McCain...Reinstitute the Draft?

S832,
I see by your last two posts that you have a pretty simplistic view on things.

Maybe if you expand a bit on your answers, some here will be better able to understand your point of view.

Maybe you could just answer this:

So, lets say a country does not get enough volunteers to defend itself, what do you propose?
What would YOUR solution be?

You have to think past the Air America talking points--they did after all fail in the free market.
 
And how big a military do YOU want to pay for in a time when we don't face a Nazi Germany/Soviet Union level threat?

Well I agree with you philosophically, but we've just roused the sleeping bear so that "threat" is about to become very real. The problem is that as long as we allow aliens to control our foreign policy they can always produce an enemy...
 
It appears the Army and Marines are understaffed and there is more conflict around the world happening. Yes, I believe we should have a draft again. Will it happen? Who knows? If so, it better happen soon because it's going to take time to organize properly. Why wait till we're in trouble?
 
There's no need for a draft if we'd keep our hands in our pockets and our noses out of other people's business. Having more cannon fodder makes no difference to the end result.
 
I can't speak for the other branches of service...but the Airforce isn't trying to keep folks in. They are reducing by the thousands every year.

In a briefing, One CMSgt stated that the AF goal was to reduce to 80,000 strong by the year 2031. We are currently just above 300,000.

I don't see a draft comming when we are getting rid of what we have now.

Yeah, that's the Air Force. I can't speak for the other branches, but I can say the Army is hurting for people. They're meeting goals, but it's taking a lot of money to do it. I get $2,000 just for getting somebody to sign up for the National Guard (Army). I get a grand of it just for them raising their hand, and another grand if they ever ship to basic, IIRC. Which means I get to keep half even if they get out of their contract.

That, along with $20,000 resigning bonuses in the reserve component, should tell you that we're not exactly pushing people out. If I remember correctly, the Air Force has actually been pushing their junior officers to go green as an alternative to getting pushed out altogether.

Oh, then there's the IRR callups and stop-losses, which certainly aren't a sign that manpower is up to snuff. Along with 15-month deployments that were going for a while.
 
Chui,
Russia HAS threatened to use NUCLEAR weapons.
There ****** because we are in Poland and are putting up a missile system.
They may go into Poland.
They are destroying Georgia as we speak.
We made a deal with Poland, they want us there and they are a separate country from Russia.

What do we do??
Do we leave Poland??
Is a US missile defense system in Poland a bad idea for us?
By your logic, isn't Russia the country that is not "minding it's own business??
Should we just leave?

What say you??
 
Not sure if your post is sarcastic towards the AF JaunCarlos.

But not just junior officers. I've got several buddies(enlisted), that also went Green. It seems that most of the limitations and cutbacks are geared to weed out the "non hackers". Which is good I guess, but as you said, that means longer deployments and more of them. I feel for my Army brethren, they have it rough.

We need Reagan Back.
 
I see by your last two posts that you have a pretty simplistic view on things.

Maybe if you expand a bit on your answers, some here will be better able to understand your point of view.

Maybe you could just answer this:

So, lets say a country does not get enough volunteers to defend itself, what do you propose?
What would YOUR solution be?

You have to think past the Air America talking points--they did after all fail in the free market.

Nothing, its not our problem.

Russia can control Europe, China can control East Asia and America can control the Americas. Seems pretty fair to me.

If Russia starts building missile systems in Mexico, how would you feel?

Anyway Europe and Asia aren't worth a drop of American blood,
 
Not sure if your post is sarcastic towards the AF JaunCarlos.

Only a little, but having spent all my time between the active and reserve Army, that's to be expected.

But not just junior officers. I've got several buddies(enlisted), that also went Green. It seems that most of the limitations and cutbacks are geared to weed out the "non hackers". Which is good I guess, but as you said, that means longer deployments and more of them. I feel for my Army brethren, they have it rough.

Longer deployments? What, up to five months? ;)

Kidding, of course. From the AF guys I talked to back when I was deployed, they were doing roughly the same duty cycle (spending nearly half their time deployed), they were just doing it in shorter stints...which is doable for them, given the different nature of their mission. Some missions require a bit more acclimation time, hence longer deployments are necessary (for instance, I'm pretty sure that AF security forces and EOD do longer tours than most)...I think the Marines had it about right back then, at something like 7-8 month tours...which is about the minimum that's reasonable for combat/security operations.

I wasn't sure just how deep the cuts were going on the enlisted side, I just knew second- and third-hand that the AF was bleeding officers and the Army was snatching them up. The Army's been bleeding junior officers badly (and not intentionally), as young lieutenants decide having a family might be more rewarding than getting a command.

We need Reagan Back.

Yes and no. I think if we actually scaled back our operations we could afford to scale back our active military forces, though probably not at the rate that most of the Democrats seem to think is appropriate.

I think maintaining decently-trained reserve forces (the changes I've seen in the Guard even since 2001 are pretty impressive, and I understand things had already been improved since Desert Storm) is enough for a self-defense and reactionary force (as well as limited peace-keeping operations) and that our active-duty military forces could probably remain at current levels as long as we don't get ourselves into any more Iraq-scale operations.

If anything bigger came up? Well, I guess that's the kind of "existential conflict" that the draft is for. I'm not a fan of the draft, but at the same time I wonder if we'd have fielded the forces we needed for WWII without it. People were patriotic back then, and supported the effort, but yet we still did draft people for it and I'd think if a volunteer force could have cut it we'd not have bothered.

But who knows.

That rambled a little more than I wanted it to.
 
Longer deployments? What, up to five months?

I know, I know. They are offering Vols for 365's. And some Squadrons are doing 6 months. Which is a good rotation I feel. My time isn't split as much as others but I've got close to 3.5 years in that AOR. Not comparable to most Army and Marines.

If we could get the ecomony straightened out, I'm all for the Reagan philosophy of, Peace thru numbers. And the draft, that's a hard sell. There are too many whiny crybaby sympathizers out there to do any good.
 
So, lets say a country does not get enough volunteers to defend itself, what do you propose?

exactly what I quoted!

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!

Sorry but if enough people do not think a threat is great enough it either does not warrant a mass mobilization or the people deserve what they get.

I'll defend what and who I value but I do not expect others to be forced to defend those things for me.

If the Army and Marines are having problems with their enlistment rates then perhaps it is because more people do not agree with the manner in which they are being used.;) If I recall there were no problems with enlistment after 9/11 or when we went into Afghanistan. The problems seem to have started with Iraq, the lack of direction shown there and the mission creep we have seen there...
 
'll defend what and who I value but I do not expect others to be forced to defend those things for me.

YOU ARE AN ARMY OF ONE!! LOL
You should be on a poster!!
 
I wouldn't mind a draft. It serves to well-regulate the militia to rotate lots of the citizenry though military and weapons training.
 
A missed point....

We won't have a draft, because we won't need one soon. There are alots and lots of bodies available, and soon enough they will be enlisting. Because of our economy.

Poor folks will enlist, because the service is a steady paycheck, "3 hots and a cot" etc. We won't need a draft, when the economy gets bad enough (and we are heading that way) people will enlist, even if there is a "war on terror" still going on.

We were attacked, on September 11th, remember? There was a surge in enlistment after that, and if another "attack" happens, there will be another wave of enlistment.

The problem isn't a lack of manpower, it is the commitments our political leadership is making compared to our available forces. The politicians must understand that unlike spending our money, you cannot "spend" more troops than we have. There is no budget deficit possible for military manpower, eventually they will be forced to realize this, and alter their priorities. The general US population will not stand for a draft, not like we had in Vietnam. And not likely any "fair" version either. Rich folks don't want their precious offspring out on the sharp end, that is for the poor folks kids, and the rest of us don't want a draft that doesn't take the rich folks kids along with ours.

And besides, even if a future President wants a draft, isn't it Congress that makes the law? Presidents don't always get what they want from Congress, now do they? I think that even those boneheads in Congress care enough about their jobs not to pass a draft law against the will of the majority of the people.

So, until you see a huge public (dis)information campaign about how we need a draft start up, I wouldn't worry.

Anyway Europe and Asia aren't worth a drop of American blood,

As to this, they very well may not be, but we have nearly 100 years of history and US policy stating otherwise. And failing to keep up in this "tradition" well be seen as a betrayal of all who have sacrificed in the past for these goals.

The USA, being in the unique position of having been the world's most generally advanced and productive nation, and not having fought a land war within our borders for nearly a century and a half (which may have a lot to do with out national might and capability as well) has historically become the "reserve" from which our military has been able to issue forth, to win the European and Asian wars of WW I and WW II, hold agrression at bay in Korea, and Vietnam (which we "lost" as a political decision, not a military one), and perform to date in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ouor political leaders (whom ever they happen to be) are going to have to make some decisions about how and where they want to use the US military in the future, and if they don't make the "right" choices their current terms will be their only terms. Re-instating a draft will go a very long way to making that a reality.
 
First of all, I think a lot of people are overstating the threat of a resurgent Russia.

Russia isn't going to invade Poland, nor bombard it with weapons.

Poland is NATO and every NATO country is obliged by treaty to act in it's defense if attacked. Not just us. Britain, Germany, Italy, all those guys.

I see all this as the last gasp of an otherwise shrinking, diminished people temporarily awash in oil revenues.

And this talk of a draft over what Russia's done in Georgia and what it's said to Poland is ridiculous.

Russia would likely **** off so many of it's old vassal states-Belorus, Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary-and others. Many of them would probably be in the fight too.

Anyway Europe and Asia aren't worth a drop of American blood,

Yeah, bad stuff happening there would have no effect on the American economy, jobs, inflation, all that interconnected stuff because we're just as snug as bugs in a rug and don't have to worry about stimuli outside our borders...because this is 1932.
 
A quick off the cuff response by McCain started this whole thing, I havent seen an overeaching for hidden meaning in a long time.
 
Poland is NATO and every NATO country is obliged by treaty to act in it's defense if attacked. Not just us. Britain, Germany, Italy, all those guys.

I don't care what the paper says, do you really believe any of those nations are going to actually attack Russia if they simply blow the snot out of a US missile defense base in Poland.

Not Bloody Likely!

They will look for any reason NOT to commit, no matter how paper thin.

Back to the OP...

I think it was mostly an off the cuff response focused on the treatment of vets in society.

the treatment of American veterans with regard to health care was deplorable when illegal immigrants could go on Medicaid and get health services they needed.

That part seems to have been completely ignored...
 
I can't speak for the other branches of service...but the Airforce isn't trying to keep folks in. They are reducing by the thousands every year.

In a briefing, One CMSgt stated that the AF goal was to reduce to 80,000 strong by the year 2031. We are currently just above 300,000.

I don't see a draft comming when we are getting rid of what we have now.

Hes pretty much spot on. The services, with the exception of the Marine corps i believe, have pretty much been exceeding not only their recruitment goals but their retention rates (people staying in the service) ever since 9/11.

Translation?= Theyre not hurting for volunteers.
 
Back
Top