Insightful Op-Ed piece that explains why we need a draft.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think a mandatory draft is a good idea. I think it has the possibility of breeding resentment towards your country and with terrorist trying to use insiders to do the dirty work I think this would give them a bigger pool of candidates to choose from
 
I do not like the idea of a conscripted force. We had more casualties due to accidents than combat during our final years of Vietnam. We had a bunch of strung out, losers in the force because they did not want to be there. They were a danger to everyone around them. Once the Volunteer Army came into play, Accidents dropped dramatically, drug use is way down, and various crimes against civilians and soldiers are down too.

Iraq would not have lasted as long as it did if we had a draft. Then we would have had the massive protests from people that did not want people to fight and die against their will.

If we had more of a commitment of service for kids that are 18 years or older. Military for those that want to go, or Peace Corps or WPA type work for those that do not want to fight. Also throw in GED/craftsman training for those that hit 19-20 with out a diploma.
 
Iraq would not have lasted as long as it did if we had a draft. Then we would have had the massive protests from people that did not want people to fight and die against their will.
That's pretty much what the bulk of the article was about. How it would be a deterrent to militaristic policies if more people had a "stake" in what the military did. It was much better and more thorough in how it said things though.
 
My other problem with his article is stripping down the military and building it back up in time of crisis, is just leaving your ass dangling in the wind. We were in terrible shape for all of our wars until after WWII. Hell if Germany had left Russia alone, waited a few years and built up to attack us... we would have caved very rapidly. We had an army smaller than Portugal. We had to ramp up production for 5 years before we were ready for the Germans. And 3 of those years we were at peace.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It can't be overstated how much improved the US Military is from being an all-volunteer affair. I can think of few better ways to dilute the effectiveness and morale of the armed forces than by reinstituting conscription.

However, if you wanted to talk about making military service prerequisite to voting or holding elected office... that has more of a ring to it.
 
I don't know if the government forcing people into service, or into anything, to change their opinion on something is a good idea. Also, forcing more people than we need into harms way in order to make war less appealing seems like a pretty bad idea.
 
It can't be overstated how much improved the US Military is from being an all-volunteer affair. I can think of few better ways to dilute the effectiveness and morale of the armed forces than by reinstituting conscription.

However, if you wanted to talk about making military service prerequisite to voting or holding elected office... that has more of a ring to it.
Instead of having a military caste we would have overlords.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Instead of having a military caste we would have overlords.
At this rate, it looks like we will anyway. Just "professional political" overlords that have never shown their willingness to put themselves in front of bullets for their country.

We already have the problem of a ruling class that is disconnected from the common citizen.
 
forcing more people than we need into harms way
Actually it could be the opposite.

If increasing the number of military doesn't change the troop deployment, then the number in harms way doesn't change.
If they do increase troop deployment, then the battlefield would actually become safer than it is right now, as the military can work more quickly than the enemy, leading to a quicker end, and less overall lives lost.

In theory, of course. If those people don't want to be there, friendly fire and suicide will likely go up.
 
In theory, of course. If those people don't want to be there, friendly fire and suicide will likely go up.
And accidents and crimes against civilians. This is one of those ideas that sounds good, but in reality it just doesn't work.
 
There could possibly be a multiple track/tier system. At one end, the least possibility of actual combat + the least amount of benefits, and the other end, combat + most benefits.

Though, the military doesn't fix people. Assholes who don't want discipline in their lives won't be helped by the military.

I don't know if this would be a great idea or not. Have to think about it some more.

I do remember a lot of hub-bub about Bush implementing a draft while he was in office though. Sentiments changed?
 
So, I should have to put my life on hold for a few years risking my life, so I can have a greater appreciation for war?

No thanks.
 
Reinstate the draft? No thanks.

Term of either military or community service like Bamv3 or North Ranger had to do? I could see that.
 
The only time I'd be in favor of the draft is that when Congress declares war, the oldest military-age offspring of each Congressman or Senator MUST be drafted to fight said war. It would definitely make frivolous wars a lot less likely.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/o...tary-drifting-apart.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&

I have said for quite some time that I feel we need to re-institute the draft. I've never been able to say exactly why other than the fact that people need to know what it's like on the "other side".

These guys put it much better than I ever could. Turns out a mandatory draft are probably better for the country for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in your thoughts.

Nah.

(I feel like I understand Charlie now, this feels pretty good.)
 
Tell that to the swiss.
Their army only participates in peace keeping missions, not combat ones. The problems come in when people who don't want any part of the military are forced into combat. That's when accidents that result in friendly deaths, friendly fire, and violence against civilians surges. Look at Vietnam, it was a mess because the majority of people wanted out any way they could find. When they couldn't find a way out, they took it out on fellow troops and civilians. So unless the plan is to change our military into a non-combat one that only conducts peace keeping missions, I still don't see how that will help.
 
I speak as someone who just got out of my one year of conscription two years ago.

Mandatory military service is a good way to weaken your modern military. Firstly, morale is terrible. Apart from the volunteer professional military people, no one in my company wanted to be there. No one. Everyone saw their military service as something to be endured, something to get over with. Psychological problems were common, including a few suicidal individuals. Discipline was as lax as they could get away with, because running a tighter ship would likely have caused even lower morale.

Secondly, the quality of the soldiers was pretty poor too. You've got guys who just graduated from university, guys who have spent the last four years sitting on their butts playing the latest Blizzard release. These guys can't do two pushups without cramping up, they can't run for more than five minutes without puking. They think firing a gun is like something out of Counterstrike, so not only can't they shoot straight, they're also so startled by how loud actual guns are, some of them actually started hyperventilating.

Thirdly, it doesn't really help with the disconnect between civilians and the military. All you've done is create a disconnect between the "voluntary" forces and the "involuntary" forces. To maintain Taiwan's military strength, the parts of the armed forces most likely to see combat are manned almost entirely by volunteer career troops. This means the majority of combat roles in the navy and air force are volunteers. The parts of the marine corps most likely to see combat are also mostly volunteers, if I'm not mistaken. This means the conscripts are mostly sent to the army, or non-combat roles in the navy and air force.

Now, there is one major difference between the US and Taiwan, I think, which means my experience in Taiwan isn't entirely applicable to a US draft. Taiwan's military focuses almost entirely on defending the island against China. If Taiwan's armed forces see any action, you can bet it's going to be in the Taiwan Strait, or on Taiwanese soil. This means there isn't much in the way of choice when it comes to military action in Taiwan; if China attacks, we fight back. It's that simple.

Contrast that to the US. When was the last time the US military was deployed on American soil, to fight a foreign force? When US troops are deployed, they're almost always sent to fight in other countries. This differs fundamentally from the situation in Taiwan, in that the US has to choose to send their troops abroad. However, implementing a draft won't change much, because the drafted troops will likely have low morale, be of lower quality than volunteer troops, and still won't feel integrated into the "proper" military. Hardly someone you want to send to the deadliest conflict hotspots around the world, right?

If there is a gulf between the military and civilian populations in the US, I think it'd be a good idea to try to bridge it. But I highly doubt a draft is the right way to do it.
 

Zappit

Staff member
Bringing back the draft is far more likely to cause a war INSIDE this country rather than allow us to fight one outside it.

If people don't want to be part of the armed forces, how interested will they be in training? Would they actually fight or say, "Fuck this, I'm getting out of here." How effective can a military force be if a possibly large percentage will not engage the enemy if there is actual combat? Won't that lead to the soldiers that take it seriously getting overwhelmed and butchered? You need reliable soldiers in a unit, and a draft is not going to magically change the mindset of most non-soldiers. With the politicians we have, who have few qualms about throwing our military at whatever, will cause tremendous damage with the first war after a return to the draft. In all likelihood, it will be a war of choice like Iraq. There are people crazy enough nowadays that they'd turn on their superior officers.

The last two necessary wars were World War II and to wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We were actually attacked then. There's not really any large-scale threat out there that would go to war with us, just a few nutjobs scattered about humanity. Any army that would dare to touch down on U.S. soil would not only have to deal with one of the most powerful military forces in history, but legions of armed patriots bearing down on them with high caliber weapons from Walmart. Still volunteer there, by the way.

We would have large scale rioting across the country as soon as such a measure passed. People won't just accept something like that now. Many didn't accept it in the 60's. One Kent State style incident, and the country would erupt. You'd see folks from across the political spectrum come together to smash neighborhoods and burn draft offices.
 
It REALLY depends on how it's implemented and the reasoning provided. I don't think we need a ready 100 million trained soldiers right now, so a draft doesn't make sense.

But what if, instead, they made college free and mandatory, similar to k-12 schools, and as part of that required weekend training once a month for the four years of schooling, with a two week training camp once a year. In other words, simply make the reserves mandatory.

That would likely result in unhappiness, but not liable to result in rioting.
 

Zappit

Staff member
It REALLY depends on how it's implemented and the reasoning provided. I don't think we need a ready 100 million trained soldiers right now, so a draft doesn't make sense.

But what if, instead, they made college free and mandatory, similar to k-12 schools, and as part of that required weekend training once a month for the four years of schooling, with a two week training camp once a year. In other words, simply make the reserves mandatory.

That would likely result in unhappiness, but not liable to result in rioting.
Now that might work. People would protest. They wouldn't like it. But they might accept it.
 
The last two necessary wars were World War II and to wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
I agree with most of your post to an extent, but I know a fair number of people from South Korea. I think they're glad that the UN (and USA) intervened there, considering the difference between North and South Korea today. It's an exception worth mentioning.

On a related note, I also wonder about the general feelings toward the USA from those in Kuwait, following Iraq 1, and today.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
I agree with Congress being more involved and focusing on trying to pay for war in real time--at least part of it. Comparing war efforts at home then and now.. I don't really know if there *is* a comparison. This feeling of division from the effort is a problem, but I don't know if a draft is the answer.

I do know that there's a bad attitude that needs to be snuffed out--a lack of any community feeling or any thought outside of people's own personal lives. Dad and I were talking about how 24-hour news has changed this generation--how we have a feeling of hopelessness because of all that we're exposed to. Now I'm going off on a tangent, but I do believe that there needs to be a balance between living in the moment and only doing what's right for "me" and thinking about the good of the whole country. I've kind of gotten off of the draft and am thinking about related things.
 

fade

Staff member
At this rate, it looks like we will anyway. Just "professional political" overlords that have never shown their willingness to put themselves in front of bullets for their country.

We already have the problem of a ruling class that is disconnected from the common citizen.

CEOs.
 
Well, honestly, I'm just not sure that this nation will survive economically if we don't raise the average skill set by a significant factor in the next few generations. We've got an advantage, being "first world" but those "third world" countries are going to pick up steam so fast it's going to be surprising. I know a lot of people worry about china, but there's a whole lot of stuff going on in Africa, and with the internet, affordable mobile phones, and a desire to sell to economic world powers, they're going to surpass a number of other economies without much difficulty.

We can't let people stop education at high school.

Less than half of our adult population has a 2 year degree or better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

We can try to change our high school curriculum, but I think we'd be better off forcing everyone to get at least an associates degree, and make economics and personal finance courses mandatory. Extend community college charters to offer a basic set of bachelor's degrees, with a focus on STEM, Medicine, and Education.
 

Dave

Staff member
I think they should have a draft where if you choose not to be in an actual military unit, you could be posted in a state-side support position. If you didn't want to kill anyone that's completely cool. But the military teaches discipline and it would give people who would eventually be in public office have the knowledge of what a service actually is. I know it's not a popular opinion and I'm okay with that.

I'm also in favor of corporal punishment in schools. That's not popular, either.
 

Zappit

Staff member
The fear of a draft is that the corporate lobbyists will turn our suddenly larger army into an enforcement agent. Get a few new fields for the oil companies. Some nation might nationalize an overseas corporate asset, so that regime has gotta go. We've seen the kind of power they wield over our leaders as it is. We can suddenly mobilize the manpower for such operations with a draft, and we've seen our leaders out and out lie to the world in order to go to war and get their war. There's a definite threat that a small group would suddenly be granted even greater power over the rest of us. Dave mentions how it could influence future leaders, but I can't help but see a path leading there stained with a lot of blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top