Armed Services Chairman Suggests Deep Defense Cuts Could Mean Reinstatement Of Military Draft

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

The House Armed Services Committee chairman is warning that further reductions to projected defense spending could make a military career so unattractive that it would force the Pentagon to revive the draft.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., suggested that spending cuts beyond the $350 billion that President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to in the debt accord this past summer could force the military to slash the number of service members, now some 2.3 million, including National Guard and reserves.

A special bipartisan committee is trying to come up with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts from all government spending. If it fails, or if Congress rejects its proposal, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion would kick in, with half coming from defense.

"We also need to understand what it's going to mean to keep an all-volunteer force. Do we want to reinstitute the draft? Some of the cuts we're talking about would take over 200,000 out" McKeon said Monday in an interview with Fox News.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/d9pt15100/armed-services-chairman-suggests-deep-defense-cuts-could-mean-reinstatement-of-military-draft.html

[Fresh_Start]

1. I love to see threats from our own military...

here's one back at you...all military pensions for officers get the same fate as Social security, medicare and private pensions.

[USAMSGRETIRED]

7. the first cut is the deepest

I am so sick and tired about cutting the military! Start with DC and work your way down! Isn't it apparent that the military force is already taxed!!! Soldiers with less than 10 years of active duty have at least three combat tours, when does it end! Clean up DC and the savings will start to flow like the endless pit of money we give to all these government contractors, which saved the US billions compared to what the civil service employees were being paid...LMAO!!! How did that work out! What a royal joke the mighty US has become!

[kooljerk666]

15. agree strongly & we should bring back the draft......

and if the whores at CACI or Haliburton or XI don't want their old civil service jobs after being trained at taxpayer expense, draft them.

Cuts to tri-care are in the works & a 3 year wait for PTSD treatment is outrageous.

I think a draft with no deferments would be good for the country, rich kids go too.

I'd like to see everyone in the armed forces sign something like "I have never used rank or authority to evangelize".
Doing this is very illegal.
You would see 1/2 the officer corps of the USAF retire next week.

[kiranon]

24. Also favor the draft as the best way to avoid wars. If everyone's child

goes then perhaps politicians/Presidents will think a bit more before they commit this country to a war. Draft can include non combat positions - universal service of some kind.

[jwirr]

30. The children of the rich will be exempt. The children of the other

90% will have to go - come to think about it that would still work. 90% of the mothers against the war should be enough to stop it.

[Synicus Maximus]

62. Yes that work so well in the Civil War. WWI, WWII ,Korea, and Viet Nam

[Admiral Loinpresser]

63. Actually it did work in Viet Nam. n/t

n/t

[No Elephants]

82. It did work in Vietnam. It only took too long. Congress finally cut off the funding, due to

widespread and persistent public pressure.

Before the Vietnam draft, being a pacifist was really a very small minority position and the causes of the Civil War, WWI and WWII were viewed differently from our reasons to be in Vietnam.

Still are, by many people.

[Brian Okamura]

103. Your view is morally outrageous and bizarre.

You want the US government to reinstitute involuntary servitude in imperialistic foreign wars so the public will put a stop to these wars? What kind of devious mind thinks of this? Of using people as a mere means to achieve some speculative end? You should be ashamed of yourself. But you are probably incapable of it.

[happyslug]

115. Yes it did, all three wars more Americans supported the wars then opposed it

as to the Vietnam War, as long as over 50% of the people supported it, the draft worked out. Once 50% of the population OPPOSED the war (Only starting in the Summer of 1968) did the draft "bad side" came into play. That "Bad side" was increased opposition to send draftees to fight an unpopular war AND the men drafted brought with them an deterioration of the troops (The US Army by 1972 had become for all practical purposes non functioning, which was chief reason for the pull out from Vietnam of all ground forces).

Vietnam is NOT the only time this had happened, During the Third Punic War the Roman Army took three years what their grandfather's (Who fought Hannibal) could have done is three months. Why? The Roman Soldiers OPPOSED the war for all its meant was increase wealth for the Roman Elite while they did all of the fighting and dying. Maius "Corrected" this problem by switching to PAYING the troops, the start of the Roman Mercenary Army (which ended up forming the first Political dictatorship of the Roman republic, that of Sulla, who is the process of gaining power would kill Maius) those same "Volunteers" (paid mercenaries) would later be the basis of Julius Caesar raise to power and the foundation of the Roman Empire.

The problem with Draftee armies is NOT restricted to Ancient Rome or the US war in Vietnam. Britain from the late 1600s till WWI always used "volunteers" for the simple reason then the British did NOT have to worry about the support the war had back home (Even if the people opposed it, since the people could rationalize the deaths of the soldiers as they "Choice" since they all "Volunteered" to serve. France, Germany, Spain and Italy all had "Volunteer" units during the rush for Africa in the late 1800s. None of them dare send in their draftees to grab these third world Colonies, the people back home would OPPOSE the war and refuse to permit their sons to go, but would permit "Volunteers" to go even if the war was opposed by most of the people of the Country (Which was the case in most of Europe during the "Rush for Africa", contrary to popular opinion).

The End of WWI, shows the control the Draft can have on a war. Russia went into Revolution, where much of the Draftees of the Czar's Army no longer supported the war. The same thing occurred in Hungary and Austria. In Germany both the Navy and Army enlistees mutinied to end the war. Britain and France were NOT in that much better shape. The Army of France went into full scale mutiny in 1917 (The Allies ended up using American troops to be the spearhead of any French attacks in 1918, given the low level of faith the French High Command had in their own troops by the end of 1917) after reinforcing those same French Units in 1917. England was not in that much better shape in 1918, they army had NOT revolted, but Britain only had the draft since 1915, not since before the war as in the case of France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, but even the British had problems with their troops. So much problem that when Germany agreed to surrender under Wilson's 14 points, France and Britain gladly agreed do to how bad their armies were becoming in late 1918. The subsequent Peace Treaty was a victor's peace as to Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Turkey but by the time the full terms had been agreed to the Armies of Germany, Austria, and Hungary had been dissolved and all three countries were in the mist of Communist revolutions (Which all three countries did put down but with new "Volunteer" forces NOT the former Draftee units).

The reason the revolutions at the end of WWI occurred was the Draftees wanted revolutionary change as while as the people, since the draftees reflected what the people wanted (for the people and the draftee army were the same people). We saw this again as the Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Draftee Armies would NOT support the Communists in power for the people of Russia and the rest of the Warsaw Pact no longer supported the Communists. In the only Warsaw Pact Nation to have an Armed fight in their revolution, Romania, it became a fight between the Army made up of Draftees and the All Volunteers of the Secret Police (The Romanian Army won, for they had the support of the People). In Russia the attempt to overthrow Gorbachev failed when the Draftees of the Army refused to help the coup plotters (The Soviet, later Russian, Army subsequently had to support Yelsin for the simple reason that is who the Draftee trusted).

Back to Vietnam and the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan. Both were popular in the US (as to Vietnam) and the Soviet Union (Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan) until some years after the intervention (Four years for Vietnam and the US, about five years for the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan). Once that opposition occurred, both countries had to pull out or see a rapid deterioration of their Army. The US Army was almost destroyed by 1972, it still had the best supply line, the best equipment, but the troops were in poor condition to fight. As to the Russians in Afghanistan, a similar decline took place, and once the Soviet Army reached about the same level, the Soviet Union pulled out (and this was BEFORE the collapse of the Soviet Union, Communist Afghanistan would outlast the Soviet Union by almost two years, but Soviet Troops were out at least two years before the Soviet Union fell.

I mention the above for a Draftee army provides the best type of army AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE WHO THE DRAFTEE IS COMING FROM SUPPORT THE WAR. On the other hand once the people oppose a war, so will the draftees who will either avoid being drafted OR if draftee just go through the motions required of them.

On the other hand an All Volunteer Army will fight long after the people has rejected the war. The present Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the classic example. The Majority of Americans opposed both wars from the Beginning (With some majority support to attack Afghanistan if that was to get bin Laden, but once bin Laden was NOT found and turned out NOT to be the main military objective of the war in Afghanistan, the majority of Americans even opposed that war). It has been almost ten years of fighting (Ten years will be on October 7, 2011, US attacks on Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001). The US intervention in Vietnam less then nine years years (US Troops withdraw after the peace treaty of January 1973). The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was just under ten years, December 1979 till February 1989.

Soviet Afghanistan Intervention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Vietnam war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

US Intervention in Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Just look at Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam with a draftee army, the US Was out within five years from the time the Majority of Americans opposed the war. The Soviet Union pulled out about almost as quickly once the war no longer had popular support in Russia. The Majority of Americans HAVE Never supported wither war, and here we are still fighting then almost ten years later. That is the difference between a draftee and volunteer army, a draftee army is only good if the people being drafted support the war, once that is no longer the case, the war must end. On the other hand a volunteer army will fight even as the people of the country they are from oppose the war. Thus you have a greater chance with fighting a war with an all Volunteer Army then with a draftee army.

Side note: Many right wing sites have adopted the idea that All Volunteer Armies are better then Draftee armies. That has NEVER been the case. Most of the example they tend to cite, tend to a well equipped, well supplied Volunteer army against a poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly supplied draftee army. In such cases the better supplied and equipped army will win. On the other hand, if both armies are well trained, well supplied and well equipped, the draftee army tends to win. The reason for this is simple, when armies can selected who can go to the army, as oppose to taking those people who are willing to volunteer, they tend to take in better educated, and higher intelligent people.

During WWI, one of the comments was many of the NCOs of the German and French Armies could be Officers in the British Army, for they had the intelligence and education to be an officer. This is how much higher quality you had in the general enlistee ranks do to the Draft.

During WWII, the French Free French Forces, relying on the better quality a draft gave them in NCOs, continued the French practice where many jobs and functions done by US and British Officers were instead done by French NCOs. The reason for this was before WWII the US and British Armies were all volunteer forces, but the pre-war French Army was all Draftee except for French Marines and the Foreign Legion. This ability to use NCOs in place of Officers saved enough resources, that when the US agreed to fully equipped some Free French Forces, the Free French were able to form several additional battalions of Infantry do to this savings. I.e. the Free French Forces, since they had NCOs doing what in the US Army was done by Officers, when given the resources and equipment of a US Division had enough excess resources (since the French Division had a lot less officers, given how much of the work was done by NCOs) that the Free French were able to save these resources and use them to to raise additional battalions.

Just pointing out the main problem with a Draftee Army (and I am using that term in reference to a Universal Military Service Army, not draft to fill in an other wise "volunteer" force) is it tends to reflect the will of the people. Even the Kaiser recognize this during WWI and made effort to get the opposition Social Democrats to support his war effort (and when the Social Democrats backed the mutiny in the Fleet and the Army, WWI ended, and the Kaiser had be abdicate). The French Government did the same, as did the Russian Czar (Which lead to the overthrow of the Czar when it became clear Russia was losing the War and it needed to end). Britain made such effort in England, Wales and Scotland and even tried in Ireland (and it was working, even in Ireland until the British Army blow the program when it sentenced the Irish who lead the Easter Rebellion to death and then carried out the sentence, this turned Irish popular opinion against the British Army and that lead to the subsequent Irish Civil War). If WWI had NOT ended when it did, both French and Britain may have sued for peace themselves (In fact in 1938 Winston Churchill, WWII British Prime Minster, and WWI Lord of the Admiralty, told an American Reporter that had the US NOT entered WWI in the Spring of 1917, the parties would have had a peace treaty by the end of 1917. The American reported who reported this statement later, under oath when asked by Congress, said yes, Churchill made that comment, through Churchill after the story came out in 1838 said he did not, but refused to say so under oath). The Draftee Armies of both Britain and France were at their limit in 1917, as were the people in both countries. us why most historian believe Churchill did make that statement. The Volunteer Army had failed Britain in 1915 (Do to the lack of Volunteers more then any other factor) and the Draftee armies of French and Britain were on the edge in 1917 (The French Army more then the British, but the French had suffered most of the battle losses on the Western Front from 1914-1917 and this would continue in 1918, but with US troops providing the spearhead of most French attacks).

The key to quality troops tend to be the commitment of the Soldier to the Cause. Draftees can have the same commitment as a volunteer IF THEY BELIEVE IN THE WAR, if the draftee does not, he will be a poor soldier. Since draftees tend to be higher quality soldier material, draftee armies tend to be superior to Volunteer armies, if the draftee in committed. If there is no commit to the cause the army is fighting for, then volunteers are better. Thus why Britain used a small volunteer Army, French had its French Marines and Foreign Legion to do what the British Army did in what we now call the Third War. Germany and Italy also followed that French policy for their colonies, for the same reason, opposition to the war has less affect on a volunteer army unit then a draftee army unit.

One last comment. While the Post-WWII French Army was Draftee, those draftees were rarely, if ever sent overseas, even while the French were involved in Vietnam from 1946-1954. By 1954 the All Volunteer French Forces, mostly Foreign legions and French Marines, had been defeated by the draftee army of what became North Vietnam. By 1954, even these French Volunteer forces were on they last leg, they were in worse shape then the draftee US army would be in in 1973. Another all volunteer army the Right wing does NOT like to cite when pointing out volunteers are better then draftees.

[vets74]

123. The Second Punic War took a helluva lot longer than 3 months.

Hannibal roamed around the Italian peninsula for most of 15 years. Scipio Africanus finally counterattacked in Africa and then defeated him at Zama in 202 B.C.

Otherwise, a first-rate posting.

[happyslug]

126. I was comparing the ability of the troops, NOT the war itself

My comment was on the siege of Carthage during the Third Punic War, NOT length of the entire Second Punic war. After the battle of Zama a peace treaty was quickly made, do both to the desire of Scipio Africanus to return to Rome AND Hannibal accepting the fact Carthage had been defeated. The Roman Army led by Scipio Africanus that had won the Battle of Zama could have taken Carthage in three months, something it took the Roman Army of the Third Punic war three years.

I was comparing those two Armies, one that saw a need to destroy Carthage (The Army led by Scipio Africanus), the other being the army that took three years to take Carthage during the Third Punic War do to the fact soldiers of the later Army did NOT see any reason to destroy Carthage EXCEPT to benefit the elites of Rome (i.e. No Benefit to Rome itself, nor the 95% of the population that were NOT the ruling elite, the Third Punic War was just a grab for more wealth for the Roman Elites). Draftee armies tend to reflect the will of the people, and it appears most Roman citizens (outside the Roman Elites) opposed the third Punic War and as such the Roman Soldiers of the Third Punic War was on the Level of US troops in 1972, willing to fight a real enemy, but NOT willing to fight an enemy that was NO threat to their home land.

[vets74]

128. If you are interested in these things, compare/contrast Afghanistan with other TRACKING WARS.

I'm not saying that we are fighting a tracking war. We don't copy the Aussies and the Dutch -- when they were still there -- using Bloodies to track incursion teams.

That's how we protected Bill Croson's CAP villages. Any NVA unit came close got tracked. The trackers had Sheps and we smuggled in a half dozen Bloodies. Bloodies are different -- there's no such thing as a cold trail in practical usage.

Not tracking in Afghanistan ??? Imagine not doing tracking during the Indian Wars.

Btw: your premise about the Third Punic War taking 3 years because the Roman soldiers weren't into it ???

Their elders had taken 15 years and not completed the job. Those guys stayed up on top of hills in defensive positions. They were lucky Hannibal didn't destroy the Roman water system. When that finally happened, Rome fell back to 90,000 people.

[happyslug]

130. The problem in Vietnam was that if a fair election were held, Ho Chin Minh would have won

Yes, about 30% of the population opposed the Viet Cong, but the other 70% would have voted for Ho Chin Minh (Thus his name was never on the ballot in South Vietnam, and why the election to unite with North Vietnam agreed to in the 1954 peace treaty ending the French-Vietnam war were never held).

At least 50% of the population of South Vietnam were pro-Viet Cong. Another 20% were non-communists, but liked Ho Chin Minh (thus 70% vote for Ho Chin Minh, but only 50% for the Communists). 30% did oppose the Viet Cong (and we allied with this group) but were the clear minority (30% is also the most dedicated base for both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US, thus election Fights in the US is almost always over the middle 40% of the voting population).

The 50-70% support for the NVA in South Vietnam was the basic problem in Vietnam, no matter how many times we beat back the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese these victories meant nothing as long as 50-70% population supported the f North Vietnam. This was also true of the CAP villages, yes we kept the NVA away from them, but in many of them the local Viet Cong was already in the Villages waiting for the time to come out to fight with and support any NVA attack.

Thus the problem for South Vietnam was a lack of support of the people of South Vietnam for the Government. Many of the protected villages were anti-NVA, but most of the country side were pro-NVA and the protection of such villages meant nothing as long as most of the countryside were pro-NVA. Again as long as the people opposed the government of South Vietnam that government could not last, Military victories could NOT change this fundamental fact.

Back to the Punic War, if you read the details of the war, most of the fight was Rome trying to keep its Italian allies loyal while Hannibal was trying to separate those same allies from Rome. Hannibal never even tried to besiege Rome for his army was NOT equipped to do, that was NOT his Political aim and thus not his military aim. Rome knew this from day one and kept fighting that political war even as Hannibal kept fighting. After ten years of fighting, Hannibal was restricted to southern Italy, then and only then did Hannibal return to Carthage for with the fall of Syracuse, the Roman Troops in Sicily was free to invade modern Tunisia (and even that expedition was opposed for it was the Roman popular party that wanted to invade and end the war, the Patricians class opposed such an invasion for it would benefit the popular party not them).

This fight reflected the growing internal fight between the above two groups. In fact during the Punic war the Roman Priest class were NEVER called arms, these priests were only called into service in dire danger to the Roman Republic. In fact right after the end of the Punic War, the Gauls invaded. In that war the Roman Priests were called into service, for that was how much more the Romans fear the Gauls then Hannibal and tells you how much the war with Hannibal was Political in fighting among the people of Italy then a fight between Carthage and Rome. It is for these reasons, internal Roman Political reasons, that the second Punic war lasted as long as it did.

[vets74]

133. Vietnamese would have voted out Diems and communists.

Not that democracy had any tradition there, anyway. Projecting a 30%-this or 70%-that is American fantasy.

The reality was that the war killed 2,600,000 Vietnamese after the Americans came in. The American DoD-equipment-contracting companies took home $250-billion of the war's $400-billion total cost. In mostly 60s money that's a staggering take. For example, building 8 or 11 international airports in South Vietnam, depending on how you count it. "We're going to pave the world !!!" was the famous Crystal City bar room boast from a Brown & Root contracting guy.

The Vietnamese are still Buddhists. Always will be. (Btw: I mistyped "Bill Corson." Lt. Col. His book is "The Betrayal." http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/advisor/NotesonTheBetrayal.pdf)

We've wargamed the Punic Wars. I do know that the Priests were retired officers, mostly. Older guys. There were competing membership groups within that overall classification.

Rome had hundreds of competing groups. After the civil wars, later on, the big winners were the criminal gangs -- similar to what you're seeing now with Wall Street and "financial sector" predations.

You don't address Hannibal's failure to attack the Roman water system. That was one of history's gravest mistakes, similar to Hitler not focusing on his central thrust during Barbarossa -- which would easily have carried him through Moscow to the rail yard to the east. Taking that rail yard would have have cut off almost all resupply to the Russians in the south. Generals on both sides concluded afterward that this change would have won him the war.

Hannibal is remembered so highly for combining war with politics. But he could have won.

[happyslug]

134. Notes on Roman Aequducts, the only one in use at the time of Hannible was undergorund

The only two aqueducts that existed at the time of the Second Punic wars were both primary underground, the other nine Aqueducts were built after the Second Punic Wars (The last one around 212 AD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_aqueducts_by_date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct

Thus to attack the water supply was of limited use in regards to Rome when Hannibal marched on Rome. It was also the Area of Italy where Hannibal had the least support (Outside of the Po Valley, which Ancient Rome Considered Gaul not Italy). Thus Hannibal could only stay a few weeks in the area do to the lack of food he could obtain for his troops in the area. Even the Romans knew this, and showed that fact by selling the land Hannibal's troops were camped on outside of Rome, at NO discount do to the fact Hannibal's troops were on it.

The huge build up of the Population of Ancient Rome happened AFTER the Second Punic war, one aspect is the Taxes used to pay for the war fell on small farmers, who were away serving in the Army. Such soldiers borrowed money from the rich to pay these taxes, and when they could not re-pay these loans lost their land. The Rich then converted them to large estate where the work was done by Slaves (Many of the Slaves were prisoners, many for Italy itself from those Italian Cities that supported Hannibal).

This increase in the number of the Roman Poor lead to the Gracchi proposal to take land illegally held by the rich (Under an Ancient Roman Law, no Roman could own no more then about 600 acres) and divide it among the poor (And use money from a Roman Client King to pay the Roman Rich, thus it was the worse for the rich, money they were planning to divide among themselves, was then going to be used to pay them for land given to the Roman Poor. For this "Crime" of enforcing existing Roman Law AND paying the rich for land their illegally owned, but did own, both of the Gracchi were Killed about ten years apart. Please note that was AFTER the end of the Third Punic War).

[happyslug]

136. The Diem's power base was on the Catholics in Vietnam

Most of the Catholics were tied in with the old French Colonial System, thus opposed the Viet Minh in the 1946-1954 War, and many moved south after the peace treaty of 1954, thus strengthening the hands of Diem. Even with this movement of Catholics, they were a clear minority even in South Vietnam, but was the power base Diem built on.

Diem's preference for Catholics and clear discrimination against Buddhists lead to the Buddhist opposition in 1963. Do to that opposition, Diem was overthrown and killed (Along with his brother, a third brother, the Bishop of Vietnam, lived in the Vatican for the rest of his life). This ended the overt Buddhist opposition, but the Catholics seem to have stayed in Control till the bitter end (Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, the President of Vietnam from 1954-1975 was a Catholic), through the overt discrimination against the Buddhist never re-emerged (But the clear preference for Catholics lasted till the end).

In many ways the Catholics of South Vietnam was part of the 30% of any normal population that supported the powers that be in any country. I do NOT want to say that Catholics made up 30% of the population, the percentage of Catholics in Vietnam today is only 6.87% of the total population and Is suspect, while it was higher in South Vietnam during the reign of Diem (Do to the movement of Catholics South after 1954 and South Vietnam had a higher percentage of Catholics then Vietnam as a whole has today) it never came close to 10% of the population.

In the other hand, Lenin pointed out all he needed to take over a Country was support from about 5% of the population that were both committed to the cause of overthrowing the existing Government AND organized to do so. The Catholics, in this regard, had the numbers to take over and hold over control of Vietnam. The problem with such take overs is sooner or later you have to address the needs of the Majority of the people, and in this regard Diem failed. The Communists, on the other hand, managed to keep control over North Vietnam, and retain control over the local political organizations in the Countryside (Outside Catholic Areas). When the Communists took over the North in 1954, they did address the problems of ALL of the people of North Vietnam and then addressed the problems of the People of South Vietnam. This ability to adjust from a opposition Guerrilla based group to the Ruling elite was the key to the later victory of the North over the South. No real opposition appeared in the North, but Buddhist and Communist opposition slowly grew throughout the South in the period after 1954.

On the other hand the South Vietnamese Government acknowledged this support, Ho Chin Minh's birthday was a Holiday even in South Vietnam during the American Vietnam war. Ho Chin Minh's birthday was widely celebrated throughout the South, even as he was leading the fight against the South Vietnamese Government. Thus South Vietnam ended up fighting the "Father of their Country", that fact ignored by most Americans help shows how much support the Communists and especially Ho Chin Minh had in South Vietnam. Thus my point, he would have won 70% of the Vote, and without him the Communist Party of Vietnam, as the party founded by Ho Chin Minh, would have won 50% of any vote. This is reflected in the Vote to merge South Vietnam with North Vietnam after the North Took over the South in 1975. It was considered a clean and fair elections, for the Communists had complete confidence they would win, thus no need for them to cheat. The vote was to merge South Vietnam with North Vietnam, again showing how much support the Communist Party of Vietnam had in South Vietnam.

Sorry, most Americans believe that the Communists would NEVER have won a fair election in Vietnam has no support in the facts when such elections were held (And who refused to hold such elections, for their feared losing them). This was true in Communist China when Mao took over in 1949 (Through NOT true of Lenin's take over of Russia, the Social Revolutionaries actually won the first Election after the Communist take over, an election considered fair, the Social Revolutionaries won over 50% of the vote, Lenin's party won less then 1/2 that number, but the results of which was ignored by Lenin).

Russian Election Results on 11-12-1917:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly

Yes, the Communists have opposed elections that they fear they would lose, and rigged elections so they could win, and ignored elections they have lost, but as far as the elections in Vietnam that I mention no such rigging occurred (I am not saying such rigging has not occurred elsewhere, but NOT in the election to merge South Vietnam with North Vietnam). This shows the support the Communists had in South Vietnam in the period 1965-1975.

Side Note: Right after the fall of South Vietnam, I read stories that said that the South Vietnamese Army would start a Guerrilla war against the Communists. These stories died out within a year when no such war emerged. No such war started do to the lack of support the South Vietnamese Government had among the people of Vietnam by 1975, the Catholics and other supporters of the Government of South Vietnam did not have the numbers, support or organisation to start a Guerrilla War, let alone keep one up for the years one need to conduct such a war. Again showing which government the majority of the people of South Vietnam supported, and it was NOT the Government of South Vietnam.

[wordpix]

131. +1 and the difference between Vietnam & the present endless wars is the draft

We were able to end Vietnam due to the draft b/c EVERY young man was at risk. We are not able to end the endless wars b/c only a small percentage of young people are at risk and the mindless majority does not think twice about it. They care more about the Kardashians and Lindsay Lohan.

[Scuba]

75. +1,000

[chrisa]

77. Rich kids would not go. Drafts are for poor people.

When the rich get drafted, Daddy pulls some strings and secures a position for them in the US that doesn't involve getting anywhere near combat.

[vets74]

129. Bingo !

I volunteered. But anybody who wanted out of it, got out of it.

[lark]

20. The smart thing is to cut totally unneeded weapons systems.

But of course, that's not on the table. Why cut benefits for military people, that's not what's eating up all our money, it's the weapons systems, the outsourcing to Halliburton where billions are stolen and they have to pay a few million dollars fine but keep the rest of the stolen money? Why not pull Americans from Germany where they are totally redundant, save so much money? Why build new nukes when we already have enough to kill everyone in the worlds many times over?

Strawman agrument from the general. Anyone surprised?

[No Elephants]

83. Don't know if it's the smart thing. It's low hanging fruit, though and easiest to justify.

And they still can't manage it.

[happyslug]

33. Three or more tours? Why? The answer is simple, these wars will last forever

Clausewitz in his book "On War" emphasized a point people tend to want to forget, without popular support for a war, the war is doomed to failure.

The present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have NEVER ever approached 50% support in any poll of the american people (There were some polls, right after 9-11 to go after bin Laden with nearly 100% support, but even at that time no support for occupation of any area in Afghanistan, once bin Laden went missing, support to continue the war in Afghanistan dropped like a rock).

On the other hand, support for the Shiite's in Iraq among the people south and east of Baghdad has never dropped below 50%. The same with Sunni Population if Iraq West of Iraq (The heart of the Iraqi resistance). The Kurds in the Northwest have overwhelming support among their fellow Kurds. Right now, these three sides are waiting for the US to pull put so they can then fight a war to see who is stronger where and once that is determined to sign a peace treaty recognizing those lines. This has been the Norm in the Middle East since the Start of Civilization. These peace treaties can last for several hundred years, and end in an instance. Thus everyone is waiting for the US to pull out to see what happens at that point.

Now, Afghanistan, the situation is a bit different. The Taliban has massive support, but nowhere near 50% of the populations, through clearly more then 50% of the Pushtans of Eastern and South Eastern Afghanistan. On the other hand the other people of Afghanistan believe the best way to end the war is for the US and its allies to pull out so the Natives can do a quick fight and then negotiate a truce (The norm for Afghanistan even before the times of Alexander the Great). Thus you have overwhelming support in Afghanistan for the US to pull out, but the US has refused.

Given the above, the US has a choice, stay in both countries subject to the present level of fighting as the underlying native forces jockey for position for the time the US does pull out, or pull out. The US does NOT want to pull out without an agreement with the successor government, but such successor government is unwilling (For such an agreement would undermine any subsequent fight over where to draw the lines in Iraq) or unable (The only group in Afghanistan that has the unity and support to make such a deal is the Taliban, who we are fighting).

Given the above, the US will have to stay in both countries forever, or like Vietnam, the US has to divert its resources elsewhere.

Side note on Vietnam. One historian mentioned that the US lost Vietnam on the banks of the Suez Canal, what Egypt and Syria did do in the Yom Kipper War gave the US a better understanding on Soviet tactics, and it gave the Pentagon a Night mare. Egypt was able to eliminate most of the advantages of Israeli Air Superiority and maintain an attack with the Israel controlled the air, first time since WWI that had occurred. Second, the Syrian show how the Soviets were going to use the night vision capacity the Soviets had just installed on all of their tanks. Syria's army defeated the Israeli army on the first few days of the War, then sat down giving Israel the chance to undo the gains. The attack is what scared the Pentagon, the Pentagon knew during a Soviet Attack no such break in the attack would occur. The sit down by the Syrian Army permitted Israel to counter attack, which put the Syrian forces in a bind. Syria asked for assistance from Egypt, Egypt responded by expanding its tank forces outside the cover of its Surface to Air Missile (SAM) umbrella. This permitted Israel to destroy those tanks forces and then to launch its own offensive across the Suez canal. Technically the Israeli Army surrounded the Egyptian Army by the end of the Two week war, but the question was were the Israelis capable of destroying the Egyptian army? Physically Israel was in a position it could do so, but was it willing to lose the men in the combat needed to destroy the Egyptian Army? Sadat, the President of Egypt appears to think no, thus always said he was willing the war when the truce was signed. Israel has claimed victory do to surrounding the Egyptian Army, but never said what it plans was if the truce was NOT signed.

Anyway, that was the situation on the Suez Canal in 1973. North Vietnam had launched a massive offensive in South Vietnam during Easter 1972. This had been repelled do to massive intervention of US Air Power AND massive transportation of TOW anti Tank Weapons in South Vietnam to off set the massive use of Armor the North Vietnamese were using in 1972. After the defeat of the offensive, the North reverted back to Guerrilla warfare. Then you had Yom Kipper in the Fall of 1973, that require a massive transportation of anti-tank weapons to Israel to off set the losses and to stop the tank offensives of Syria and Egypt. While 1974 was quiet, come spring 1975 the final offensive of the Vietnam War, 1975 offensive. This is where the full effect of the Yom Kipper war came into play. First, the US, while ahead in night Vision systems, knew that the Soviet was NOT that far behind. The Syrian Attacks in the Yom Kipper War show the need to rapidly expand Night Vision among US Forces in Europe. Now European Forces had been left to degrade do to the greater need of Vietnam during the 1960s, thus US and Vietnamese forces in Vietnam had extensive amount of Night Vision gear, but the forces in Europe was no where near that amount. A rapid increase in such devices was needed for Europe. Much of this had been diverted to Israel during the Yom Kipper war and the period right after. Thus Europe had been the third man on the supply line, behind, Vietnam and Israel during the late 1960s, and by the early 1970s this had become clear (Especially given Congress's rejection of the XM-70 Tank as to expensive). As to the latest anti-tank weapons, the then new TOW and the Dragon missiles, the same problem existed, first sent to Vietnam then Isreal, Europe had been third man on that three man supply line. By 1974 it was clear BOTH of these problems had to be addressed, so that if the Soviet SAMS of the mid 1970s could do what the Egyptian SAMs had done in the Yom Kipper War, that the ground forces in Europe could stop any subsequent ground attack by the Soviet Army.

Furthermore the Expansion of the Soviet Navy was at its height, and the Pentagon was forces to dropped its post WWII plans of 2 1/2 wars (Two Offensive wars and one defensive war) to a 1 1/2 was policy (One Offensive war, and one Defensive war). Furthermore given the US oil production had started to decline in 1969, the Arab oil embargo brought home to Congress that one of the Wars the US had to be willing to fight was in the Persian Gulf, both to secure oil for Europe and Japan (Much more dependent of Persian Gulf oil then the US has ever been) AND to the US given the US was by 1970 a net oil IMPORTER.

A quick calculations came to a hierarchy of threats. The US itself was under no direct threat so the threats were, First, Europe, Second, The Persian Gulf, Third Israel, and forth Vietnam. In a 1 1/2 was policy, that could be three Defensive wars, but if that was the case Vietnam was still fourth man on a three man list. Given that situation the US cut its losses and left South Vietnam stand or fall on its own (And it fell).

I bring up Vietnam for that is what everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are waiting to happen once again. It will happen, sooner or later. The US will have to make a Choice between something else and Iraq and Afghanistan. Europe could blow up given the break up of the Euro, South America can blow up given the recent raise in oil and food prices. Saudi Arabia my erupt into Civil War between the House of Saud and Al Queda (My money is on this one).

Sorry, cutting the US Military must include pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we value those two places more then paying out Senior Citizens their Social Security? Do we value those two places more then paying for Education? Do we value those two places more then Veteran's benefits? That is the choice the US is facing, a choice much like what the US faced in 1975 with Vietnam. Do we value holding onto Iraq and Afghanistan more then anything else? If the answer is Yes, then kick the people off Social Security, cut support for Education, eliminate Veteran's benefits to provide the money needed to hold onto Iraq and Afghanistan. On the the hand, if you value Social Security, Education and Veteran's benefits then we need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut back the military severely to save those programs instead,

[No Elephants]

84. "without popular support for a war, the war is doomed to failure."

Well, the Vietnam War finally was doomed for lack of popular support, but it sure took a very long time.

There are so many propaganda ways around the popular support issue, too, especially when media sees its role as supporting the President, regardless of who that may be at any given time.

Bushco's strategies on that count were very good, from using the talking heads shows and the NYT deceptively, to embedding, to keeping press in the Green Zone and on and on. And Obama's not doing too badly, either.

We should be hearing about events in Afghanistan and Iraq during every single news broadcast. Instead, we get staged bits about moms and dads surprising their kids at school or whatever. And we stand for it.

[happyslug]

105. Till the Summer of 1968 most Americans Supported the War

It is only in 1968, after the Tet Offensive, that more Americans came to oppose the war then to support it. Till that summer, polls of Americans were consistent, more then 50% of Americans supported the war till the summer of 1968. Nixon won the election that year based on his "Secret Plan" to end the war. Many of the people who voted for Nixon assumed it was what they wanted (and that includes BOTH people who wanted a US Withdraw and people who wanted to stay, Nixon kept his plan "secret" so both groups would vote for him).,

Starting in 1968 LBJ started to pull troops out of Vietnam do to the fact that for the first time more Americans wanted out then wanted to stay in (LBJ was noted for watching polls aggressively to make sure he would have popular support for his programs). After the election Nixon continued that policy, but called "Vietnamezation of the War). US ground forces were out by the end of 1972, just four years later.

The major difference between Vietnam and present wars is the type of Army we have. In Vietnam it was a draftee army made up of people from all over America. The present wars are being fought, especially at the enlisted level, by volunteers mostly from Rural America (Inter city Urban America was the other major source of recruits for the Volunteer Army from the 1970s till about 2002. With the move into Iraq and Afghanistan the Inner City poor started NOT to enlist, thus the Army became more and more from the Rural areas with a strong tendency to the Rural poor. Suburban America is almost absent from these wars on the enlisted ranks (Officers do come from the Suburbs, but very few enlistees, unlike what was happening during Vietnam).

Given a lack of support for the war, seen by the problems with enlistments and the knowledge the Draft would just be the catalyst needed to bring the Anti-War movement into full force (Just like it did during Vietnam), the war will fester on. Not enough troops to ever win either war (Do to lack of enlistments and no draft) and fear that a draft would just force Congress to end the war AND at the same time a Leadership that does NOT want to give up on these wars, these wars will linger. While most Americans oppose the war, those same people are NOT going into the Street to oppose a war that really does NOT affect them (Especially Suburban America, their friends and relatives are NOT the people dying in Afghanistan or Iraq, but people they do NOT know from rural american (Who the Suburbanites view as hayseeds) or inner city America (Which Suburban Americans view as noting but hoods). Thus over a 1/3 of America is NOT affect by these wars for they live in Suburbia. Another 1/3 the inner city urban livers are also not affected, most of their friends and relatives are also NOT in the Military. The final 1/3, rural America supports the war, and dying for it, but in small enough numbers that no real opposition has arose from that area of the Country.

Sorry, till Suburbia is affected this was will fester. No support but also no real opposition. No one is willing to go on the line to end this was AT THE PRESENT TIME do to the fact over 2/3rds of Americans are NOT affected by the war. They may oppose the war, but they also will do nothing to end it.

The ruling elites thus can continued this war forever given that lack of opposition as long as they do NOT do anything to get the people motivated to end the war (Such as adopting the Draft).

[area51]

125. The $64,000 question(s)

"Do we value those two places more then paying out Senior Citizens their Social Security? Do we value those two places more then paying for Education? Do we value those two places more then Veteran's benefits?"

Unfortunately, for this country, the answer to these questions is yes. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. collapses due to the obscene spending on wars of choice.

[cstanleytech]

34. I thought they alreadly cleaned up washington when the lord god Bush and

the archangel Cheney descended from heaven and bestowed a republican majority upon the nation, or atleast we were told they would do something along those lines with term limits when the republicans took out that contract on america back in the 90s.

[No Elephants]

85. Some in both Parties still think that changing the occupants of the White House changes everything.

[Fresh_Start]

40. I completely agree with you

that we have shamelessly abused our military.
I believe a draft would be more equitable if we can find a way to stop the elite from being exempt at the drop of a little bribe.

But it really is a guns versus butter economic decision and we can no longer afford to spend so much on it while 20% of the children are living below the poverty level.

[JDPriestly]

42. Some of the weapons systems that are no longer appropriate for the kinds

of warfare we are likely to become involved in need to be abandoned.

At the same time, the VA and veterans' benefits need to be improved in many cases.

We could afford to close a number of our over 700 overseas bases.

As a former member of the military, what would you think of going back to the days when rank and file soldiers pulled KP and cooked, etc.? As a very young man, my husband did those things when he served in the Air Force. In my opinion, we spend far too much on private military contractors for things soldiers could do for themselves.

That would mean involving more draftees as well as volunteers.

After all, the last war we really, really won -- with unconditional surrenders from those we were fighting (other than our bully wars with Grenada and maybe Panama) was WWII. And back then we had volunteers doing a lot of the work that private contractors do today.

Wouldn't you agree that reverting to an army with fewer private contractors would bring more pride and esprit de corps in the military?

My husband hated having to pull KP, etc. when he served. But now he looks back on his memories with a certain pride.

[maxsolomon]

54. The military DOESN'T get cut - it's budget increases every year

"cleaning up DC" is pointless - the military is largely the where the US spends its budget. and it spends more than the next 10 defense budgets COMBINED. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

welcome to DU.

[No Elephants]

86. The military makes sure its budget is never cut.

A lot of the thinking on the budget is based on what was spent the prior year. So, it's relatively easy to spend or even overspend, even on crap you don't need, so that your budget for next year is not cut.

ETA: I think you may have missed his or her point about cleaning up D.C. That was in reference to contractors, and the miltary spends an awful lot on contractors.

[ronnie624]

67. The U.S. military is "taxed"

because we have greedy, frightened, bloodthirsty political leaders who want the U.S. to be a global hegemon with complete control over the global economy. If we reel in the empire, the military will not be "taxed", and we'll have a lot more revenue for things that are important to the working class, like health care and the development of alternative sources of energy.

[lsewpershad]

50. Me Thinks

He's affraid his darlings might be drafted,

[No Elephants]

80. Our military, or Republican Reps?

[tcaudilllg]

135. I've got a better one: they take up arms against each other in a pitiful civil war for their values

Oh wait, the pension cuts are what they are relying on to keep them from each others' throats.

At heart, the Central Command is a bunch of jocks who can't get along.

[barbtries]

2. put an end

to endless WARS

[timtom]

18. +1000!!! (nt)

[USA_1]

3. I Oppose the Draft ...

... but agree that it will greatly motivate the anti-war effort.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. I HOPE it would.

My serious concern is that younger people today are...different....from those of ...jeez...40-45 years ago.

Dunno...what do you think? Will they stand up and say NO???

[USA_1]

66. MANY Agree - Probably About 50% of The Population In Fact

If you could resurrect the draft, what rules would you use?

All male only or would you include females in draft?

What age? 18-24 two/three mandatory time period with National Guard after that?

What exemptions (if any) would you allow?

Penalties for non compliance??

[dixiegrrrrl]

90. I deeply suspect that passing DADT had more to do with feeding the military machine

than being humane to people like my brother.
Notice that headlines appeared almost immediately: "Recruiters swarm colleges to sign up gays"

I also would not be surprised if they wrote new laws into a draft, instilling basically perpetual call up status to anyone who enters the service, just like they have with the National Guard.

[USA_1]

110. Oh, OK

I misunderstood - thought you were in favor of resurrecting the draft.

[dixiegrrrrl]

112. NO...no way in hell. Objected to it in ' 63

when my husband and later my brother got caught up in it, saw what it did to them,
became a screaming pacifist about 30 seconds after my first son was born.
I have never ever ever been able to understand how any mother could let the government take her children away and put them in danger.
totally foreign concept to me.

[bongbong]

4. Appeal

He's just appealing to the cowardice of repigs, and their deep fear of going to fight in any of the wars they love so much.

[Safetykitten]

5. Wow, they went nuclear option right out of the box! I thought they would hold a bit on that one.

[Vincardog]

6. Can the Pentagon enact and enforce a draft? I thought it was up to the congress. Funny that

[julian09]

14. The armed service chairman can recommend it

Just scare tactic, wonder how many bases or military contracts in his district.
Just stop useless programs and civilian gouging of defense dept, no bid contracts.
How many generals and admirals do we need. Where does all the money in defense dept go, not personnel, but hardware.

[quakerboy]

9. Bring it

We shouldn't be having wars that we aren't morally sure enough about to ask all our citizens to participate. Our standing army should be just what is needed to prevent a successful invasion of our own country long enough for us to mobilize the citizenry to protect itself.

[bluedigger]

10. Good.

While the all volunteer concept has been largely successful as a means of attracting and retaining the best military in our history, it has also led to a national pro war policy that is not in our best interests. Bring back the draft and end wars of choice!

[BeHereNow]

58. The service people I know all say a draft is inevitable

Enlistment numbers are WAY down according to a NS I know-
he says it aint if, it's when.
BHN

[hack89]

94. Need to check those facts - it has never been harder to enlist

with a bad economy and a downsizing force, the military has more applicants they can handle.

Here are the official stats:

Recruiting - Year to Date. All four active services met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal year-to-date 2011 through October.

Army – 6,643 accessions, with a goal of 6,425; 103 percent
Navy – 2,291 accessions, with a goal of 2,291; 100 percent
Marine Corps – 2,457 accessions, with a goal of 2,448; 100 percent
Air Force – 1,511 accessions, with a goal of 1,511; 100 percent

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14087

Here, for example, is an article discussing how hard it will be for gay soldiers kicked out of the military due to DADT to rejoin:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal: Gay Military Members Have Tough Time Returning To Service

All military branches are at full capacity as people flock to the military for jobs or choose to stay in longer. With budget tightening and the expectation the Afghanistan war is winding down, the branches plan to trim their numbers.

The Army is looking to cut 22,000 starting in October after getting a temporary surge in troops in 2009, while the Marine Corps plans to slim down from 202,000 down to 186,000 in the next few years.

The Navy will cut 3,000 officers in the next few months because the promotion lines are so clogged "there is no place for anybody to go," Navy Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told The Associated Press. The Air Force at the same time is going to start letting go several hundred of its 9,000 officers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_n_926305.html

[BeHereNow]

108. I don't know- I'm just telling you what he told me.

I figured he would know- maybe not.
Personally I think tptb would not want a draft, in order to
keep the American public complacent about our never ending wars.
My Seal keeps saying, it is inevitable.
Guess time will tell!
BHN

[msongs]

11. the US military's role is defending corporate war profiteers. cut 50% & let corporations pay for

their own protection outside the borders of the USA.

[newspeak]

27. yeah, the wars have greatly benefited

contractors like Halliburton and KBR. Gee, I wonder if darth cheney profited?

Let's see, approximately 23 billion is unaccounted in Iraq, services being privatized, corporations have literally made a killing, shoddy construction on rebuilding iraq and instead of hiring iraqis, some corporations have hired outside slave labor.

So, how much are the corporate contractors charging the military in afghanistan for fuel? We keep shoveling money to these corporate contractors, some who have their primary offices in places like Dubai, and yet, those services that aid those who have sacrificed their lives is on the chopping block?

Okay, you threaten draft, let's do it!!!! At least a soldier may only experience two tours instead of six or seven. Maybe those chickenhawks who cheer for war but have other things to do "can put their money where their mouth is." And, just maybe all americans will get involved and the "invisible" war will be made more visible. Oh, and while we're at it, in times of REAL war you do not cut taxes, especially on those who can afford to pay and those who are profiting on said wars!!!!

[jwirr]

32. I would agree but if you think we are committing atrocities now

just wait until the corporations all have their own armies. Medieval era on steroids.

[Auntie Bush]

51. Yes, let them pay for their own protection...It's another corp. subsidy

That would save a lot of money...except they would raise the price of gas ten fold. The got us by the ........

[MineralMan]

12. No! How about deep cuts in our foreign military bases and

never-ending wars? That would work. Thanks for your consideration.

[Plucketeer]

25. I agree wholeheartedly!

.....with your proposal to STOP pouring funds into overseas outposts. Shit, we trounced the Axis 65 years ago - how long before we can trust them to behave???

But.... we NEED a NO EXCEPTIONS draft. And offer either FOUR YEARS of public works service or TWO YEARS in the military.

[Yon_Yonson]

13. I say good, reinstate the draft because anybody can be a 'hired gun' for corporate amerika

[DirkGently]

16. More hostage-taking tactics. Go ahead, make our day. The draft will cripple the MIC.

[HereSince1628]

17. Cutting the MIC vs cutting medicare/medicaid

The health industry has lobbiests too.

I guess we hear from them when the senate has committees meeting on health.

[bemildred]

19. Bring it. nt

[FarLeftFist]

21. worried about a draft with 2.3 million troops?! PUH-LEEZE.

[Metta]

22. Bring! the! fear! Bring! the! fear! USA!

I hope we get to see their karma bear fruit.

[dotymed]

23. I too think we should reinstate the draft.

There should be no college deferments and none of the types of deferments that cheney or w. used.

IMO, if this happened, and the children of the wealthy were just as likely to die in a war as the rest of Americans youth are, war would be the very last resort, as it should be.

I would be happy to see the age requirements lifted also. I'd rather be forced to die than see my children (volunteer because they can't afford college or get a decent job) die.

It is a system, that among many other things, is designed to thin our ( not wealthy) population which will also leave fewer young people to stand up to our corptocracy.

It reinforces our serfdom.

[kiranon]

26. Agree. Comment above meant to be posted here.

[hack89]

44. The military is too small to make it fair

many will still voluntarily enlist - they would use draftees to make up the difference. How do you propose the pick the unlucky few out of a huge pool of eligible people?

As an example, 96 percent of the eligible men had deferments during Vietnam - it was not just the children of the wealthy who took advantage of deferments.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Well, it sure as hell wasn't poor blacks and white working class

who were taking advantage of deferments.

[hack89]

53. So how do you plan to fairly pick the one out of a hundred that will actually serve?

what's your plan to make it fair and acceptable to the US people?

[coalition_unwilling]

69. Um, in a democratic republic (note the lower case 'd' and 'r'), every

citizen should face a service requirement. Where do you get this 1 out of 100 nonsense? Every citizen should serve as a requirement of citizenship. No college deferments, no 'other priorities' Dick Cheney bullshit (as if those who were drafted did not have 'other priorities').

This service requirement would serve to keep the system more honest. Note that we began to pull out of Vietnam (via Nixon's "Vietnamization" rigamarole) roughly at the same time that the college deferments ended and, lo, suddenly the sons of the middle- and upper-classes were getting drafted. I know, logically one does not follow from the other necessarily, but it is interesting to note the coincidence, n'est-ce pas?

[boppers]

70. So, putting people's with physical and mental disabilities into boot camp?

Or do blind, deaf, paraplegic (etc.) people not have a right to be a citizen?

[kiranon]

111. As a mom of 2 challenged kids, these kids could and would do alternative

service and feel proud and useful doing so. Those who are unable to serve would not have to serve. But you would be amazed at what special needs kids/people can do and are never given the chance to do. I am a Vietnam era vet and there are lots of jobs that are not on the front line and there are many public service jobs that many people can do.

[hack89]

117. The army is too small

For WWII the draft supported a military of 12 million with a much smaller population and with no.women being drafted. The military is a tenth of that now. Just how big should the military be?

[dotymed]

55. I guess that is the point.

None of this senseless killing is fair and none of it is for "defense.". Maybe the draft lottery of old? I just know that these wars would have not began if w, had "skin in the game."

[hack89]

56. But so few will have "skin in the game"

that the issue will become "why do I have to fight when all those others will never serve." Short of expanding the military to a huge size, you only need a tiny fraction of the eligible draftees. Don't forget that not only has the population grown significantly but now you will have to draft women. Yet the military is the smallest it has been since WWII.

Lets not forget that only 35% percent of the deaths in Vietnam were draftees - even then the majority of the burden was borne by volunteers.

[dotymed]

65. IMO. outsourcing military jobs, logistics,etc..,should stop now. n/t

[hack89]

74. They do it because is cheaper

who would you want fixing your helicopter - a kid with a couple of years experience or someone with decades of experience? There are some things in life where age and experience count for something.

[newspeak]

93. they do not do it cheaper!!!!

"who do you want fixing that helicopter?" Actually, someone who actually cares about their own!!!!! Oh by the way, my SIL is a sgt. in the army in afghanistan and he's one of the best damn helicopter mechanics. Do you think that the corporations care when they do the electrical at the facilities that wound up killing some of our soldiers? Do you think they cared when they served them contaminated water? After all, they did not have to drink it!!!!

So that unusually expensive fuel the private contractors are selling us is cheaper than our military acquiring it?

[hack89]

97. From my 20 years of service, I could produce an endless list

of military incompetence and negligent deaths. There is nothing magical about the military - we have our share of fuck ups.

It is cheaper to hire contractors because it is the most economical means to rapidly grow and then shrink the military. When you enlist someone, the government is potentially signing on for 80 years of retirement and medical benefits. And you have to invest in the infrastructure to support all those people. So what happens when you draw down the force when the war is over? It is hard as hell to close military bases and cut soldiers - it is a political mess. It is, however, easy to not renew that short term contract you signed with a private company.

[newspeak]

99. and how about accountability?

we have soldiers now attempting to sue a contractor for health problems because of open burn pits with toxic substances. We've been at this for about ten years, you think it's going to end any time soon? We have private contractors now protecting our military bases, instead of MP's. And some of these arseholes are very demeaning to our soldiers. My father was military and then civil service, I've been on more than one base, always was treated with respect, until I went to visit my daughter after her surgery. I never met such disrespectful, full of themselves contractors.

You think our congresscritters are going to shorten KBR or halliburton's contracts? Also, corporations like blackwater now XE don't follow any geneva convention--they are mercenaries plain and simple.

I saw some of the congress hearing facing a contractor who apparently took a planeload of fillipinos by gun point to Iraq for rebuilding. It looks like nothing was done. They have little accountability.

[newspeak]

100. also, should those who go into the military just be given a physical

test? Only those for cannon fodder need apply? I mean since the corporate for profit contractors can do all of the cerebral responsibilities, we can't leave those jobs to inept soldiers because corporations would never hire someone who didn't have experience to let's say do electrical, especially near showers.:sarcasm: Some actually go into the military to learn a trade: mechanic, culinary, electrician, plumber, programmer, legal, etc...

[hack89]

102. The military has not outsourced combat arms

never had and never will. The common contractor supplied services are logistics and maintenance.

Some do enter the army to learn a trade - however in time of war, all those engineers are performing their wartime missions. They are supporting the troops on the front line, not maintaining rear area bases.

[hack89]

101. There is even less accountability with the military

Are you familiar with the Feres doctrine?

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. <1> The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

The practical effect is that the Feres doctrine effectively bars service members from collecting damages from the United States Government for personal injuries experienced in the performance of their duties. It also bars families of service members from filing wrongful death or loss of consortium actions when a service member is killed or injured. The bar does not extend to killed or injured family members, so a spouse or child may still sue the United States for tort claims, nor does it bar service members from filing either in loco parentis on their child's behalf or filing for wrongful death or loss of consortium as a companion claim to a spouse or child's suit.

There have been exceptions to the Feres doctrine where active duty members have been allowed to sue for injuries when the court found that civilians could have been harmed in the same manner under the same circumstances in which the service member's injuries occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feres_v._United_States

If the Army had been operating those burn pits then there would be no legal recourse - you can't sue the Army for negligence.

As for the contractors, I agree that regulations need to be tightened. But they are still cheaper in the long run.

[newspeak]

104. as I understand it, they are not suing the government

they are suing the contractors.

[hack89]

106. Because it is against the law to sue the government

Corporations can be sued so there some element of accountability.

[jwirr]

28. Sure as long as they keep taking the cuts out of the soldiers pay.

It seems to never occur to them that they might not need another weapon or all those bases overseas or those wars to nowhere. Instead they cut the pay/benefits of the soldier.

[Sinistrous]

29. Let's see...Cut the number of troops, and you will need the draft

to fill the smaller number of billets, even though the current and larger number is being filled by volunteers.

That logic is too republican for me to get my head around. I'm so glad these geniuses are in charge.

:banghead:

[Mr Deltoid]

31. Sounds like a fucking threat

Give us a blank check or we take away your children.

[Vinca]

35. This isn't making sense at all to me. If you slash the number

of people in the military . . . intentionally . . . why would you need a draft? More Republican BS.

[aquart]

37. We wouldn't be able to afford our mercenaries.

Therefore....

[aquart]

36. Bloody about time.

Shared sacrifice or no sacrifice.

[Javaman]

38. My first question to cement head perry...

"if there are defense cuts, will you bring back the draft?"

just watch how fast he dances around that question. this is how you put these fucks on defense.

[A Physicist]

39. Bring Back The Draft?

Sounds good to me.

[Historic NY]

41. Republican job creators at it again.

[defendandprotect]

43. What absolute BS .... Obama just gave them more money -- and they've been starving the troops ....

many of whom exist on food stamps --

While we've financed Blackwater and $100 bags of laundry --

and $1,000 a gallon gasoline to KBR which would keep a helicopter in the air about

a minute! --

How about the two Taj Mahal Embassies we've built --- One quite near a billion dollars!!


If we don't have money to run out government, improve the infrastructure, then we

certainly can't afford wars which have been bankrupting the Treasury for more than 10

years!!

Tear down this MIC -- tear down this national security state -- !!

America has become a terroristd nation --

Warmongering all over the world --

50 years and more of coups and toppling liberal governments around the world while

acting covertly to keep RW governments in place!!

[dmallind]

45. How in hell does that make sense?

If we reduce the size of a curerntly all-volunteer service, we'll have to force people to join? Well hell if that's the case let's reduce the number of Senators to 80 and we'll have to run lotteries because nobody would want to stand!

[valerief]

48. They must now be paying each soldier a billion dollars or something to join. nt

[greiner3]

46. And the downside is;

[valerief]

47. Cut the WARS. Cut the IMPERIALISTIC posts. nt

[lsewpershad]

49. If ther was a draft

the wars would probably be over???? Maybe.

[workinclasszero]

57. If we had a draft again with no BS deferments

We would no longer be in multiple, decades long wars,guaranteed!

You think rich teabaggers want their sons and daughters dying in some godforsaken hellhole overseas for oil or empire?

We should ALWAYS have a draft imo. It stops empires from forming on the graves of the working class.

[Akoto]

59. I oppose the draft, even as an anti-war tool.

I refuse to win a political battle by gambling with the lives of others, particularly when I know it to be a losing bet. You think the powerful/wealthy won't be able to keep their kids out, or to arrange cushy, safe postings for them? Please.

Full disclosure: I am physically disabled, so unless the draft has something a bedridden guy can do, this wouldn't impact me. Just the same, I don't want to see other young people like myself unwillingly thrust into the military machine. Some people oppose it, some just plain aren't cut out for it, physically and/or psychologically.

[JoeyT]

64. +1

I agree. It's a terrible idea. Yeah, rich people sending their kids off to fight would keep us from having wars of choice, which is exactly why rich people won't be sending their kids off to fight. Anyone that thinks there won't be loopholes the top 1% can use hasn't been paying attention at all.

[underpants]

60. What the hell does the draft have to do with grafting the American public on defense contracts?

Are we going to get ripped off more on M16's and 'cruit boots?

[Festivito]

61. It's like the nation's biggest tax, and of course the rich would still get out of serving.

But, at least they'd have to squirm a little.

[workinclasszero]

109. So lets say we have a draft and the rich weasel out somehow

Then you will have the middle class and poor kids outraged enough to stop watching jersey shore and take their asses to the street!

Remember Vietnam? Back when the reich wing REALLY FEARED the left? Back when we were going to change the world? Then we got the all volunteer (poor people economic draft) military.

Yeah...


Bring back the draft!

[chill_wind]

68. Time for a little austerity and some shared sacrifice: Scrap the plans for a brand new

$100 million hell-hole prison in Bagram and all the actual billions in it will no doubt take in security and other resources to keep it in business and operating. I thought we were leaving.

And the planned expansion of the embassy monstrosity in Iraq, which is already the largest in the world. I thought we were leaving there, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1971478&mesg_id=1977039

[boppers]

71. Hell, we haven't left Germany or Japan yet.

Vietnam may be one of the few places in the world where we *aren't* still expanding bases and keeping troops after a war there.

[BadGimp]

72. I say Go For It!

Get the sons and daughters of the rich showing up at boot camps and you will see the Wars stop right the fuck away..

[No Elephants]

88. The sons of the rich have been getting out of military service, if they so wished,

since at least the American Revolution, if not before.

And, if we have a draft that is gender blind, I have little doubt the daughters of the wealthy will have the same ability as their brothers.

[newspeak]

95. the thing is, because of the economy

poor and middle class are already turning to the military. Actually, I think this general is talking from his sphincter, young people are joining the military because they have little or no job opportunities.

[truthisfreedom]

73. I have a solution. Electric cars. Think about it.

If we mandate electric car production to replace internal combustion engines, we don't need foreign oil, so the primary reason to have such a large military is obviated. All electricity comes from sources in North America. Coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal... we buy what we don't have from friendly nations nearby. Not one life has ever been lost at war over electricity.

It's simple. Mandate that the auto industry convert to electric cars. None of the arguments against electric cars hold water. I fill my Tesla Roadster Sport 2.5 (all-electric supercar) with $7 worth of electricity and it drives 220 miles at 65 mph. A car that gets 22 miles per gallon (and has half the performance of mine, which goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds) uses $40 worth of $4/gal gas to drive the same distance. Some say that "exotic" materials are in short supply so electrics can't be built in large quantities efficiently. Not true... lithium for batteries, often cited as a problem, is available in many forms in many countries and is not in short supply. Yes, its cost is tied to the cost of oil... but look at this equation. If the cost of oil triples, the cost of lithium will probably triple. That will increase the cost of each 220 mile trip by $80, and will increase the cost of manufacturing a car with the same battery back as mine by... wait for it... a whopping $200. Wait... my battery pack lasts 7 years or 100,000 miles. If you drive 10,000 miles per year in a car that gets 22 mpg, tripling the price of gas from $4 will increase your yearly gas costs by $3600 per year. Over a 10 year period you'll pay $36,000 more for gas. I'll pay $200 more for the battery, and my electricity costs will be unaffected because no oil products are used in power plants to make electricity.

If you want to avoid the draft and reduce the deficit, mandate electric cars. Period.

[Kennah]

113. The MIC rejects your proposal

[bamacrat]

76. Maybe that could be a good thing....

If we drastically cut defense but instituted a mandatory service period for all men (women could be voluntary) from 19-21 or like they do in Switzerland. The money left after the huge cuts would be sucked up by just training and sustaining troops and supplies, we would not have the financial ability to go empire building. Plus if everyone had to serve then maybe it would change a lot of these tea bag douchers.

[mopinko]

78. the draft would allow observers into the inner sanctum

not gonna happen.

[CRK7376]

79. BWAAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

This guy from CA is a real hoot. The chance of the draft being reinstated is simply hilarious. The thought of all those lazy couch potato, xbox gamers being drafted is a riot. What kind of exemptions will they come up with. I see huge quantities of 3-4college deferments, pimples on asses, too busy to serve, but then those wishing to join my National Guard and Reserve units will skyrocket...but wait...the Guard adn Reserve have all been heavily deployed the past 10 years. Not save serving in a Champange Air Guard unit these days....Let the fun begin...plus now that DADT has been repealed, well there are gays in the military now (back then too)Talk about exploding heads. This was a great article to start my moring off with....

[truebrit71]

81. Good. Once the teabagging chickenhawks see their offspring being put in harm's way...

...THEN maybe they will stop and think about what the TRUE cost of war is...

[and-justice-for-all]

87. Thats nonsense and rhetoric...

Not cutting the military's astronomical budget is unacceptable.

[No Elephants]

89. Our elected officials need to stop scolding and threatening us and do something sensible for a

change.

They've turned into 24/7 terrorists.

"Unless you welcome spending cuts, government will be shut down! No monthly check for you, Social Security recipients!"

"If you make us cut military spending, we'll draft you and your kids--and your little dog, too!"

Am I the only one sick of this?


News flash, D.C. You all failed us, not the other way around.



Threaten this, McKeon.

[Vidar]

91. Let them. A draft is the first step to ending the 5 or 6 evil little wars

they have us involved in. We'd still be in Vietnam if it wasn't for the draft-induced protests & political repercussions.

[BR_Parkway]

92. So if we reduce force by 200,000 to save money from paying them - we have to draft

200,000 more? And pay them what? Typical Republican fear mongering.

[Hoosier Daddy]

96. Good!

Bring back the draft! Only THIS time, no exemptions for children of neocons!

[bobthedrummer]

98. No more mercenaries, privatized military companies-forget the spin--national service requires a

nation under rule of law...

[closeupready]

107. Personally, I'm fine with that. Everyone should have skin in the game, IMHO.

Since, we are always told, everyone stands to benefit.

[USA_1]

114. GERMANY ENDS THE DRAFT!

http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2011/07/germany-ends-its-military-draft.html

Saturday, July 02, 2011
Germany Ends Its Military Draft

VOA News Germany has ended its military draft, turning instead to a voluntary force years after its major allies had taken the same step.

Germany started conscripting members of its armed forces in 1957 when West Germany rearmed after World War II, but the country ended its draft at midnight Thursday. By contrast, the United States ended its draft in 1973.

Now, Germany is trimming the size of its Bundeswehr, as the armed forces are called, by a quarter, to a maximum of 185,000 in uniform. The voluntary force will
be open to men and women willing to serve between 12 and 23 months.

Some view Germany's volunteer force as an antidote to its Nazi past, ensuring that it is subservient to the will of the country's democratic parliament. Postwar Germany has had a deep aversion to militarism, a sentiment reflected in its mixed decisions about the involvement of its troops overseas.

About 5,000 German soldiers are part of the NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan. Yet Berlin abstained in the United Nations Security Council vote in March authorizing the NATO air campaign in Libya. Then, more recently, Germany indicated a willingness to supply some munitions for the NATO effort.


---------------------------


Hopefully, Russia will soon do the same.

[happyslug]

116. Germany had been under pressuure to send troops overseas

and as long as it had the Draft Germany was unable to do so. Thus the main reason for this change seems to be the German leadership want an expeditionary army so it can send troops into Asia and the rest of the Third World, something it can NOT do with the Draftee army it has had since 1957 (and has been a tradition in Germany since the Battle of Jena in 1809, The Prussians needed a larger army to fight Napoleon then it could get volunteers for, thus its adoption of Universal Military Service after its defeat at Jena by Napoleon and Napoleon's draftee army).

What the Prussian invented in 1809 would remain German policy (Except for the period from 1919 to 1933). In fact Prussian's adoption of Universal Public Education (including what we call High School( right after the Napolonic War, was to improve the quality of the enlistee ranks. Prussia and then Germany feared its Neighbors. German's army in the 1800s was viewed as being every man in Germany, with most if them on leave for 11 months of the year (i.e. Military service was first, your civilian jobs was second, even if you did the civilian job 11 months of the year).

Anyway, today, Germany does NOT fear its neighbors, but want to send it troops into the third world. The German people will NOT tolerate draftees going into a war the people oppose, but will accept volunteers being sent. This is the same reason the US, Britain, and France has dropped the Draft.

As to Russia, they fear a general war in Central Asia, in such a war Russia will need a lot of Infantry and for that you need a draft. Thus I do NOT see Russia ending the draft any time soon.

[USA_1]

118. ''they fear a general war in Central Asia''

All they need do is to get the hell out of Central Asia and they won't have any problems there.

[happyslug]

127. Russia is in CENTRAL ASIA, and has been since at least since the time if Ivan the Terrible

Technically what is now the former Soviet Central Asia Republics, had been united with Russia ever since Genghis Khan united all of Central Asia into his Mongol Empire. The idea of the unity of that empire survived its break up. When the Russian took over the Golden Horde, the Western branch of the Mongol Empire, it became the main power in what had been the Mongol Empire with the exception of Persia (Now called Iran) and China. Thus, while most of the people of Central Asia were technically independent of Russia till the late 1800s, from at least the 1500s, they looked to Russia for leadership and aid if attacked by someone else outside the old Empire (and work with such invaders if it benefited them against others within the old Mongolian Empire and Russia).

Thus Russia can NOT leave Central Asia, Just like the US can NOT leave North America. Part of Russia is in Central Asia, as while as Europe. Russia thus can NOT leave either place and to ask them is like asking the US to get out of North America.

Side Note: China and Persia had been part of the Mongol Empire, but never really integral into the Mongol Empire. On the hand, most of Central Asia speaks a variation of Persian, which makes it part of "Greater Iran". The Turkomen are also a large group within Central Asia, and being Turks (Through with huge Russian and Persian influences, much more then the Turks of Turkey) and at times look to Turkey for Support (plase not the Turks of Turkey went from Central Asia via Iran/Persia about 800-1200 AD).

It also appears Buddhism went from India to Tibet and China via Central Asia, showing the Indian influence in the Area.

Thus Central Asia is drawn in four directions, Turkey, India, Persia and Russia (and to China which also border the area, but way less then the other four). Russia, do to the effect of the Mongol Empire, the Russian Empire and Finally the Soviet Union has had the greatest influence in Central Asia for the last 500-800 years. Mostly do to the simple fact Russia is the easiest, flattest (No mountains to cross) way to reach the rest of the World. The other Avenues exist (Persia was the preferred way before the Mongol Conquest) but once Russia embraced farming (do to the adoption of the Heavy Plow during the Dark Ages) Russia became the largest population in the Mongol Empire (Again excluding Persia and China) and as such the economic center of the former Mongol Empire. Thus Russia is not only part of Central Asia, in many ways the most important part.

[harun]

119. FUD

[yurbud]

120. because we have to screw the troops to protect contractors profits?

[vets74]

121. Ain't That an ALL-OUT WONDERFUL RIGHTIE LIE ???

These bastards will lie about anything and everything.

You cut our budget and we'll draft your ass !!

Fuck 'em.

Cutting the DoD + Intel budgets to $400-billion would still leave us dominating the planet.

Seriously....

[Owl]

122. We need deep, deep cuts in the MIC, and we need it now.

[vets74]

124. 57%. As the honest Republican said at one of their debates.

They take turns telling one truth per debate.

"The Base" doesn't like anything more than the bare minimum of truth-telling. Cuts the stench of sulfur.

[classysassy]

132. The draft was ended to protect rich kids.

When will the poor voters wise up and stop electing the shills for the wealthy? The war criminals and profiteers would think twice about attacking other countries in order to steal their resources if their protected brats had to help defend the country that give them so much.We don't spend that much on personnel it's those damn weapons we don't need that run up the price of defense,remove those no bid contracts and cost over runs and the budget will come tumbling down.