Should Bush have inaugurated a draft after 9/11?

[joemurphy]

I was a Vietnam era volunteer. However, I only volunteered because if I hadn't I would have been drafted.

Having served in the army (4 years in Europe mostly), I came away from the experience with a deep respect for national service and a deep skepticism for the merits of an all-volunteer professional army.

I know a lot of people here hate the idea of a draft to their very bowels. I understand this reaction. But I personally think that an all-volunteer army in our day and age is very much akin to an army of mercenaries. We live in a period of time when the weapons employed are highly specialized requiring long training periods for their usage. While this is not true of all weapons, it is true of enough of them that small armies of highly trained professional soldiers are generally thought enough to handle the basic defensive needs of the American state. They may not be numerous enough now, however to hold ground over the long periods of time needed to root out a determined enemy fighting on its own turf. We might have Osama by now if we had been able to commit enough troopes to do the job in Afghanistan. We might have wrapped up Iraq if we had followed Shinseki's advice and posted the 250,000 men he said we would need to prevent looting and maintain post-invasion order.

Professional armies (as opposed to citizen-soldiers) scare me. History shows that when they are employed they tend to give rise to periods of minority rule and authoritarian government. Right now, we are trying to fight two wars (one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq) with insufficient troops. We are also doing it with a professional army that we have to pay $40,000 per man in recruiting efforts to maintain current strength levels. Do you think this is a good idea?

I think the concept of the citizen-soldier is healthy. I think we would have asked a lot more questions about our abysmal Iraq adventure if the draft had been in place. Drafted armies make our leaders more reluctant to employ them over long periods of time. They also make our people (whose sons and daughters are at risk) more wary of unnecessary foreign adventures like Iraq.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[LiberalArkie]

1. I am in favor of the draft as long as there are no exemptions at all

[Warren Stupidity]

7. And when in our history have we had such a draft? nt.

[joemurphy]

16. You're right - we've never had true universal service.

But lots of other nations have such systems in place. We just lack the will to do it.

[TahitiNut]

17. I agree. Male, female, gay, straight ... everyone. It's 2nd best to

... a true Universal National Service obligation that would include Peace Corps, VISTA, Americorps, Public Health Service, etc.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

[bobbolink]

27. "Democracy Is Not A Spectator Sport" Very well said!

I guess the same could be said for voting, but how to get people involved.....sigh...

I agree with you completely, and wish we hadn't moved to abolish all this. It needs to be just as you said. All the above!

:patriot:

[tenshi816]

32. I would love to see your version of National Service

enacted because it provides for alternatives to military service.

I tried to join VISTA myself when I was 20 but they rejected me because I was a young single mother (wonder if that would happen in today's world?).

You're so right, democracy is not a spectator sport.

I do wonder how the freepers would react if they were told they had to serve in some capacity though. They're too cowardly to join the military and don't care enough about other people (especially non-Americans) to join any organization that helps the needy.

[TahitiNut]

36. There are indolent, spoiled elitists on both ends of the spectrum.

People not yet weaned from permissive parenting - with mommy still cleaning up their messes and daddy still covering their asses. "But I don' wanna dooo thaaat!" they whine, thinking the "way of the world" is to hire the lower classes to do their dirty work.

I've been poor (bottom 10%) and I've been affluent (top 5%), but I'm totally disgusted by people who refuse to step up and do their share of the dirty work in our "extended family." The "let George do it" attitude is what's gotten us where we are and where we're going: into the shitter of history.

Of what use is information if we don't act on it? The idea that we can sit back and wait for our 'leaders' to ask our opinion is straight out of Disneyland - like some spoiled 4 year old throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his Chicken McNuggets like he DEMANDED.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joemurphy]

3. That was the case in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Professional armies may have more expertise though. It's a good point. Having been in the army though, I'm not sure its universally valid. Lots of people wind up in our present army for reasons other than the fact that they would make good soldiers -- college perks, bonuses, "it'll make a man out of you", etc. I'm not sure you wouldn't have to watch your back in today's military any less than you would have to do with a draft.

[TahitiNut]

18. BULLSHIT! I was a draftee and a Viet Nam veteran.

Your post is a fucking INSULT to me and millions of other draftees who served honorably and courageously, as well as my father and five uncles who served in combat in World War II.

Disgusting and despicable post!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

22. Fool's Errand ... such "knowing" is not possible.

You say you're not, but YOU DID make "a broad sweeping generalization" and a baseless one - unless one buys into the appalling, divisive, fascist rhetoric of Rumsfeld, et. al.

The only assurance is training and command responsibility. By far, the GREATEST exposure to troops in the field are officers who haven't yet gotten fragged for getting the troops killed for their own idiocy. There's NOT A SHRED of support for the outrageous claim that draftees serve less honorably or courageously in combat than volunteers. Draftees have won medals for valor proportional to their numbers, which is AMAZING when one knows from experience, as I do, that career military are favored over draftees for awards. It's bullshit!

This exact same bullshit was said about BLACKS in the military!!
This exact same bullshit is said about women in the military!
It's ignorant and bigoted ... and the FACTS prove it so.

[soothsayer]

4. No, because Afghanistan wasn't all that hard (tho now it is) and

then it's just the matter of finding OBL, if he's the one you think did it. Iraq is an unrelated war started for...I ferget, WHY are we there?

[joemurphy]

9. The fact that it is now is what I was getting at.

We don't have the manpower there to hold ground and really eradicate the enemy. The same is true of Iraq.

Maybe, too, if there had been a citizen-army structure in place with Iraq, some of the horrendous instances of corruption in connection with the reconstruction would not have transpired. There might have been too many whistle-blowers coming back with no axes to grind.

[Renew Deal]

13. We should have put 150,000 troops in Afghanistan

We might have caught Osama and we would have crushed the opposition.

[Zensea]

5. Yes

If you want to play, you got to pay.

We should all be advocating for a draft.

It's a war, right? Well, where's the damn sacrifices any of us are making?

(except for the sacrifices of letting our civil liberties erode, of letting hundreds of billions of dollars be spent on foreign adventurism, of .... well think of your own).

Funny thing is I was a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War.
That's actually got something to do with why I think there should be a draft.
There is a strong level of escapism in American culture & it doesn't just have to do with Hollywood.
Every generation should face directly the implications of the actions of their country and government.
This generation coming up right now will face them one way or the other.
Maybe they'd face them sooner if their lives were being directly threatened by forced military service.

[AndyTiedye]

31. You took a CO Yourself, But You Would Force Them to Serve? Why?

[Zensea]

35. Force them to make the choice, not force them to serve

That is my answer.
There is nothing that says that you must serve even if there is a draft. Or that you must serve in the military.

But if there is a draft, you have to face the situation directly instead of indirectly.
I think that one of the things that sped up the end of the Vietnam war was its impact across such a broad span of the country.

I will admit that I am conflicted on this subject. I would of course prefer that there not be these situations, but if the country is going to be engaging in wars, I am inclined to think that its citizens should consider their responsibility for what is being done in their name. Being drafted has a funny way of concentrating one's attention about what one's country is doing.
If there had been a draft before 2004, for example, there is a very good chance the presidential election would have been quite a bit different.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. No.

The Al Qaeda gang needs to be policed out of business. There is no 'war on terra', no matter how many times the liars insist that it exists. Despite romantic duplicitous manipulative theories to the contrary, a draft would enable more voluntary wars of conquest, such as our pillaging of Iraq.

[joemurphy]

12. I think I agree with you about Al-Qaeda. But

I disagree about a conscript army enabling more "wars of conquest". I think the latter are more likely with a professional army.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Viet Nam: 500,000 draftees, 50,000 dead.

And years of carnage before it became too politically costly to continue. We killed over 2,000,000 vietnamese with our conscript army. The system of control they are putting in place is designed to neutralize a resistance inside this country like the one we put together against the vietnam war. I find it startling how many people simply think that this will be a repeat and a draft will be readily rendered ineffective by its unpopularity. Our rulers plans and schemes are born out of the vietnam era, everything they have done has been informed by that experience. They have done their homework and they are ready for us.

[Renew Deal]

8. This is a trick question.

Because knowing that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq, we didn't need a draft. But since they knew they were going to attack Iraq, they should have fired it up, because they knew they didn't have enough troops.

[joemurphy]

10. Good point. n/t

[dogman]

11. Definitely not.

He should have instituted a draft when he decided to invade Iraq, however. That might have exposed the true intent and prevented the invasion, in which case an actual call-up would have been unnecessary.

[Renew Deal]

14. Exactly

This war would never have happened under that kind of scrutiny.

[joemurphy]

15. I think you're right about Iraq.

I think Bush and the Neocons figured they could win a war there quickly and on the cheap using solely our professional army. They obviously miscalculated badly.

[AndyTiedye]

28. A Draft Would Not Have Prevented the War

** had most people convinced that Saddam was getting ready to nuke us.
It was all a pack of lies, of course, but most people believed it,
even though we didn't:

[pnwmom]

19. Oh sure!

Let's all support a universal draft. Let's give him an unlimited supply of bodies for his maniacal plans in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Korea, etc.

:sarcasm:

[newspeak]

21. no, he should have treated 9/11 as a criminal offense

and gone after the culprits, like Clinton did. Gee, if we have another OKC bombing by one of our own home-grown wackos, are we going to bomb the city where they live? NO. It should have been handled as criminal action and the intelligence community should have been required to focus individual targets, not bombing the shite out of innocent civilians and starting bogus wars;thereby, giving terrorist groups more recruits. If handled differently, there would be no need for a draft.

[135th]

24. NO!

The draft is slavery, and violates the 13th Amendment. Anyone calling for the draft is as bad as Bush calling for the hidden evidence in the Gitmo trials, if not worse. This is also the last thing Dems should be talking about in the first election they have a real chance in since 94.

[Goldilocks]

25. What Bush did instead was, to privatize part of the Iraq war, and

then he also instituted the backdoor draft by forcing troops to stay longer than they should and by recalling former troops who were on inactive reserve. Bush's recent claim that all troops in Iraq are volunteers is a patent lie.

We now have 1000s of private mercenaries (Blackwater, etc) in Iraq to augment our active military.

[bobbolink]

26. The US needs to have Universal Service.

Without a doubt.

The mistake my generation made was in working to abolish the draft. It was a rather selfish move.

It needs to be undone, and made mandatory across the board. EVERYONE.

[AndyTiedye]

29. There Was No Shortage of Volunteers After 9/11

It was only after ** invaded Iraq
and that turned into a quagmire
that in now way serves the national defense
that the Army has run short of manpower.

[AndyTiedye]

30. How Many Years?

We live in a period of time when the weapons employed are highly specialized requiring long training periods for their usage.

So how are you going to train draftees in these weapons? Draft them "for the duration" or what?

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Define 'long training periods'.

3 months? 6? What? I say it is less than 6 months, that this is very readily accomodated by a draft, and that if the draft enlistment period has to be extended from two years to three or four, then that is exactly what they will do. The draft will provide a steady supply of fresh meat for their asian wars.

[joemurphy]

37. Well, that happened in WWII, for sure.

It didn't happen in Vietnam. My guess is that the enlistment period would be around 2 years as it was in Vietnam.

What I meant by long training periods was in reference to handling certain complex weapons systems like fighter airplanes, guided missle technology and maintenance of those systems.

Other aspects of the military would take less time.

My military occupational specialty was a 98G. I had over a year of training in Russian language and 12 weeks of radio intercept training before actually being put to work at a military post. Training an infantryman would probably take a lot less time. My trade off for 4 years of service in my MOS was avoidance of combat duty in Vietnam. There wasn't a big need for Russian linguists there.

This is what I was getting at by "specialized training".

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Right I understand that.

And there were certainly specialists in the old military - fighter pilots for example, as well as tons of other long training skills. But putting grunts in hummers to be targets for ieds doesn't take a whole lot of training. The kids I know who ended up in Iraq were there within 3-6 months of enlistment. Sounds like the new army ain't really all that different from the one I grew up with.

[Cosmocat]

33. All due respect to your service ...

and as such, you are totally valid in your opinion ...

The problem here isn't the military, it is the civilian leadership ... We just have hit a BAD spot where absolute freaks stumbled onto an event, 9-11, that jolted an oblivious country ... A HORRID perfect storm when combined with a corporate media that spins in the favor of the facists ... I get your point that general service might mute the ability of this situation to occur in the future ... But, there is no doubt that it still could have occured with a draft ...

The problem is the general malaise of the country to let these people into power in the first place ... Again, this whole military thing was not on the radar when they crawled into office, and there were 100 reasons for people to not put them into power in the first place ... Their clear agendas to kill goverment, to kill SS ... Their hatred of americans, the polarization against gays for example ...

Jesus, the country somehow was dulled into accepting that a decent and intelligent man in AL Gore was an arrogant geek, and that a complete lunatic was "a guy you could have a beer with" as the basis for making him president ... Man, that is just flat being oblivious ...