He didn’t mention whether his proposal would draft women, or just men (as before). If only a small fraction of military personnel will face combat, is there really a reason to exclude women?
A draft can work. It HAS worked. But mandatory “service” in any area but the military will never work, for one simple reason. If I’m drafted into the Army, against my will, and I really don’t want to be there, my superiors have the right and power to kick my butt until I do what I’m told.
If I get “drafted” to work for VISTA or at an inner-city day care center or some other worthy-sounding civilian agency, and I slack off, THEN what? Is some civillian bureaucrat going to toss me in the stockade? Is a kindergarten teacher going to make me drop and do 50 pushups if I go AWOL from teaching kids to read?
Mandatory service can only work if there’s brute force behind it. The military can exercise such force. Civilian agencies can’t.
So how long did you serve? You did, didn’t you? I can’t imagine someone making the suggestion without actually having done national service first. I’ll tell you, having people in service who don’t want to be there sucks for those who do. My VISTA leader was worse than useless, and constantly made extra work for us because she was a freaking moron who didn’t want to do anything but enjoyed suggesting new projects for us to carry out while she spent the day on the phone complaining about her stepkids, and was incapable of correcting her own mistakes which then fell to us to handle - she was a wonderful role model for service. And she signed up for it! Two people happy to be serving and one who didn’t made for a very strained year. And you want to throw in a huge additional number of people who don’t want to be there into the mix?
If you force people in to doing things, the programs will go to hell because people who don’t want to help others make things worse for everyone. People who don’t want to make a difference have no place Volunteering (That’s what the “V” in VISTA is, you know, so your idea is a bit ironic IMO) because you can’t make them help, even if that’s what you assigned them to do. Instead of things being done the program would be full of people whining and pouting and others who are pulling their hair out because the things that used to work no longer do with the addition of slackers with bad attitudes.
What a horrible idea. And this is drafted by a progressive Democrat? What has happened to the Democratic party? Hell should be freezing over when Democrats start calling for a draft. I thought the anti-draft movement was one of the defining issues of the modern democratic party?
Mandatory service is simply wrong. I’m not an instrument of the state. The government exists to protect my rights and allow me to live in freedom - it is not my Dad, I am not a subject, and I do not have a ‘duty’ to give up several years of my life to the state.
And I’m not even eligible. I’m almost 40, and Canadian. So there’s nothing personal in it for me. But I’d hate to see the U.S. start to move in such a fascistic direction.
But here’s a suggestion: introduce an amendment that requires that in any draft, some percentage of the draftees must be picked from the general population pool, and not just among young people. Because the draft is one of the more obvious examples of the tyranny of the majority. It’s a lot easier to get 50 year old men and women to vote for a draft when they know it’ll never apply to them. So make it all-inclusive - after all, there are plenty of administrative and logistical jobs that could be done just as well by older draftees.
But that’s all moot, because the moment 50 year old people might be subject to the draft, there will never be another one.
I would be very interested in seeing how he plans on paying for 20 million+ new government employees who need housing, weapons, training, uniforms, etc. As if our budget deficit isn’t already back on the rise.
(And in actuality, I would think that a boon of soldiers would cause more conflicts, due to the fact that we would be able to send a million or more troops to other parts of the world without even worrying about dwindling numbers back home for defense. )
Someone check the lower back of Rep. Rangel, something tells me you’ll find someone else’s arm wedged in there.
What Rights? The right to enjoy freedom without earning it.
You have watched too many movies.
BYE
Didn’t realize you were an expert on US military finance.
??? What…
What about a dog catcher or garbage collector would you agree to those?
Speaking strictly from a military POV (as one of those “one-in-ten” in the front ranks when the shooting starts), I don’t want some unmotivated screwup who was dragged kicking-and-screaming into the ranks next to me on the firing line.
I gave Uncle my 8 years, and while I cannot say that everyone I ever served with was a fine upstanding soldier, I can say that the vast majority were.
Because they voluntarily raised their hand and took the Oath.
And I disagree that an all-volunteer force is somehow a tool of policy makers, moreso than a drafted/conscripted/mandated service force would be.
When Americans see flag-draped coffins coming home, tough questions get asked by the Doves and the American public generally (and a good thing for it, too, IMHO). No Hawkish politician who desires re-election will tell the Doves or their constituency, “Bugger off, it’s nunyadamned beezwax; they volunteered, so the time/place/manner of their deaths is irrelevant.”
- O Brother, Where Art Thou?
As far as soldiers signing up for benefits and education: something I wish recruiters would place more emphasis upon is the concept of “convenience of the service.”
I was stationed at Ft. Hood, TX, in '90, when my unit, the 1st Cav, was told to saddle up. Prior to this (from '88, the time I was first assigned there), my fellow NCOs and I fought daily uphill battles to get the two-year enlistees to do anything. The whiny little turds mantra was always, “I just signed up for the college money.”
Everything: from maintaining their uniforms and gear, maintaining their vehicles, to just not being a personal fuck-up, was greeted with “I just joined for the college money.”
But you should’ve seen the turn-around in their attitudes when war and combat suddenly became a very real possibility. We couldn’t teach these kids fast enough! They wanted to know about everything, front-to-back and side-to-side. We had to break up a fist fight between two soldiers over an FM 17-95!
Those soldiers were quite possibly the finest collection of people I had the privelege of serving with. And the reason was: they volunteered to be there, and they knew it.
So do not gift my Army with your tired, your needy, your sick and hungry. Let them decide to come stand beside us, either as combat soldiers if they so choose, or as medics, air-traffic controllers, truck drivers, cooks, mechanics, or any number of dozens of combat support functions.
If they so choose.
And if there are not enough people to go around, then it is incumbent upon our political leadership to:
-
Increase the level of compensation and benefits in order to attract more people;
-
pick-and-choose our military commitments more wisely.
You know, ExTank, as someone who was drafted into an all-conscript army, I’m beginning to suspect that for some reason you believe that my unit was inherently inferior to yours.
A draft is a complicated affair, and I don’t think that the U.S. is an appropriate country for one. But it does not produce inferior troops.
As usual, Allesan, I was speaking from an American [military] POV; personally, not having served in another country’s armed forces in which the troops are to some degree or another conscripts/draftees, I cannot speak to how effective such policies were in those countries.
I am more than willing to admit that, in those countries, such policies may have indeed produced effective fighting forces. Geo-political and cultural factors in other countires will quite obviously yield different results that here in the U.S.A.
You are correct in calling me on my belief that, here in the U.S.A., such a policy would produce, IMO, an inferior military.
If a free citizenry of the American tradition does not feel sufficiently motivated by any given “world event” (from WW II to the War on Terror) to voluntarily render military service, then drafting/conscripting such people will, IMHO, be counterproductive to the fighting spirit and thus fighting ability of whatever military they comprise.
FWIW, in September of last year ( '01) I did go to talk to an Army recruiter about going back in; she pretty much talked me out of it on several different grounds, assuring me that in the wake of 9/11, finding willing volunteers was not a problem.
Due to “pre-positioned equipment” plans enacted in the 80s and 90s, the U.S. Army at least has more equipment than it actually has people for; whether this is the origin of the belief amongst some that we are somehow deficient in areas of personnel, or whether it is the concern of the possibility of multiple fronts in the War on Terror, I’m not sure (I suspect the latter).
As I said in my previous post, the solution to either is relatively straightforward: recruit more people (by hook, preferably), or curtail our commitments.
I don’t believe the alternative will automatically be disaster for our armed forces, but I do believe that the potential for it to be one rises commensurately as the percentage of conscripts/draftees in our armed forces rises.
But, once again, that’s just my opinion, based upon my experience of 8 years in the post-Vietnam, all-volunteer U.S. Army, and my one and only shooting war. While it isn’t “expert commentary” on military force-structure, I am speaking from first-hand, up-to-my-neck-in-it experience of what an all-volunteer American force is capable of.
That doesn’t preclude me from being proven wrong; not by a long shot! It just makes me disinclined to want to mess with what has, so far, been a successful policy.
Well…yes…that’s what FREEDOM means. How can freedom be conditional on service?
Funny how people only like the idea of freedom until other people use their freedom to do something they don’t agree with.
msmith: while philosophically I am behind you 110%, emotionally, there is a teeny-tiny part of me that is also with Chanticleer.
I would not be so arrogant to publicly proclaim that unearned Freedom is not truly appreciated or somehow undeserved; the proliferation of heartfelt political activism in the U.S.A. during any given moment puts paid to that lie PDQ.
Yet there is a part of me that can’t help but wonder…
It is a contradiction between intellect and emotion within myself that I hope one day can and will be resolved; in the meantime, I strive for reason, moderation and tolerance in my opinions.
So, in other words: no offense intended to your POV, but a small part of me can’t help disagreeing with you even as I am agreeing with you.
It’s like the old quote (paraphrasing) “you can only truly be for free speech when you support anothers right to publicly denounce everything you stand for and spent your life working to achieve”.
One thing I fail to grasp - why is a regular person going to their job and doing their little contribution to the economy any less of a service to the nation than volunteering in a soupkitchen or serving as a soldier. Granted you don’t have all the risks associated with combat, but any nation needs deli workers, ball bearing manufactuers and paper shufflers as much as it needs soldiers.
Indeed, why is a taxpayer serving the nation any less than a soldier? Without the tax dollars provided by myself and millions like me, we wouldn’t be able to operate a military force.
I think a bit (perhaps a bit too much?) of Father O’Brien has seeped into my thinking.
Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, USMC
Chairman Mao was a bastard, but he was wise in the ways of power when he said:
Including the right for the lawyer, the deli owner and the student protestor to not pick up a gun, put on a uniform, and serve his or her time securing those same rights for others.
Perhaps another person’s thoughts have overly influenced my way of thinking; indeed, he was one of the people (among many others) who influenced me to enlist in the first place.
- John Stuart Mill (1868)
I try not to emphasize the elitism implied in such a message, and have no ill-will or hard feelings against anyone who has not nor wishes to serve in uniform. Indeed, I seriously desire that those who do not desire to serve stay the hell out of the military.
But, as I stated earlier, I cannot help but feel, way down deep and in the back of my mind, that those who do serve in uniformed military service are just a notch above those who can and are able, but haven’t.
Even as rational thought tells me otherwise.
I would agree with you, if it weren’t for the fact that most of today’s military volunteers join for reasons other than defending their country.
Baskil: cite?
Besides, I wasn’t speaking to the motivations of a large group of strangers; I was describing a part of my own while semi-apologizing to msmith and Mr2001 for a wee bit of soldierly elitism in my rationalization for not bringing back the draft.
I call bullshit.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, I’d be in favor of making some sort of national service a prerequisite to being enfranchised. Whether it be in a branch of the military or spreading mulch around the flower beds in a national park, I think that citizens should earn the right to vote. Think of it as repaying your debt to those who have gone before that have “loaned” you all the rights you enjoy. TANSTAAFL.
Side note: Paying taxes are not your “dues.” People in the military pay taxes, too.
I don’t think of it that way at all. How does one “loan” rights to people? Something is either a “right” or it isn’t a right but a “privlidge” handed out based on arbitrary rules defined by those who have the biggest guns.
Taking this quote from ExTank’s link:
“He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being – a person who offered some of his life’s most vital years in the service of his country, and who sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.”
The key word here is sacrifice. A volunteer soldier chooses his path because he is willing to put the needs of his country ahead of his own without expecting anything in return.
In the sense that the military sets a standard and all it’s members must meet or exceed that standard, yes…I would say that soldier is a notch above the average Joe who’s most pressing issue is getting a coffee from Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks before they are late to work. Soldiers (airmen, sailors, etc) train to do things both physically and mentally that ordinary people almost never experience. Because of that they deserve respect but not special rights.
Yes, but where do they get the money to pay taxes? From other taxpayers.
You call bullshit? Why else would they offer those deals? The government does not play thankful sympathizer. It may not be the only reason that people enlist, but to think that the main reason people enlist now is to defend their country is delusional. Most of them try to either learn discipline, stay out of trouble, get a degree, learn a tradeskill, or a combination of those. Hell, I’d imagine that even with officers, the primary reason for joining the armed forces has nothing to do with national security. That percentage may have increased since 9/11, but I’m damn sure it’s not the main reason.
I call <i>fascism</i>. The idea of being forced to earn your rights is institutionalized indentured servitude, which is exactly what the 13th amendment tries to prevent in this country. But then again, under your system, they wouldn’t have that right until they’re already through that system.