# Draft should be reinstated



## PKO220 (May 8, 2007)

I remember back in the day when the draft was as common as getting a drivers license. You could sense a certain difference between someone who served and someone who didn't, they carried themselves in a different way. Today it's hard to tell who served and who didn't. People say they care, they buy ribbons, and debate on forums about who's American, and who's not. Whether your a liberal or conservative. But who protects America, volunteers that are willing to join for whatever reason they have. Bush would not have the problem with troop requirements if we still had a draft, a fair draft where every able bodied person would do his part both female and male. I was drafted along with many of my friends in the late 1960's, I didn't like it, shit my pants scared, but luckily survived. What I have seen and experienced since those days is a degeneration of true patriotism in this country. Did politicians make grave errors! absolutely, but stopping the draft was not the solution. Israel has mandatory service for both male and females, they are some of the best trained soldiers in the world. We need to reinstate some sense of discipline back into this country! The draft is a step in the right direction.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Personally I think that age 18 everone should have to serve 3 years active, then 3 years active reserve. It would do great good for the country, society, and those serving. First it would bolster the defense, second it would give job training, Third it would decrease entitlement programs, fourth it would reduce crime, fifth it would it would benifit the person. I would want boot camp to be like it was in 1967 instead of todays standards. At least they would learn how to paint it if it don't move.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I disagree for several reasons, both practical and philosophical.

1. Today's military is very complex and technological. Even a "trigger puller" infantryman must master complicated equipment like commo gear (like SINCGARS and MBITTR, neither of which are intuitive), computer programs like FBCB2, GPS units like DAGGR and PLGR, a wide variety of weapons from AT4 rocket launchers to crew-served machineguns, and various other things that take work and concentration. The Army's Future Combat System is even more technology-heavy. This is only a job for a motivated person who WANTS to be here, not some guy who got plucked off the street because his number came up in a lottery.

2. Being in the military doesn't make you a better person, or even more disciplined. Some of the best people I know never served a day of their lives in uniform. And it certainly doesn't make you conservative; I know lots of Kerry voters who serve(d) in the military, including one who just made general.

3. Conscription is pretty close to slavery. When you're conscripted, someone (in this case, the government) takes you - by force if necessary - away from the life you've chosen and makes you work for them without your consent. If you refuse, the guys with guns come and take you to jail. Is this really what we want in the free America we say we love? 

4. If a nation can't muster enough volunteers willing to fight for it of their own free will, then it doesn't deserve to exist, anyway. People vote with their feet - if a free nation can't inspire its own people to defend it, then it will fall by the wayside whether it has a draft or not.

I love America with all my heart, and I will do anything it takes to preserve it, including giving my life. I owe my country a debt I can never fully repay, for it has given me everything - liberty, security, wealth, a great home and family. And because I love freedom - and the country that exemplifies it - I would never point a figurative gun at someone and tell them they have to make the same choices I did.

As William Allen White said, "Liberty is the one thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it others."


----------



## PKO220 (May 8, 2007)

tony pasley said:


> Personally I think that age 18 everone should have to serve 3 years active, then 3 years active reserve. It would do great good for the country, society, and those serving. First it would bolster the defense, second it would give job training, Third it would decrease entitlement programs, fourth it would reduce crime, fifth it would it would benifit the person. I would want boot camp to be like it was in 1967 instead of todays standards. At least they would learn how to paint it if it don't move.


I agree with you 100%. I also realize that unless you lived and actually experienced those days, most people will probably balk at our beliefs. :smt023


----------



## PKO220 (May 8, 2007)

Mike Barham at Galco said:


> I disagree for several reasons, both practical and philosophical.
> 
> 1. Today's military is very complex and technological. Even a "trigger puller" infantryman must master complicated equipment like commo gear (like SINCGARS and MBITTR, neither of which are intuitive), computer programs like FBCB2, GPS units like DAGGR and PLGR, a wide variety of weapons from AT4 rocket launchers to crew-served machineguns, and various other things that take work and concentration. The Army's Future Combat System is even more technology-heavy. This is only a job for a motivated person who WANTS to be here, not some guy who got plucked off the street because his number came up in a lottery.
> 
> ...


First let me say that I appreciate your service to our country! Your resolve to join and serve when most will not. I also realize that technolgy plays a huge role in today's military operations. But if the draft was still in place people such as yourself would be able to do what you do best, while the lesser person would be relagated to a lesser, but essential position. In my day during the 60's and early 70's, it was common knowledge that the draftee made the better soldier. If more people felt as you do, we probably would not need the draft, but unfortunately I think we are coming up way short of our manpower reqiuirements. I wish you the best of luck and safe return. Thank you for your service.


----------



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

The draft for military service is a really bad idea for the reasons Mike cites.

I would, however, entertain the ideas along the lines of Heinlien's Starship Troopers - no service, no franchise.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Those unqualified for combat service does the support work, warehouse, painting, cleaning, everyone is capable of doing something.


----------



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

tony pasley said:


> Those unqualified for combat service does the support work, warehouse, painting, cleaning, everyone is capable of doing something.


The military has that sort of personnel now - they're called "civilians". Cheaper.


----------



## 2400 (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm going to put a time out on this thread until tomorrow. Then you guys can keep going. :smt033


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham has already stated most of the concerns and reasons why the draft is not a good idea. Another reason that people unwilling to fight do not belong in the military is that they dangerous to those that are actually there to do what needs to be done.

I don't know what you mean by "stopped the draft" as it's still exists though not currently being used. I have a Selective Service Registration card as proof of this(though mine is currently useless to the federal government if a draft were to be used again).


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

As far as people "unqualified for combat" being assigned to support roles:

Firstly, we already have civilian contractors for that, and as noted, they are less expensive. Also, they do a great job - because they WANT to be here. The chow here, for example, is provided by contractor KBR, and I have never had such good food in the military. It is so much better than the chow I've had prepared by Army cooks that comparisons are ridiculous.

Secondly, there are no "front lines" in modern warfare. See the Jessica Lynch thing, for example. Supply convoys and maintenance facilities are as likely to be attacked as an infantry patrol, if not moreso. Everyone has to be ready to fight, no matter their job or inclination toward combat. When I step outside the wire, no matter what my mission, I sure as hell don't want the guy next to me to be someone who got pulled off the block because he got unlucky in the draft lottery. I want that guy to be a skilled, dedicated, professional man-at-arms who believes in what he's doing.

The military's purpose is to fight - to kill people and break things, if you will. It is not some social training ground to make people more disciplined, offer job training, or decrease the welfare rolls. It's bad enough that various leftists want to make the military a model for social experimentation. We certainly don't need it from the right, as well. 

There are good reasons for distrusting a volunteer, professional standing army - the Founders certainly did. There is danger in having a "warrior caste" in any free society, the burden of defense is not shared equally throughout a society with a volunteer army, and an Army with all the guns can stage a coup and seize the government.

To me, however, none of these things justify robbing American citizens of their right to choose the course of their own lives without interference from the government. The freedom of Americans to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is the whole point of the founding documents of this country. The reason I joined the Guard was to defend the liberty I treasure. It would be the height of hypocrisy to advocate seizing that treasured liberty from a group of unlucky Americans.


----------



## Vom Kriege (May 5, 2006)

So, my eight plus years of service as a police officer mean nothing because I never served in the military? I reject that argument wholely.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Vom Kriege said:


> So, my eight plus years of service as a police officer mean nothing because I never served in the military? I reject that argument wholely.


Who mentioned police and what do police have to do with this discussion?


----------



## Thor (May 11, 2006)

The draft brought in a lot of slackers and ne'er do wells back in the day. Sure, they got a lot good people, too. I served post-draft and for twenty years. I agree wholeheartedly with Mike Barham. We have plenty of troops available. The "chicken little" thing in regards to our troop manning levels is something brought to fruition by some of the more radical left wingers. There is little need for a draft.


----------



## BAC (May 25, 2007)

Mike Barham said it better than I ever could. Well done.



Mike Barham at Galco said:


> I disagree for several reasons, both practical and philosophical.
> 
> 1. Today's military is very complex and technological. Even a "trigger puller" infantryman must master complicated equipment like commo gear (like SINCGARS and MBITTR, neither of which are intuitive), computer programs like FBCB2, GPS units like DAGGR and PLGR, a wide variety of weapons from AT4 rocket launchers to crew-served machineguns, and various other things that take work and concentration. The Army's Future Combat System is even more technology-heavy. This is only a job for a motivated person who WANTS to be here, not some guy who got plucked off the street because his number came up in a lottery.
> 
> ...


The strength of the U.S. military is because they want to be there. When men are injured, very often they _want_ to go back to their units. They _want_ to return to the fight. _Want_ is a powerful emotion; it is even more powerful when it is an innate feeling that drives it, as opposed to the much weaker "consumerism" want.

I respect the military of this country because they are considered among the best in the world and _are still free men who chose to be there_. They will fight long after hope appears to have gone, and I would trust my life to these men and women before I would to draftees and conscripts.

-B


----------



## Thor (May 11, 2006)

It's not "want". It's a sense of duty, esprit de corps, honor, doing the RIGHT thing and many other things that drive our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines.


----------



## JimmySays (Jun 8, 2007)

No draft. Raise military pay 100 to 150% and you will not only get good/better/best pick but the armed forces could retain these people. I have always been a patriot, but I am quite sure if I made better money I would have stayed in the service.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

I disagree with Mike. The draft would solve several problems. Maybe not they way they had it in 1967 stumbling around (politicians) trying to figure out HOW to to it, but in a way that most people could serve. Lord only knows where I would be had it not been for boot camp!!!! Probably living under a bridge! It sure made me change my way of thinking. :smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Charlie said:


> I disagree with Mike. The draft would solve several problems. Maybe not they way they had it in 1967 stumbling around (politicians) trying to figure out HOW to to it, but in a way that most people could serve. Lord only knows where I would be had it not been for boot camp!!!! Probably living under a bridge! It sure made me change my way of thinking. :smt1099


For every "draft success story" like this, though, how many people would be left bitter and disaffected because someone told them - under threat of imprisonment - they HAD to go get shot at for a cause they may or may not believe in? With the terrible unpopularity of the Iraq war, what percentage of draftees would end up so pleased with their service, rather than becoming bitter and disaffected?

As I stated in earlier posts, the military is _not_ a social service for wayward teens. It is a professional organization with the sole purpose of (or should be) waging war, not fixing the psychological problems of generations of American youth.

And regardless of how it affects draftees, the end does not justify the means. Even if the result is lots of well-rounded, hard-working, _conservative_ (the latter being the real goal, I suspect, of most pro-draft people) former soldiers, the draft is still morally wrong. It uses the force of government - the muzzle of a gun, in essence - to _force_ Americans to do something they would not otherwise do. This is a very short step from slavery, the _only_ difference being that the draftee is paid. This is something that should never occur in a free nation.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Good luck, Mike.


----------



## falshman70 (Jul 13, 2006)

I agree with raising military pay, but believe that public schools work against notions of patriotism and service. I believe some of it is the way America's history is taught, downplaying great events and battles and playing up the humdrum of eveyday life. Besides being boring, this creates a theme of the "march of history", making changes seem inevitable, not the work of inspired or great or selfless people. So young people either leave high school bored with history or drawing the wrong - PC - lessons.

I won't get into banishing prayer and references to our Creator.


----------



## Rob_TN (Jun 18, 2007)

I would not agree that forced military servitude would benefit our society our country as a whole. But then again, to be fair, I look at places like Korea. There all men after graduating high school must serve in the military for 2 years. If they don't pass the qualifications to be in the military then they're sent to civil service such as police, firemen, subway worker, etc. However, Korea is in a much different situation then we are.

There have only been a few times in America's history in which forced military servitude was the law. Those were times of catastrophic war. And yes, we are in a catastrophic war right now but most of our country and leaders don't realize it. But I can't imagine our military would be better off filled with bitter men and women who do not want to serve. Our great military would be weakened, slower, less adaptable, and less professional. A military filled with people who want to be there is a military that is willing to stand and fight until the last man to complete the mission. A military filled with bitter recruits will worry too much about saving their own skin and not fulfilling the mission. The mission must get completed at all costs and in general (but not all cases, of course) I'd trust a volunteer with it much more than a draftee.

Don't believe the anti-American media's Big Lie about troop levels. We have plenty. We just need to start closing up some bases in Old Europe and move them more towards the Middle East, Russia, and China. Our military is much larger than I ever thought it was before I joined. America is in good hands with our volunteers and I don't think it should change.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Rob_TN said:


> Don't believe the anti-American media's Big Lie about troop levels. We have plenty. We just need to start closing up some bases in Old Europe and move them more towards the Middle East, Russia, and China. Our military is much larger than I ever thought it was before I joined. America is in good hands with our volunteers and I don't think it should change.


Rob, I agreed with your post up until this point. We need to expand the Army and/or Marine Corps, because we need more groundpounders. I don't know if you served any time in the theater of battle. We are so short on troops that we have:

- Air Force and Navy guys doing combat patrols that should be done by Army or Marine infantry.
- National Guard and Reservists doing two, three, even four tours.
- Involuntarily reclassified entire Guard units (artillery, engineers, signal, etc.) into "Security Forces," which you can read as "Infantry."
- Involuntarily reclassified non-combat MOS soldiers (commo in the case of my unit) into Infantry.
- Extended active-duty Army tours from twelve months to fifteen.
- Extended National Guard and Reserve tours from six months to twelve, with some Guard units doing as long as eighteen months in-country.

None of this is an argument for a draft. But we desperately need to enlarge our combat-oriented force structure if we expect to keep up the current operational tempo without the military disintegrating. The Guard has already been rendered over 50% ineffective by the constant rotations, and equipment shortages are severe. The active components are next in line.

We've already drawn down in Korea. The units that replaced the 10th Mountain Division here in Afghanistan came from Germany and Italy. We're still short-handed.

Congress needs to authorize a bigger increase in end strength, and also funnel money away from giant technological boondoggles like the "Future Combat System" and into gear for the war we are currently fighting - not some hypothetical and totally unpredictable conflict thirty years down the road.

The current success in recruiting and retention proves that we can find and keep soldiers without resorting to a draft. We just need the Congressional will to do it.


----------



## Rob_TN (Jun 18, 2007)

Fair enough. I was never involved directly with ground forces so I'll defer to you, Mike. You are right, it is all dependent upon Congressional will. And I wouldn't count on this Congress doing anything that would help the military at all.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Rob_TN said:


> You are right, it is all dependent upon Congressional will. And I wouldn't count on this Congress doing anything that would help the military at all.


That's one reason I am getting out after this tour, along with the specter of a Democratic president.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

I also agree with Mike. Think about this proposition of a mandatory 3 year enlistment for high school graduates: you're talking about millions of recruits every year which 1) you don't need that many, and 2) could probably not pay. I like the idea of raising salaries for enlisted men and officers, at least for those in combat. That way men with the will to serve would feel fairly compensated. Good men, more of them, well paid.

In my experience, at least as an engineer, the military is not a very competitive option to private industry. I understand that the military is a sacrifice for your country, but you simply must pay for services rendered or you can expect a shortage of officers and enlisted men.

Furthermore, I dislike the idea of the government forcing a law-abiding citizen to do anything.


----------

