[QUOTE=Malienation]
That’ll teach those apathetic little bastards to pay attention to something other than themselves, eh?
[/QUOTE]
So going from indifferent to hostile is a good idea ? Assuming that they weren’t already hostile; quite a few people don’t vote because they don’t believe it matters, not because of apathy Drafting them will hardly make them more of a positive force.
Also, I think they will interpet such phrases as “little bastards” correctly and interpet this as not being about national service, but an act by the old to punish the young. Giving the fact that there are more and more old people who will need help as they become infirm, I think it unwise to imprint the attitude upon the young that the old are their enemies.
[QUOTE=Malienation]
How about a draft in which the likelihood of being drafted increased with the lack of political engagement, measured by one’s voting habits. Say, you’re 24 and never voted; you’d have a greater chance of getting drafted than a 24 y.o. that voted in every election that he was ever eligible to vote in. That’ll teach those apathetic little bastards to pay attention to something other than themselves, eh?
[/QUOTE]
Any what would we do with all the over-26s who’ve never voted?
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Any what would we do with all the over-26s who’ve never voted?
[/QUOTE]
Nothing - which is why it would be looked upon as an attack of the older generations upon the younger, not “national service”.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Any what would we do with all the over-26s who’ve never voted?
[/QUOTE]
If I recall correctly - the Army for years if not decades had a cutoff date for joining at 34.. but requirement been waived to 42 or somesuch.
From my viewpoint, which admittedly is 20/20 - though “never trust the commies” seems a good bet - the collapse of the Soviet Union was an excuse or rationale to gut the military and close numerous bases. In hindsight, this was a huge mistake, and the proper thing in retrospect was to increase troop levels and expenditures. What actually happened was increased deployments with less manpower, and (more expensive, not less) increased dependence on civilian contractors, to say nothing of talk of conscription, like this thread.
[QUOTE=Common Tater]
In hindsight, this was a huge mistake, and the proper thing in retrospect was to increase troop levels and expenditures.
[/QUOTE]
No, the proper thing would have been to relegate our troops to self defense, which doesn’t require nearly as many troops as engaging in slaughter, conquest and oppression across the globe. We should have cut the military more, much more, not less.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
If all their friends are going to the military, they’ll want to go to the military. Just like how, in modern-day America, they all seem to want to go to college right after high school - as if a normal person, after freeing himself of 13 years of manditory school, would actuallt choose to go right on to four more years of that crap.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, I think the fact that college is a virtual requirement for getting a job is also a factor. And then there’s the fact that many families do their best to make it mandatory, but there’s the promise of fun, sex and drinking at college - without being shot at.
I’ve a strong suspicion that an electorate that has been through military service and is aware that they could be called up, would be a lot less keen on foreign escapades.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I’ve a strong suspicion that an electorate that has been through military service and is aware that they could be called up, would be a lot less keen on foreign escapades.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the ones that have been through military service and are now dead can’t vote.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I’ve a strong suspicion that an electorate that has been through military service and is aware that they could be called up, would be a lot less keen on foreign escapades.
[/QUOTE]
The historical evidence simply doesn’t support that.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Of course, unlawful orders are still followed sometimes, leading to murders and other actions that reinforce the understanding you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]
I think the entire structure of the military makes it difficult or near-impossible for any individual to question things. I’m sure Joseph Darby’s life would have been a lot easier if he hadn’t blown the whistle on what was going on at Abu Ghraib, for example. And that’s only an example where they got caught. If pictures hadn’t been taken, and one person hadn’t decided to report it, would we have ever even known about it?
For anyone to claim that military training encourages individual thinking is laughable. It is heavily discouraged.
But you don’t think basic training has an effect on the mindset of those who undergo it? Why would such training exist if it wasn’t believed to have an effect?
For anyone to claim that military training encourages individual thinking is laughable. It is heavily discouraged.
[/QUOTE]
Laugh all you want, military operations rarely go as planned. Smart, industrious and adaptable types make for good soldiers - just as they make for good employees in the civilian world. (As an aside, I have found some civilian employers to be even more stupid and pig-headed than the military buearacracy, and that’s saying a lot, I can assure you) I attribute this in part to the streamlining of the .mil in the 80’s and 90’s, there just isn’t room for “dead weight” and the like. Anyhoo, stories are legion of individual initiative turning the tide of a given battle, etc.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
The historical evidence simply doesn’t support that.
[/QUOTE]
What evidence? Has anyone ever done a poll that looked at attitudes of veterans? Combat vs. non-combat veterans? Has any independent entity ever done a survey of veterans to ascertain whether they thought they benefitted or suffered from military service? Anyone ever done such a poll with a distinction being made between volunteers and draftees? I’ve looked everywhere, can’t find one. Lacking that, we’re just exercising our fingers here.
I will say this: Although none of this has persuaded me one way or the other, it has caused me to seriously question my assumptions about military conscription. That’s the problem with having an open mind – sometimes it gets changed by pure reason. Or starts to. Still, it’d be nice to see some hard data.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
What evidence? Has anyone ever done a poll that looked at attitudes of veterans? Combat vs. non-combat veterans? Has any independent entity ever done a survey of veterans to ascertain whether they thought they benefitted or suffered from military service? Anyone ever done such a poll with a distinction being made between volunteers and draftees?
[/QUOTE]
And all that has, what, precisely, to do with the assertion “an electorate that has been through military service and is aware that they could be called up, would be a lot less keen on foreign escapades”?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Domestic peace corps might work. We don’t have to create more warriors.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think we have much evidence that peace corps as good at coordinating and training young guys, but there is considerable evidence that the army is quite good at it.
My understanding is that only one out of five soldiers are actually available for combat - the rest constitute a vast support system.
If I were convinced that one could get the same results from something other than the military, then I would probably opt for that.