So as far as I can tell, Alessan believes that the US is currently in extreme peril, and only draft registration cards stand between us and destruction. This is an amazingly common argument: that the draft is somehow an act of “self defense”. I can no see no support for this argument in the current world situation; even if I am generous and allow the entirety of US history, I still see no evidence of the draft being a measure of self defense. Can anyone present any danger, past of present, that would have or would have had an overwhelming probability of destroying the US without the draft?
In my opinion, the biggest threat to the US currently aren’t external… they come from the masses themselves. Ignorance, hysteria, people trading freedom for security… right now that’s a bigger danger than any “rogue state”.
I think, actually, that a large standing army isn’t as important right now as it has been in years past… mostly since warfare is fought on different fronts, the sea and the air. Of course, this isn’t to say that the army is unimportant… just not as necessary as it was 30 years ago.
As far as the draft is concerned, I see that as one of the duties we owe to the country. I may not agree with it, but if that’s the policy, then I’ll go along with it.
In Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, he takes the position that one soldier who is out there soldiering of his own free will is worth a hundred who are there because they were conscripted (drafted) and forced to be there.
He felt that a country that needed a draft was not a country that was worth defending.
No offense, but I’d rather have a hundred guys marching into battle while whining and complaining about it, than have a single guy sprinting towards the enemy formation screaming “Remember the Alamo!”
Unless that guy is Rambo, in which case he wouldn’t speak a word… until the very end of the movie, that is.
Well, yeah, okay, the soldiers in Starship Trooperswere wearing these super-expensive super-mobile invincible death-dealing battle suits – which they wouldn’t have been able to equip a great big massed army of common grunts with.
So I guess what Heinlein was really saying was that he’d rather have one soldier who was there fighting of his own free will and piloting, say, an M-1 Abrams tank or an F-22 fighter jet, than a hundred conscripts armed with run-of-the-mill rifles.
Spoofe said something that I found extremely ironic:
(Emphasis added)
Then he said:
I read these statements and said to myself, “What?!”
It seems that you are advocating exactly what you said people shouldn’t – trading freedom for security. Forcing people to pay a duty to the country is taking away their freedom. And why would we have a draft if not for alleged security reasons, right?
If people feel they have a duty to serve, they can do it on their own. Their opinions about duty should not be forced on others.
You’re right, David, I didn’t catch that. “As far as the draft is concerned, I see that as one of the duties we owe to the country.” should read as “I see Military service is one of the duties that we owe the country.”
In other words, it should be voluntary, and ideally people would want to join up should the need arise.
First of all, I was simply inserting my own viewpoint on things, which is probably different than that of most other posters. After all, I served as a draftee, in a draftee army which sees constant action. My point of view may be wrong for the situation we’re adressing - hell, it probably is, at this moment in time.
The reason I am loathe to pursue this argument should be obvious. I have huge respect for the U.S. military; and I have even more respect for those dopers who have had the honor to serve their country. I know, from personal experience, that espirt du corps is one of the most powerful forces in nature, and that arguments of “my unit/corps/branch/military is better than yours” are stupid, futile, vicious and ultimately unwinnable. As a matter of policy, I always avoid fights that can’t be won.
Suffice to say, therefore, that both volunteer and conscript amries have both their advantages and disadvantages, and far be it for me to say which system is better. I must, however, make a couple of notes:
In a democratic country, in a popular war, a conscript army will fight as fiercely and as professionally as any volunteer force, if not more so. Remember, it was conscripts who took Iwo Jima, draftees who landed in Normandy. Are you willing to tell the veterans of these battles - and a thousand more - that as soldiers, they were somehow “inferior”?
In times of war - real war - the only things worth considering are effectiveness and practicality. Fairness and principles, like all other luxuries, are severely rationed.
Robert A. Heinlein said a great many things. He said that the best way to get really close to someone was to eat him, or be eaten by him (he didn’t see the any difference between the two experiences); he said that having sex with your mother was a positive, enlightening experience. Heinlein was a highly intelligent, imaginative, talented, professional bullshit artist.
Finally, to respond to the OP itself - no, I do not believe that the United States is in mortal danger. But who are we to divine the future? One thing is for sure - America will not remain the worlds sole superpower forever. Regrettable, but undeniable.
