Constructive gadfly
Published on October 2, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Just before WW II the draft was enacted and remained through peacetime and wars until Nixon ended it toward the close of Vietnam. Until then all males 18-25 had to register. In those days, because of the magnificent achievement of draftees during the big war, no one thought of the services made up predominantly through selective service as an ineffective force. The draft was actually considered an excellent way for the nation’s youth to take on responsibility and grow in character, while the DOD simultaneously saved huge sums by token stipends.

The perception has changed by the entrenchment of all-volunteer armed services. The advantage is that with relatively high pay, along with supporting families on base, morale is higher and the troops better trained by virtue of longer tours. On the other hand, voluntary service is infinitely costlier and yet if a global hot war broke out the numbers would not be there to handle it and would definitely lead to the return of the selective service to fill the gap. Even now with a relatively limited war the armed forces are already spread thin and render the nation vulnerable.

If, as is supposed, the threat of terrorism is on everyone’s mind, then the draft of single males and females should be reenacted, if not for combat readiness, at least as supportive personnel to free regulars from pencil pushing and mess halls to be trained for combat duty. This would not only enhance the availability of combat forces on alert, but would instil a truer sense of sacrifice and patriotism among the draftees.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 2, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 06, 2004
It is only normal for soldiers to pursue something outside (including getting out and getting a job) the 'military lifestyle' but you can't confuse that with those who are voting for Kerry, two way different things.

That is where I think some are getting their numbers for military supposed Kerry Voters. The reasoning behind that is because a soldier wants out of the military he must be voting for Kerry, I don't think that is the case but an entirely different subject.

- GX
on Oct 06, 2004

You may live in a different area or maybe your "Vote for Kerry sign" on your lawn brings out the small percentage of disgruntled soldiers.


I don't have one.  I'm not a democrat, and if I could vote, I'd be a Bushie voter without a doubt (until I take the citizenship test, I can't vote)....and yes, it did come off sounding snotty, but that's okay.  We all sound like that sometimes...


I agree with your assertion that the numbers of soldiers supposedly voting for Kerry are wildly skewed.  I don't think anyone I have spoken to (who's active duty military) has said that they're voting for him.  People in the military know which side their bread is buttered, they remember the raping that Clinton did, and are understandably afraid that Kerry will pick up where Slick Willie left off.


That being said, the majority of people I have spoken to are not really satisfied with the state of affairs.  I see a lot of first termers getting out, and I hear a lot of career-NCO's saying that if they didn't have so much to lose (pension, lifetime health benefits etc) then they'd have got out before now.  People are overworked, overdeployed, and under-benefitted, and they're getting tired of it.

on Oct 06, 2004
People are overworked, overdeployed, and under-benefitted, and they're getting tired of it.


The story of the US Military, you figured this would have been fixed by now or a while back, heck they still even have most of the units in Cold War Formations (Tank Heavy / Infantry Light) and are just now starting to transition some of the units (not all) into the new modular formation. Sure takes time in the military to get things done that affect itself, though it takes no time at all to kick another country's behind.

- GX
on Oct 06, 2004

Sure takes time in the military to get things done that affect itself, though it takes no time at all to kick another country's behind.


Yeah, it's the standard "hurry up and wait" party line.


 

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #34 By: dharmagrl - 10/6/2004 6:39:47 PM
Sure takes time in the military to get things done that affect itself, though it takes no time at all to kick another country's behind.



Yeah, it's the standard "hurry up and wait" party line.

A little old time naval humor.

It been that way since Moses had the helm watch. The Lord said let there be light, and Moses reached over and flipped the light switch. And then said "Is that good Lord"?
on Oct 06, 2004

@ drmiler.....


Seriously though, this thread has gone way off track.  Steven's original article was about the draft.....I have to agree with the last paragraph.  I'm all for putting people into homeland postions so that the 'regular' enlistees can go off and do what they were trained to do. 


I don't know why that's not the way it works with Reservists now.  As it is, we're sending semi-trained, semi-militarified (I made that word up, d'ya like it?!) folks off to fight battles that they're unqualified to fight.

on Oct 06, 2004
I don't know why that's not the way it works with Reservists now. As it is, we're sending semi-trained, semi-militarified (I made that word up, d'ya like it?!) folks off to fight battles that they're unqualified to fight.


I'm so with you on that, dharma.
on Oct 07, 2004
Texas Wahine, dharmagrl, drmiler, and Grim Xiozan

Sorry, for not replying since lunch time. Life has over taken me for the next two days.

I also know of the hard conditions that a young soldier faces. I myself do not see how a E-3 and below can effectively raise a family. Yet alone having them forced in by a draft. My first paychecks was only $351.00. The Military pay has increased more in the last four years then any other time since after WWII (percentage wise). But I know it can still be hard at the lower end. Which most draftees would be.

But I must admit that I did leave service for a short time, but returned when some very interesting jobs became available. Some day I will write a post about my time working in Russia. There are some things going on in Russia recently that has me a little worried. Maybe I will write a post on that too, i.e. No longer will Russian states elect Governors, but they will be appointed by the Russian President.

Now back to the subject of this post:

Below is an article (a long one if you got time) about Russia's attitude about conscription. Read them and think if you want a draft back.

Link


Link

I know they are not the best, because I have read many better and more to the point, but they are good for the short time it took for me to dig them up though.


That's My Two Cents
on Oct 07, 2004
Sorry if I came off snoty. I do respect everybodies opinion. Even if I do not agree with them.

Again I hope, I did not offend too many people lately.
Tongue in cheek comment, I presume?
on Oct 07, 2004
She's talking to the same kind of people I'm talking to. People who are walking the walk, and are serving their country, not just those who sit around and talk. People are getting out left and right, basically because they're getting treated like shit. Underpaid, overdeployed, overworked, undertrained....the benefits aren't what they used to be; you can see your medical benefits being whittled away before your eyes. Where are you getting your numbers from? We're getting ours from the horses mouths.
Beautiful! Keep up the fight, dharma!
on Oct 07, 2004
The draft is not feasible.

For the simple reason that it takes years to train an individual to the level of degree that he will be effective in battle.

Accelerated training will only produce less skilled combat personnel, which will have an adverse impact on mission accomplishment.

Unless you condone cannon fodder, military strength numbers are not a goal to meet just for numbers sake.

The problem associated with draftees in the past is not anything that commanders today have a willingness to contend with.

A more methodical increase in troop strength through yearly recruitment increments with incentives, and retention incentives will provide a more balanced force structure.

Any ideas that draftees could or should have less combat oriented jobs such as homeland positions is akin to bootlicking.

Homeland positions can and for the most part are starting to be filled by A76 studies resulting in civilian contractors.

The Guard and Reservists are trained to do exactly the same thing that the “regulars” do. If they are found wanting then they should have taken their training a little bit more seriously, trained more and harder.

If your leader, or those who want and hope to be your leader, actually cared as much as they say they do about military personnel then they would be fighting tooth and nail to restore pay and benefits to a more equitable level. Alas, what you hear about is the deficit, which needs to be brought under control. And what is the first thing you think they are going to cut to help lower the deficit?

The draft is not the answer.

on Oct 07, 2004
Sorry if I came off snoty. I do respect everybodies opinion. Even if I do not agree with them.

Again I hope, I did not offend too many people lately.


Tongue in cheek comment, I presume?


Actually Steve I'm serious. It does me no good turning this debate into a yelling match and unfortunately I though that I had started it down that road. A good steady dialog go allot farther then yelling.

I do hope that you were thinking the same way with your face. But I'm not sure because the next post you egged on an attack.

Beautiful! Keep up the fight, dharma!


I am sure dharm, Texas and I can debate calmly over another post at another time that is more appropriate to the subject.

That's My Two Cents




on Oct 07, 2004
In case any are not aware of the latest on the Draft Bill HR 163,(even if you are, this is for the people who aren't), It was killed, shot on sight, DOA, in the House of Representives yesterday by a vote of 402 against to 2 for it. Charles Rangel D-NY, the author of the Draft Bill, would not even vote for what he put on the floor last year.

Those of you old enough to remember Saturday morning Schoolhouse Rock's "Bill", imagine him running on fire and no one giving him a drop of water. The Bill is dead. Hopefully this issue and rumor of a draft will now do the same.
on Oct 07, 2004

The Guard and Reservists are trained to do exactly the same thing that the “regulars” do. If they are found wanting then they should have taken their training a little bit more seriously, trained more and harder.


They're 'trained' (and I use the term very loosely) and then they're turned back into civilians again.  They use their training one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year (and that's being generous), not every day like regulars do.  They're part-timers, and IMO they're not qualified.  I can say with honesty that I have yet to meet one reservist who got activated who actually knew that the heck he was doing. Most of them don't even know how to salute or come to attention properly, let alone do their job.


People who don't take their jobs seriously, who don't train hard enough, are kicked out of active duty.  The military doesn't want them.  Why should it be any different with reservists?

on Oct 07, 2004

Reply #44 By: dharmagrl - 10/7/2004 12:44:34 PM
The Guard and Reservists are trained to do exactly the same thing that the “regulars” do. If they are found wanting then they should have taken their training a little bit more seriously, trained more and harder.



They're 'trained' (and I use the term very loosely) and then they're turned back into civilians again. They use their training one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year (and that's being generous), not every day like regulars do. They're part-timers, and IMO they're not qualified. I can say with honesty that I have yet to meet one reservist who got activated who actually knew that the heck he was doing. Most of them don't even know how to salute or come to attention properly, let alone do their job.


People who don't take their jobs seriously, who don't train hard enough, are kicked out of active duty. The military doesn't want them. Why should it be any different with reservists?


Which is why most active duty refer to them as "Weekend Warriors" and do so with ALOT of scorn in their voice!
4 Pages1 2 3 4