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.

A draft would "muddy the waters" of the military. There would be too many 'haters' among the ranks and it would seriously undermine the mission.

And I dream of the day my children would come to me with a desire to serve our country. I don't tell them that. It would have to be of their own accord.

Several reasons, not the least of which is: do you want someone guarding your back who's primary goal is to not be in that fight? There's enough trouble trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the country where you might be fighting (read Vietnam or Iraq) without having to convince your own fighting forces they should be there.

Furthermore, you would have more turnover in the military at the most basic levels. This leads to an inability to share responsibilities. Eg/ex-USSR military where only the officers really know how things work, and the enlisted folks don't have much responsibility or education because they are just "warm bodies"/cannon fodder.

Chris: I'll ask, "Why won't you let your child serve if they want to?"

I love my kid more than I love my country. However, if he really wanted to serve, I cannot stop him. I can only pray that during his service, we stay out of any conflicts.

Israel has everyone serve in some capacity. Given the way the world is heading, that may be the way we go. I served, most of my friends served and most of us learned a heck of a lot of what it means to be an American and a responsible person. I lost some friends serving as well.

I think everyone should donate two years to the country. If not in the military, in some civilian job that needs to be done. Maybe some of the chickenhawks from one side and the whiners from the other might just learn a bit about the real world.

The Coast Guard? Look up the statistics in WWII percentage wise re: Coast Guard deaths. I trained to pilot landing craft. I used to kid the Marines that they only had to go one way...I would get shot at both coming and going. Today ain't any different. Like to go after drug runners for a few weeks? Think they play nice and just stop when asked? Who goes out in all kinds of nasty conditions to rescue people dumb enough to go sailing in #7 seas...Consider what they look like after floating dead for a week and you have to somehow get them ashore....

Engineers and medical corps are out therein the front along with the field soldier. Ain't any safer there either...

Given all that, I would not trade the time I spent in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club.

Yeah, but people suck, so its not gonna happen. Imagine the bad grace.

Don..Any good Gunny Sgt will change those "haters" into very obedient and "God fearing" individuals in a metter of weeks. Ask fint..I am sure he will agree.

Since this thread has stayed politely on topic, more or less, I'll share my opinions:

I am not against compusory service, but the magnitude of such an effort, military or Americor-like, would be staggerring and the cost staggerring-squared. The military really doesn't need that many folks, either...technology has allowed downsizing in many warfare areas. But that's a topic for another post.
The link below gives a picture of the total force structure (not including reserves) that has remained steady at around 1.5M people, a ridiculously small percentage of the total population of the US, happily.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm

Concerning the quality of recruits, my experience as a naval officer the past 23 years is a study in ying and yang: I have had the privaledge of leading some of the finest young men and women imaginable, truly bright and wonderful kids using the navy has a tool for a better life. I can cite literally hundreds of examples. I have also had the challenge of caring for some less than stellar folks...but I had the exact same experience running a rafting business during summers in college.

If my son or daughter decide to serve, my only requirement is that they do so with honor.

If the leaders of this country need a draft to impose their policies upon us, then that is an indication of a serious problem.

I agree
 

Roger that ,Seahawk! If you would like a good read that will make you proud,click on the link my son sent me.This is what we have going for us that we unfortunately don`t read or hear about in the press.I have met a good number of my son`s fellow Marine Officers and I stand in awe of these fine men,all volunteers.You could not ask for better quality fighters and leaders with unmatched integrity. http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML Semper Fi

I think that'd be a great idea, and before you lefties jump my ass for not serving, I tried numerous times to get into the military. I think there's a post about it somewhere on here...

Countries with mandatory military service (thank you, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription)
6.1 Belarus
6.2 Brazil
6.3 Bulgaria
6.4 Chile
6.5 China (PRC)
6.6 Croatia
6.7 Cyprus
6.8 Denmark
6.9 Egypt
6.10 Eritrea
6.11 Finland
6.12 Germany
6.13 Greece
6.14 Israel
6.15 Lebanon
6.16 Malaysia
6.17 Mexico
6.18 Norway
6.19 Poland
6.20 Romania
6.21 Russia
6.22 Singapore
6.23 South Korea
6.24 Sweden
6.25 Switzerland
6.26 Taiwan (ROC)
6.27 Turkey
6.28 Ukraine
6.29 Venezuela

Should we bring back the draft? No.

We should bring back mercenaries, instead.

Re: unaffordable
 

I'm not talking about a few specialists. I mean cannon-fodder on a 19th century scale.

The world is full of poor young men with a penchant for violence. We are a very rich country that spends a fortune (in dollars) training and equiping our precious young men, only to spend another fortune (in societal angst) when one of them is killed. Then we spend billions more on foreign aid and bribes to try to convince other civilized countries to send their precious young men into the same situation.

We can outsource call centers and programming to India for pennies on the dollar, but we can't outsource our most risky jobs to eager, low wage labor from around the world?

No.

Great links, should have their own thread.

I'll have to explore them in greater depth later.

Mercs are even worse than draftees for loyalty. Take a look at all the wars with large merc armies. They are the first to run and usually have first priority of protecting the money rather than the people they are fighting for.

Israel is a special case for the draft, because most, if not all, of the people there have come from elsewhere fairly recently - perhaps at most 2 generations. You almost always find that immigrants have more "patriotism" than people that are born in a country. In fact, one of the ways that people can immigrate to the US is by joining the armed forces.

I thought of this thread when I read two op-ed pieces from the New York Times today.

The first is by David Douglas Duncan, the famous Korean and Vietnam War combat photographer and ex-Marine. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25duncan.html? He writes:

"Today, in Iraq, where nearly every dawn is lacerated by mounting carnage - local and foreign - American troops are hemorrhaging among the wounded and the dead, pawns in an unspeakable farce, for the United States of America is not at war.

Only 135,000 men and women in American uniform are fighting - volunteers, members of the National Guard, reservists. There is no draft. No threat of a uniform hangs over the citizens of a nation of nearly 300 million who, in polls, support the invasion of a remote country upon whom our government would pin guilt of 9/11 ... and then attack."

The second is by David Kennedy, a Stanford professor. http://nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25kennedy.html He writes:

"we now have an active-duty military establishment that is, proportionate to population, about 4 percent of the size of the force that won World War II. And today's military budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, as opposed to nearly 40 percent during World War II.

The implications are deeply unsettling: history's most potent military force can now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so. We can now wage war while putting at risk very few of our sons and daughters, none of whom is obliged to serve. Modern warfare lays no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged.

This is not a healthy situation. It is, among other things, a standing invitation to the kind of military adventurism that the founders correctly feared was the greatest danger of standing armies - a danger made manifest in their day by the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Jefferson described as having 'transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm.' "

You may not agree with everything in these editorials - I don't, certainly not in the second one - but they are thought-provoking.

Do you remember, during the first Gulf War, the stories about rich young Kuwaitis partying it up in London and Paris while waiting for ordinary American soldiers to fight their war? So today, do we have rich young Americans partying it up in Miami and New York while waiting for ordinary American soldiers to fight their war?

Put another way - why aren't there more sons and daughters of politicians and lobbyists and lawyers and CEOs on the front lines in Iraq? Never mind, I know "why". Change the question to "shouldn't there be?" Would that mean that their influential parents would be less likely to support going to war in the first place? Or that their parents would be more likely to press for more troops, more reconstruction spending, more equipment, to shorten the war?

Do I believe in a mandatory draft? Yes. It solves a lot of problems. It even inderectly works as a means of violent crime prevention. After all, when was the last time that a majority of violent crimes were perpetrated by soldiers? This seldom happens. And when virtually every male under 40 is a reservist, well, you do the math. A draft creates discipline. Teaches humility to all able bodied males. Drowns out a lot of "attitude" inherent in our current youth. But, and I stress but, it would only work if used in concert with a few other changes. The perfect system would consist of a mandatory draft which would require service for only a year. Then require a refresher for a few weeks every year for the next 20 years or so. There is a beauty to this system. Imagine the cocky corporate CEO having to go in and take orders from some janitor who is normally beneath him. Or maybe some actor running up a mountain on orders from his key grip. Again, this creates discipline, humility and a sense that one's wealth or stature means nothing when it comes to national defense. In a system such as this, we would have a far smaller number people who act as if they are above the law or above mere humans. If one can run, one serves. If one can't run or walk, he serves behind a desk. But here is where one of the other major changes comes in. None of these draftees could be used to further geo-political goals. They would be used for national defense only. Nothing else. Same as our militia was used for back in the time of our early history. Or basically following what George Washington intended when he read his farewell address. This means no police action. While there is an excuse for someone to not want to serve to go to Vietnam or Iraq, there is no excuse for someone not wanting to serve to protect our country from within our country. Has this been done succefully? Yes and very much so in the only true and direct democracy in the world. A country that has not been invaded in centuries despite housing what is now believed to be over 40% of the world's "declared" wealth. A very stable, wealthy and successful country in fact. But this would go against the core of post WW2 US foreign policy of foreign meddling. Keep one thing in mind though. In a fully direct democracy in which every able bodied male under 40 is a soldier, neutrality would be inevitable. It would be a virtual impossibility for there to be any other result. But even in our representative democracy where the voter has far less power, a nation of soldiers would still have far less tolerance for geo-political wars than we do today. Besides, I doubt that either Kerry, Gore or Bush would have sent their kids to Iraq. The best reading on this subject matter would be this study www.constitution.org/mil/swiss_report.htm

Cost of a draft
 

I don`t know how many of you have had your kids come home from college.Mine came out unprogrammed,but a large number would laugh at the idea of a draft.The idea of drafting millions of soft,left leaning,self indulgent 19 year olds is laughable.Then try paying for it.We don`t have the staff or facilities.This is not an ideal world and we need to come to grips with terrorism today,not in 10 years with liberal platitudes of "what if"---- Close the borders and send the mullahs home!