What's w/all the pro-draft sentiments here recently?

[Charlie Brown]

Whenever anyone defends the military's recruiting venues or solicitations as an alternative to the draft, they're uniformly blasted by most people here. The discussion in a previous thread regressed into arguements supporting a draft, with many posters endorsing it.

Do posters at DU seriously want to bring back the draft?

[journalist3072]

1. Here's what I think is going on....

Many people hope that a draft would force the children of the rich and powerful into service.

You have many people on Capitol Hill who voted for this illegal and immoral war, who aren't willing to send their own children over there.

Maybe the hope is that they would be FORCED to.

[Charlie Brown]

8. But don't most rich kids end up getting deferrments anyway?

If the affluent can find loopholes like they did in the 60s, then what purpose does a draft really serve, except as a symbolic gesture of fairness?

If the Dems ever seriously adopt a draft into their platform, it will bury them politically.

[ClintonTyree]

36. There would be no College deferments..........

ONLY if you were in or entering your Senior year. That's what I heard the plan was when the draft boards were reactivated. That would prevent MANY RPK's (rich people's kids) from avoiding the draft. Physical deferments would be viewed with a critical eye well.
IF the Slugs and our Dem "leaders" are going to "stay the course" then yes, I believe the draft should be reinstated. The National Guard is needed here at home and have been used past their abilities. Our servicemen and women are being asked to serve over one year hitches at a time and that is dangerous and stupid. I want this war to end NOW, but if it's plain that we don't have the political muscle to end it NOW then the draft should be reinstated. If some of the RPK's are made to fight this war it will end a LOT damned sooner!

[Charlie Brown]

40. If the Dems seriously move in the direction of a draft

that will be the end of their status as a viable party. They'll lose more seats, and credibility. With no opposition to the Repubicans, the war(s) will go on, and on, and on.

Is this really a solution "to end the war?"

[BrotherBuzz]

45. The only school deferment left is divinity school...

and I expect Chickenhawks to develop a keen interest in theology if the draft is reinstated. I also expect a lot of activity getting all those midwestern white-wing fundy bible colleges accredited/approved. Just a hunch.

7. Registrant deferred because of study preparing for the ministry (Class 2-D)

To qualify for Class 2-D as a ministerial student, a registrant must be a satisfactory full-time student who is preparing for entry into service as a regular or duly ordained minister of religion under the direction of a recognized church or religious organization in one of the following ways:

• A student pursuing a full-time course of instruction that is required for entrance into a recognized theological or divinity school in which he has been pre-enrolled; or,

• A student pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a recognized theological or divinity school; or,

• A student enrolled in a full-time graduate program or a full-time intern whose graduate studies or internships are related to his entrance into service as a regular or duly ordained minister of religion.

http://www.sss.gov/regisrantsbk.htm#(Class 2-D)

[triguy46]

75. "...don't..." the present tense belies the fact that there is no draft

So there are no exemptions today. There is no way of knowing how it would work. Certainly, early the 60's to around 67 there was a college deferment, many of our repug leaders took advantage of that. When that went away and rich kids started getting drafted and dying, and the caskets were seen being unloaded, and the body count soared, things changed. Not totally the reason for change, but it did change.

There were marriage exemptions too, causing a lot of quickie marriages.

The 'loophole' issue I think was more an innate flaw in the registration system that disproportionately drew big numbers from urban areas.

Charles Rangel has been pushing for a draft, just to challenge the pro war repugs, basically, put your own kid up or shut up.

[havocmom]

2. Tired of young chicken hawks spouting off about how great war is

but NOT signing up. They are fine with letting the poor fight wars so the frat boys' dads can profit.

If they stand the same chance of having live ruined or shortened, they might rethink their stance. That would be a good thing.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. If you agree with that, then you would agree with outlawing

abortian so the right wing would eventually be forced to come around to our way of thinking.

Just because a number of women would die because of back ally abortians would be worth it, according to the theory, because in the end we would win the abortian question, when it became clear to all that outlawing abortians is stupid policy.

Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not a political solution.

[havocmom]

32. Not a wise tactic, presuming to think you know what I agree with

Nope, and not particularly logical either.

Fact is, I have worked with kids who were rendered nearly brain dead by parents who didn't want them, couldn't take care of them and had them before Roe v Wade when there were no legal alternatives

Wrong choice of agruements and one not worthy of my time.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Oh, so you think imposing a draft on all to punish the chicken hawk

kids is somehow more logical than my argument? Ha ha that's funny, and I guess it takes all kinds.

I have friends who were rendered crippled, braindead, or suffered most of their lives because they were drafted when it was legal.

Your arguments for a draft are rife with presumptions.

I will conceed to you that presuming to know what you would or would not agree with is not a wise tactic, however.

[havocmom]

55. I witnessed what the draft did to those in charge of our little debacle in

Viet Nam.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. You mean Nixon's election, the US increased reliance

on carpet bombing and the creation of the Khmer Rouge? (They had a draft too)

I'm just morally opposed to forced military consciption. I don't believe there is any evidence that countries with forced conscription have any less occurence of going to war than countries without forced conscription.

I don't argue with your intentions, I just don't believe they will pan out to limit war.

[tavalon]

3. I'll bite

I don't want the draft to be able to get more fodder for the war machine. I want the draft so that everyone will have, as Cindy Sheehan has put it, skin in the game. I want the draft so that the people will rise up and say, NO! Right now, they're still fat, happy and dumb and the wars seem, well, remote, and thanks to the imbedding of the media, sanitized.

Having a draft will change all that, and quickly. I hate the draft and yet, that is why I support it, while hating it nonetheless.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. The problem with supporting something you don't for a political end

is that their are many more children of the lower income folks than their are children of high income folks.

The ends don't justify the means.

[tavalon]

21. That's why I'm conflicted

but I still think it would have the necessary political impact, so I lean that way for now.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. And if you were incorrect in your assumptions and bush used all

those draftees to invade Iran and Syria, and the numbers of war dead shot up dramatically, you could live with your self?

Cutting of our nose to spite our face is not a political option.

[vi5]

4. Because when they choose venues or solicitations....

..they don't show up at country clubs, or private schools or elite boarding schools because they know that it would be a futile effort. They target kids who have (or feel like they have) no other options financially or career wise and more often than not that is the less financially fortunate and not the children of the wealthy and the priveliged who like Dick Cheney have "more important things to do". I'm not in favor of a draft but if the military is in need of more warm bodies I want them to get them in a fair and across the board manner and not target the poor.

[democracyindanger]

5. Hell, they don't show up at

pro-war rallies. Seems like the best place to fish for eager recruits.

[Charlie Brown]

6. How is it more ethical for the affluent to die in wars than the poor?

Is everyone who's been successful in life automatically a warmonger, predatory hawk?

[NorCalDem]

15. It's not more ethical for the affluent to die....

but is also certainly non-ethical for only the poor to die. Not all successful people are warmongers, just those sitting at home with shitloads of cash talking about what a great job we're doing over there while their 22 yr old son/daughter get arrested for DUI's, drug possession, public intoxication, etc.,etc.

The point of this thread is that all those who support the war should be responsible for fighting it, even those with enough money to keep their kids out of it. If you're too scared to send your children or yourself, then you DO NOT support this war, and stop screaming at me that you do!

[havocmom]

20. No, but if they have to risk their own, they may be a bit more discerning

about sending people off to fight and die.

No, successful does not make one a predatory hawk. But those who ARE both successful and predatory hawks need to face risks and direct involvement in wars they help create. Facing direct risks changes the face of the game a bit. If you and yours are safe from war and you stand to make financial gain, you may be more easily swayed to war. If you are yours might get your ass blown off, it might make you more critical of going to war.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Yet by supporting this, you would be sending kids to war who

were opposed to going and so didn't sign up.

I guess that's just their problem?

Doing the wrong thing to get the right result is a losing game.

[havocmom]

33. Nope, I am betting there will be less war

period.

It certainly seems very likely to work that way

[AlphaCat]

37. That's what confuses me...

If, say, we had a Viet Nam on our hands--and someone like Big Dawg didn't believe in it, thought it was wrong, and didn't want to fight in it--and we had a draft, wouldn't he HAVE to fight in it against his will, and all his values, and would that be fair?

I mean, sure, if enough kids of the rich GOPers die in the war it might well bring it to an end, but wouldn't a lot of good kids--kids who were against the war--die in the mean time?

[vi5]

65. That's not what I was saying...

...But any action on the part of our government, which results in asking people to risk their lives, sacrifice and possibly die for their country should be across the board economically. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the draft. What I'm in favor of is equality. I never said they should target the rich and NOT the poor. Just that under the current system of recruitment that it is the case that the poor are targeted more than the rich (who are not targeted at all. If you're for the war and for more kids enlisting then the methods have to be across the board. And a draft is the closest we would come to that being the case.

I'm not in favor of the draft but I am in favor of more equality.

[SoCalDem]

The problem is ..

There will ALWAYS be a "medical" out for draftees.. Rich folks' family doctors will be only too happy to write junior a "medical" excuse..

My own three sons, who LOOK perfectly healthy would all be excused due to various medical conditions and past surgeries..

[CBGLuthier]

7. Calling out recruiters

for their unethical behavior is NOT the same as wishing for a draft.

Let them bring a goddamn draft back. this aint the 60s. People know exactly what service under the regime would mean and would refuse to cooperate.

This not meant to put down those who fought against the war in the 60s. My point is with TV coverage and the state of the union today, a draft would enflame the people who would be victimized by it much more than it did back then.

[Charlie Brown]

9. Is it more ethical to force people to serve in the military?

If people are pasive, non-violent by nature, is it more ethical to hand them a weapon and make them shoot than to recruit in colleges, rallies, etc. I can't buy into that.

[havocmom]

22. Makes people take more care about who they put into office

and the policies they make if ALL share the risk

[Charlie Brown]

28. What if draftees don't support the war to begin with?

It seems likes a huge generalization to me that just 'cause someone's successful or affluent, they support the Republicans and the War. Should their children be forced to serve just because some of you aren't happy about recruiters in colleges?

[havocmom]

35. Chicken hawks don't support the war! They aint in it, just profiting.

If there is a draft, much more of the population will pay attention to policy instead of 'going shopping' as Dimson wanted us to do after 9-11.

With more paying attention, less likely to get into wars that just plain shouldn't be started!

That's the whole idea. Make better choices via more direct partcipation AND sharing the risks.

As it is, policy makers do not share any risk at all so they make decisions without consequenseces and the result is BAD DECISIONS Gee, is that the way you want it?

[Charlie Brown]

38. and if people happen to die from the draft, that's just collateral damage?

I'd like to think there are other ways to inform people of the injustice of war besides abducting their kids and placing them in harm's way.

[havocmom]

42. Straw man. If wars are not started so capriciously, less will die

period

[John Q. Citizen]

47. What evidence do you have

that a draft stops wars from being started?

It seems obvious to me that if we had a draft before this war started we would have bigger wars in more countries right now. My bet is we would also be in Iran and Syria at least.

I'm not questioning your intentions, just your logic.

[havocmom]

53. IF the folks startin the wars stand to lose a scion or two

they will be less likely to be reckless with military lives.

And if ALL American parents stand to lose those precious to them, THEY will pay more attention to what the fuck the policy makers are up to.

Way it is now, not enough people have an interest in policy makers and the tricks they are up to because it doesn't hit home with them. So the bozos in DC can waste more lives.

[Charlie Brown]

58. So the idea is to blackmail parents of draftees into opposing war

Holding their children as hostages.

If that's the game, I don't think these parents are going to hold the Democrats in very high regard.

[havocmom]

60. So it's better to sentence the children of the poor to be cannon fodder

for an upper class that profits from war? Not BLOODY likely

[Charlie Brown]

63. I don't think anyone should be sentenced "to be cannon fodder"

regardless of their social status.

The draft is not an antidote to social inequality or war, and it's detrimental for Dems to promote it that way. It's also incredibly stupid politically.

[CBGLuthier]

25. Did you read my post

If they dare to start a draft, this country will revolt. They won't get my kids, you can goddamn bet on that and I don't think I am the only one that will fight it.

Besides, it is bullshit to excuse one type of unethical behavior because it might lead to another.

[Skwmom]

10. Maybe the senators in Congress wouldn't be so gung-ho to give a blank

check to go to war if there was a risk that their own kids would actually have to pick up an M-16.

[Extend a Hand]

11. the answer is to ....

END THIS IMMORAL OIL WAR.


To those that would say that a draft is "more fair", you are dreaming. Anyone with $$$ will get their kids out of the country if deferments aren't available.

[abluelady]

12. My thoughts

I feel very confident that the war movement will come to a halt if there is a draft. There are many middle class repugs who are fine with the war because their kids are not involved. These people may not be able to buy their way out but they sure as hell don't want their kids going.

My congressman's aide just told me there will never be another draft. My congressman is a tightasssed repug.

[Rosco T.]

13. The rational is simple...

1) Chimp brings forth a draft

a) if he does it by 'executive order' then every 'pug in the house/senate is dead meat in the '06 election.

b) if he does it the 'ethical' way (and excuse useing that word in relation to anything the GOP does) and it is shoved thru by the 'pug... see 1a).

c) same hold for any Dem that votes for it.. they're toast to the first anti-draft challenger in their primary.

2) bottome line, if he tries, we get the house/senate in '06 and the presidency in '08.

[Charlie Brown]

17. The Republicans will never bring back the draft

They'll simply call up more reserve units and retirees to do their dirty work. Even if we go into Iran or Syria, they'll manage to find some way to avoid mandatory service (even if it leaves a huge hole in our military's manpower).

It does our side zero good to ponder a return to the draft.

[Rosco T.]

23. The Chimp will do it by 'executive order'... you got to remember..

.. he dosen't give a fart about the Republican party.

[afdip]

14. if we are going to have a military (which is a given)

then a REAL draft of ALL healthy kids, rich and poor alike, would certainly level the playing field. maybe, just maybe, rich repukes would play less fast and loose with the lives of their own kids. no deferments, just honorable service.

[bluestateguy]

18. They think it will deter future wars

And they are wrong.

Close all the loopholes you want. I don't care. Members of Congress and their rich friends will find creative ways to get their kids out of serving.

Also, the pro-draft people at DU fail to realize that even if a large percentage of draftees resist or dodge, there will be just as many, or more, who will willingly serve. They forget that most people are not as political as we are here at DU: I would dare say that half or more of draftees would simply march off to war for no other reason than the fact that the government just says they have to go. It's not like most young people are well versed in the finer points of the Downing Street Memo.

[earth mom]

19. I have 2 beautiful wonderful nephews in their early twenties...and

One of them was talking about joining the Navy last week. Let me tell you I just about freaked out when I heard that! Though, at least the Navy isn't as bad as the Army or Marines meaning he wouldn't have to fight in hand to hand combat and would more than likely not lose his life. (yeah I know that's selfish of me!)

That said, one reason I want the draft is because it will force the entire country to face this war head on. It will force the rethugs and freepers to sacrifice their children to this war. It will make people realize how futile and how crazy this war is. A draft will end this war much sooner than it will by not having a draft.

Meanwhile, I may just smuggle (or kidnap) my nephews and take em to Canada where I have relatives! Just kidding! ;)

[tabasco]

26. I'm not in favor of a draft to support Bush's wars.

I am in support of universal service, implemented during peacetime, with military or civil service options. Similar to many European countries.

[TahitiNut]

29. I support a Universal National Service obligation.

Imagine how useful a well-staffed Public Health Service would be for a disaster like Katrina. Imagine how useful a well-staffed Conservation Corps would be. How about the Peace Corps?

Universal National Service - Everyone. Male. Female. Gay. Straight. All levels of ability. Term of Service depending on supply/demand - perhaps 18 months in the military or 48 months in the Conservation Corps. Nobody would be exempt.

We cannot have a democracy without participation! "Let George do it" is where we're at now. It's crap.

[havocmom]

41. Agree absolutely

Duty and service to the nation is a good teacher.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. I agree with a national service. I have argued long and hard

for national service. But that's a far cry from forced military conscription.

I think 48 months might be a little too long, though, both politically and practically.

Peace corps is 2 years isn't it? That seems about right. And there needs to be guarantees that once your in a peaceful endeavor you can't be converted to involuntary military use.

Universal service, universal health care and free education. Sounds good to me.

[TahitiNut]

51. We could call them "Citizenship Interns"

The details of how long one would serve in various services would have to be worked out. Clearly, if the individual is given a choice of services, both the needs of that service and the needs of less popular forms of service would have to be taken into consideration. To that end, some variance in the length of the service obligation would probably be necessary.

That said, it's also clear that every one of those services (Army, Navy, VISTA, Peace Corps, Public Health Service, Conservation Corps, etc.) would have a career path beyond that of "interns" serving out of obligation. Such careers would obviously involve training and education.

When I consider how we have less and less "excess capacity" to deal with wildfires, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, possible terrorist attacks, plague and a host of other extraordinary circumstances, I'm more and more convinced that National Service is the most reasonable approach. Privatization fails. It fails on the basis of redistributing (public) wealth to the already-wealthy and it fails on the basis of logistics and it fails on the basis of excess capacity.

That latter point is one worth emphasizing, I think. In business today, two management approaches are becoming more and more extreme: (1) layoffs and elimination of excess capacity, and (2) "just in time" supply chain management. Both of these approaches are entirely inconsistent with the 'Common Weal' and public infrastructure. (Indeed, show me a wealthy person without "excess (personal) capacity" in their private lives.) One of the major reasons we were in a position to both provide resources (men and materials) to World War 2 and become a global economic power afterward is due to the excess public infrastructure we invested in in the 1930s. Hydroelectric, irrigation, roads, and a host of public resources were built ... to the great benefit of later generations (until they were privatized, at least). Decades of "business admin" in government has impoverished us and made us virtually incapable of dealing with extraordinary demands on our nation as a whole. That must stop!

[John Q. Citizen]

67. Great post, I agree. Another reason I support a national service

is that it would put people from different backgrounds and different geograhies into close personal interdependent relationships with each other which fosters a sense of our common humanity.

[TahitiNut]

70. I agree it breaks down the barriers that separate us.

The biggest barrier is ignorance. It's hard to hate another person when you've walked in the same boots with them, mile after mile. One of the lessons of California (that Pete Wilson never seemed to learn) iss that when someone disses a "minority" there, then the vast majority of Californians think "but he's talking about my sister-in-law" or "he's talking about my buddy at the office" or "he's talking about my softball teammate" or "he's talking about my neighbor" or "he's talking about my wife!" ... people who "don't know their place."

Not only would people come in contact with one another by working together, they'd actually come in contact with those who they were serving instead of just those they were trying to kill. And vice versa,

[bluestateguy]

73. I don't

And I dare say that the people who run these programs (like say VA hospitals or public works projects) would not want to have to babysit a cadre of un-motivated kids all day.

[Lasher]

31. I was drafted in 1969

And I can tell you it was no fun. I will not wish this experience onto anyone else. The sons and daughters of the affluent were exempt from conscription then, and they would be if we started drafting people now.

Just look at the real story of Bush's military 'career', which is a textbook case of this reality. Got special treatment to get into the reserves, got special treatment to be a officer instead of an elisted man (there is a HUGE difference between the way officers and EMs are treated), got special treatment to get to be a pilot so that he could play around with ariplanes, and he showed up when and if he felt like it.

Look at the rest of today's warmongers. Cheney didn't serve because he "had more important things to do". Well, I had more important things to do too, but I didn't have a choice like he did! What makes you people think it would be any different if the draft were resumed? Wake up, it wouldn't be!

By supporting resumption of the draft, all you're doing is allowing the middle and lower class to be enslaved by the military industrial complex. Get the hell out of Iraq right now, and head off all other PNAC adventures, and that should eliminate recruiting problems. If it doesn't, pay soldiers more and treat them better.

The draft is 100% wrong. If you support it, so are you.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Right on! I don't understand how all these people can advocate

doing the wrong thing to try to get the right results.

A much better plan would be for these people advocating a draft to end the war to simply start self immolating in front of The Congress and the White House.

After 15 or 20 people poured gasoline on themselves and burned in public, the media couldn't ignor it, and they would be revered as peace activists who did something to stop the war besides sending other peoples kids to die for a bogus reason.

If bush is wrong to send other peoples kids to die, then so surely are those who advocate a military draft.

[kywildcat]

43. Absolutely

100% on the target.
BTW, with the new agreements between us and Canada via homeland crap-ola, canada may no longer be an option for objectors

[TahitiNut]

48. I was drafted in 1968 and spent nearly all of 1969 in Viet Nam.

When the draft lottery was enacted and deferments were all but eliminated, the draft became 'fair' -- at least one helluva lot more fair than it was in 1968 and 1969.

It then didn't take long for us to leave Viet Nam and 'deactivate' the draft.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the wealthy and powerful lost both their taste for the Viet Nam war and for the draft as soon as it was made 'fair'?

Now we've got a different kind of 'draft' ... one driven by economic coercion. Guess what? The wealthy and powerful again don't serve -- they only profit. Funny how we're now repeatedly engaging in wars all over the globe ... wars that don't require the wealthy and powerful to serve.

In my view, Universal National Service is the only decent and democratic approach ... and one most likely to lead to shrinkage of the biggest military power in the history of the planet.

[Lasher]

52. Help me out

TahitiNut,

Thanks for your informed and thoughtful contribution. I remain opposed to the draft, and also to Universal National Service (UNS), but I am taking your thoughts into account. You say UNS could "...lead to shrinkage of the biggest military power in the history of the planet." I suppose you must mean that this could lead to replacement of our war economy with a peace economy. Am I correct? If so, exactly how would this occur?

[TahitiNut]

64. Yes, I believe it would lead to the conversion of a war economy to ...

... a peace economy. I do not, however, believe it would leave us "defenseless" ... at least nowhere as defenseless as we've now proven ourselves to be.

I regard it as a "put up or shut up" form of democracy. Democracy, as I've said before, must be participative. It's not a spectator sport. When people actually participate in the policies and operation of our own governance, we make the choices a LOT differently. I doubt that more than about 30-35% pay more attention to their own governance than they do to major league sports. It's absolutely no accident that the years following World War II led to the greatest resurgence of real and substantive democracy (liberal, both socially and economically) in this country's history. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was rare to find a Congressman or Senator that wasn't a veteran. It's no accident that far, far more liberals in Congress are veterans. Even when you look at the Republican veterans, you see a far more moderate Republican.

As the options for National Service include such endeavors as Public Health Service, VISTA, Peace Corps, Conservation Corps, and Public Works, people gain experience working with one another ... building, not destroying.

It's a bit like the "Bridge on the River Kwai" where the Colonel (Alec Guinness) again became dedicated to building, even working with the "enemy." When people become empowered as Builders, they're far less likely to be Bombers.

[LaPera]

39. The draft will NOT be reinstated under this administration, period.

Not a fucking chance. They don't need the draft to fight their wars and they sure as fuck don't want the united, nationwide protests that would evolve from reinstating the draft.

So if your waiting for the draft to get pepole fired up and united, forget it, the joke is on YOU!

Don't wait for something that's NOT going to happen, get invovled now!!!!

[oldcoot]

46. I have mixed feelings about the draft

I have mixed feelings about the draft. On one hand, I feel that a large segment of the American population endorsed this war when it voted to give Bush a second term. If you believe the results of the last election were honest, the majority of people willingly supported Bush and the Republicans despite the fact that it was obvious that we were not going to have an easy victory in Iraq and that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. By voting for Bush and other Republicans, it is clear that the many Americans believe that the Iraq War is justified. Since they consider this war a just war, they should have no problem with a draft.

I also think that many of us feel resentment toward the so-called "patriotic" Americans who accused those who opposed the war of treason or being unpatriotic. I am sure it would be fun to see how truly patriotic these brats are if they faced the possibility of being drafted. Would they still moan about the protesters or would they be joining the protests?

On the other hand, historically the draft has placed on unfair burden on lower-income and minority men. During the Vietnam War, for example, many privileged sons were able to get draft deferments or join the National Guard. If there is a draft, everyone should share the same burden regardless of sex, race, or socio-economic class. Yet I find it highly unlikely that U.S. Congress would ever eliminate all the loopholes. For this reason alone, I think that the Democratic Party should oppose the draft.

[Silverhair]

50. The military would oppose a return to the draft.

Draftees enter service with a negative attitude and at best only want to serve their time without trouble and get out. That kind of attitude is contagious. No amount of military indoctrination can change it.

A volunteer, enters with a positive attitude. After all - he has made a decision to be there. Military indoctrination can easily work with that kind of person. They reinforce the person belief that he is special by the kind of decision he has made. Such a person becomes a far more effective soldier.

Further, a volunteer is in for a longer time than a draftee, and modern training takes longer to produce an effective combat soldier. The standards for a modern soldier are much higher than they were 40 years ago.

You can do much more with a squad of volunteers than with two squads of draftees.

So the military would rather be a bit short handed and have all volunteers than have a bunch of draftees.

[Lasher]

57. You're wrong

Lifers love to get 'allocations for promotion'. You have lots of privates, you can have lots of sargeants. Same thing applies all the way up the line. Worst thing that can happen to a career soldier is a small peace time military. Best thing for them is a great big military, so that they can get promoted.

[Silverhair]

62. I stand by what I said. I am a veteran. NT

[BrotherBuzz]

68. This veteran (AUS) sides with Hackworth over your position.

"Even when they pissed me off, I had to admit there was something I liked about the draftees who didn't want to be there and made no bones about it. I like draftees in general, even with the attendant problems. Historically draftees have kept the military on the straight and narrow. By calling a spade a spade, they keep it clean. Without their "careers" to think about, they can't be easily bullied or intimidated as Regulars; their presence prevents the elitism that otherwise might allow a Regular army to become isolated from the values of the country it serves. Draftees are not concerned for the reputation of their employer, the Army (in Vietnam they happily blew the whistle an everything from phony valor awards to the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia); a draftee, citizens' army, so much a part of the history of America, is an essential part of a healthy democracy, one in which everyone pays the price Of admission." Col. David Hackworth from his book About Face


But then again, I was just a dumb draftee that added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time." :shrug:

[Silverhair]

69. Hackworth is also right.

And so am I. You CAN do more with some willing volunteers than with some disgruntled draftees. And draftees do have an honesty factor. Notice that Hackworth acknowledges that draftees have problems. The modern military will fight a return of the draft because they don't want to deal with those problems.

[Fescue4u]

54. Some people think that drafting people to get killed will prove

Some people think that drafting people to kill and be killed will prove that killing is undesireable.

Kinda like destroying the village to save it.

[alfredo]

56. Talking about the draft scare the shit out of lurking freeps

It calls out the president on his desire for empire. He can't get it without a huge military. He can't get a huge volunteer military during a war. He has to go to a draft, but then draftees will not fight for him. They will fight for the country, but not for him.

[B Calm]

59. I faced the draft in 1969, instead I enlisted in the Navy to avoid

Vietnam. I found the military was full of kids from working class families. The rich kids have always avoided the military, with a draft or no draft.

[CBGLuthier]

61. The specious logic

connecting complaining about recruiters with wanting a draft is rather lame.

I thought most Duer's were smarter than that.

That argument comes close to the arguments that we have free speech but should not exercise it by condemning the war.

I am an american. I will call bullshit wherever I see it.

[BrewerJohn]

66. Does anyone really think

that if a draft went through now it wouldn't have all kinds of clever deferments built into it that would keep the children of the rich safe?

Keep in mind that the Repugs currently control Congress.

[Kailassa]

72. If the twins were sent, would Bush even notice?

If it's right to wage a war, then it's right to spread the cost of that war as evenly as possible over the population which benefits from it.

We already have a virtual draft, as can be seen by the number of recruits coming from the poorest backgrounds. How many of them Want to get killed or have their legs blown off? Aleady there are more amputees coming back that the military hospitals can deal with. As long as the soldiers are drawn from the least educated classes their is no pressure on the government to take proper care of all the injured when they return.

It's obvious to all now that this war was fought for oil. Even the freeps I know who denied that initially are complaining now that whe war didn't bring them the cheap petrol they expected. But the people fighting it are those with the least stake in the country, who, as we saw in NO, can't even expect the country to give a damn about them during disasters.

It could be that Charlie Brown is right and that the richest and most powerful will always wangle out of it. But I wonder about anyone here taking such a defeatist attitude. Throwing one's hands in the air and saying justice will never be possible is no answer to anything.

[_ed_]

74. I'm torn about this:

First off, I'm an Iraq Vet, discharged in March. One of my biggest criticisms of the way this war has been waged is the fact that it does not affect people the way previous wars have. You don't hear about casualties or injuries anymore, you don't see coffins coming home, war coverage is a joke, no one is asked to conserve, etc...Unless you have a relative in Iraq, it doesn't affect peoples' lives at all. They even cut taxes during time of war!

I'm also a very staunch civil libertarian, so if you asked me 5 years ago if I favored a draft, I would vehemently oppose it. I still oppose the draft on principle, and I hope nobody ever has to go through what I did, especially if they don't "sign up" for it as I did.


HOWEVER, I secretly relish the thought of all the Republican homes across the country reacting to a new draft that has no deferments. I really think that if Repubs had to send their kids off to die, or go themselves, this war would end very quickly.

So, that's where I stand...