Well, phouka, When I was in the Navy, people like you describe were first made to feel completely worthless then handed a general or dishonorable discharge. It wasn’t pretty.
Peace,
mangeorge
You are in favor of the draft, and you call yourself a libertarian?!? For shame.
Damn the man!
If we are so scared of violence, why would we train people in it? Really, mandatory time in the military would only add to society’s violent culture. Plus, lots of people just plain oppose the military. I know that this is not what we are debateing, but it does make a difference. I know quite a few people that emigrated from their home countries as children and connot go back to visit their families for fear of being arrested for not fulfilling their time in the military. It can only tear apart families and spread fear and violence.
BlakJak-
The US reserve system is much as you described the Australian system. In the US, members of the reserve also serve something like one weekend a month in the Army. During the Gulf War, a bunch of reservists were called up, and some started whining about how they had decided to become pacifists and they didn’t want to fight. Should have though about that earlier, huh?
Missy2U posted:
What’s wrong with it? You mean other than it’s exactly the argument used to support Fascism? [Note: I’m not saying that you’re a Fascist, just that It’s very easy to go from your position to Fascism]
I guess gun control advocates would like this plan, since it’s illegal for someone with a dishonorable discharge to be in possesion of a firearm. That means that we could end up with a substantial portion of America, including homosexuals, deprived of their Second Amendment rights. And of course, as long as someone’s in the Army, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to them. What’s the point of having the Bill of Rights if the government can ignore it at will? The whole college anti-Vietnam protest phenomenon could have been stopped if everyone were drafted, and then ordered to not say anything bad about the war. Would this have been a good thing? Do you really want to live in a country in which basic human rights mean nothing?
The draft is a horrible affront to human liberty, and is justified only by dire natonal need in which the very survival of the country is threatened. The only time in US history at which the draft was even close to being justified was WWII, and even that’s doubtful. To provide for the draft as a last resort for the protection of remaining liberties is understandable. To contemplate instituting a draft because it would “raise national unity” or “provide a good education” or even worse, because the country has the “right” to revoke personal liberties any time it wants is ridiculous. If you want “national untity”, I can think of much better ways than a draft. How about taking every child and randomly assigning him or her new parents? Sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it? Even… unAmerican?
From Quicksilver
You realize, of course, that for many military specialties, basic training (aka Boot Camp) + initial specialty training take nearly a year. So the military would invest a year into training someone, who would then leave before they ever do put their training into any real use, or gained any real experience. Even if they were subject to recall for a deployment later, there’s a good chance they would not retain much of what they were taught.
Something you seem to be sorely lacking.
Pray tell what vast experience you have with the military that allows you to come up with this conclusion. Do you have a cite for this?
Maybe not for you… That’s assuming, of course, that you could actually get in. If your spelling here & on the Pope’s apology thread are any indication, I wouldn’t take it for granted.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
Not a double post - correcting code error to clarify who is saying what. Sorry about that…
From Quicksilver
You realize, of course, that for many military specialties, basic training (aka Boot Camp) + initial specialty training take nearly a year. So the military would invest a year into training someone, who would then leave before they ever do put their training into any real use, or gained any real experience. Even if they were subject to recall for a deployment later, there’s a good chance they would not retain much of what they were taught.
Something you seem to be sorely lacking.
Pray tell what vast experience you have with the military that allows you to come up with this conclusion. Do you have a cite for this?
Exactly what benefits do you see society gaining by this that could possibly justify the cost? Not just the salaries of the extra short-term soldiers, but also the added costs of more senior NCOs and officers to train them, more barracks to house them, more posts/bases activated to keep them close to home, more rifles/ammo/MREs, etc.
Maybe not for you… That’s assuming, of course, that you could actually get in. If your spelling here & on the Pope’s apology thread are any indication, I wouldn’t take it for granted.
- Sue
Glitch posts:
There would be a rough transition period. But if everyone were raised with the expectation of a mandatory 1-2 year hitch in the service, very few would prove to be unfit for the service. Not everyone in the Army trains to kill people on a daily basis. There are cooks, truck mechanics, office workers, pharmacy techs, mail sorters, and lots of support-role personnel in the Army. Most Navy enlistees do jobs related to keeping the ship running or supporting those who do. Most Air Force service members keep the planes flying or support those who do.
BlakJak posts:
The military does have computers & needs linguists, programmers, techs & other geek-types. You have a very limited concept of the military.
Freedom posts:
The military does not currently dictate sexual orientation. It does set out guidelines for what is unacceptable behavior.
phouka says:
All those emotional women often do better in boot camp than the studly guys because they share things with each other more easily & are more supportive/less competitive. Once out, there are jobs like equal opportunity counselors, psychiatry techs, and chaplains assistants that could take advantage of all those people skills…
The Ryan posts:
I do agree with this. The NCOs & officers in the military have enough to do without riding herd over a whole group of people who really don’t want to be there. What I have proposed, though as a way to make up the shortfall in recruiting in a good economy is to tie federal student aid to various options of mandatory federal service, of which the military would be one choice.
As a career military officer, I do get upset at the vast amount of ignorance that large segments of US society have about the military. Yet this ignorance does not inhibit them in the least in having very strong opinions about how all manner of policies about the military. Don’t mistake me. Civilian control of the military is essential to our form of government. But when so many in positions to make those policies know so little about the military, it makes for a very frustrating situation.
I hope this post makes people realize that all of the military is not Seals, Rangers, commandos, etc. Yes, my job is to support them. But the military needs & puts to good use people with a tremendous array of abilities & skills.
- Sue
My country (Denmark) does, at least officially, have mandatory military service. Of course, the Armed Forces don’t have the ressources to train everybody, so if you pass the physical, there’s a lottery (quite literally - you draw a numbered ticket, and then they call in as many as they need, starting with the number 1). If you pass the physical, you can also choose to volunteer - I did, as did about 80% of my fellow soldiers.
Even after passing the physical, it’s expected that 10-15 % drop out during service, for physical or psychological (sp?) reasons.
If your conscience or religion doesn’t allow you to carry arms (but your number is low), you get a civilian job - museum custodian or kindergarten work are typical assignments. Yes, it’s soft duty. Why bother a combat unit with people who’d rather be elsewhere ? If you can’t accept the civilian job either, you serve a short prison term, but that’s pretty rare.
The benefits of the arrangement are - as I see it - twofold:
1: People from wildly different walks of life are forced to cooperate and in the process, they develop respect for each other and each other’s backgrounds. Respect comes to those who perform well, everybody starts out the same. Example: I was, admittedly, something of a snob towards people who’d chosen a manual trade when I was 19. That attitude survived about two hours - then I realised that some of these people were pretty darn smart, and that I needed them to teach me a trick or two.
2: The armed forces and the society at large are “in sync” on important issues. There’s not much chance of a “fortress mentality” building in the armed forces, because the recruits don’t come from a specific demographic subset, but are (more or less) a cross section of the population.
It probably made more military sense back in the bad old days, when the Danish military trained specifically to fight a Warsaw Pact invasion (they had it planned, too…). In those circumstances, you want a large pool of trained people to draw on - and even if the training & equipment may not be perfect, you grab what you can when the nation is fighting for survival.
These days, however, most Danish military effort is directed towards UN ops, and that of course has to done by a smaller, entirely voluntary force. Still, the mandatory service provides a “talent pool” for UN service - and national defense is still a priority.
Would it make sense for the US ? I have no idea. It did make sense for Denmark in the cold war, and it specifically did me a lot of good, although I cordially detested it a lot of the time.
Just my 0.02 Euro…
Norman
Cooper, you said:
You must have my post three or four above yours where I said:
The Ryan:
This of course ignores the fact that there WAS a draft during the protests. Somehow I don’t think this arguement holds any water since we already actually lived out the scenario you proposed and the opposite happened.
Are you a Buchanan supporter? 
Just a question to the Danish poster. When yopu join the Danish Army, are you expected to serve at the beck and call of the UN? Or are the units that serve the UN peacekeeping efforts different. As an American citizen, I have no problem serving in the armed services, provided it is to protect and defend the USA. I don’t really care to get involved in foreign civil wars however. And, I would not feel comfortable serving under a foreign general (as per the UN).
The Ryan - I probably should have qualified my statement by pointing out that my grandfather served in WW2 (Seabee), my father served during Korea (Navy officer) - my first husband was a marine, my last serious ex (for lack of a better word) served in Desert Storm as a marine, my ex’s father (who was almost my father in law) was a marine, I have been surrounded by servicemen for most of my life. It’s something that’s basically ingrained I guess.
I’m certainly not saying my beliefs should in any way shape or form apply to everyone. Good Lord - can you imagine the chaos???
Isn’t there anyone on this board who remembers that the U.S. DID have a peacetime draft from the end of WW2 until about 1973? (I’ll talk about Korea and Vietnam in a second) And here’s what happened –
Pro: A more homogenous military, more in tune with society.
More exposure to people of different backgrounds.
A higher average educational level than an all-volunteer force.
More men (yes, it was all male) able to attend college on the G.I. bill. Those who didn’t go onto college came out with some sort of vocational training.
Con: more controversy over Korea and Vietnam, because the force was essentially made up of draftees, not enlistees.
Higher manpower meant more ability to commit troops without worrying about potential effects.
Abuse of deferment process threw the whole idea of a draft into disrepute.
Less commitment to the military as a career.
I have heard many arguments for an against the idea of a “civilian” military vs. an all-volunteer force. My own feeling was that we got out of Korea and Vietnam sooner than we might have because we had a military draft and potentially everyone had a stake in it. Conversely, we went into the Gulf with relatively little debate because we had an all-volunteer force and there wasn’t that potential stake in every household.
I came of draft age during Vietnam, and I was never opposed to the idea of military service per se. I was just opposed to the war. Fortunately, by the time my student deferment ended, so had the draft, so I didn’t need to face the crisis of conscience.
On balance, I think it might be a good idea for society to have more of a stake in the military.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
The military is a fraternity. Complete with ignorance, alcohol abuse, hazing, abuse of women & gays and macho posturing.
In a nation like Denmark or Belgium, it is essential to tolerate and promote mandatory conscription and the UN. These nations have been invaded many times and are bordered by a country with an aggressive history. It is in the interest of their survival.
The US does not need mandatory military service OR the UN. There is NO threat of invasion here and the last thing we need are more “military” men in this society. In theory, men learn new skills and become team workers and leaders in the military - in practice they become indoctrinated and unstable.
We should go so far as to alter the Constitution with an Amendment preventing forced military service. The Draft is nothing but a political tool.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
“We should go so far as to alter the Constitution with an Amendment preventing forced military service. The Draft is nothing but a political tool.”
I dunno Sake. Of course the draft is a political tool, a tool used to get stuff done when it needs to be done. I don’t have complete faith in the government but there have been many times when I think it does what is necessary with force, but who wants to die? I think congress originally hated the draft, but then you get fair-weather soldiers and sunshine patriots…which is fine and all when the red coats are 20 miles away, but how 'bout when they have to go over seas?
Freedom
The scenario I described did happen? Every single college student was drafted? And their CO’s let t hem protest anyway?
No, but I’m not convinced that, considering the patriotism of the ‘40’s, a volunteer army wouldn’t have been sufficient to protect the US.
Missy2u:
I guess the question is whether you think that your son should serve because he has the beliefs you described, or whether you think he should serve because you have the beliefs you described.
Sake Samurai:
What, you mean something like this: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”?
To egkelly:
During mandatory service, you can’t be part of a UN action - the law that permits the draft specifically mentions “defending the nation”.
Professionel soldiers, OTOH, go where they’re ordered - so if the UN asks for a detachment of troops for a specific misison and the government decides to comply, well, off they’re sent. In other words, it’s the government, not the UN, that decides whether to get involved in a specific conflict. To cut through some of the problems that may arise here, a special army brigade has been created to provide manpower, training etc. for “international” (i.e, UN) operations.
Most of the “rank & file” in UN duty are soldiers who’ve passed through mandatory service, decided to go sign a contract for international service and received additional training in UN ops. They are “on call” for a number of years, typically sent overseas once or twice, and receive a fixed amount per month plus a bonus after finishing the contract. They can get out of the contract anytime (unless when called to duty, of course), at the cost of the bonus.
Serving under foreign generals is not considered a problem, that’s just like NATO. As long as there’s a competent guy in charge, what’s the problem ?
Actually, I’m a bit proud of the Danish participation in UN ops, especially those in former Yugoslavia.
Norman
Would you care to open a friendly thread to debate Nato’s/The UN’s involvement in Yugoslavia?
After the propaganda war that demonized the Serbs and claimed 100,000 dead Albanians, I wonder how many people still support our involvement over there.
Hmmm. Mandatory military service?
And here I thought slavery was outlawed…
To Spiney Norman:
thanks for the info on the Danish Army. I think youn have to be very idealistic to serve on a UN “Peacekeeping” mission-you get shot at from both sides.
Just an aside: can you answer my question about Danish place names? The suffis “strup” (e.g. Kastrup, Glostrup, Lostrup, etc.) appears as the name of many towns in Denmark-do you know what it means?
The Ryan asks:
Fiar question. As my son gets older, he will be made aware of my position. However, he is also my son, and should he choose not to serve, then it won’t change how I feel about him one iota. I will not be disappointed in him one bit! I support and will continue to support my son for his entire life, jarhead or not jarhead. I love (and like) my son, unconditionally.
Simplistic, perhaps, but the truth.