The Draft, Practicalities thereof

[mlees]

@Mr. Moto

Captains head up companies, artillery batteries, and cavalry troops. They’re in a position to see a lot of problems firsthand.

Ayup. But they are typically young, too, and not as experienced as the policy makers (Generals and Senators) in “looking at the big picture”. (If I may be so bold as to stereotype.)

The handfull I have met in the Navy were what you would expect from a young male, recently out of college. (I.e., just as concerned about finding women and booze as us enlisted pukes.)

Now, yes. There are brainiacs that exist at that rank. Are these 12 of that type?

Are these twelve experinced enough, or trained, to consider the implications of the draft on the US economy? Politics? Etc…

Or did these 12 guys get picked for no other reason than they thought the draft would be nice?

That’s what I meant by my question in post above.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lemur866

See, that’s exactly the problem.

The army doesn’t want more junior personnel, they want trained veterans. If they can’t convince their volunteer junior personnel to stay in long enough to become trained veterans, how are they going to convince draftees?

The draft provides us with something more like the Soviet military…a small cadre of officers and NCOs, and a herd of conscripts trying to serve out their sentence without getting killed, either by the enemy or by their superiors.

I once had a government prof who argued we need a draft so we will have (1) a military force made up mainly of men who hate the military and want out ASAP and (2) a body of citizens who know the military intimately and are sick of it. Because an armed force made up of professionals who like their job is dangerous to a republic. In 107 B.C., the Roman statesman/general Gaius Marius reformed the army – heretofore a citizens’ militia made up of landowners who paid for their own arms, and served for short wars, mostly within Italy – and opened it up to impoverished citizens who could do long service, their arms and salaries paid for by the state, with a land-grant at the end of service. This was a very good formula for winning wars (and for planting veterans’ colonies in conquered territory), but it also raised the possibility that these new long-service professional soldiers would be more loyal to their commanding generals than to the constitution of the Republic, and we know how that worked out.

[alphaboi867]

@bluethree

…In this day and age we require men to risk their lives in combat while women “get a free pass” in that they are not allowed in combat roles.

No, we don’t. Those men volunteered for the military of their own free will. Men as a group aren’t required or expected to fill combat roles, only men who’ve chosen to join the military are.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@alphaboi867

No, we don’t. Those men volunteered for the military of their own free will. Men as a group aren’t required or expected to fill combat roles, only men who’ve chosen to join the military are.

Interesting.
We require some men who volunteered for the military of their own free will to fill combat roles.
We require some men who volunteered for the military of their own free will but intended to fill non-combat roles to fill combat roles.
We require some men who volunteered for the military of their own free will to fill combat roles even after their term of service has ended.
We require some women who volunteered for the military of their own free will to fill roles that might as well be combat roles at least part of the time.
We don’t require anything from the public at large.
If we were to mobilize a draft, we would probably call up some men into combat roles and some women into roles that might as well be combat roles.

[Mr.Moto]

@mlees

Ayup. But they are typically young, too, and not as experienced as the policy makers (Generals and Senators) in “looking at the big picture”. (If I may be so bold as to stereotype.)

The handfull I have met in the Navy were what you would expect from a young male, recently out of college. (I.e., just as concerned about finding women and booze as us enlisted pukes.)

Now, yes. There are brainiacs that exist at that rank. Are these 12 of that type?

I don’t know, and I don’t support a draft. But I don’t think their opinions ought to be dismissed quickly either.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Here is the Washington Post article.

[Little_Nemo]

Ought women to be drafted? Perhaps at some reduced rate?

There is a practical difficulty here. The United States has an existing database of draft-eligible men but there’s no equivalent database for women.

Really unskilled people will be used as migrant farm workers, others will become nurse’s aides, orderlies, truck drivers, garbage collectors, road crews, caterpillar fur-counters by touch, testing survival gear on Titan, and any other government job that we currently use minimum wage workers for.

Bob? Is that you?

[Eolbo]

@Paul in Saudi

Here is the Washington Post article.

The 12 captains aren’t really advocating conscription, and it only gets mentioned in the closing paragraph where they write:

*There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It’s time to make a choice.*

I interpreted their article as really meaning “we need to leave Iraq”

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Then the terrorists will follow us home!

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Lemur866

The only way a draft can work politically is a universal draft. Everyone, regardless of sex, fitness, or religious belief, is drafted and must serve in some capacity. On your 18th birthday you are forced to go. And if you don’t go, you spend the exact same amount of time in prison as you would have spent in the service.

The prison conditions would have to be non-negotiable, no community service, no probation, no nothing. Even so, federal lockups would be stuffed full of nonviolent offenders. You might have to establish Joe Arpaio-type tent camps in the desert where inmates do contract work for the private sector. That’s gonna go over real big.

So everybody serves. Except we don’t need that many untrained infantrymen, so the military will select the people they want out of the draft pool, and the rest including all conscientious objectors and various other troublemakers go into the non-military pool. Everyone goes through boot camp, I guess the military draftees would have to go on to a second boot camp to get specific military training.

What sort of boot do you give to nonmilitaries? Do you have the same type of shock indoctrination in mind, to get them used to obedience and command? If so, what for? Mass social engineering? Just 'cause it’s easier than weeding them out?

Hell, even during WW2 some draftees were found unfit for basic training - older, overweight, at one point they wanted every man under the age limit, even alcoholics. They were in-processed, put in uniform, given some nothing job like eye tester or file clerk, and frequently let out early.