http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1152_Cabinet/400e5498-9c15-49a2-bf0a-457283213d3d.html
Looks like reenlistment is up too.
Looks like reenlistment is up too.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
U.S. Draft back in 2005?
- Thread starter buck_ttu06
- Start date
- Status
snizo
Supply Officer
If you have to force the people to serve to further the policy of a democratic government ... perhaps the policies aren't supported by the people and shouldn't be enforced.
Just a thought ... don't necessarily agree with it.
Anyway ...
I think a draft would be political suicide. Polls say that support for Bush's handling of Iraq is slipping (quickly). Approval dropped like 15 points since Jan (Gallup). Forcing a disapproving nation to do something won't help him in Nov.
Just a thought ... don't necessarily agree with it.
Anyway ...
I think a draft would be political suicide. Polls say that support for Bush's handling of Iraq is slipping (quickly). Approval dropped like 15 points since Jan (Gallup). Forcing a disapproving nation to do something won't help him in Nov.
Fly Navy said:
Sadly, FlyNavy has hit the nail on the head. The demarat libbies want the draft re-instated in hopes of getting the sons and daughters of the upper middles class through the upper class into the military. That's great, just what I would want, a spolied brat who is being forced to do a job he/she doesn't want to do when my life and the lives of those around me are on the line and we are having to depend on that punk to do the job, fantastic idea boys :icon_roll :icon_mi_5
Reinstituting the draft would actually reduce the effectiveness of the military. First, the nature of war has changed. We don't wage wars of attrition anymore. You can't just send a civilian to boot camp, hand him a rifle, and have him ready for war. Even the infantry is a lot more training intensive than it used to be. Most MOSs are technical in nature, and personally I don't want a draftee fixing the engines on my helo.
We don't rely on masses of troops to win our wars. The number of men (and likely women would be eligible this time, too) in the draft population FAR exceeds any conceivable number that could be effectively utilized. So how would you whittle that number down? College deferments and a draft lottery? That worked so great in Vietnam. Mandatory national service for the rest at home? Just what we need. A bunch of 20-year-olds planting trees on highway medians and other make-work jobs.
Yes, some of our volunteers aren't exactly rocket scientists, but guess what, they're still smarter, on average, than a similar random sample of the population. You think running a unit is hard now, try leading a bunch of delinquents, retards, and geeks who don't even want to be there. Better add that extra wing to the brig.
The military does need to be bigger, but that can easily be handled by just expanding the authorized end-strength of the military and budgeting for it. If we weren't so determined to give drugs to grandma, maintaining a national helium reserve and so forth, we could afford it.
We don't rely on masses of troops to win our wars. The number of men (and likely women would be eligible this time, too) in the draft population FAR exceeds any conceivable number that could be effectively utilized. So how would you whittle that number down? College deferments and a draft lottery? That worked so great in Vietnam. Mandatory national service for the rest at home? Just what we need. A bunch of 20-year-olds planting trees on highway medians and other make-work jobs.
Yes, some of our volunteers aren't exactly rocket scientists, but guess what, they're still smarter, on average, than a similar random sample of the population. You think running a unit is hard now, try leading a bunch of delinquents, retards, and geeks who don't even want to be there. Better add that extra wing to the brig.
The military does need to be bigger, but that can easily be handled by just expanding the authorized end-strength of the military and budgeting for it. If we weren't so determined to give drugs to grandma, maintaining a national helium reserve and so forth, we could afford it.
buck_ttu06
Registered User
Who knows what will happen. I agree that a volunteer armed forces is far superior to that of a drafted military. Nothing will happen until after this years elections, b/c any mention of a draft is political suicuide. We will all just have to wait and see what the future holds.
NCSU_Navy
Registered User
I am not sure if they did lower their standards, but when I thought I was Army bound back in November, college ops (or civilian OCS hopefuls) were not being accepted at all. You may need to register for the forum, but here is the thread...
http://armyocs.com/portal/modules.p...&start=0&sid=3cb45f5298f4d04ab63a368f523ee60d
http://armyocs.com/portal/modules.p...&start=0&sid=3cb45f5298f4d04ab63a368f523ee60d
just a side note my wife was in the Army and is now in the Inactive Ready Reserves. They are the last resort to be called up and usually if they're being called then a draft is coming. well she got a call this week from the army to be ready they've just activated 8000 IRR's for duty starting in June. She's not on that first list but if it keeps going that way i know she will be.
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
sorry, my post was irrelevant (didn't see page two!) 
Patmack18 said:
I was basing part of my earlier statement on the fact that every account I have seen on some politicians (Rep Rangel from New York is the guy who introduced a bill in the house a few months ago, it has gone nowhere) and their push to reinstate the draft was caveated with rebuttals from Rumsfeld and numerous flag officers that they don't want it. This includes the "liberal media".
buck_ttu06
Registered User
I am glad that you are so postive that this is only a "political" trick by the democrats to oust Bush. Personally I think this explanation is a joke (no offense to any of you who agree with this, we are all intitled to our opinions). I am a U.S. military history major and we have begun disscussing this issue in detail. If you look back in history, the draft has always been reinstated by Presidents who preach that it is not neccessary and will not happen. FDR, LBJ are prime examples. FDR spoke how "I have seen war and I hate war"... yet after Pearl Harbor guess what, BAM! You got the draft in full effect. If terrorist stike the U.S. again prior to the election (which Rice has began warning our country about) and try to persuade voters like they successfully did in Spain, then what would the happen? There is no guard left to active to help with the disastor aftermath of such an attack. LBJ said something to the effect that "I will not send our boys to fight a war that little asian men are capable of fighting themselves". What a hypocrite! History has proven that it DOES NOT matter what a President says, if it is in U.S. interests it will happen. Obviously the state of Iraq is in U.S. interests! I just find it humorous when people think it is just a trick to oust Bush, and that it is not a real issue, but a game piece used to cast a bad light on the Bush administration in order to win the election. If things continue on there present course, I believe we will see history repeat itself.
kohlmeyerdp
Registered User
Come on history major
The drafts you are referring to occurred after an attack by a major naval and world power (Japan) and, as I'm sure you know, Germany declared war on the US two days later, December 9, 1941. Two days previously we were isolationists and, suddenly, we stood alone (Britain was getting their asses kicked) against the two major world military powers. Likewise when Lincoln instituted the draft for the first time in US history it was in 1863 after two years of war and almost a quarter million deaths. We have lost just over 700 men and women since the war in Iraq began. While tragic, in the context of military history, it is virtually insignificant (400,000 died in WWII). The only reason difficulty has been perpetuated in Iraq is because political interests restrict the effective implementation of our military power. We can't exactly blow up the mosques in Fallujah, but we could; therefore, what good is a draft? Of course, units are being overdeployed and stretched, but the problem is well in hand.
The drafts you are referring to occurred after an attack by a major naval and world power (Japan) and, as I'm sure you know, Germany declared war on the US two days later, December 9, 1941. Two days previously we were isolationists and, suddenly, we stood alone (Britain was getting their asses kicked) against the two major world military powers. Likewise when Lincoln instituted the draft for the first time in US history it was in 1863 after two years of war and almost a quarter million deaths. We have lost just over 700 men and women since the war in Iraq began. While tragic, in the context of military history, it is virtually insignificant (400,000 died in WWII). The only reason difficulty has been perpetuated in Iraq is because political interests restrict the effective implementation of our military power. We can't exactly blow up the mosques in Fallujah, but we could; therefore, what good is a draft? Of course, units are being overdeployed and stretched, but the problem is well in hand.
I am not sure if the above post was directed at me but that was not the point of my last post, it was to point out that the press has given both points of view. Rangel's bill is just one of the proposals put forth by many people to reinstate the draft, not just liberals. Rangel has stated that the reason he put forth his proposal is to make the well to do share the burden with the predominately less well to do military. That is his reasoning, again one of only many who have put this idea forth.
As far as your historical argument for the draft, I don't buy it (I was a history major too). In the past, many flag officers have advocated it and pressed for while the political leaders have avoided it, not the case today. Levee en masse has lost its importance since the French introduced it after their Revolution. No longer can we rely on the general populace for a quick and easy solution to our manpower issues. The combat arms branches of the Army that were the main beneficiaries of the levee, especially the infantry, are now a very small minority (a lot smaller than you think) of the military instead of the vast majority. They are also much better trained and have to be much smarter than the infantryman of old. While we still need boots on the ground, we just don't need that many infantryman to charge the hill anymore. I would almost argue that we don't need more infantryman in Iraq right now, more Gendarme/Caribineri/MP types. That is another debate though.
While units like the 101st Airborne from WW II (Band of Brothers) would probably do okay in todays enviroment, the military is no longer populated with some of the people who existed in the draft era military. Read Powell's and Schwarzkopf's biographies and it will give you a glimpse of what the Army used to be like. One of them had an alcoholic Company Commander who had been in for 20 years and they had numerous problems with some of the draftees, many who had criminal records and some with IQ's below average. We don't have that in today's military (occasional exceptions).
One last thing, take a look at some of the people who have put forth arguements against the draft, some pretty experienced people. You will find very few active duty guys with more than a few years in in favor of the draft, we like our troops as volunteers.
As far as your historical argument for the draft, I don't buy it (I was a history major too). In the past, many flag officers have advocated it and pressed for while the political leaders have avoided it, not the case today. Levee en masse has lost its importance since the French introduced it after their Revolution. No longer can we rely on the general populace for a quick and easy solution to our manpower issues. The combat arms branches of the Army that were the main beneficiaries of the levee, especially the infantry, are now a very small minority (a lot smaller than you think) of the military instead of the vast majority. They are also much better trained and have to be much smarter than the infantryman of old. While we still need boots on the ground, we just don't need that many infantryman to charge the hill anymore. I would almost argue that we don't need more infantryman in Iraq right now, more Gendarme/Caribineri/MP types. That is another debate though.
While units like the 101st Airborne from WW II (Band of Brothers) would probably do okay in todays enviroment, the military is no longer populated with some of the people who existed in the draft era military. Read Powell's and Schwarzkopf's biographies and it will give you a glimpse of what the Army used to be like. One of them had an alcoholic Company Commander who had been in for 20 years and they had numerous problems with some of the draftees, many who had criminal records and some with IQ's below average. We don't have that in today's military (occasional exceptions).
One last thing, take a look at some of the people who have put forth arguements against the draft, some pretty experienced people. You will find very few active duty guys with more than a few years in in favor of the draft, we like our troops as volunteers.
- Status