Is the military totally voluntary as Duncan Hunter states?

[LiberalFighter]

I don't believe it is when the military can require enlistees to serve past their sign-up.

[fenriswolf]

1. two words "stop loss"

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's an economic draft, then throw in stop loss and it's not all voluntary at all. nt

[jody]

3. Correct re serving beyond their legal obligation. That's involuntary servitude. Military jobs are

the only jobs that in peacetime, from which an employee cannot resign without fear of punishment including prison.

It's sad that SCOTUS allows involuntary servitude in peacetime and even worse that congress has not passed a law making that form of slavery illegal. :puke:

[sarge43]

4. It's voluntary in so far as no one goes to jail for not signing a DD Form 4.

As for what happens after someone voluntarily signs up, well, that's in the small print. Uncle Sugar has always had the option to extend enlistments. Read a Form 4 some time (plenty of examples on line). Like they used to say and may still do, "Your soul belongs to God, your heart to mother, but your ass belongs to us, hero."

[bluestateguy]

5. Stop loss must be taken out of the enlistment contract

when you're done, you're done.

[ldf]

6. well, i suppose it could be true..

they are so desperate they have relaxed all entry standards, AND are promising huge bonuses.

we are now recruiting criminals who are trying to stay out of jail (have you read about the gang problems in the military?), and illegal aliens (who have been promised citizenship, IF the live through their enlistment).

between the poor, where military is the only way out of a deadend life, the criminals, and the illegals, presto. full recruitment.

ain't that the cat's meow?

the biggest, the baddest, the toughest, the richest, the coolest nation on earth, fighting its wars by using the poor, the criminal and the illegal.

now THAT is the american way.

[amandabeech]

7. In signing up for the military, you're taking a risk that we WON'T go to war.

If there is a substantial war during the term of enlistment, and that war is not supported by a draft, then enlistment tends to be for the duration whether the contract says it in plain English or not.

In addition, the military sign-up contract also includes years in various reserve statuses. An ex-serviceperson can be called up years after their last year of active reserve. We have seen some of that with this war.

Going into the service really is a major commitment. It's too bad that so many kids get hoodwinked by recruiters.

In some previous wars, volunteers signed up "for the duration," meaning that they agreed to serve until the war was over.

[provis99]

8. more like you're taking a risk that we won't go into a WRONG war

The U.S Army would have plenty of volunteers if the citizens actually believed in the war as a just one. Americans have always been willing to serve and risk their life if the cause warrants it. The whole beef that the soldiers and pool of possible recruits have is that they can plainly see the current war is either unwinnable, or injust, or both.

[amandabeech]

9. You make an excellent point. n/t

[suston96]

10. An all volunteer military is a crap shoot....

...if all the volunteers decided to leave after their first enlistment - I know, I say IF.....the result would be disastrous.

The trade-off is "stop-loss" or some such bullshit to secure the armed forces from sudden depletion.

There is need to consider mandatory public service of some kind. Peacetime or wartime notwithstanding.