Should We Bring Back The Draft? A Genuine Question.
 

I asked this question in another thread but it got sort of buried, so I'll re-post it here.

I have been thinking lately that maybe we should bring back the draft. This is probably a topic for another thread, but here is what I am thinking. Currently it may be easy for some part of the American population to dismiss the casualties in Iraq since the soldiers volunteered for it and the large majority of American families know their kids will never serve anyway. For quite a large part of the population, the casualties are "someone else's problem".

Perhaps a draft would make more Americans pay close attention to how the military is being used, because it will potentially be their own kid in harms' way. I understand the concerns that a draftee Army may be of lower-quality than an all-volunteer force, but perhaps the answer is to select the highest-quality of the draftees for service - to have more of the Harvard-bound kids serving.

I should have clarified, by the way, that what I am thinking about is a real everyone-is-equal draft - no deferments for college students, for parents, for women. And possibly the draft could be extended to the Reserves, in some manner.

Admittedly there is politically not much chance of this happening. But, still, what do people think? Crazy? Stupid? Sensible?

I admit that I haven't done a lot of research about this. For example, I have not compared the demographics of today's all-volunteer Army to the previous mixed draftee/volunteer Army. And I don't know if today's Army can actually train a soldier and integrate him/her with a unit within a 2-year (let's say) draft period. Maybe the whole idea is impractical - let's hear your thoughts.

By the way, I'm not bringing this up as some roundabout liberal attack on Bush. What's motivating this is the feeling that the responsibility and experience of serving in the military shouldn't be something that becomes an utterly foreign concept to the majority of the population.

You'll get more folks involved against the government like they were during Vietnam I'm sure. Not really bad though - revolution isn't always bad.

Well, the draft, or fear thereof has been a key bleat of the left for quite some time now. This sounds like a little more of it, in that it would give a lot of people something MORE to gripe about. Imagine the brouhaha if a draftee bought it in the sand box? More ammunition for the left.

I don't think there needs to be a draft. Unless, say, Iran invades Iraq, and Syria gets uppity, and North Korea invades South Korea, and China Invades Taiwan, and then we can just take on the whole world!! wait... hehehe

i think they should. lots of hoodlums in the bay area. they could really use some "reprogramming". of course, any senator's kids and smart college types should get a pass.

what about a mandatory 2 year term for everybody? like they do in taiwan. seems to work there.

Bring back the draft?
 

Draft everyone with a yellow magnet ribbon on their cars first.

Miller Genuine Draft? Good question...

Not gonna argue the point of so many people needing a re-programming (And no, I'm not speaking of politics here ;) )but seriously, vash, I don't believe that is something that should be thrust upon the military.

Not that I don't think it could be done, but rather, I really wouldn't want to find myself in a hostile environment having to depend on someone who hasn't quite finished with their "reprogramming." Whether it be a combat zone, or a night on the town with the boys, it's important to know the people you're with have got your back.

Randy

unaffordable
 

If you look at the number of eligible draftees,there are no facilities to train them,not enough instructors,and not enough money to put it place.The final deathnell for a daft is that there is not enough motivation on the part of the average guy to get off his fat ass and get dirty for his country. Americans are for the most part weak!There will be a high price to pay for this.

Well, I was drafted and inducted on Valentine's Day of 1964. Draftees served 2 years active duty and four or six years of inactive reserve. I didn't mind doing it, although I probably could have continued working and made more money.
Actually at that time, the draftees were considered to be more competent than those who joined. They came in generally with some education and/or work experience. It also was a really good thing for those who had never left the "hood." They got trained (sometimes in good paying fields after they got out), had to get along with different types, got the chance to find out the world was bigger than they thought. Lots of them decided to do something different than go back and hang around the old neighborhood.
For me, I used the GI bill to help get through the university afterwards. Also it provided a good break in my routine of life to make myself commit to putting myself through school rather than just working at a job.

Feel that its a good thing. Makes kids into men and women and teaches them responsibility.

just my 2c worth...

Joe A

Could always try the (scifi author) Heinlein method from the book Starship Troopers which is voluntary armed forces - but they are the only ones who get to vote after they leave the service.
No, I have never been in the military.

We need more hardware and less people .. in the military.

More spooks, more info.

Vash - I like the concept of everyone having to serve. If you don't want to do the gun thing, there is the medical corp, corp of engineers and countless other branches including the Coast Guard.

Imagine - out of HS or College, put in your two years reguardless. what's the downside?

I was not thinking that the military go out and draft a bunch of low-quality low-life hoodlums and try to "reprogram" them. The Army is not a charity.

I was rather thinking that the draft would reach into all groups of the population, including the higher-income, higher-education, children-of-the-professional-class segments who today very seldom serve in the military. And that the military could take the best of those kids, the ones who don't need "reprogramming".

Those kids probably wouldn't end up making the military their career, but they would (I think) be intelligent and capable soldiers, they and their parents would develop a personal stake in what our country does with our military and what resources we provide it with, and when some of those kids become politicians they would have had the experience and responsibility of serving in the military, right alongside kids from other backgrounds who they'd probably never have met in civilian life.

You'd still have volunteers who make the military their careers, they'd be the backbone of the force.

As for the reprogramming-needed kids - maybe there's still a way to use them, or more likely they get washed out. Again, our military isn't a charity.

Other countries have compulsory military service - Taiwan and Switzerland come to mind.

I'm thinking (maybe wishful thinking) if this might become a leveling force, so that this country doesn't evolve into two permanent classes: those who get sent to fight and those who send them.

hold on while I put up the $2000 toilet seat. The wife get's pissed if I don't....

ba'dum -ching

Can't see why one would want to have involuntary soldiers when there are plenty of voluntary soldiers. Who volunteer knowing that they can and will be sent to fight.

Maybe my view is colored based on the military people that I know that have been deployed (some multiple times) to the middle east. They don't mind going - they view it as their job and what they signed up for.

People would be more interested in politics and current affairs if everyone was forced to spend their own money and run for political office, too. That would be a valuable civics lesson. There are lots of other jobs and vocations that offer civics lessons, too.

nostatic - spending many years in the past developing stuff for DARPA as well as Mil Spec and AMS materials, the costs are pretty ridiculus but accurate. Granted, there are plenty of items that NASA and the Armed Forces could use for Home Depot or Lowes but that produces it's share of problems. The cost to bring any item to market has huge direct and indirect costs that most all companies just absorb but due to certain costing and accounting regulations make it difficult to do when you supply to the gov - not to mention that if you get your stuff speced in you can charge a king's ramsom for it. Do that for a period of time and your operating margins start depending on the 1000% mark up.

i may be speaking out of my butt, but how many college kids head towards the military? i never served, maybe i should have, i like the toys :D. but how many kids join the army because they have nowhere to go? do they get the cream of the US crop? my guts says no....

in wartime, it is naive to think the affluent kids will head off to fight.

i think a mandatory two year term would be a good thing. and good kids or bad, there is a certian amount of reprogramming going on.

this is a great topic.

I served in the military. I don't want my son to serve. Not during peace time and, most certainly, not when we're at war. If the draft is brought back and there is a conflict going on, I'll be checking my email at an internet cafe abroad. No way are we sticking around. Call me whatever you want. My only child ain't going.

If you really think that there can be a draft where all who are eligible will go, irregardless of their financial or social status, then you are not living in the real world.

My name is Chris and I am a conservative. I thank my fellow veterans for my freedom. I do not think that everyone has to join the military in order to support it. I certainly do not need the military's help to "program" my kid.

And as far as the kids of our politicians who happen to be in the military because of a draft during war time, I doubt very much if they'll find themselves carrying a weapon. They'll get those who require "reprogramming" to do the dirty work. Life ain't fair and then you die.