Who Here Supports a Draft?

[BrianH]

So wait this guy thinks a conscripted army is more efficient? What planet does he live on?

Who knows...the guy that started the thread is a nut-job. He claimed that a conscripted army would becheapter and more efficient. He posted a bunch of links that in no way backed up his opinion. It did it also with another thread about our military doing a bad job. He said they were doing a bad job, but then posted links that, in no way, suggested this.

 

[mightypeon]

@ Charles Main


About precisly whom are you talking if I may ask?
If you are talking about the issue about conscript vs. volunteer armies in general, than I will stand to my point that conscript armys can become very formidable militarys. Just ask the "volunteer" French WWII army about its experience with the Wehrmacht. Or about its experience with the Drafted Prussian army in 1871, where, for nearly the first time, France actually got beaten by Germany.

If you are talking about drafting in the US at the current time, I would agree that the US militarys performance is very unlikely to increase should a draft be initiated.

I joined the discussion because the general line became "Drafting in the US would suck" (I agree) "so drafting sucks everywhere else" (I disagree).

 

[BrianH]

@ Charles Main


About precisly whom are you talking if I may ask?
If you are talking about the issue about conscript vs. volunteer armies in general, than I will stand to my point that conscript armys can become very formidable militarys. Just ask the "volunteer" French WWII army about its experience with the Wehrmacht. Or about its experience with the Drafted Prussian army in 1871, where, for nearly the first time, France actually got beaten by Germany.

If you are talking about drafting in the US at the current time, I would agree that the US militarys performance is very unlikely to increase should a draft be initiated.

I joined the discussion because the general line became "Drafting in the US would suck" (I agree) "so drafting sucks everywhere else" (I disagree).

I was talking about the guy who started this thread...not you. I'm not sure who Charles Main was talking about.

As far as the topic at hand. THere is not doubt that a conscripted army can be a formidable fighiting force in a time of NEED. However, it is no where as efficient or cheaper than an all volunteer force. You are basically taking soldiers who actually want to be there, and replacing them with people who don't want to be there. Germany may be the exception....lol

I would favor a system in which everyone serves in the military for 2 years after high school + a volunteer force.

 

[captainkeeves]

The draft huh? My opinion is that if the United States of America needs to resort to a draft then the young men (my peers) of this country are not doing their job. Everybody complains saying that we are not winning the war, yet the idea of them or their son having to serve scares the living hell out of them. The U.S. did not become the U.S. by being a bunch of cowards. Even if your against it don't you feel you have a duty to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are already over there doing violence in your behalf because you are to afraid to? I am eighteen years old and am doing Marine Corp ROTC in college and then taking a commission so don't play the "what are you doing about it" card, because if my country called on me now, I would not hesitate.

 

[Inferno]

The people would be marching in the streets before the ink dries. That would really be a mess.

 

[dilloduck]

The people would be marching in the streets before the ink dries. That would really be a mess.

Republicans don't march in the streets.

 

[Inferno]

Republicans don't march in the streets.

No they send other out to die in the war on terror.

 

[dilloduck]

No they send other out to die in the war on terror.

Kennedy and LBJ were democrats.

 

[editec]

IMHO, we are not capable of conducting a sustained, 2-front war at that strength level. We rely too much on firepower and technology at the expense of manpower.

Our military strength is not suited to the type of low-level conflict it is engaged in.

Equally to blame, again IMO, is the fact that the US has paid only lip service to addressing its current worldwide deployments/bases. Some of those forces could be realigned to relieve the stress-level on the current optempo; which, is stretched pretty thin.

SPOT on!

What our current leadership apparently thinks it can do is reduce the boots on the ground and replace them with advanced techological fixes.

Now if you think about what might be driving that, and if you're somewhat cynical about it, you might at least consider the fact that buying technology makes a very few people VERY WEALTHY, whereas, putting men in uniform spreads the money around in a much more democratic way.

Again, and I know some of you must think I am obsessed about this, this nation's leadership seems to be making choices consistently that benefit the technocratic elite and the industries which serve it, to the detreiment of the American Empire AND the Amercan people, generally.

It's almost as though the masters of our universe have decided that most Americans and most American industries are basically redundant.

We see this in the military, in the intelligence community, in the academioc community, and ESPECIALLY in our trade policies.

Since I pay attention to goverment grants every day, I see this same trend playing out in that arena of grants going to fund research, and grants going to fund applications in research in pretty much the same way.

If you study how our government rewards and encourages high technology, military industries and the edcuational organizations which serve them, too, you see a very consistent trend to fund and encourage science and technology, and to basically starve most other academic diciplines, and the social services that they provide.

Now the dollar per manhour investments of hi-tech and sciences are very expensive.

The dollar per manhour investments in non-tecnologies are relatively cheap by comparison.

If one were so inclined one might even even harken back to IKE's farewell address warning us about how the the military industrial complex could pervert our goverment to put us on a continuous war footing, and one might realize how very prescient that man really was.

I cannot believe that this trend to rely on (and reward so handsomely) a very few limited corporations and fields of academia is entirely an organic process, one that just happened by accident, or because that is in our best interests as a society and nation.

We see, time after time, that this propensity does not make us more powerful as a nation, a wealthier nation, or a even a safer nation. And it surely is hurting the society which is funding it, too.

This obsessional reliance on high tech to solve our every need rewards fewer and fewer Americans overall, but those which are feeding at that trough are getting mighty fat compared to the rest of us.

 

[Gunny]

SPOT on!

What our current leadership apparently thinks it can do is reduce the boots on the ground and replace them with advanced techological fixes.

Now if you think about what might be driving that, and if you're somewhat cynical about it, you might at least consider the fact that buying technology makes a very few people VERY WEALTHY, whereas, putting men in uniform spreads the money around in a much more democratic way.

Again, and I know some of you must think I am obsessed about this, this nation's leadership seems to be making choices consistently that benefit the technocratic elite and the industries which serve it, to the detreiment of the American Empire AND the Amercan people, generally.

It's almost as though the masters of our universe have decided that most Americans and most American industries are basically redundant.

We see this in the military, in the intelligence community, in the academioc community, and ESPECIALLY in our trade policies.

Since I pay attention to goverment grants every day, I see this same trend playing out in that arena of grants going to fund research, and grants going to fund applications in research in pretty much the same way.

If you study how our government rewards and encourages high technology, military industries and the edcuational organizations which serve them, too, you see a very consistent trend to fund and encourage science and technology, and to basically starve most other academic diciplines, and the social services that they provide.

Now the dollar per manhour investments of hi-tech and sciences are very expensive.

The dollar per manhour investments in non-tecnologies are relatively cheap by comparison.

If one were so inclined one might even even harken back to IKE's farewell address warning us about how the the military industrial complex could pervert our goverment to put us on a continuous war footing, and one might realize how very prescient that man really was.

I cannot believe that this trend to rely on (and reward so handsomely) a very few limited corporations and fields of academia is entirely an organic process, one that just happened by accident, or because that is in our best interests as a society and nation.

We see, time after time, that this propensity does not make us more powerful as a nation, a wealthier nation, or a even a safer nation. And it surely is hurting the society which is funding it, too.

This obsessional reliance on high tech to solve our every need rewards fewer and fewer Americans overall, but those which are feeding at that trough are getting mighty fat compared to the rest of us.

I'm ALWAYS cynical. However, the idea that we can replace boots on the ground is not just a mindset held by the powers that be of the moment. It's an American mindset.

We as a society have been sold on technology, and for a variety of reasons. Technological resarch will tell you that it is more efficient and keeps casualties down. The bunch with the holier-than-thou set of morals for our military delude themselves into thinking it will create a surgical ability to kill only enemy combatants and are outraged when so much as one noncombatant eyelash gets bent.

Of course the military sells it as goo because they want new stuff; although, I would argue the Marines would still be using claymores and battleaxes if they thought they could get away with it. My last flight off a deck I was in a 46 YOU probably flew in.

Another "technological advance" that comes to mind was removing guns from fighters during the Vietnam era. So convinced were the chairpolishers their technological advances were insurmountable, they removed the warriors basic weapon to engage in one-on-one combat with the enemy.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a case of trying to kill ants with a 25 pound sledge. The insurgents have little to no technology and our technology can't cope with it.

IMO, you put so many men in the bush that the insurgents can't move without getting dead. Protect the locals from the insurgents. If they see they are protected, THEN they will become allies. If we turn out backs for a minute and they get killed, they aren't going to trust us.

I'll take a company of Marines on the ground over satellite imagery and launching a missile into a tent EVERY time. They live on the ground and in the shadows and if we can't beat them on the ground and in the shadows, we aren't going to beat them.

Make life so damned miserable for them, and sticking their heads up sure death, and they'll go away. So long as they think they can win, they won't.

As far as our government being in cahoots with arms manufcturers and others who profit from war, that's been proven as far back as Lincoln and his first Secretary of War who was selling inferior crap to himself (the US Army).

 

[mightypeon]

Fairly spot on, given Iraks size and population, some 40K insurgents could be expected, common military doctrine (I mean, if the WW2 Germans, the Russians/soviets and I think Nato too agree on something its likely not unfounded) says that you need 10 soldiers to control/kill one Guerillia fighter.
Having cool High tech Gitmos and Spy Satellites stuff may reduce that number to 9, maybe even 8, while beeing in a different-religion-country with a foreign culture/largely unknown language will bump it back to 10.
The initial troop numbers send (like what, 200k?) in by Rumsfeld were completely crazy.
Quite a number of US-Generals who expressed this opinion got fired iirc.

 

[strollingbones]

I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft. I remember the draft in Vietnam. People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it. The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone. No exception, no buy outs. Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.

 

[Gunny]

I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft. I remember the draft in Vietnam. People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it. The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone. No exception, no buy outs. Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.

Nice try at blaming the "current admin" for practicing an art form perfected by the privileged in this country as far back as the American Revolution. They just used to be honest about it. During the US Civil War, you could purchase a deferrment for cash. At the time if its demise, one just had to play a more intricate game to avoid it, but the end result was the same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone remember Clinton? He lied to a Col to get a deferment , and instead of reporting for duty skipped the Country to England. Now lets compare that to a man that volunteered to become a fighter pilot and flew one of the most dangerous aircraft in the Air Force inventory as an Interceptor, that flew more hours then required as well.

 

[editec]

Nice try at blaming the "current admin" for practicing an art form perfected by the privileged in this country as far back as the American Revolution. They just used to be honest about it. During the US Civil War, you could purchase a deferrment for cash. At the time if its demise, one just had to play a more intricate game to avoid it, but the end result was the same.

He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.

He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)

I went to school with fairly well off kids...especially during my primary school years.

Of those more affluent kids I went to school with as a boy, not one of them got drafted...not even when the lottery was put into effect,

Not one of them was drafted, gunny.

Not one.

Who did get drafted? Just the middle class and poorer kids, naturally.

Strollingbones has a point, in my opinion.

 

[strollingbones]

I am only saying people will always buy or bargain out of the draft. The only fair thing would simply be....at 19 or 20 everyone serves for a term of duty. People who are disabled may serve at home or in some way. I thinnk Jim Webb said the majority stay in for the first enlistment period with only abou 25% staying in the military as a career. Instead of building a larger military, by a draft, wouldnt it be better to retain the men who have served?

I am not trying to fight with anyone. I am first of all a female. My father is buried at main post cem. after 30 yrs of service. Do not treat me like a fool. I am not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.

He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)

I went to school with fairly well off kids...especially during my primary school years.

Of those more affluent kids I went to school with as a boy, not one of them got drafted...not even when the lottery was put into effect,

Not one of them was drafted, gunny.

Not one.

Who did get drafted? Just the middle class and poorer kids, naturally.

Strollingbones has a point, in my opinion.

His words from HIS post.

Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it.

 

[Ravi]

Try to form a coherent thought, RGS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Try to form a coherent thought, RGS.

Try to engage that limp pasta between your ears once in a while.

 

[BrianH]

He wasn't blaming the current administration, Gunny. He didn't even mention the current admin.

He was pointing out exactly the problem the last time we had a draft. (mostly the Ds were in charge during that period, BTW)

I went to school with fairly well off kids...especially during my primary school years.

Of those more affluent kids I went to school with as a boy, not one of them got drafted...not even when the lottery was put into effect,

Not one of them was drafted, gunny.

Not one.

Who did get drafted? Just the middle class and poorer kids, naturally.

Strollingbones has a point, in my opinion.

Not to ruffle your feathers Editec...but...

Originally posted by Strollingbones:

"I do hope we do not have to go back to the draft. I remember the draft in Vietnam. People still got out of it...money still kept you out of it. The only fair way would be a model based on Israeli's two or three years of service for everyone. No exception, no buy outs. Look at the members of the current admin who avoid the draft and how they avoided it. "