However, I think we need to either rethink our foreign commitments or find a way to get more people into the service voluntarily.

 

If you consider gathering dozens of countries in a massive coalition and assisting a tiny country in kicking out a much larger invader stupid, I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you use.



It's stupid because WE HAVE NO BUSINESS there. Americans are dying needlessly and it disgusts me. So yeah it is stupid.

 

That is not true.

What's not true about it?

The military has been downsizing while foreign commitments have been increasing over the last 20 or 30 years.

 

It's stupid because WE HAVE NO BUSINESS there.

Next time you use a product that was made from or is powered by oil, reconsider that statement. If a coalition hadn't intervened in 1991, it was entirely possible that Iraq would have taken over even more territory, thus affecting your business in all kinds of ways.

To try to tie things to the draft, could we have repeated 1991's massive troop arming and movement without a draft?

Are we truly certain that we could fight a two front war without needing to use using nuclear weapons?

 

Next time you use a product that was made from or is powered by oil, reconsider that statement.

I know exactly what all this means. I've researched before forming my opinion.

So if we need oil we'll just blow up a country?

 

So if we need oil we'll just blow up a country?

We didn't blow up anything in 1991. We removed a foreign invader from a country that wanted our assistance, and doing so very much helped and affected our business.

While 2003 is certainly tied to the Gulf War, what happened in 1991 is its own war and terms.

 

Just when you seemed reasonable sidious you fall off the deep end.

Blowing up a country?



JF
If we have fewer bases, high-tech weapons, fewer bases, less personnel, and fewer bases, then we'll be unable to enter into highly-costly, adventurous foreign endeavours.

 

If we have fewer bases, high-tech weapons, fewer bases, less personnel, and fewer bases, then we'll be unable to enter into highly-costly, adventurous foreign endeavours.

Exactly.

Which is why we have only 130,000 troops in Iraq instead of the approximately 250,000 that are necessary for the peacekeeping and rebuilding of that country.

 

Blowing up a country?


It was the best way to put it. Have you seen those photos of Saddam's palace. They were kind of blown up.

Okay invade was a better word.


Shud up!

 

It was the best way to put it. Have you seen those photos of Saddam's palace. They were kind of blown up.

Okay invade was a better word.

Could you describe when this took place in 1991?

I'm referring only to 1991, when a massive coalition kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.

 

The military is more stretched now than it has been since Vietnam.

Does no one actually pay any attention to what is actually happening, or has sound bite news taken over everything these days?

Because believe it or not, the rest of the military does not shut down, simply because of one conflict.

If one had been actually researching current current military trends, one would see a pattern emerging.

The funny thing is, everything has already been posted right here in the Senate, as well.

Did anyone notice that the administration is repositioning US forces in Korea?

HERE

Did anyone notice that the large, outdated US bases in Germany are now being closed down and HALF OF THE 71,000 TROOPS IN GERMANY ARE BEING SENT HOME?

HERE

Did anyone notice when I posted that the last US deployment to Bosnia will end in about 4 months?

All total, around 58,500 troops are being freed up from prior commitments by the current administration.

Strictly speaking, this is equal to about 4 full Divisions.

And this is being achieved without adding to the military budget, or calling for additional troops, or even instituting a draft.

It is simply using what is available more effectively.

It is not like the previous policy of upholding the status quo is being used...

 

So we still have a difference of 80,000 troops.