Is There A Draft In Here .... ???

[A4sForever]

(NOTE: I put this on the "Women in Combat" thread and as a result launched into the question --- SHOULD WE RE-INSTITUTE THE DRAFT ???

Barring Women From Combat Support Would Shortchange Military

Friday, May 20, 2005

By Martin Frost

...... The religious right (*opinion: HUH ?? The Religious Right?? *) is pushing a change in military policy regarding the role of women in combat that has the potential to cripple our current military efforts in Iraq. The change, which was written into the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill by the full House Armed Services Committee on May 18, will be voted on by the full House in the very near future.

The change will prohibit female soldiers from being assigned to units involved in close combat support. This could prohibit women from driving trucks in convoys, serving as vehicle mechanics or working as MPs in the field. Estimates are that as many as 22,000 women would have to be reassigned if this became law.

For the rest of the article check the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157095,00.html

DISCLAIMER: Martin Frost used to be my US Congressman when I lived in Texas --- I have dealt with him on a personal level when I was a political hack for Reagan in Dallas in 1980. My opinion: Martin Frost is a manipulating, sour, can't-do-anything-else, P.O.S. political-hack, Having said that:

Soooooo ..... if (former) Rep. Frost's assertion has validity, one could come to the conclusion that:

Is it time to bring back the U.S. military draft????

 

[Physicx]

I hope not.Its getting scary now that they have one year enlistments.

 

[eddie]

I hope not.Its getting scary now that they have one year enlistments.

Umm, how does one get ahold of one of those? I have not seen short enlistments less than two years with selres time after active.

EDIT: I take that back, the Army is now offering 15 month hitches followed by two years reserve/guard, and then IRR til your eight years are up.

I'll wait for some other wisdom before I say anything about the draft.

 

[Grant]

With the draft, you'll get a bunch of folks in the military that dont really want to be there. Therefore, we'll have an unmotivated fighting force.

A plan that I like is making a 2 year enlistment mandatory in order to receive any sort of federal tuition assistance for college, contingent on a honorable discharge. I think it would provide incentive for people to give quality, honorable service. Such a plan would never work, though, cause liberals will ***** and cry and block any attempt to institute it.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Having never experienced a military in which we had draftees, I can't say how good or bad it is ... what's your opinion A4s?

 

[mpj_3050]

I am a ground contract and the possibility of having some unmotivated person in my fighting hole scares me. I would like to see 2-year service to help ease the burden of Iraq and Afgan Land. Military service would help to unify our society. The people in my 0730 English class constantly ***** about the time, this, that, and the other. A little time in the military would teach these children that things could be far worse.

 

[Brett327]

IMHO, you see all these alarmist (shocking!) reports about the various services failing to meet their recruiting quota, but so far I haven't seen any real evidence that there are any kind of meaningful shortages of personnel. Sure, you're going to have very specific areas like Farsi linguists, who are in short supply, but those highly specialized skill sets are always in the "low density/high demand" category. The media latches on to these and incorrectly infers some kind of widespread crisis situation which can only mean that the draft is right around the corner. I just don't see it.

Brett

 

[skidkid]

Here is my argument against s draft:
The product produced by American schools/society is today of a muhc lower quality than in the past hence the need for a crucible core values training etc. A willing person can be trianed and make a contribution. An unwilling will be a drain on a unit at best and a danger at worst.
I think mandatory military service would benefit society but not the military.
I had not heard the proposal of two year service tied to college money but it sounds promising. I think however it should be extended a bit to tinclude the Peace Corps Americorps whatever. There should be an opportunity for those either not inclined or equipted to be warriors to still serve something bigger than themselves and get a chance at an education in return.

I dont think we will see a draft in out lifetimes.

 

[Brett327]

As a quick follow-up, I think the concept of the draft as we have known it, barring all out WWII style conflict, is obsolete. You'll have much better results with an incentive based program than anything compulsory.

Brett

 

[bunk22]

I've done three detachment deployments, one as an OIC. The dets usually average about 50 (7 officers) personnnel though I my last det ended with about 70 due to Unified Assistance requirements. I'm thinking the make-up of those dets is probably somewhat standard thoughout the military, giver or take. The standard breakdown (for enlisted) has been this: about 10-12 of the sailors are your top performers. Another 15-20 are average, they do their job without complaint. The rest are what I would consider the "others". The problem with the others are they are the no-loads, the complainers, the whiners, the *****ers the dregs on the Navy. Yet these guys/gals volunteered to serve. They wanted to come in and for one reason or another, have chosen or just are poor performers. So thats what worries me about a draft. The military (or maybe just the Navy) has a bunch of no-loads who joined on their own accord. A draft would bring in no-loads who don't want to be in the military.

 

[metro]

I'm against the draft for the same reasons most people who are serving are against it: it increases the likelihood of having to serve beside people who don't even want to be there...not the kind of guys you want at your side during any type of duty, particularly a fight. Unmotivated means unproductive, and potentially dangerously neglectful. A friend of mine's father did five tours as a Marine in Vietnam, and basically echoed this sentiment to me during one of our many conversations about that time period, and military service in general. He said there were many times when good soldiers and Marines got killed because a draftee or two who didn't want to follow orders didn't cover their position, etc etc...not a situation in which I'd like to find myself.

That being said, I sort of feel the way Robert Heinlein had it in Starship Troopers is the way to go. Make a distinct separation between citizens and civilians. Civilians are people who enjoy the freedoms of America, but do not get any sort of government benefits or assistance. Citizens are those who have served their country, enjoy all the rights and privileges that civilians enjoy, and also are eligible for government assistance and aid programs. I think that two years of government service should be required to become a citizen. Not necessarily military service, as not all people are cut out for military work, but things such as working in Social Security offices, Post Offices, etc etc...generally any type of civil service. I think this would be the best system, but maybe I'm being sensationalist.

 

[eddie]

Quick threadjack, promise.

Metro, I'm going to disagree with you. A two-tiered society, even if designed with the best intentions and "citizenry" based purely on merit, would eventually fall prey to human nature. It would evolve into an aristocratic system; fairly un-American if you ask me. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just what I'm inclined to believe.

End threadjack.

 

[USNAClassof2009]

I want to toss in a different viewpoint

I think the assumption that is being made here is that all those kids who chose the civilian world instead of the military world, would have been unproductive in the military had they been forced to do it. On the other hand, I think it's easier to believe that those who put 100% effort into whatever they do, would do the same in the military.

Even for the people who I have seen in college who act like/are pot heads, don't listen to anybody, and set a poor example for younger kids, the only remaining way they could learn discipline and respect is military service.

I think the biggest problem with mandatory service is that, if it was instituted, it would have meant that liberals allowed it. In that case, it would mean that liberals will want a big piece of the pie, and by definition of being liberal, would want certain liberal changes applied to the military at a faster rate than if there wasn't such a law.

A final positive of required service, if managed correctly, could be that the military will not have to put up with the worst of the volunteers. If they have them in the MILITARY, of all places, they should be kicked out, right? With mandatory service, you will have a huge group of excellent students do can follow directions available to replace the problems who are volunteers. There will be more incentive to kick out low-performing volunteers, because 1) you had to pay them more, 2) they probably needed specialized training that they couldn't do anyway; replacing those with general non-volunteer college students who actually have aptitude and motivation could be a positive--and it would be cheaper for the country.

But, I don't think you should tie mandatory service to financial aid. Everybody should have to serve, no financial aid given. Let military perfomance affect how much 'worth' they will be to the college. Have a version of the SAT that correlates performance in the military to how well you will do in college. Everybody loves standardized testing! Colleges love it, too! Those who want to become an officer after those two years of finding themselves, maturity, etc, can do so at the government's dime, depending on their test results, etc.

Or, those who want to attend college with no commitment, can pay for it themselves with fin aid from colleges, depending on how well they did in the military. And, if they graduate and decide, the job market sucks, let me be an officer in the military--they will already have two years of enlisted service to make the transition to the military easier. They might also be able to join their friends from 6 years before college graduation, who decided to stay in the military, etc.

 

[nocal80]

"The product produced by American schools/society is today of a muhc lower quality than in the past hence the need for a crucible core values training etc. "

I disagree, this argument always seems to be made by older generations about newer generations. Were the products of the 50's, 60's, and 70's of so much higher quality than those of today? I don't thinks so, I think in both cases there were those that contributed to society in a positive way and those that did not. Its true that older generations faced much greater challenges(both world wars, korea, etc), but its my argument that every generation will rise to meet the challenges presented to them. Can't you just picture people in the 1920's and 30's saying how their kids aren't as tough as they were and would never be able to win another war like World War I?

 

[The Chief]

Old guy here from the draft era. As I remember, the Marines and Navy did not have large amounts of draftees, save during the Vietnam Era, when the Marine Corps did rely heavily on the draft. What I saw first hand was a causal effect of a draft, that is those that joined the Navy to escape the draft. John F. Kerry comes to mind. The Navy did call up reserves which presented me with many interesting sea stories.

SeaStory #1: Dr. Elan Van Nxxxxx, a Psychologist from New York City. Was an E-4 reservist unexpectedly call to active duty. His job discription was: " ... to monitor high frequency radio circuits in morse code .... " In an attempt to obtain a discharge, he convinced a medical team that he had a high frequency hearing loss, ergo could not copy "high frequency" radio transmissions. He obtained a "no duty" status awaiting discharge. Of course the carrier frequencies of said transmissions was indeed high frequency, the BFO output he was to be listening to was adjustable, probably no higher then 3 kilocycles (in those days we used cycles per second, now it it hertz or HZ). As result of his no duty status, he was assigned to me. In three months his hearing problems were gone, and he was begging to go back to his old job. Just for good measure I kept him for three more months, at which time he was glad to be back. He was also the lad that upon reporting to the ship, showed up at the quarterdeck with over 4 thousand pounds of personal effects.

SeaStory #2: Was taking up collections for Navy Relief. A young seaman gave me a check for $10,000, in those days a lot of money. Turned out he was a banker's son, worth millions of dollars.

My limited view of the military today is that it is far better than it has every been, primarily because it is all volunteer. Given the high tech nature of all of our forces, it is hard to image a draft working as well as our volunteer force, and most certainly not at the numbers we have today.