Mandatory Service---Thoughts, ideas, opinions?

[BreacherUp!]

Why go in as a grunt when I can go in as an officer? Officers make a lot more money and usually don't end up on the front lines as cannon fodder

What ring of Jupiter do you come from?
One, that smacks in the face of the backbone of the military, the enlisted.
Two, officers lead from the front
It is that priveleged attitude that I would love to see wiped away by a DIs hand. Many do not need to be in the military, but civil service is a great alternative.
Let's face it, trying to convince many on this forum that this is a good thing is like trying to push a wet noodle uphill.
Many love to hold their rights aloft like a beacon in the night, but are rarely ever the ones who had to help light the damn thing.

 

[Coinneach]

"Mandatory" means "Do this or you will be punished." The concept of mandatory service is inimical to the meaning of the US.

Patriotism enforced at gunpoint? SUUUUURE, that'll work.

 

[Pampers]

Leif,

Best argument for Isolationism that I've heard since ... 1939!

Luckily, in 1942, the vastness of the Oceans buffered us from the Concequences of our (almost) disasterous Unpreparedness. We (barely) had Time to build our Military from the smallest in the developed World to (With the possable exception of the USSR.) the biggest.

The "Peacetime Draft" was an Attempt to greatly shorten the Tme necessary for Mobilization. The World is a much smaller place than it was in 1942 and things happen much faster. And besides, the United States hasn't been attacked on its own Territory since ... 2001!

 

[Marko Kloos]

I don't think people should be forced to serve but I also don't think they should have all the benefits and privledges of those who do. Heinlein laid out a pretty good system in "Starship Troopers" and I believe it would work well here too.

That was a novel, a speculative work of fiction. We don't know whether Heinlein was really in favor of only granting full civil rights to those who served, but we know his stand on the draft.

"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States.

Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery--and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone--no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think it is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"

 

[Leif]

Pampers, I think you misunderstand me, probably because I did not make myself clear. In no way am I advocating isolationism; simply because I oppose mandatory military service does not mean that I wish the military to be gutted, or the nation completely unprepared for war should it come. However, the ability to muster and project force in time of a military emergency, such as in response to the Pearl Harbor attack or the 9/11 attacks, is not dependent on the draft for success. In both instances, military force was mustered and projected in a very rapid manner given the historical circumstances of the events. In no way would populating the armed forces with massive numbers of draftees prior to those events have forestalled or prevented those events, nor in all likelihood would the military response to those events have been considerably expedited.

Actually, the Swiss (your example) are about the best example of isolationism that exists!

 

[Coinneach]

Marko, exactly. People will always respond to a just cause (witness the tremendous leap in recruiting inquiries following 9/11*). If they have to be forced to support a war, then the war itself is questionable.

*: Funnily enough, the recruiters for every branch turned people away, saying "By the time we can get you trained and in the field, it'll all be over."

 

[Pampers]

Ok, here's the Problem. The Purpose of the Peacetime Draft was NOT to have a massive Standing Army, but to have a vast Pool of Men who had been through Basic Training who could be called upon to rapidly swell the Ranks in Event of the need for a rapid Buildup. We don't have that now, and as a Result, we have overused the Guard, and they are being warn to a frazzle because there are not enough of them. The only Source of Manpower now is current new recruitment. A long slow Process! Better, I believe to have a Pool of trained Men who need only a refresher Course to fill the Ranks quickly.

 

[stevelyn]

Mandatory Service?

Nope. No Way. No How.

Considering the source this bill was puked from, I'm surprised anyone with two brain cells to rub together even paid any attention to it.

 

[johnsonrlp]

I might be kind of biased on this issue being as I am in the military, and I joined because I wanted to.

We have enough dirtbags in the military without a draft. It really isn't for everyone. A lot of people really do join for college money and some of them are great soldiers. A lot of people who volunteer for the wrong reason aren't. There's a reason the Army puts people out for "Failure to Adapt". We don't NEED a massive standing army, nor could we (comfortably) afford one. We could use a good sized, well trained, and well equipped (have you seen some of the crud they've been issued?:barf reserve force. And our benefits and pay aren't all that great as it stands. I think it costs something like $120,000 for every new recruit to get through training and to their duty station.

On the civil service issue, it would probably be OK for the most part, but I'm sure there would be some downsides.

 

[gunslinger555]

i dont think its a good idea because what if they send someone over to a war they dont want to fight and dont watch the back of thair felow soldiers who are wiling to fight.

 

[stephen426]

What ring of Jupiter do you come from?
One, that smacks in the face of the backbone of the military, the enlisted.
Two, officers lead from the front
It is that priveleged attitude that I would love to see wiped away by a DIs hand. Many do not need to be in the military, but civil service is a great alternative.
Let's face it, trying to convince many on this forum that this is a good thing is like trying to push a wet noodle uphill.
Many love to hold their rights aloft like a beacon in the night, but are rarely ever the ones who had to help light the damn thing.

Breacher Up!,

My apologies to you and anyone else who took offense at my comment. My statement was made from a practical stand point, and not a patriotic one. The military is not for everyone and that decision is not only based on patriotism. If the US got into a major war where ground troops were needed, I would consider joining. When I graduated highschool however, there were no conflicts going on.

Some people join because they need the money for school. Some join because they aren't ready for college. I love my country, but I didn't feel that a 4 year detour was for me. I am greatful for all of you who serve and have served.

 

[Pampers]

Point of Order

The Peacetime Draft was for two Years, not four. After that, you were in the Reserves.

 

[Rangefinder]

Now that this thread has had a few days, I'll add my own two-cents to the mix..

In general, I see younger generations consisting less and less of the good, level-headed, driven and ambitious kids who are willing to work for what they get. I see more and more of the lazy, irrisponsible "heathan" attitudes (for lack of a better term) who have no concept of responsibility, dependability, or accountability. Whether or not a mandatory stint in civil/armed service is the answer, I don't know. But I DO know that before I enlisted, I was just another punk kid with a less than solid direction in life. I can't say the military fixed it all for me, but I came out with a MUCH better understanding of the bigger picture. And though I have both good and bad memories of my time in service, I wouldn't trade the experience it gave me for anything. The military has a way of taking a punk kid and beating them into the shape of a man (woman). I see an aweful lot of punks anymore that could really use it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just another thought - if we did have a draft, would it be concomittant with a national strategy actually to use the maximum power of the country to win a war?

In VietNam and Iraq, we saw and see a failure of leadership in committing the forces and using the power necessary to win.

Being of age during VietNam times, we saw our leader unable to win, they pissed away forces by diddling around. In Iraq, we saw the crackpot theories of Chaney, Rumsfeld and their minions convince our befuddled president not to deploy sufficient forces in Afghanistan or Iraq to do the job.

How can we draft folks to fight, when the leadership won't? The mightest country on Earth has been at war for the same time that it took to defeat global powers like Germany and Japan and we are still just screwing around.

 

[OuTcAsT]

[

In Iraq, we saw the crackpot theories of Chaney, Rumsfeld and their minions convince our befuddled president not to deploy sufficient forces in Afghanistan or Iraq to do the job.

Please qualify that statement. Our Troops were sent to Iraq to liberate the people from the Saddam regiem, this mission was accomplished quite handily by the forces committed. Same holds true for the Afgan region.

Just like other wars that have been fought, you cannot just defeat the enemy and pack up and go home. Even after WWII thousands of soldiers had to remain in europe, and asia to stabilize the areas.

The difference now being that, instead of fighting just a Dictatorship, we are fighting a theocratic power.

Just exactly how many troops, and what resources would you bring to bear to "do the job" ?

 

[smiling cobra]

RANGEFINDER...is right,,I see slackers who are twenty..to twenty five years old on skateboards( skateboarding is a great sport...if you are a pro or under eighteen)...doing nothing positive...just being stupid and non productive to themselves or their parents..scammin..and jammin...the military, while painful at some times taught me respect,fear,self reliance,orderliness,...etc...and how to defend myself more effectively..through negotiation or alternatives...so far negotiation has worked quite well..however I am a ccw liscensed carrier and whenever I leave my location I am armed and feel safer, calmer,and less aggressive than I would if I were afraid of others who make stupid choices. I am older..I do walk with a limp..I may be perceived as a target..but my friends I will not be a victim of the bottom feeders who are all around us...Semper Fi...COBRA Draft them and send them to our borders...

 

[stephen426]

Please qualify that statement. Our Troops were sent to Iraq to liberate the people from the Saddam regiem, this mission was accomplished quite handily by the forces committed. Same holds true for the Afgan region.

I am a republican and I support our troops, but even I don't believe that crap. :barf: We supposedly went there because of the faulty intel claiming there were weapons of mass destruction. As for the Afgan region, we should have finished the job instead of having split our forces and not really accomplishing what we went there to do... PUT FRIGGIN' BIN LADEN's HEAD ON A PIKE!!!

I know this is not the point of this thread so I will leave it at that.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks, Stephen. My point is the well documented strategic failures of planning. The troops are heroes. The administration did them a grand disservice.

The rationale for the war is the administration's classic example of cognitive reconstruction of events.

To go to my main point. If we do draft people for involuntary servitude - we have to have leaders that will fight to win.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

I've got no problem with it on the surface, but from training militaries with conscripts they are some of the worst militaries I've come in contact with. If people were given a choice of what type of service they wanted to provide. (i.e. military, park service, answering phones at a police dept) I think it would be a good program. I don't care if they wanted to work for the park service for 2 years as long as they were contributing to our country for some other reason than the the almighty dollar. It might possibly give someone a chance to see potential they never knew they had.

I think universal military training like Swiss is a good thing, but full-time standing army manned by volunteers forces the government to take better care of the soldiers because the supply of soldiers is more limited [compard to universal conscription].

The supply of soldiers in a volunteer army is the limiting factor, and it forces government to use soldiers more carefully.

--John

 

[ron73644]

Quote:
Why don't they call the draft what it would be. A draft of the poor.

Given a choice in the matter I would much rather my tax dollars went to paying the less fortunate to perform civil service than paying them to sit on their ass and collect welfare checks.

My sentiments exactly!