quote: Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
(The rest of the article is actually somewhat interesting.)
So. I made a thread a few months back about how the administration was looking for people to staff selective service boards. Now this.
Is this just a ploy by a Republican senator to force the Bush administration to resolve Iraq? Or could he honestly believe that a draft would be helpful to resolve the situation in Iraq?
Regardless of fairness, a draft would not help matters in Iraq. I have to say that if it gets to the point where we have to choose between a draft, or pulling out all together, or giving control to the UN, I am going to have to go with bowing and scraping to the UN if we have to, whatever it takes to get more nations involved. Anything but a draft or pulling out completely.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I don't believe that we should be in any wars that we can't get enough volunteers to fight.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from being a violation of our rights, I think a draft is going to do nothing but decrease the quality of our forces. We don't need quantity in this war. We need forces that are well trained, and won't mess things up.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I believe that the draft is a good thing, not just for the Iraqi situation, but also for our nation as a whole. Many people are too quick to judge and second-guess the actions of our military. We take our liberties for granted. I firmly believe that we as a nation need to learn what it is like to fight for these liberties that we have before we can enjoy them. Not to mention the fact that we are more and more becoming a nation of obese, TV addicted, morons. Maybe the fear of getting shot at will motivate our youth to get out and stay in shape.
Edit: Isn't boot camp for quality control?
[ April 21, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really disagree with you, JT. I think we have far too many people for whom war is an abstract quantity, but who will support it because doing so is part of being an ass-kicking American.
On the other hand, since I do support the war and want what's best for Iraq and the US, I can't support a draft.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really care what a senator says about how the military should have more soldiers, I'm curious as to what the military leaders think about having a draft, I know three years ago the military's official stance on a draft was that they didn't feel they needed one. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree. I don't believe that we should be in any wars that we can't get enough volunteers to fight.
I personally believe no war is worth fighting unless everyone (man,women, and child) is willing to fight for it. If it is not big enough to require the ultimate sacrifice, is it big enough to kill for?
I really don't feel that way strongly. I did support the reasons to go to war, but I have had the thought from time to time whether war is justified if it is not a big enough issue to send everyone out.
If Hitler cut throuhg all the armies, THAT would of been a justified war for EVERYONE to get involved.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we know that by having a draft, the quality of our soldiers will go down, won’t the draftees have to go through the same training that our current volunteers do?
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, if I get drafted my first priority is to survive. That may mean that I be the best fighter for America I can be. But should a situation ever arise where the most beneficial course of action to me is not aligned with the action most beneficial to the USA, guess who loses? Do you really want an army of people like me?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do we know that by having a draft, the quality of our soldiers will go down, won’t the draftees have to go through the same training that our current volunteers do?
Well, let me put it this way: If they somehow got me out there, I wouldn't care one bit about winning the war. I'd care about not gettting hurt. I'm not going to sacrifice anything for a war I already consider wrong.
There are a lot of people like me.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mackilian- Isn't getting shot at enough initiative?
Anna- We failed in Vietnam for many different reasons; the draft was one of the smaller ones.
Danzig- No, I wouldn't want to have an army of guys like you, but I’m betting that the guys who aren't patriotic enough to serve their country and give there lives for it, will leave their country as soon as the receive their notice.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strkyer, what makes you think that assisting the U.S. in its war of aggression in Iraq constitutes "serving our country?"
Frankly, I'd have more motivation to shoot a bureaucrat who forces me at gunpoint to go fight a foreign war for him than I'd have to shoot a random foreign enemy who's never done a thing to harm me or my country.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took a look at Senator Hegel's record. While I don't support the draft, at least he served in Vietnam, apparently in actual combat. So at least his statements about Americans making sacrifices and understanding what's really going on isn't just code for "Those #$%#$% young people need to make themselves useful [even though I didn't serve when I was their age]." I have a lot more respect for people who are/were willing to follow the same rules they want to force on others than for those who would not want to live under their own rules.
Having said that, I agree that in this particular war it's more important to have good strategies, healthy relations with the Iraqi citizens, and superior technology than to have more warm bodies over there. Especially warm bodies who don't want to be there. It seems like that would just be putting our troops in more danger to send less experienced people who did not choose this life.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- #1 It's not at gunpoint, you can choose prison (at least one very famous boxer that I can think of chose prison)
#2 This "war of aggression" is a step to riding the middle east of its terror affiliations
#3 Serving your country is being willing to give your life so that those who are too old, sick, or otherwise unable to fight, don't have to. If we allowed terror networks to continue, our wonderful nation would be just as unstable as Israel, and then every last citizen would have to worry about becoming a victim of war.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a fight, for most soldiers, the most important thing is to not let down your buddies. Help each other, and don't look like a coward yourself.
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, Mom, the flag, and a good cause matter too, but one's unit is the most important thing, and military training is meant to create that group identity.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure, but I think I might possibly rather live in a country where I had to worry about terrorist attacks instead of living in a country where my own government has the right to force me into slavery. Especially when that slavery has a higher-than-normal probability of getting me killed or maimed and might be something I have moral objections to. At least the terrorists don't have the support of the general public, while the government does.
As for WWII, the reason we needed the draft is that we were facing a techologically equal enemy. Additionally, there was a high attrition rate because the war was so bloody. Not to mention that we could have been in serious trouble if we had lost WWII. I doubt this war is quite as important--Saddam is gone, and while the region is instable, it does not threaten our very existence. The war in Iraq is so different from WWII that I doubt that many lessons learned then will be relevant now. If we are going to draft people, we have to make sure that our immediate survival depends on it. There's no other excuse, and even then I think that a nation whose citizens aren't willing to serve in the military when the country is about to be overrun deserves to be destroyed.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
shigosei- are you say that you'd rather die while walking you children to school, then to receive the honor of fighting for your country (even if you're being pushed into it)
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that if I have to die, I would rather die as a free citizen than because my government decided that I should be die for it, no matter how noble that death may be. I don't believe it's noble at all if I'm forced to do it, either.
If I thought it necessary, I would volunteer. It's not dying for my country that I object to, but rather involuntary service. It's very unlikely I would get anywhere near the front lines were I to be drafted, but I firmly believe that the government has no right to force me to work for it, whether in combat or at a desk job.
posted
I will support a draft when the child of a president, a senator, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company stands the same chance of getting sent to the front lines and getting shot at as someone who comes from a lower-middle class or poor family.
I submit that we do not live in such a country at the present time.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> This "war of aggression" is a step to riding the middle east of its terror affiliations <<
And we all know how well that's working out for you folks.
Edit:
Regarding the draft... no. Just no. It's bad enough to fabricate reasons for starting a war; it would be even worse to force your soldiers to die on account of these fabricated reasons.
posted
Stryker-being willing to die for your country and being willing to kill for it are two different things. And it is possible to fight for liberties without actual fighting.
Personally, I would leave before being drafted. Call me unpatriotic, call me a coward if you will. But I will not kill, and I will certainly not die for a cause I do not believe in. That is MY right.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you justify living in a country with so many wars in its past, Human? You are already drinking foreign blood by living in the status quo.
That said, I hope a draft doesn't become necessary. This latest deployment extension is rather worrying.
I used to have the "willing to die but not willing to kill" philosophy. Can't say there's anything wrong with it, except that I no longer feel that way.
P.S. I do agree that the draftees should be selected based on groups that have not yet largely contributed (C.O.s excepted, of course). I remember with amusement the guys I knew who were eager to go to Canada during the Persian Gulf War.
posted
This draft bill at least is about trying to stop us from going to war at all. The idea is that if the bill passes, powerful people who can no longer keep their children away from the front lines will be less likely to vote for wars. So for those of you who want us to fight a lot of wars against terror, you may wish to reconsider your support of the draft. This bill could very well be the end of the war against terror if it passes.
The odd thing about this bill is that requires everyone, of both genders, to serve. Because of this, the service may be military or civilian. If it's civilian service, why stop at 26? You can't just force young people to work for you if there is no compelling reason that older people cannot perform this job either. If it's fair to interrupt my college education, why is it wrong to make Granny in the nursing home sew uniforms for the soldiers? Not every single person over 26 has served their country, so why can they compel me to serve them when they did nothing for their country?
You need my services, you ASK. You do not use your power to force me to do something you never did (those who served in the military excepted, of course).
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If drafted I would join up. Perhaps in the military bands, but even if I chose the front lines I think a level head + good shot could help matters. For example, I wouldn't let my platoon-mates bludgeon unarmed civilians to death or use their Abrams as a toy car crusher. My diplomatic skills would (should?!) be of more use, but if it came down to sniping bad guys in Fallujah who were trying to throw Molotovs at us or innocents, may God have mercy on their souls.
quote:If we allowed terror networks to continue, our wonderful nation would be just as unstable as Israel
We don't need Yet Another Iraq Thread, but the irony here is too thick. What could possibly convince you that following Israel's example would lead to peace?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, relax. Nobody's going to get drafted. Anybody who's had family spend any time doing military recruiting after going to one of the academies knows military recruiting is easy, even in a time of war.
Congressional budget limitations put caps on how many members each branch is allowed to have--recruiters spend as much time turning away people to keep them under their limits than begging people to join up. If the congress wants more people in the army, they can just up the number of recruits they allow each year.
Granted, this means the added soldiers will be of lower quality--they do try to pick the best, and put aside the less capable--but it will beat a group who didn't want to go in the first place but got drug in on a draft.
We honestly won't need to bring in any type of draft to settle this conflict. If anything, this congressman may have just been putting a worse case scenario out there so the Bush administration would seem competent when things didn't get that bad. (Look! We avoided a draft!)
Or, as is more likely, he may be one of the blowhards who believe that mandatory military service would be good for all young people, teach them discipline, patriotism, etc, and he thinks this war is a good chance to get some backing for his ideas.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you would benefit more from the EO and Harrasment trainings and having to follow the rules as such than anything dealing w/ patriotism.
Edited to add: Dicipline?!? Heh, I am in the military. We had a water fight down in the hole today. Twas 90+ degrees. we had fun.
[ April 22, 2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A draft is the worst idea ever, PERIOD. Our military prides itself on being a professional army of volunteers. It makes us better than the attitudes conscripts bring with them.
posted
Think of a draft as like paying an extra tax-- no one wants to do it, but it may be neccessary.
Drafts, in general, I don't have a problem with; drafts for this particular war I do, because the administration has bungled it so much, I'm not sure that I trust our reasons for being there.
I love that Saddaam is out. But if it's a war where a draft is instituted, a clear and present danger to America must be shown to merit it. And I don't think that has been done here.
Despite all the country music to the contrary.
[ April 22, 2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of the threats to draft are just ways of scaring people. If they wanted to institute a draft, they don't need to pass a new law to do it.
Though I'm not sure why this Republican senator is proposing it. Maybe he feels we are spending too much money in Iraq. Either way, the proposals for a draft are just disingenuous manipulations of our emotions about death and patriotism. But if you're really het up, write your congress people. If a draft happens, which could at any time with no warning at all, vote with your actions.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...perhaps the threat of a draft will bring home the reality of this war to this countries generally apathetic young voters and perhaps they will actually get out there and VOTE.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The CNN on-line poll today shows most respondants do NOT favor a draft.
I had this conversation with our German foreign exchange student just a few days ago. He says in Germany, all boys, once they graduate from high school, must do a year in the German army. Mandatory. He says that is bad because guys who really don't want to be there make their army "a bunch of wimps" (his words). He personally thought the American way was better, because only people who really want to fight and are willing to do it are in the services fighting.
posted
I believe, actually, that there is an option for civil service if you don't want to join the military.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few years ago we housed a German graduate student who was doing an internship at my dad's work. He was totally not the type I'd imagine in the military, but he talked on end on his mandatory experience in the German national guard. He seemed to get alot out of it.
I don't think it's a bad idea to have mandatory military service. It's like how we send Mormon guys away for two years...yes, they're primary purpose is serving the Church, but they're also growing up and building character.
My dad's a WWII buff, and I think he said something about how Quakers didn't have to serve in combat positions in WWII. They still had weapons training, but they served as janitors, medical personell, etc. Heck, those dumb army commercials can't stop talking about how there are 100 or so different jobs available.
posted
Good point, SM. The kid I talked to has not yet, of course, done his required year in the German army. Maybe his point of view will change once he has been then and then out.