15 total posts
I on the other hand am all for a draft!
It levels the playing field. It helps a lot of immature kids grow up. It provides people power to our armed forces. It helps reduce teenage unemployment and in some areas destroys teenage crime.
So what is your problem with it?
I and thousands of others were caught in the draft back in the early 1950's and before that in WW2. Sat naked and shivered at NYC's famous Whitehall St. and were subjected to a battery of physical and written tests. And then for most of us it was on to basic training! Something which made you grow up real fast!
Conscription is not a sign of democracy
I served my time too. I feel everyone should take a turn but it should be a choice they make based on their liberty, not one shoved down their throat by the establishment.
One line of thought is that the lack of the draft is one reason you don't see antiwar rallies as there were during the Vietnam (conflict, war?)
With an all volunteer army, the thought is that you don't rile the population. Or that without it the population that wants no part of war has a choice.
Rangel said the draft would require ``a couple of years'' of service in the military or in other public agencies.
Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. http://www.house.gov/rangel/bio.shtml
he has walked the walk, not talked the talk. I give his thoughts more weight than the 'chickenhawks'
I was subject to the draft and joined the air national guard 66-72, stateside duty. I was very much in favor of ending a draft.
a draft in a democracy forces you to serve in a conflict that you believe is right or wrong. it also prevents the creation of a 'private' force that blindly follows their leaders. it involves the entire nation in the debate regarding policy. more important now that preemption has become a method to achieve the goals of an administration. if you go to a shopping mall today, you would never know a couple hundred thousand citizens were living and dying in a land that is on few 'must vacation there' lists. just keep the gas cheap, so we can shop 'til we drop. "I will die without a playstation 3" is a pathetic plea.
'join the army' was also a way for young men to straighten their path and remove themselves from undesirable elements in their neighborhoods. crime, broken families, poverty, and lack of beneficial role models are some examples. it taught discipline, team work and values unknown to many. it was a wonderful way to experience americans different from the ones back home. during basic my best buddy was from ft smith arkansas. I was from chicago. we said: "really", "no way", "me too" and "wow, I never heard that before" etc. we were now in an adult version of a boy scout jamboree. we teamed up and did our best to keep our TI off our backs. I still believe 'basic training' should be mandatory, add military service if you like. I think it was one of the best things I ever did.
I do not think the pentagon or the general population will favor a draft. the pentagon does not want to lose the benefit of 100% 'yes,sirs' and the latter wants a free ride on brave backs. "hell no, we won't go" is now a silent refrain.
While I understand.....
....the point he's trying to make, at this point it's hard to believe he's serious, especially with the 2008 campaign coming.
Someone should remind him that the Democrats accused the Bush Administration of planning to bring back the draft, and weren't happy about the prospect.
I'd have to guess that he's just going to introduce the bill so he can make a speech, and then it will be voted down.
RE: Democrats accused the Bush Administration...
But that was the Bush administration. (Which BTW, never did such.) It's alright if the Demmies do it.
As you suggested. It's just so he can make speaches. Not for a vote. Besides, nearly the entire Congress is against him on this.
Sorta on the fence.
I certainly prefer an all volunteer military.
#! : Though there has been considerable downsizing of the services, they were not basically stripped of readiness capability as they were following WWI, WWII, and Korea. (Maybe it dawned that there is no 'war to end all wars.")
#2: People volunteer for various reasons. Some are interested in the educational opportunities. Some in training to transfer to civilian jobs. Some look upon the services as a profession. And some act out of patriotism.
#3: A high school diploma or GED is required for enlistment.
As for a possible draft....
I suspect that future battles will not likely to be between uniformed armies, but more guerilla-type waged by those who look like the non-combatants, and are hard to identify
Now I have concerns about how thinly our troops are stretched. And they are!
Though I can understand it can and has been necessary to nationalize some National Guard units, it seems that more have been nationalized than before. I HOPE that the Guardsmen that return are given the medical care and support they need as offered to the regulars.
I just heard a General testifying in a hearing that we can't support more than the number of troops we have already on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a mind-set in some that we don't need a strong military now that the Cold War is over. I consider that unreasonable, as we have seen the tactics used by insurgents/terrorists.
Over 50 years ago in my high school we debated universal military service. I supported it then, and still see merit in it.
Regardless, voices will continue to be raised about the costs of maintaining strong forces.
I still like the all volunteer mode.
click here to email
reply to: Sorta on the fence.
Lately it seems like the "Cold War" may be rebounding thanks to Putin.
As for "I HOPE that the Guardsmen that return are given the medical care and support they need as offered to the regulars".
I learned at the Durham, NC VAMC that they will qualify for care/treatment of any conditions that even [may] have resulted from duty for two years following their return. And care/treatment of any proven service related conditions for life. I just hope Uncle Sam follows through on it.
As I understood general abaza's statements, basically support for more ground troops is simply unfounded.
As far as "voices will continue to be raised about the costs of maintaining strong forces". I've a feeling many of these "voices" may never understand the "costs" of freedom and liberty until it's nearly too late, which to some degree has been the case in every American war including the WW's. Worse than forgeting history is repeating it. But still we do it every time.
OBTW, be careful about being "Sorta on the fence." It's easy to teeter too far one way or the other, or to split something.
For a number of years now
I have seriously supported the 'mandatory enlistment' for all high school graduates, including women. Every citizen should know the responsibilities, pride, comaraderie, trust of 'buddies', etc that go hand-in-hand with the freedoms we enjoy in this country. I've suggested my views on this before in this forum without getting much support for it, but I still believe if it works in other countries, it can work here well. This would handily eliminate the need of a disliked and unsupported draft as all citizens would have their number called up upon graduation....to either continue with their education immediately and then serve in that capacity for a specific amount of time, or simply serve immediately wherever they are best suited for the branch they choose and have their obligation over with.
RE 'mandatory enlistment'
But still only the best qualified should ever be inducted.
Another alternative would be a
drafted work force similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps, where those who don't want to fight can do public service at home doing various jobs.
I would support it if.....
...they were limited to drafting only those between the ages of 30 and 50.
That would allow the younger men to marry and have children before having
to face death and ensure the next generation could better understand the
inherent evils of conscription. I also think if the mandatory age was
for that range we'd NEVER see conscription again in what's supposed to
be a democratic republic other than for homeland defense. Also not allow
any exceptions for those serving in Congress at the time. If you are elected
and your number comes up, enjoy what you've offered to others and someone
else can take your place in Congress. I volunteered, but I never would
have wanted anyone there beside me who didn't commit himself to be there.
Conscription is an unnecessary evil and only should be seen anymore under
despotic regimes who have no other means to retain their power, so it
can be seen for what it truly is.
I agree with three of your ideas
1. "we'd NEVER see conscription again in what's supposed to
be a democratic republic other than for homeland defense."
2. "Also not allow any exceptions for those serving in Congress at the time. If you are elected and your number comes up, enjoy what you've offered to others and someone else can take your place in Congress"
(I would not limit the exceptions to only congress though, but I like your angle)
3. "allow the younger men to marry and have children before having
to face death and ensure the next generation could better understand the inherent evils of conscription."
(my pov would broaden this to include: and wars that are not self defense or unjustified preemptive wars.)
I think volunteer armies(taxpayer funded private mercenaries?} may be used by our elected executives to control and implement their personal foreign or domestic policies.(another reason for 2nd amendment)
RE: 30 and 50,allow the younger men to marry etc.
Many, maybe most folks can't stay married much less raise children.