Talking draft in light of Iraq occupation

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
In 1973, the national compulsory draft was eliminated. Recently, however, the Defense Department has called on volunteers to sit on local draft boards. Could the re-emergence of the draft be just around the corner?

Reinstatement of the draft would have a profound impact on the men and women of Generation Y (those born between 1977 and 1997). Operation Iraqi Freedom was supposed to be a quick and decisive victory for the United States. The military was to be greeted by submissive Iraqis who would shower their liberators with roses and heed to their every demand. However, violence has plagued the region, the conflict has proven to be a catalyst for terrorism, (specifically al-Qaida) and even neutral parties, such as the Red Cross, have fallen victim to attacks. Meanwhile, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has proclaimed "the United States is winning the peace."

But have they?

According to BBC News, the United States suffered through its highest post-war, weekly death toll in the past 10 days. In fairness to the U.S. military, water systems, electricity and local infrastructures are slowly being repaired.

However, success should be measured in our nation’s ability to encourage stability within the region. To date, the recent attacks on a United Nations embassy, the Red Cross and a recent ambush that resulted in 20-plus casualties supports the notion that peace has not been won.

Despite our Marines’ complaints of fatigue (and rightly so) and the realization that American troops are indeed stretched to capacity around the globe, it appears unlikely that President Bush would reinstate a national draft before the 2004 presidential election.

Arguably, such a maneuver would damage the president’s chances for re-election. However, if the violence does not subside within the next year and an escalation of conflict ensues, President Bush, assuming he wins election, might very well incorporate the draft into his post-war strategy.

It could be argued that a newly reinstated draft would leave a psychological toll on America’s youth.

Undoubtedly, men and women who were opposed to the intervention might have no choice but to fight. They will then be left with an array of negative choices, including leaving the country and risking being labeled a traitor, or fighting in a war they might be opposed to, but in the process, engaging in a cause that defies their values.

For those who are in tune with history, they will recall the chaos that engulfed young Americans during the Vietnam War. With the United States already divided evenly within the political spectrum, the decision to serve or opt out of service could manifest itself as a paralyzing issue within our society.

Meade Mackay, a 2001 Exeter High School graduate has mixed feelings about the reinstatement of the draft."I don’t like the idea of a draft, but if we have no other choice, then I guess we have to do what we have to do. However, I think the question our government should ask is why are we involved in something that would require a draft? There needs to be a valid reason for a draft. In my mind, Iraq isn’t valid," said Mackay.

Daniel Ellsberg, a former employee for the Defense Department who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and Washington Post, spoke at Amherst College and noted the likelihood of a future draft.

"If President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that he will reinstate the draft. The war on terrorism will not end in Iraq, but instead will proceed into countries like Syria and Iran," said Ellsberg.

It may be premature to discuss the possibility of a draft. However, the men and women of Generation Y should be prepared for the event. Those in power, Republican or Democrat, should first ask themselves if the current intervention is worth the lost lives before resorting to drastic measures.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11122003/news/60246.htm
 
From what I've read, the military is fairly strongly opposed to a draft--they feel that their all-volunteer force is superiour to the draft force of the Vietnam era.

It's a funny reversal. In the vietnam era, they didn't call up the reserves because they thought it would be too unpopular. Now they are leaning hard on the reserves instead of a draft, for the same reason.

Actually, aside from some proponents of national service, and some people hoping to increase opposition to the war, I don't think many politicians are calling for a draft.

What I honestly don't understand is if the military is being currently overstretched (which it is), and if the "war on terror" doesn't appear to have a quickly forseeable end (which it doesn't), why on earth hasn't Bush leveraged some money for an expansion of the military?
 
I'm 23, born in 1980, so I fight right in the middle of this.

Call me a sissy if you want... but I'm opposed to a draft. Well, at least when it's about sending guys over to another country that isn't a -direct- threat to our shores. With no clear target, and no clear lines drawn in the sand, I just don't see how occupying this region any longer makes sense. Just get the heck out of there as soon as possible and bring the troops back home to defend our land.

Now, when the battle lines are clearly drawn and sitting on our land that's a different matter. Although I don't think we'd -have- to innitiate a draft at that point. Recruiting offices would be flooded IMHO.

I'm a young'in... so if you feel I'm wrong you're more than welcomed to lambast me over it. It's just my two cents.
 
If your conflict in another nation is so freakin' unpopular that you have to force people into indentured servitude in order to pursue it, you best re-examine why you're there.

If, OTOH, the cause is just and true, there will be no shortage of volunteers willing to take up arms.

draft=slavery
 
Now, when the battle lines are clearly drawn and sitting on our land that's a different matter.
Aside from this present situation in the ME, I offer this as a comment: if you wait til the battle lines are here in the U.S., you have already lost half the war.
 
"If President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that he will reinstate the draft. The war on terrorism will not end in Iraq, but instead will proceed into countries like Syria and Iran," said Ellsberg.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If Bush were re-elected, women would be forced to engage in abortion with coat hangers, students will be forced to recite Christian prayers, blah, blah, blah.

More left-wing "dire" warnings of why he should not be elected. Right...
 
Justin, I'd expect a moderator to be more well-informed. Since shortly after 9/11/01, the US military, all branches, has been meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals - for some branches for the first time in a couple decades.
A quick Google search will bear this out.

The only people crying for 'more troops' are those NOT in the military, those with less-than-the-best position to evaluate the needs and capabilites of our Armed Forces

The Draft is never going to happen, the era of 'Total War' has been OVER since the invention of the ICBM. The military itself absolutely feels their All-Volunteer Force is vastly superior to the draftee-plagued force of the 60s/70s. Not only does the military NOT want the Draft, they've even raised the bar on their enlistment requirements over the last ~10yrs. Higher ASVAB test score requirements, no longer accepting the GED, no longer accepting a variety of criminal records as 'ok'.

Children have been crying about the draft for the last 20yrs. Filling out the Selective Service paperwork is a rude shock to some pampered folks, their first dose of Reality.

Watching the fantasies and conspiracy-mongering at places like the Democratic Underground forum is most entertaining, as are their punitive calls for a Draft that might force the children of the "Elites" to serve, all while they themselves decry and avoid military service like the plague.
 
Generation Y (those born between 1977 and 1997).

So did pop-culture just completely delete "generation x" or what?

If your conflict in another nation is so freakin' unpopular that you have to force people into indentured servitude in order to pursue it, you best re-examine why you're there.

I agree, we never should have gotten into that pesky WWII think either. Just for the record the military of that era was NOT the army of happy volunteers that people paint it as. 61.2% of our military force between 1941 and 1945 were draftees. http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_facts.html
 
I don't see a renewed draft as being at all likely, especially not to support the existing force structure. It's just one of the bogeymen the Left likes to scare people with.
I do think the active force is overstretched, especially the Army (I don't see the Navy doing a whole lot at the moment, and the end of the 'big' war in Iraq has reduced the AF commitment considerably by eliminating the need to patrol the No-Fly zones.) Ironically, it is actually at the moment requiring more troops to police the country than it did to conquer it. Thanks to the troop reductions in the 90s (Clinton screwed up in many areas, and this is one, but in fairness, nobody knew what sort of war the military would have to fight in the future). Now we have a better idea, and it's not one that we can win from 10000 feet by dropping bombs.
From my point of view, the active Army could use a couple more divisions, or equivalent number of independant brigades, equipped with a mix of heavy, medium, and airmobile/helicopter equipment. But I'm just a CPT, and that's not the kind of decision I'm paid to make.
Even if Congress decided tomorrow to authorize those two divisions, it would take a significant amount of time-a year or two at least-for them to show up on the battlefield. Experienced NCOs and officers needed to lead them don't just materialize because Congress authorized spending money, and even a draft can't do anything about that kind of manpower requirement.
 
Call me a sissy if you want... but I'm opposed to a draft
OK... Sissy!!! :neener:

Seriously, as long as you would be opposed to the draft at any age, just because you oppose it at draft age does not make you a sissy. I, for one, am VERY opposed to the draft, and am not a sissy (well at least not a 'sissy baby'). :D I spent 11 years in the Army and if the country were ever in true need of more soldiers, I'd volunteer again. No offense, but too many average Joes are not military quality individuals, especially when they are forced to serve. They would bring down the quality of the overall force.

Reinstating the draft is a stupid idea that no serious person would be for. Sorry, w4rma, but your boy Dean and his comrades are going to have to come up with a better way to scare votes away from Bush to have a hope of winning. Not a hint of gun talk here either, perhaps you'll have 2 off topic posts closed on back to back days.

Cheers,

MaterDei
 
The draft shouldn't come back, and more to the point it won't. 4wrma is engaging in propagandizing entirely free of merit to state otherwise. His "evidence" is a joke. I'd also point out that the only folks in recent memory to advocate bringing back the draft have been... leftists.
 
It will never happen.

The military sure doesn't want it.

The ciivilian pentagon isn't happy about the idea.

The military is pretty much hitting its recruitment numbers. The real debate needs to be over the size and configuration of the armed forces, but Rummy seems to have shut it down.

The only people in favor seem more interested in rousing the rabble than in conducting an intelligent debate.

Vietnam scarred the US military in a number of ways. The 1990's saw some of those scars minimize. The draft and its abuses is one such huge scar. The volunteer military is performing beyond expectation and at a level a draftee military would never achieve.

In the absence of an enemy demanding huge numbers of ground troops I just don't see the draft being reinstituted.
 
If your conflict in another nation is so freakin' unpopular that you have to force people into indentured servitude in order to pursue it, you best re-examine why you're there.

Not everything that is unpopular is wrong. Were that so, we wouldn't have had our little Rebellion against the British. It's been said that only 1/3 of colonists actually supported war against Britain, 1/3 were opposed, and 1/3 didn't care.

As far as the draft is concerned, the military doesn't want it because they're already attracting intelligent individuals capable of handling the duties and responsibilities that go with military service. They are motivated individuals.
 
...President Bush, assuming he wins election, might very well incorporate the draft into his post-war strategy....

Bringing up "the draft" and associating it with Bush drafting the children of the Baby Boomers (many of whom "fought the draft"/"partied" in the 1960s and 1970s) is a good try, but it ain't gonna fly.

An excellent example of the Propaganda technique known as "fearmongering".


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."-- H.L. Mencken
 
I am solidly opposed to the draft.
It would be one thing if the huns were upon our shores, but they aren't.
Hell, they wouldn't even need the draft in that case. All they would have to do is keep me in ammo.

But I don't support drafting people to go overseas and fight a war on someone else's soil for no apparent reason.

If Bush and congress like the war so much, perhaps they should acquire some boots and M-16s and go fight it.

And before anyone jumps in with any crap about my opinion, I am an honorably discharged vet, a former 12B in the Army.

I am not a pacifist, but I am not the police force for the whole world either.
 
Instead of a draft, I would support that everyone between the ages of 17 to 44 should be called up for militia duty for 1 weekend a month, and two weeks a year.

Everyone would serve within 50 miles of their home and would need to bring their own rifle and ammunition.

People who do not are assigned M16A2 rifles and a combat load of magazines, that they pay for on an installment basis. They get to take this home. :D :neener:

The federal funds for this program would come from the dismantling of the BATF.
 
Justin screeched that:
If your conflict in another nation is so freakin' unpopular that you have to force people into indentured servitude in order to pursue it, you best re-examine why you're there.

If, OTOH, the cause is just and true, there will be no shortage of volunteers willing to take up arms.

Lucky for the United States Abraham Lincoln didn't think like you or there wouldn't be a United States today.

The Civil War was a just war to preserve the Union but without the draft the Union forces never could have overcome those of the south.

The whole question of a draft is a slippery one however. If it takes a draft to compel enough of a nation's population into military service so that that nation might be preserved it just may be that that nation shouldn't be preserved.
 
There is no way a draft is coming back. This is little more than a bald-faced attempt to scare people into voting for the Democrats in 2004.
 
The Army is planning (5 year plan) to downsize their active duty component, Army ROTC students have recently been notified that there may no longer be enough slots to allow those who wish to serve active duty to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top