Should we bring back the draft, in some form?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Of the three young men I mentioned in the OP, all were pretty much “up against a wall” when they joined .And – I was directionless, uneducated, unmotivated. The Army changed everything for the better for me.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen exactly the opposite happen–being in the army can make 18 year old kids LESS mature than their friends in civilian life .
The reason is that the army is a job that you can’t get fired from, even if you screw up.

Being a cook or warehouse worker in the army is not much different than doing the same job at McDonalds or Walmart. But at walmart, you’ll get fired and have no money if you screw up. In the army, you will still have a roof over your head and a paycheck in the bank. (Yeah, you may suffer getting a weekend pass cancelled, or be forced to do some unpleasant chores/guard duty after your shift ends–but there are no long-term consequences for being lazy or not getting along with your boss and co-workers.)
In a Mcjob, you can learn the basics of self discipline, just as well as in the military-(show up on time, act as part of a team-)- or else you get fired and have to explain it to your parents.

The OP says that “the army changed everything”–But I’ve seen lots of kids for whom it wasn’t the army that changed–it was his own attitude that changed. And joining the army was the result, not the cause.
As for the OP’s reasons for the draft:
the US Army’s job is not teaching 18 yr old kids social skills.

22

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
… Everybody goes. And everybody (in the U.S.) grows up knowing their turn will come. So the question society will ask you is, "Can you endure two years of minimal effort, a modicum of discipline and a small degree of privation and discomfort without totally fucking up?..
[/QUOTE]

But everybody won’t go. Suppose we enact this effective January 1 2010. Everyone that turns 18 and graduates high school that year serves. People born before 1991 won’t serve. It would take a generation for it to become normal and expected. It’ll take about 20 years before parents can say “We had to do it, now it’s your turn!” And what happens to people who refuse to serve in any capacity? Do they go to prison? Are they denied finacial aid (which won’t stop the rich)? Or even go to college (what if they study abroad) Do they loose their right to vote? Are they stripped of their citizenship and exiled (to where)? Do you forbid 17-21 years olds to hold passports or require them to apply for exit visas? Finally why should young people have to endure “endure two years of minimal effort, a modicum of discipline and a small degree of privation and discomfort” when neither their parents or their elected officials did? Why sould people be exempt because of age?

23

Thing is, we’d have to have two militaries…one for putting snot-nosed punks to work and teaching them to obey their superiors, another for fighting wars.

The early 70s military was hollowed out. If we’d had to fight with that military we’d be screwed. The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. If you want mandatory non-military social service for everyone, and if you volunteered for the military that would also fulfil your social service obligation, then that’s one thing. But a military draft would essentially destroy our current military and turn it from a warfighting organization to a sleepover camp for overgrown adolescents.

Of course, for most of the recent draft proponents that’s the whole point, to make deploying the military overseas impossible barring World War III. But once we’ve hollowed out the warfighting capablity of the military in this way, what’s the point of keeping kids in uniform for 2 years anymore? Might was well just send them home and save the money.

24

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Succeeding in the military is easy – just don’t fuck up. […] the question society will ask you is, “Can you endure two years of minimal effort, a modicum of discipline and a small degree of privation and discomfort without totally fucking up?”
[/QUOTE]
Well, right now we’re set up for a professional military. That means at least several months of relentless effort, harsh discipline, and a near-ritual degree of privation and discomfort.

The first draftees brought into that environment are likely going to fuck up in unprecendented numbers – some of them, likely, on purpose, and many of them, surely, to the tune of intense media coverage and a lot of civilian scrutiny. And civilian scrutiny is one thing the military will go to any length to avoid.

So a draftee military would have to change, change big, and change fast. And if you believe the experts these days, it would change for the worse and for the weaker.

I can’t see it happening.

25

[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
Well, right now we’re set up for a professional military. That means at least several months of relentless effort, harsh discipline, and a near-ritual degree of privation and discomfort.

The first draftees brought into that environment are likely going to fuck up in unprecendented numbers – some of them, likely, on purpose, and many of them, surely, to the tune of intense media coverage and a lot of civilian scrutiny. And civilian scrutiny is one thing the military will go to any length to avoid.

So a draftee military would have to change, change big, and change fast. And if you believe the experts these days, it would change for the worse and for the weaker.

I can’t see it happening.
[/QUOTE]

**If ** you believe the experts. Hell, I can’t find two “experts” who agree on global warming! But you raise good points, especially about the military going to any length to avoid civilian scrutiny.

For some reason, this post reminded me of the reason politicians wanted to end the draft in the first place. Congressmen at the time said they were going to deprive the executive branch of a huge military specifically to make it harder to get involved in foreign adverturism, like Vietnam. And yet, in proposing the new draft, Congressman Rangell wants everybody and his kid brother drafted to … uh, well, to make it harder to get involved in foreign adventurism, like Iraq.

[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Have you heard of emos? Cutting? Drug abuse? Hell, just slackers? We have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of kids in their late teens for whom this would be absolute torture.
[/QUOTE]

Omigod, it would be sheer torture for the poor lambs!? Look, there may be a bunch of very good reasons for not creating compulsory social service, both philosophical and practical, but this isn’t one of 'em. You’re saying the youth of today is too mentally unstable to endure military service? Well, THAT’S certainly reassuring, isn’t it?

This is a discussion I’ve had recently, and when seen from one person’s perspective, it sounds like a great idea. Which is exactly why I brought it to the Dope, for a reality check. What I’ve discovered is that people who oppose the idea are eager to air their opinions. Great. I don’t have any documentation – anybody have any ideas? Or are we just exchanging emotional responses to a hypothetical question?

26

Why can’t emotional responses be ideas? I already voiced one above–the state-supported mass government service system, with people signing up for a two-year tour of duty, with a guarantee of no combat. People would go for that.

27

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
But in the decades since then, it has occurred to me that young people could benefit tremendously from two years of compulsory civic service.
[/QUOTE]

The underlying fallacy of this argument is that it assumes that only tasks mandated by government coercion are “civic service”. In fact, anyone who earns an honest living (i.e. the vast majority of the adult population) provides some form of useful service to society (or else nobody would pay them to do whatever it is they do).

28

[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
if one were to change military service so it guaranteed (a) no combat duty, (b) assignment to a job that the draftee wanted to do, and (c) pay commensurate with a civilian job
[/QUOTE]

Well, then, why not just skip the bureaucracy and just leave people alone to find themselves a civilian job in the first place?

In any case, the idea of changing military service to fit those parameters just doesn’t make sense, unless you’re going to have a jobs program labeled “military service” and some other organization with a different name to actually defend the country.

29

If we start redeploying our soldiers from Iraq in the near future, there will be no need for a draft. Fighting terrorists shouldn’t take a large military. This is only an issue now because of the mistake of going into Iraq. Rep. Rangel has more or less said this himself.

30

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
The idea comes up because of the way people who serve in the military are put into close contact with people they otherwise wouldn’t be.
[/quote]

There’s some logic to this, but nationwide I’m sure we have less crime now than we did when there was a draft. I doubt there’s a statistical connection, although if there is I wouldn’t be the one to find it.

And if your goal was to get out of the military rather than “succeed in the military,” I would say that getting the boot is an unqualified success. And if I were drafted tomorrow and couldn’t get out of the country, flunking out would certainly be my goal.

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
And yet, in proposing the new draft, Congressman Rangell wants everybody and his kid brother drafted to … uh, well, to make it harder to get involved in foreign adventurism, like Iraq.
[/quote]

That’s because Rangel is a capital-M Moron. Even though he fought in Korea, Rangel was apparently sleeping when a draft didn’t prevent a massive waste of life in Vietnam.

Who cares if it’s reassuring to you? It may be a valid reason not to enact this draft idea. “These kids need to be toughened up” sure as hell isn’t a good reason to have a draft. (Same goes to gonzomax, for “We have a generation which could use a little exercise.”)

31

[QUOTE=harveyc]
If we start redeploying our soldiers from Iraq in the near future, there will be no need for a draft. Fighting terrorists shouldn’t take a large military. This is only an issue now because of the mistake of going into Iraq. Rep. Rangel has more or less said this himself.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen two basic reasons for advocating conscription:

  1. Belief that it would somehow increase anti-war resistance (the Rangel position). Given how long it took for this to work in the case of Vietnam, I find this unpersuasive – the government would have probably been squeezed sooner if they’d had to depend on a supply of volunteers (that would have naturally dried up as the war became more unpopular).

  2. “You darn kids today are no damn good! You need somebody to kick you in the ass and pound some sense into you! Oh, and Get Off My Lawn!!”

32

From the viewpoint of somebody who would most certainly be drafted, you’re out of your mind. Why the hell am I supposed to delay college for two years? How will I apply well after I’ve left high school? Most applications require teacher recommendations, counselor recommendations, essays, and so on; how could anybody write a recommendation for me after I’ve been in the military for two years? Either teachers would have to meet with all of their former students enough to know how they’ve changed, or the recs will be essentially about somebody else. That’s another thing; how will colleges themselves cope with this? Suddenly not getting any freshmen is likely to have a tremendous effect on the structure of higher education.

If my country does not desperately need me to fight for her, why should I not decide what I want to do?

33

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
I’ve seen two basic reasons for advocating conscription:

  1. Belief that it would somehow increase anti-war resistance (the Rangel position). Given how long it took for this to work in the case of Vietnam, I find this unpersuasive – the government would have probably been squeezed sooner if they’d had to depend on a supply of volunteers (that would have naturally dried up as the war became more unpopular).
    [/quote]

If our troops in Iraq were redeployed, I believe there would be more than sufficient soldiers to fight terrorism. North Korea could present a problem, but there we shouldn’t go it alone. Using it as an anti-war mechanism doesn’t make sense as it didn’t in WWII or Vietnam. The outcome of “long” wars is determined by the will of the people.

Anyone who believes that can send their kids to military academies.

34

[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
From the viewpoint of somebody who would most certainly be drafted, you’re out of your mind. Why the hell am I supposed to delay college for two years? How will I apply well after I’ve left high school?..That’s another thing; how will colleges themselves cope with this? Suddenly not getting any freshmen is likely to have a tremendous effect on the structure of higher education…
[/QUOTE]

You’re right about colleges having problems with a massively decreased student intake for 2 years. Of course in the OP’s scenario students applying directly after high school would be rare (only those totally unquallified for any service) and would be in direct competion with students who’ve completed their service. Colleges (at least public ones) would likely be under heavy pressure to give priority to people completing their terms of servitude. Hell, colleges would probally insist on service records and use them in their admissions process. In some states there’ve been atempts to ban men who haven’t registered with the SSS from even attending state schools (let alone get finacial aid). Something similiar would happen with national service.

35

[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
From the viewpoint of somebody who would most certainly be drafted, you’re out of your mind. Why the hell am I supposed to delay college for two years? How will I apply well after I’ve left high school? Most applications require teacher recommendations, counselor recommendations, essays, and so on; how could anybody write a recommendation for me after I’ve been in the military for two years? Either teachers would have to meet with all of their former students enough to know how they’ve changed, or the recs will be essentially about somebody else. That’s another thing; how will colleges themselves cope with this? Suddenly not getting any freshmen is likely to have a tremendous effect on the structure of higher education.
[/QUOTE]

This is what’s commonly called an implementation problem – teachers can write recommendations for college-bound seniors weeks before graduation, then they have them in-hand. Obviously, something of this scale would take years to implement, but it could be done. As a matter of fact, I recently entered graduate school 30 years after graduating from college, and two of my undergrad professors gladly wrote letters for me.

Excellent point. Along the lines of true freedom being freedom from compulsory service.

36

[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Why can’t emotional responses be ideas? I already voiced one above–the state-supported mass government service system, with people signing up for a two-year tour of duty, with a guarantee of no combat. People would go for that.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right, they can be. My comment was poorly worded.

37

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]

But in the decades since then, it has occurred to me that young people could benefit tremendously from two years of compulsory civic service. There is just something about being forced to endure a certain amount of hardship, privation and discipline that makes most people better. My wife argued against this position for many years, until our youngest son – an industrious but directionless and high-spirited lad – joined the Navy. She cannot believe the change in him. Two of our nephews also have chosen military service, and both were positively transformed by the experience.
[/QUOTE]

So you’re arguing that because you believe it helped your son, that it should be forced on everyone? What if your son hadn’t been directionless? What if he was a mathematical genius, maybe the next Einstein, already lined up for a prestigious teaching/research position? Or a virtuoso violinist who has already won an audition to be concertmaster in a major symphony?

Letting the government decide what they think is “good for you” is always a bad idea. There are better ways of building character than being part of an organization that exists for the purpose of killing people. The main purpose of military training is to discourage individual thinking and teach people to follow orders without question. I don’t know that that’s such a good thing.

38

And will those recommendations still apply to that person after two years in the military? Won’t I be substantially different after serving for that long? Besides, teachers have lots of work to do weeks before graduation – like grading work, entering those grades, submitting them, etc.

39

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
The Army changed everything for the better for me. The more I noodle on this, the more I think that Americans would benefit as much or more from compulsory civilian service.
[/QUOTE]

I think the argument could be made for compulsory military service, but the ensuing 30+ years of an all volunteer force may have severed the knot permanently. It’s a different culture, and let’s not get started on unpopular wars. The truth is, they have all been unpopular - given a choice, most would rather stay home and chase skirts and drink beer, rather than get shot in some wacked out foreign country. Today is much more of a hedonistic, self-indulgent society, and it shows.

Still - it’s tough to see, and hear, everyone whining about “rights” but never, ever, a word about responsibilities. Immigration especially, legal or not, has always kind of stuck in my craw with respect to military service, it’s just not on the radar screen because it’s voluntary. It is an outstanding way to fast-track citizenship, however.

40

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
It’s a different culture, and let’s not get started on unpopular wars. The truth is, they have all been unpopular - given a choice, most would rather stay home and chase skirts and drink beer, rather than get shot in some wacked out foreign country. Today is much more of a hedonistic, self-indulgent society, and it shows.
[/QUOTE]

What you’re describing is hardly hedonistic of self-indulgent. It’s generally described as “wanting to live.”