U.S. Draft back in 2005?

[kohlmeyerdp]

no, it was to buck

 

[turtle_sc]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but in regards to the draft wasn't it only for the Army anyway. That's why so many people joined the Navy: to avoid becoming infantry for the Army.

 

[buck_ttu06]

All good points. But you also have to consider, with Spain pulling out, Dom. Rep. pulling out (while not significant military wise), and other countries considering pulling their troops from Iraq... are we not just as alone now as we were in WWII? We already make up practically the entire force their in the first place. We too were attacked, although not by a superpower, on 9-11. The death toll was just as lethal as it was at Pearl Harbor. Are we not fighting and losing men on a two front war like in WWII? Everyday we are losing men in Iraq & Afganistan. I know the numbers are no where near as high as they were in WWII, but no one is joining the Army like they were pre 9-11 either. The Army is struggling from all the reports I have seen. If we keep losing men at a rate of 100 a month like this month, where do you find replacements? Yes, the Army is still huge... but how many of those are accual combat troops? Very few compared to the whole. And according to all the politicans, we will remain in both Iraq & Afganistan for years, at a rate of 100 men a month dead (not to mention wounded!) what do you predict will happen? We will run out of Army grunts, pack up, and go home? I personally hope that the draft never comes... but I am seeing to many small echoes from history that make me think otherwise.

 

[Flash]

Actually the draft was introduced before WWII, in 1940. It was very controversial at the time, the first peacetime draft, and I think it barely passed renewal in the spring/summer of '41. Different times though.

 

[kohlmeyerdp]

Retention has actually increased since 9/11 and all the services have continued to meet annual recruitment goals. As long as people get paid more in the service than they do at whatever job they can get with a high school diploma (ie. McDonald's) they're going to enlist. As you can see on this forum, competition for commissions is fierce. This will only change if there is a HUGE increase in the KIA rate. And about the two-front war, it has been DOD policy since the inception of the Cold War to maintain the capability of fighting two major convential conflicts and one low-intensity conflict simultaneously. While reality has often fallen short of this, like we did under the Clinton administration, it shoudn't come as a huge surprise to the Pentagon.

 

[Flash]

Small echoes, that is a good way of putting it. The Army is not having as much trouble as some have portrayed, though it will probably get a lot worse. The biggest difference is scale. It sounds cold and cruel but 100 dead a month is not that large a number. Less than 600 killed in combat in both theaters in 2 years, nothing compared to numbers in a single day sometimes in WWII and a week in Vietnam. That difference in scale is the biggest argument against the draft. If the war was on a much larger scale I could see it happening, but we are not fighting an enemy with millions of troops.

I am really bored on duty.....again

 

[buck_ttu06]

I agree that people will continue to enlist for the reasons you listed. Hopefully the KIA rate will fall back down and enlistment will keep fresh guys coming in. If the pace of KIA's and wounded continue, I don't know how Washington would adjust to the problem. I have read that some people are not being allowed to retire from the military, those in areas that are critical and low on new recruits, mostly Army personnal. I don't know how much truth is in this, but it would not surprise me.

 

[Flash]

What is this "we fought WW II alone"? There were many Allied nations that fought alongside us from Australia to Belgium to Brazil in significant numbers, not just a 1000 here and there.

 

[kohlmeyerdp]

Again, they're akin to Japanese and Polish troops in Iraq today: minimal. When the US entered WWII, Britain was on its heels and there was no other major power fighting the axis. (Australia is a federation under the auspices of the British crown.)

 

[riley]

Retention rates (for the Army) are actually falling - figures listed in a USA Today article dated 15 April 2004 - "Iraq duty deters re-enlistment" state that "Through March 17, nearly halfway through the fiscal year, the Army fell about 1,000 short of meeting its goal of keeping 25,786 soldiers whose enlistments were ending or who were eligible to retire. That works out to a 96% retention rate.

Last year, the retention figure was 106% because more soldiers stayed than the Army had planned. The retention goal assumes that not all eligible to stay will remain."

(I know, I know - statistics can be used to make whatever point you want)

Let's face it - one can generally say that those of us aspiring to be officers are doing it more for love of country and because of the ideals and values we hold dear than for any monetary gain (maybe you also, like me, want to avoid the hell known as cubicle world/office space/dilbert). This is also prevalent for enlisted personnel as well, however - how many join up for the college money? Look at the case of the Wisconsin family - 3 sisters serving - one died. They were expecting an "easy" way to save money, go to college - make a better life - they weren't expecting combat and death. I don't have any problem with those that join for the college money - they are just working hard to make their lives better - but how many of them will really think twice about joining when they are likely to end up in a combat zone?

 

[buck_ttu06]

Aside from Australia, Canada, and Britain contributing major troops, all of the blood spilt getting into fortress Europe and all of the Japanese islands was American boys. Yes, soldiers from these other countries did a HUGE job helping us to win the war, but driving into the enemys area was for the most part American sacrafices. The only real exception I know of of Allied casualties on a large scale after America entered the war was of the British Airborne losing nearly 8,000 men after Operation Market Garden failed.

 

[Flash]

Aside from Australia, Canada, and Britain contributing major troops, all of the blood spilt getting into fortress Europe and all of the Japanese islands was American boys. Yes, soldiers from these other countries did a HUGE job helping us to win the war, but driving into the enemys area was for the most part American sacrafices. The only real exception I know of of Allied casualties on a large scale was after America entered the war was of the British Airborne losing nearly 8,000 men after Operation Market Garden failed.

Forget Russia or China? Talk about casualties, millions dead in both countries. Civilian and military. We would have not won the war as fast without the big red bear to the east. The occupied countries in Europe contributed a large number of troops, especially the French by the end of the war.

 

[buck_ttu06]

Yes and we can all see what an excellent soldier France produced in that era, they fell in six weeks!!!! Good point about Russia though. I do not mean to sound harse and that we did it all on our own, b/c obviously we didnt, nor do I think we could have.

 

[slasher]

Sure we were alone at first, but when the Soviets got into the fray, the Red Army engaged 70% of the German forces. They broke the Wehrmacht's back, not us.

 

[Flash]

You guys need to read a little more history and watch a little less History Channel. It wasn't just the British Empire that contributed troops to the fight. As I said before, Russia and China suffered horrific casualties that we can't even begin to imagine (millions, in Russia's case it is sometimes estimated up to 20-25 million), while tying down the bulk of the Axis forces (the Japanese had over a million troops in China, a million less for us to face on the islands of the Pacific). They are not the only ones, most of the forces in Italy were not American. They had a division from Poland (those who had escaped the Nazi occupation), and one from Brazil to name a few. A lot of the Commando groups formed by Britian were from particular countries like Belgium, Norway and even France. The Free French provided vital troops to Montgomery's Eighth Army in North Africa, and were some of his best troops. Montgomery also defeated Rommel at El Alamein with no American troops in 1942, and although a lot of his equipment was American at that time most of it was designed and built in Britian. On the other side of the world, the Commonwealth provided over 20% of the ships off Okinawa duing the invasion there in 1945.

Don't forget the massive resistance movements in Europe. At their peak in 1944, they tied down hundreds of thousands, yes that many, of German troops that could have been fighting us at Normandy. France and Yugoslavia were the most notable examples of this.

Finally, American casualty rates were by far the lowest of any of the major allied powers in WWII. Our 300 odd thousand dead pale in comparison to Russia, China and even Britian. Britian had tens of thoiusands of civilian casulties from German bombing alone.

Thinking that the US took most of the casualties and won the war with a little British help is a disservice to all of those who fought against the Axis.