Under most circumstances–including the present one, I don’t think a draft is rational to begin with, so I don’t see why people wouldn’t try to implement a draft and still keep up the ban on gays. You’ll notice Mr. Stein didn’t mention anything about letting gays into the military. I have no idea what his views are on the subject, but I do think it’s curious that he advocates for a draft with addressing that issue (among the many other issues he doesn’t address about implementation).
Letting gays into the military is a big fight all on its own and it’s not obvious to me that the two issues can be tied together in this way. If people want to advocate for a draft, then they should clearly state thier views on who serves and who doesn’t. If they don’t, then I don’t see any reason to assume that the ban on gays is automatically lifted.
They wouldn’t. But your assumption seems to be that the military (and the politicians) would rather let gay people into the military than allow people to avoid the draft by claiming to be gay. I don’t see any reason to make that assumption–and hence, my position that with an universal draft, you end up with what is essentially a volunteer force anyway.
OK, you were operating in my blind spot there. Because I can’t see what possible need we’d have on an ongoing basis for a much larger army than the one we went into the Iraq War with.
Now that we don’t have to worry about the Soviet Union invading West Germany, there’s little defensive reason for a bigger army. And then there are wars of choice that lead to occupations, and those that don’t. For the latter, we don’t need a huge army either, and the former are simply a bad idea.
We really don’t want to do another one of these, 10-15 years down the road, because we won’t get it any more right than this one. Even if we go in with the requisite number of troops for containing an insurgency.
I’m 19 and I don’t think a mandatory period of service is a horrible idea. Mandatory military service would be essentially immoral, and I think anything over about 18 months would be ridiculous, but the idea that you give some of your time to society as well as money in taxes isn’t a bad one. Getting that system established, though, would be a nightmare. Can you imagine what colleges would do?
Doesn’t Germany do something similar to this? After turning 18, you have to serve 12 months in the army or 18 months in a civil-service position?
War of 1812? My knowledge of American history at that time period is spotty, but didn’t the Americans essentially start that one in order to conquer tracts of Canada/get Britain out of North America?
As for the OP, I think Ben Stein wants a draft in the same way Charlie Rangle wants a draft; that is, not at all. They just want people to realize that we are in a war that someone has to pay for. Maybe then the damn thing would end quicker.
It’s nine months for both options and only men have to do it. Is having someone serve in the military 2 years or less with no reserve obligation even worth the time and effort it’d take to train them?
I thought that Filipinos (if not others) had a very similar set up now. Or am I mistaken?
Aside from that, I’m not sure it would be a good idea due in large part to language barriers. Hell, if you’ve got a division made up of Chinese, Mexican, Nicaraguan and Zimbabwean volunteers, then you’re screwed.
Call me a pinko-leftist, buy I sortta figure that the way to get more applicants for a job is to offer better pay and better benefits, rather than use a press gang. Free market and all that.
Good point, if the military raises it’s pay high enough and gives good enough benefits it’s recruitment/retention problems could disappear, but how just how does military pay need to be to attract enough quality people?
The biggest problem the military faces is that the economy is very hot. Unemployment rates are low and competition for labor is increasing, so people are being wooed away from military service. Even so, the military is meeting its recruitment goals. The reserves aren’t doing quite so well, which makes sense - they’re losing the people who would join the reserves primarily for the economic benefits. Now that they know there’s a good chance they’ll wind up in a war zone, they’re choosing not to join. People who join the regular services already haf that expectation.
In fact, the war may have increased the desirability of military service. A lot of young men wouldn’t have joined the military if they thought it was just going to be a few years of drudgery. But during wartime, the importance and consequences of joining are much greater.
The Marines are doing extremely well, and they have the highest casualty rates. Their ads don’t talk about college benefits or the skills you will learn - they talk about honor, pride, testing yourself, putting it all on the line, protecting your country, etc.
The Army is also starting a program to entice retired personnel to re-enlist in the army, regardless of what service they were in. This way, they increase their numbers, and the new recruits are already comfortable with military life and have skills.
Of course they are. The original Army recruiting goal several years ago was ~8,000. They couldn’t meet these so they had to slash their goals so they can still say they’re meeting them.
And with respect to retention, can’t forget the combination of the re-upping bonus and the threat of being kept on indefinitely by stop-loss if you don’t sign up for another hitch.
That’s a combination that would get me to re-up, too.
I think you’re referring to the Non-Immigrant Alien (NIA) recruiting program that was required under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines. A certain number of Filipinos were enlisted into the US Navy and served their term or terms as NIA, meaning that the time did not apply towards naturalization. Those who were eligible did apply for an Immigrant visa and, if granted, their service time did then credit towards naturalization. Also, one of the requirements for the program was the prospective enlistee had to prove he was fluent in English. When the SOFA expired, so did the recruiting plan.
I can’t see how this is accurate. There’s a statutory force level for the Armed Forces and, unless I’m incredibly mistaken, the recruiting goals are set to meet those levels, not to meet some public relations fake target number.
That’s more or less what I was saying. They are still attacking our systems though. A good author on this subject is “John Robb” who took his experience in counter-terrorism and the software industry and has developed a theory of ‘[url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418147&highlight=open-source]Open-Source War[/url’ which I started a thread on, but only got a single response, to my dissapointment. In that link there are a number of articles he has written on the subject. It’s a very fascinating subject to me as I’ve been interested for quite some time in the emergence of decentralized structures.
A bigger army will work to our detriment. The problem for us as it is, is our force cannot react quickly enough to developing problems. We lack the intelligence, considering we just kicked out a sizable chunk of our Arabic translators being that they were gay. We need a smaller more nimble and highly trained force, not a larger more ponderous one.
Lowering our standards for recruitment drives is something they’ve done over the past two years. They could not lower standards now, and they spend tons of money on recruitment already. Due to lower standards people who have nearly failed the ASVAB are getting in. Gangbangers with felony convictions are getting in, and people up to the age of 42 can join. In the anti-insurgency world people are starting to become very concerned about multinational gangs. The military is training insurgents in the process of ‘lowering standards’ to increase recruitment.