Military Draft

[leftysergeant]

Ideally, the draftees would be obligated to active duty for only as long a period as it would take to train the soldier in basic combat skills and to go out to the field for one major training exercise and then to recurring drill for the next several years. This would give us the sort of military formation the founders appear to have intended, more like the colonial militia than today's standing armies.

Then we could reduce the size of the standing forces, cut it down to mostly admin, training, quick response and logistical units.

If the compost hits the ventilating device, each governor starts calling up the first available units and marches them down to the marshalling point for deployment.

Works for everybody else.

 

[theprestige]

Rightwingers are basicly cowards. I doubt they would be so eager to beat the war drum if they thought they might have to march to it as well.

That explains why there's so many right-wingers in today's all-volunteer army. Oh, wait... no it doesn't.

It might be a deterrent to domestic terrorism...

So a solution in search of a problem, then?

Might actually help cure some of the divisions in our culture.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of the armed forces is not to promote tolerance and understanding, but rather to find interesting new people and kill them. But I agree: There's nothing like giving them a common enemy for bringing diverse groups together.

 

[Cleon]

Unless you want a standing army of 15 million or so we can't draft evey able-bodied 18 year old kid.

If you have a smaller army you have to fill it up entirely with draftees who probably don't want to be there, while the people who do want to be there can't join. Not a smart way to construct your army.

Yeah. My understanding is that with the European conscription laws, generally the draftees can (and often do) opt for a more civil service-oriented position rather than full military service. That's why a country like Spain can have conscription and not have military installations the size of Barcelona.

(I'm sure some European will correct me if I've gotten that horribly wrong.)

IMHO, the armed forces should be built according to military needs, not political ones.

This. Regrettably, however, the military is ultimately run by politicians, and you know what flows downhill.

 

[SezMe]

but what about the quality? I figure our soldiers are better now than during the draft, as they CHOSE to be there and re-enlist, as opposed to being forced under punishment of prison.

Here's an analysis of the draft v. volunteer from the congressional budget office.

This might be a more biased analysis:

Further evidence that the war in Iraq is wrecking the U.S. Army: Recruiters, having failed to meet their enlistment targets, are now being authorized to pursue high-school dropouts and (not to mince words) stupid people.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Sadly, the deed is done, and in 50 or 100 years, you can expect more of a European super-state brushing aside local nations' desires with a pat on the head, oh how quaint.

It's not going to happen.

 

[WildCat]

This might be a more biased analysis:

Thanks to the economy, the quality of recruits has greatly increased. In fact, the army has just shut down its prep school which helped recruits get GEDs, since it is no longer needed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcVhfD69bQnu34r5qz8EriN1kBQwD9HR1IIG4

 

[Drysdale]

Very few right-wingers ever serve, and they are not the solid majority in the military that you suspect.

What army were you in? I did'nt find that to be the case at all.
Apparently Gore did'nt believe that either as he fought so hard in 2000 to exclude the overseas military ballots in Fla.

 

[Lurker]

What army were you in? I did'nt find that to be the case at all.

Agreed. I have two friends in the Air Force, both liberals and officers and they say they are in the minority. A small minority.

Apparently Gore did'nt believe that either as he fought so hard in 2000 to exclude the overseas military ballots in Fla.

Um, he was working to exclude the military ballots that did not meet legal requirement. Gore was asking that the ballots abide by the law.

 

[KingMerv00]

Very few right-wingers ever serve, and they are not the solid majority in the military that you suspect.

Do you have statistics on this?

Edit: Nevermind. I do.

Republicans 41%
Independents 32%
Democrats 27% (Not mentioned but arrived at by subtraction.)

41% is not "very few". Would you like to retract your statement now, lefty?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Excellent! The newest I could find was a 2003 poll.

So comparing the numbers to the general population (July numbers)

31.8% of US is Republican, 41% of Military is Republican.

35.4% of US is Democratic, 27% of Military is Democratic

32.8% of US is Independant, 32% of Military is Independant

It seems Republicans are perfectly willing to fill the ranks of the military.

 

[KingMerv00]

Excellent! The newest I could find was a 2003 poll.

So comparing the numbers to the general population (July numbers)

31.8% of US is Republican, 41% of Military is Republican.

35.4% of US is Democratic, 27% of Military is Democratic

32.8% of US is Independant, 32% of Military is Independant

It seems Republicans are perfectly willing to fill the ranks of the military.

Keep in mind that some independents still favor one party over another. If even 10% of those mentioned above lean right, then right wingers make up the majority of the armed forces...the cowards.

 

[Spindrift]

The last thing the armed services want is a draft. They don't need just warm bodies to march en masse towards the next trench. They don't want people who don't want to be there.

On the other hand it might be a good idea to have everyone do some kind of service, but with a country of this size, I'm not sure it's feasible.

 

[Suddenly]

The last thing the armed services want is a draft. They don't need just warm bodies to march en masse towards the next trench. They don't want people who don't want to be there.

On the other hand it might be a good idea to have everyone do some kind of service, but with a country of this size, I'm not sure it's feasible.

It suffers from the same problems. If something needs done, in the long run it is better to hire people that become specialists than to rotate groups of conscripted random youngsters through.

 

[Spindrift]

It suffers from the same problems. If something needs done, in the long run it is better to hire people that become specialists than to rotate groups of conscripted random youngsters through.

There are examples on smaller scales of successfully rotating groups. The Mormons and their requirement of missionary service for one. With their growth it seems to be successful.

The problem of national service would be indentifying a large amount of positions that could be filled on a rotating short-term (2 year?) basis where the person would not need extensive training to be successful. Perhaps if there were a wide range of positions available it might work.

I really do like the idea of national service, but alas I believe you are correct. If there's something we need done, hire people who want to do it in the first place. Conscripting people will just end up with people being forced to do jobs they don't want to do, resulting in poor quality and general waste of effort.

 

[Region Rat]

Keep in mind that some independents still favor one party over another. If even 10% of those mentioned above lean right, then right wingers make up the majority of the armed forces...the cowards.

Obviously all of the right wingers are officers who got their commissions from their connected fat cat upper crust investor class parents, who cowardly send the lowly poor left wing shock troops into battle while they sip martinis in the officers club.

 

[dc1971]

Hi.

I've noticed that some advocates on the left wing advocate having military conscription (draft) in America, so as to make it harder to support wars (if you or someone close to you has to fight in the war, then maybe it'll make you reconsider it). Do you think this'd really accomplish that goal, esp. with the current culture? Or could it embolden corrupt "leaders" to launch even bigger and grander wars due to the surplus of manpower that would be provided? Would it kill the economy (more than it's already been "killed")?

Who are these advocates on the left you talk of?

 

[dc1971]

Michael Moore, as well:

"In closing, I support the draft because it is a balanced way to fill our military branches ranks. As our nation claims to be a land of equal opportunity it should only be fitting that every class of society share the burdens of military service."

http://www.helium.com/items/348815-the-case-for-reinstating-the-military-draft-in-the-usa

There will never ever be a draft so long as I you or I live.

We live in an age of advertising and slick salesmen. Have you ever watched TV commercials for the Army or any other armed services? They are well packaged and so convincing. Young kids lap this stuff up! I remember being harassed by recruiting officers from all four armed services upon graduating from high school. They were slick, they talked slick. Today's recruiter, from what I have learned, are even slicker!

 

[leftysergeant]

The officer corps is heavily right-leaning, but the lower enlisted, those who just do the minimum and move on, tend to be far more left-leaning than the officers and senior enlisted. The experience of serving sends a lot of them to the left. I have noticed a lot of people around here who used to think Republicans were more to be trusted with military powers, until they learned the awful truth about Rummy. (Need any better example of why I don't want Republicans running the DoD?)

On the average, here, I find that more of the liberals that I know have served than have the rightwingers. It is largely the military vote that keeps Patty Murray in the Senate and Norm Dicks in the House. We know who has our backs, on active duty or retired status.

 

[Beerina]

It appears that the mandatory draft helped make opposition to the Vietnam War more virulent, while having no such effect on WWII. If we grant that WWII was a "just" war and Vietnam "injust," our experience would be consistent with the idea that mandatory conscription makes foreign policy more democratic.

But there are a lot of assumptions in there which could unravel pretty easily. For one, the Vietnam war lasted over 10 years - shorter than US involvement in WWII. So, if the draft helped end the Vietnam War, it certainly didn't do it very efficiently.

WWII they also went balls-out in Europe and the Pacific. In Vietnam, they played games with the lives of Americans in not bombing here or there, or north of this latitude, or not bomb Hanoi itself, blah blah keep dying Americans while we fiddle with the details so we look good in front of the press.

Which, you'll note, didn't work out anyway.

 

[Beerina]

Hint to Europe: The US federal government was never intended to be a monolithic entity, either, with each state reserving tremendous, sovereign power unto itself. It was an economic union of free trade and a defensive union, and not much else. It grew because it could, as an additional vector to power for the power hungry.

Do not introduce such a new vector over Europe as a whole. Sadly, the deed is done, and in 50 or 100 years, you can expect more of a European super-state brushing aside local nations' desires with a pat on the head, oh how quaint.

We know. Heck this is a declaired aim of a fair number of groups with EU involvement.

They do face a number of barries though:

For some reason eastern europe is distrustful of superstates.
Germany is too productive
Significant chunk of the UK just hates everything south of Dover.
The level of corruption and incompetence is high enough that even those in favor of the idea are having a hard time supporting it.

One thing in Europe's favor are millenia-deep local and national identities, especially w.r.t. other countries, as well as different languages. In the US, the states were very similar comparatively, perhaps making the formation of a national identity a smoother process, allowing the massive, slow but inexorable growth in power of the federal government.