Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is quoted in a January 8 article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25077-2003Jan7.html
I am not a veteran, but it seems to me that Rumsfeld is being pretty insensitive to anyone who did serve in Vietnam, or lost family there.
Try to imagine the fallout if Bill Clinton (or one of his SecDefs) had made a statement like that – and for the record, I voted for Dubya, and will probably do so again.
Allow me to finish that for you.
Doesn’t quite seem so nasty to me now… do we really have to be so careful with our speech that we can’t say ‘the draft is inefficient’ without worrying about an imagined insensitivity? Does it matter to you at all the chairman of the JCS agreed?
On another point… had there been no draft no draftees would have died (duh). If anything I should think any effort to stay away from a draft is an honor to those that died… but thats jut my 2 cents.
(oh… and there is no point to quoting the guy and leaving half of it off… thats sloppy at best and dishonest at worse)
LostOne, I plead guilty to sloppiness.
But I stand by my main point – it lessens the sacrifices to say that draftees didn’t really make a difference.
And this lessening occurs even if it wasn’t the draftee’s fault. (Which is the reason I decided not to include the statement you pointed out).
One of the big fault lines between the hawks and doves during Vietnam was the unfair blame some doves heaped on the people least responsible for the war – e.g., spitting on returning soldiers, many of them draftees.
Rumsfeld’s comments were clearly not intended to offend.
But words have an effect, and I contend that such comments would likely have been criticized by hawks (in and out of the press) if made by, say, Robert McNamara.
And for the record, I think they’re right about opposing reinstatment of the draft – and for reasons that aren’t all that different:
Specifically, past wars where a draft played a major role required lots of relatively unskilled soldiers. Today’s military is smaller and much more technologically skilled – both of which mitigate the effectiveness of a draft.
I would rather the SecDef (and the JCS Chairman) say, “A draft couldn’t bring us the highly trained personnel we need” than make unneccesary statements dissrespectful of Vietnam draftees.
I don’t understand how this ‘disrespects’ draftees. He’s not saying that the soldiers in Vietnam were bad. He’s saying that the draft was not necessary to fighting that war, especially when you consider the resources that had to be expended training soldiers who were released soon thereafter.
Remember, a new draftee is a net drag on the military until he’s trained. Resources have to be moved from the war to the training of new soldiers. In an all-volunteer army that process is much more efficient, because a higher percentage of recruits stay in the military for a longer time, allowing them to recoup the training investment.
The idea that a draftee army is very inefficient pre-dates Vietnam by a long, long time. Rumsfeld was just echoing that belief.
In my opinion, you should be very grateful for Rumsfeld’s attitude, and you should save your scorn for clown like Rangel and Conyers, who are threatening a draft in a blatant attempt to scare young people to get them to oppose the administration.
The way the Washington Post worded the article, it might be construed that Rumsfeld was saying that the draftees themselves were of little value. In context, however, it’s clear that he’s instead criticizing the institution of the draft. I agree that FU Shakespeare is being a bit hypersensitive on other peoples’ behalf.
Well for one I’d like to apologize for sounding like a jerk about it… I think the death penatly thread is starting to grate on me… again… very sorry.
Again… I don’t think this is what he’s saying at all. He is simply commenting on the logistics of a draftee army compared to regular forces and using past conflicts to demonstrate it.
I’d have to stand by my main point… that it’s ok… nay… wise to consider these sorts of things and to be able to comment on draft effectiveness without worrying about it being misconstrued.
Probably not worth a second post over but I wanted to apologize for jumping on you like that… friends? 
Wel, that’s the truth, though. It wasn’t their fault, but they had very little value in military terms.
Do you think the Viet-Nam draftees contributed to the low morale experienced by the Army during and after Viet-Nam through the early 80’s?
Before anyone gets upset I’m not saying the draftees caused the Army’s morale problem. I’m just wondering if drafting so many people into an unpopular war contributed.
Marc
NY Congressman, Charlie Rangel is the one who should be ostracized for even suggesting the draft should be reinstated. IMO Rangel is a racist bigot of the highest order.
Charlie really wants racial equality in our military believing there are proportionately too many blacks under arms. My problem with him is that he doesn’t have the guts to come out and say it. His answer is to fill up our armed forces with a ‘pot luck’ group of people irregardless of their intelligence or aptitude level. This so called ‘war hero’ does not have America’s interest at heart here.
An all volunteer armed forces means we can take the very best. We don’t need to make it like our congress, where some of the very worst serve.
localbrew, you are making a very strong statement about Rangel’s motivation.
There is a lot more precedent that his motivation is partisan – as Sam Stone says, trying to turn people against the Bush administration.
And I know you’re new; I know it’s not good form to nitpick people’s spelling and grammar; but when you used ‘irregardless’ in a sentence denigrating others’ intelligence, you waived your right to slack. 
Welcome to the boards.
Anyone want to read from the ultimate source concerning Rangel’s motivations?
I count one explicit reference to ‘minority groups’, alongside several references to the wealthy and privileged. And some vague statements that might include all of the above.
I stand by my claim that the motivation is not racist, but the usual partisan populism.
OTOH, Democrats might claim it’s principle.
Sorry I spelled irregsardless wrong. Sorry, let me try again “irreguardless”/ Oh no I stil got it wrong. Maybe i should drag out my webster dictonary and try agaen to do it rite. Maybee I should juest ignorie prics like U.
Welcum too muy world …
Rumsy is right: the draft isn’t just less effective: it’s also more costly. Economists spent decades trying to explain this idea during the Vietnam era, and now it seems like it has to be explained all over again.
If anything it sounds like he is being racist against white people from his statement. It sounds like he wants an army where the wealthy and privledged are forced to serve along with minority groups and poor people to make them value all of their lives more.
He sounds like a pacificst to me:)
Let me also be the first to inform you that this ain’t the pit – be nice.
No offense taken LostOne. Friends.
Yeah, it’s not fair that no one is being forced to serve! We should force EVERYONE to serve, that way everyone will know how unfair it is that everyone has to serve! It makes much more sense, and highlights the unfairness of forcing people to serve who don’t want to, than our current system of not forcing people to serve if they don’t want to. I mean, how can we demonstrate how unfair the system is unless we make it unfair? It’s not fair that the current system is fair!
Moderator’s Note: Localbrew, we don’t allow direct personal insults (like calling people “pricks”, however you spell it) in the Great Debates forum. Please don’t do that again.