http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videoplayer/newVid/framesource2.html?clip=/media/2004/08/18/video636883.wmv&sec=201&vidId=201&title=Return$@$Of$@$The$@$Draft&hitboxMLC=national

Oh yeah... the Democrats? And why? Oh yeah to scare people, and because some of them are saying that the military is racist.

http://www.spectatornews.com/news/2004/04/15/Letters/DemocratBacked.Draft.Not.Going.To.Happen.Now-660959.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

http://www.hillnews.com/news/072904/military.aspx

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/7365833.htm

I can't find a link to it, but I remember when Rangel first came out with this baloney, there was a poll that the DNC did that showed that when confronted with the possibility of a draft, young voters were more likely to vote for a democrat, as they assumed it was the republicans who wanted to bring back the draft. It appears that Rangel's notion is gaining steam. Notice that the CBS report fails to talk about where the idea is coming from or the real reasons behind it, according to Rangel himself.

Having turned 18 myself only a couple weeks ago, I received my Selective Service registration reminder the day of my birthday. I signed up right away, as I feel it's my duty to serve if my country ever needs and calls me. Should they re-institute the draft, unlikely as it is, I have to admit that I would glady go and serve. I believe the draft itself has also been reformed for the better since after Vietnam or so, making things more fair should the need arise. People around my age these days seem to believe that no cause or ideal is worth risking your life or paying the ultimate price for, despite the great blessings we all enjoy today in the free world.

I am totally against any sort of draft, whoever supports it I will for sure vote against. Volunteer army is the best way to go; don't put people there that don't want to be there. Forcing people to go is a very bad thing and I think Vietnam is an example of that.

I cannot believe democrats are supporting this draft shit, especially when they make everyone think, especially young people that Bush is a warmongering hilter type person, but they want to go and bring back the fucking draft? I feel so strongly on this issue that even if republicans took on this issue and supported it I would no longer vote for them. Also it funny that people like Moore say Bush is forceing our kids to join the military and die, I wanna see what Moore has to say about his liberal friends supporting a draft.

While I agree a "Draft" forcing folks into military service is a bad thing I however think 2 years compulsuary (spelling it's late sue me) service would be a good thing.

Maybe 18 year old high school grads should be compelled into 2 years in an option of a peace corps or military would help broaden their horizens a tad.

Far too many never leave their lil home and mistake their tiny paradigms for much larger/earnest ones.

Fandros

While I agree a "Draft" forcing folks into military service is a bad thing I however think 2 years compulsuary (spelling it's late sue me) service would be a good thing.
I agree. 2 years of service to the country would probably do alot of good for the late teen/early twenties crowd. There are lots of ways to do it but military would be my choice for them.

Maybe mandatory service for anyone that doesn't complete some kind of secondary education and immediately get a job. On the one hand, putting some discipline into people would be a good thing, but on the other it's no good to interfere with people who already have it and are likely already on another path to being a benefit to society.

I wanna see what Moore has to say about his liberal friends supporting a draft

What is wrong with a draft? A draft was active from the Selective Service for WW I up until Vietnam. World War II saw the use of the first peacetime draft in US history.
In fact, there are strong arguments that fighting on two fronts during WW II would not have been possible without a draft. It works.

Am I missing something here? We don't NEED a draft, period. Not yet anyway.

Mandatory 2 year shit smells of communism and socialism to me.

We do need a draft. Just because a Selective Service system is in place does not mean that people will be drafted during peacetime. A draft is one of those things like a fire extinguisher- you don't need it until you *really* need it.

The problem with a draft is you end up with unmotivated people defending the country (or at least going through the motions) in any war where our survival is not really perceived as being at stake. Frankly, that hasn't happened *since* WWII. Morale is low, professionalism low and casualties skyrocket when a conflict does erupt as a direct result when you have a conscripted army. The results with a volunteer professional army are just so much better it isn't funny.

The *only* benefits to mandatory service are keeping 18-20 year olds off the streets and *hopefully* instilling some sense of civic duty and responsibility into them. That really is only possible if you make service mandatory across the board with no exemptions. Otherwise you end up with the connected kids getting exemptions while the rest of us are digging trenches and getting shot at.

One problem I foresee with a 2 year draft is simply the high cost of churning over 1/2 your people every single year. By the time a military conscript is marginally trained, they only have a year and a half of effective service before they get out unless they re-up. If you think too much money is spent on the military now, wait until you have every 18 year old in the country in some kind of service, all of whom need housing, government provided health care, family support in some cases, equipment and training and oversight.

I agree with sanchek in if you are not in some sort of secondary education program, or have a job you should have to serve mandatory. I then again feel

A. We don't need a draft yet.
B. The cost (vs effectiveness and not vs effectiveness) would be outrageous.
C. That I don't want some fucking punk kid who does not want to be there screwing things up for people who will take it serious and do want to be there. Last thing I want to see on news is "Soldier killed today when member of his squad did not back him up" or some sort of headline like that.

We could also always equip all the people in our prison system with weapons and just paratroop them in to war :) Save money, get rid of criminals, save our lives.

C. That I don't want some fucking punk kid who does not want to be there screwing things up for people who will take it serious and do want to be there.

You mean like Private Lyndee England? :D

Exactly like that, except multiplied by tens of thousands.

The problem with a draft is you end up with unmotivated people defending the country (or at least going through the motions) in any war where our survival is not really perceived as being at stake. Frankly, that hasn't happened *since* WWII. Morale is low, professionalism low and casualties skyrocket when a conflict does erupt as a direct result when you have a conscripted army. The results with a volunteer professional army are just so much better it isn't funny.
Why is that? There is a Selective Service program in place *right now*, and our military branches are doing just fine- because we've not NEEDED to activate the draft.

Unless you have a draft system in place, you might not be able to field an appropriate military force (as we would not have been able to do at the start of World Ward II).

The problem with a draft is you end up with unmotivated people defending the country (or at least going through the motions) in any war where our survival is not really perceived as being at stake. Frankly, that hasn't happened *since* WWII. Morale is low, professionalism low and casualties skyrocket when a conflict does erupt as a direct result when you have a conscripted army. The results with a volunteer professional army are just so much better it isn't funny.

The *only* benefits to mandatory service are keeping 18-20 year olds off the streets and *hopefully* instilling some sense of civic duty and responsibility into them. That really is only possible if you make service mandatory across the board with no exemptions. Otherwise you end up with the connected kids getting exemptions while the rest of us are digging trenches and getting shot at.

One problem I foresee with a 2 year draft is simply the high cost of churning over 1/2 your people every single year. By the time a military conscript is marginally trained, they only have a year and a half of effective service before they get out unless they re-up. If you think too much money is spent on the military now, wait until you have every 18 year old in the country in some kind of service, all of whom need housing, government provided health care, family support in some cases, equipment and training and oversight.
That's only looking at one angle of the issue.

What about the reduction in entitlement programs due to having people off of their asses and trained with a little discipline? That's the kind of change that could transform whole demographics for life, not just a couple years. Not to mention if the service wasn't necessarily straight military (could be peace corps or similar), the economic benefit of that huge work force could easily pay for it's cost.

I don't know that it's a good idea or that it really would work at all, but looking at it only as an expenditure doesn't really make that much sense. Look back in the 30's at the TVA and how well that worked out. If managed well, mandatory public service could easily turn out to be something along those lines.

The success of TVA is exactly what I'm basing my support of mandatory 2 years service upon....

Those of you not educated in the history of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the resulting economic boom perhaps should read up on it a tidge.

I'd never force anyone unwilling to serve in the Armed Services, but I would sure as hell force those indigent, unwilling or unprepared for adult life into something similar.

Call it what you will, I call it putting the boot of hardcase love where it belongs.

Fandros

That I don't want some fucking punk kid who does not want to be there screwing things up for people who will take it serious and do want to be there. Last thing I want to see on news is "Soldier killed today when member of his squad did not back him up" or some sort of headline like that.

Since World War II is being used as the model of "the war that went right" with regards to recruitment (all information to follow is taken from other sources):

During World War II, 21,049 American military personel were convicted of desertion, 49 were sentenced to death. Only one was executed: Pvt. Eddie Slovik (A draftee).

That is just Desertion, and doesn't cover Courts Martial for offenses from falling asleep on duty or disobeying a direct order. It is worth noting that a total of 108 executions were secheduled among US soldiers in the European Theater of Operations alone.

I'd like to see those numbers as percentages of the entire force used in WW2, and comparable numbers from other time periods. Without a point of reference, it's impossible to say much about those numbers.

I can tell you 50,000 people were robbed this year in Atlanta, and make it sound bad... Until I tell you 100,000 were robbed last year.

The TVA was a good program, but it wouldn't be as apparently successful today as it was back then, I don't believe. You have to realize that we're not in the same type of crisis now as we were back then; by no means do we have a perfect economy, but we're in the throes of the great depression by any means. I don't discount that mandatory civil service could be beneficial to the US, but it would have to be very, very well tailored to our current needs. Just because the TVA was so successful back then doesn't mean a similar program would be so successful today.

Also, the TVA, and FDR's other 'alphabet soup' programs were a huge financial undertaking. That sort of defecit spending was unprecedented until his election into office. It was necessary to lift us out of those troubled economic times, but isn't now. In fact, more defecit spending would hurt our economy a great deal.

That depends... You can look at just the TVA and say that it was a cost, but if you look at the bigger picture I don't think you would find that to be the case at all. If the government spends some money in one program that empowers many people to turn around and raise our GDP by more than the government invested, then it's far from a loss. That's what the TVA did.

The TVA taught farmers how to improve crop yields, developed fertilizers, replenished wildlife, and built power plants, which in turn spurred economic recovery in the area. Just because we aren't in a deep depression doesn't discount the benefit of development programs like that. It only makes their benefits less contrasted.

Esbat-
Being registered for selective service for use in a national emergency and automatically being called up for mandatory service are two very different things. Registration is not what we are talking about here. A mandatory draft is.

BTW, I too registered shortly after it was renewed in 1979 and was on the rolls until I hit 26 so I am intimately aware of the selective service registration in place.

With regards to comparisons to the TVA, the biggest difference is the TVA program was *not* mandatory. It was a massive jobs program to help out those without a job, one you volunteered to join. The incentive was to earn a living when there were no other jobs to be had. It was not a form of selective service to be required for all to serve in. I don't see an equivalent need to provide government employment existing today and I certainly don't see a need to drastically enlarge the government payroll without compelling need in particular.

Now if you wanted to fund a TVA-like program for youth to *voluntarily* join, I might agree with you, provided it was set to doing something actually constructive and not just feel-good public relations work.

With the repeated references to the draft in WWII, you have to take into account the dire threat the country faced in those years. An equivalent threat just does not yet exist today to elicit the acceptance of a draft on the same scale by the American public. A more accurate analogy would be the Vietnam draft which was a freaking disaster for both the military and American society.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the strongest resistance in the military to a draft comes from those members who remember what it was like to have a conscripted army.

Sanchek, I never used the word 'loss,' and I never said that the TVA was a loss, either. I said that FDR used defecit spending, which he did. Defecit spending doesn't always equate to a net loss, as in the case of the TVA; the TVA was profitable, on both an economic and societal level. I'm simply saying that a similar program probably doesn't have a place in our current economy, for a number of reasons.

Aside from the fiscal problems in implementing such huge programs, we don't have a 20% unemployment rate like we did at the end of the 1920's. Where do you think most of those TVA workers came from? Also, did I miss some major problems in our agricultural industry? Does it need that sort of revival?

I'm not trying to discount the benefit of revival programs in general, or even civil service, but I assumed we were still talking about mandatory civil service for men and women aged 18 to 20. That is a huge chunk of population. Some of those people are going to be needed for civil duties, yes; but others will be needed to run grocery stores, fill your tank, develop computer software, etc. If people can't enroll in college, or start on their chosen career path until they're done with their civil service, you're going to see a loss of 2 years net experience in every field of work, unless those people use their civil service to advance their career. You won't see doctors coming into the profession until they're about 30 years old.

The TVA worked back then, but such a large scale, expensive program would probably be detrimental overall.

Esbat... nm it's not worth it.


The point is that they're pushing the draft myth in order to scare young voters into supporting liberals even more. The ironic part is that they're the only ones supporting it, but they know that message ends up being... support pacifist candidates or else we're going to have to bring back the draft. The second ironic part is that part of their reasoning for a permanent draft is a socialist ideal that the military shouldn't be a racially imbalanced toward minorities and lower income people. The fact is that those are the people that go into the military because of the great opportunities present there.

Is this an issue backed by the majority of the democratic members of congress? One of the articles you posted said only 1 senator and 14 representaves were supporting the notion.

It's an old article. It's gained support as the election has progressed, including from one republican. It's just another red herring though. Kerry obviously says he opposes it, though in every other way his voting record is basically exactly the same as Rangel's on all matters.

That's very possible, and also pretty ironic. The idea of instituting a draft definitely fits with liberal ideology better than it fits with conservative ideology, but the way those two terms have become warped over the past two decades, most people are thinking the opposite. :(

Drafting might get costly indeed with all the free boob jobs :eek:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6012935

My first year of medical school they paid a bunch of college girls to come in so we could practice breast exams. I thought it was an excellent program. The next week were were practicing gyne exams... unfortunately they got a bunch of really old fat nurses who volunteered instead of sorority girls. It was a huge letdown.

Draft doesnt have to be military. I could be a "service" draft where young people can have a choice about how they want to serve their country for 2 years. The Military could be one choice amoung many.

Vietnam proved that a draft doesn't work in this country, not very many people are going to be happy about unwillingly going to the army or being the governments personal slave against their will, especially when there is no need to. And most likely if there is a draft I doubt there will be an execption for those who are acctually doing something productive like getting an education, working, or playing sports because some extreme socialist/euro/communist party will call it unfair.

Its not like we are in danger or anything....why do we even need a draft? to fight countries like Iraq? No one in the world is even close to the US's military power except maybe China. If there ever comes a time where we are in grave danger of looseing our existence as a country then I would consider a draft.

If there ever comes a time where we are in grave danger of looseing our existence as a country then I would consider a draft.

Wow.. thats mighty white of you.

I'd like to see those numbers as percentages of the entire force used in WW2, and comparable numbers from other time periods. Without a point of reference, it's impossible to say much about those numbers
You are welcome to do your own research. Going in depth about the dynamics of courts martial vs. draftee numbers sounds to me like a good master’s thesis.

Being registered for selective service for use in a national emergency and automatically being called up for mandatory service are two very different things. Registration is not what we are talking about here. A mandatory draft is.
No, people are saying there is no point in having “the draft” not that they are against the peacetime draft in the subject. I’m aware of the distinction, and I’m directing my comments only to those saying “The draft is a terrible idea”. When (in my opinion) the draft is a great idea. All drafts are mandatory- that is kind of the point- if you are drafted, you go.

A “peacetime draft” is what you are talking about. I’ve not addressed that in any way, shape or form. I’m trying to make sure people realize that not all drafts are evil things.

With the repeated references to the draft in WWII, you have to take into account the dire threat the country faced in those years. An equivalent threat just does not yet exist today to elicit the acceptance of a draft on the same scale by the American public. A more accurate analogy would be the Vietnam draft which was a freaking disaster for both the military and American society
The draft worked the way it was intended- there were far larger problems in Vietnam than the draft. The war in Vietnam (and what went wrong) would be an entire thread of itself.

Also, depending on your political views today, you could argue that Terrorism is as great a threat to the US as any presented in WWII.

The point is that they're pushing the draft myth in order to scare young voters into supporting liberals even more. The ironic part is that they're the only ones supporting it, but they know that message ends up being... support pacifist candidates or else we're going to have to bring back the draft. The second ironic part is that part of their reasoning for a permanent draft is a socialist ideal that the military shouldn't be a racially imbalanced toward minorities and lower income people. The fact is that those are the people that go into the military because of the great opportunities present there
I agree with just about everything you said- that still doesn’t mean that having a Selective Service system in place is a bad idea. Once again, you need to differentiate between a draft system and a peacetime draft.

Drafting might get costly indeed with all the free boob jobs
Cosmetic surgery was pretty much invented by the armed forces. A boob job still affords surgeons who will do reconstructive procedures a chance to practice knife time.

Vietnam proved that a draft doesn't work in this country, not very many people are going to be happy about unwillingly going to the army or being the governments personal slave against their will, especially when there is no need to
The draft worked exactly the way it was intended to in Vietnam. What didn’t work were the policies. Hell, would there have even been a war in Vietnam without the draft, or would it have remained a “police action”. Don’t blame the draft for the problems with that war, they were a hell of a lot deeper than that.

I'd like to add this:

If we are fighting a War on Terror (and, last I heard, we were) and we can not get enough people to fight in the war, would a draft be a good idea? Or should the military offer even more incentives to join?

Perhaps, something could be offered to the volunteers that regular draftees would not get- perhaps a choice of MOS. That way, someone who was qualified and wanted to volunteer could avoid being placed in the old 11B and could perhaps be a 67R.

Draft doesnt have to be military. I could be a "service" draft where young people can have a choice about how they want to serve their country for 2 years. The Military could be one choice amoung many.



Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President.

Rangel and McDermott... what a team.

Esbat-

The Vietnam draft resulted in the worst morale for the US military since the Civil War. It did NOT work as intended, as any military person who served there will tell you. You had numerous exemptions allowing the more affluent members of society to shirk service (see Bill Clinton) or at the least assure cushy stateside assignments (see George W Bush) while those less connected got shipped off to fight. It was not just society questioning the war itself, it was the composition of the military that was the problem.

Our military categorically rejects the need or desire for a peacetime draft. I think we should listen to them.


The whole concept of mandatory national service seems to be trying to legislate civic responsibility into our youth. The place to raise civic awareness is in our schools IMO, not in our army. Being a member of the armed forces should come from civic awareness and sense of duty, not the other way around.

As far as the war on terrorism being a threat to the US survival as a nation comparable to WWiI, I don't think it has yet attained that status. Should the terrorists come into possession of a significant capability (like nukes), then they would become such a threat.

In my view the better solution to any shortfall of troops is simply to make voluntary military service more attractive to attract new recruits and keep those already in service. Make the pay and benefits competitive with private industry. We already have compulsory registration in place should there be a true national emergency requiring a large influx of people. We have no such emergency at the present time.

The Vietnam draft resulted in the worst morale for the US military since the Civil War



The draft worked fine. It got warm bodies in the war who otherwise might not have been there. That is all it is supposed to do. The POLICIES of the Vietnam war resulted in the worst morale for the US military. Pointing the finger at the draft and blaming it for everything that went wrong in Vietnam is setting up a straw man.



Sending people to an unpopular, losing war who didn't want to be there wasn't a smart idea. However, if the strategy was changed, maybe it wouldn't have been such an unpopular, losing war and those who were drafted wouldn't have been quite so unhappy.


The reality is that people were NEEDED to fight in that war (based on the choices made in Washington, which were stupid) and the draft got people there.



If you want to say "All Volunteer groups in Vietnam, such as the LRRP had more success, higher morale and effectiveness than units of conscripts" I'd agree with you- because it is true. Having a volunteer army is preferable to a draft. That doesn't change the fact that having a draft is still a good idea. It also doesn't change the fact that you can't blame a system (that worked as intended- get warm bodies in the war) for the failings of strategy and politics.

Could the draft system be better? Sure could. Would an overhaul help? Sure would. Should the entire system be shut down? Hell no.

The draft did *not* work fine if you look at the end goal being a military that will win the war. Sure, you got warm bodies, but having warm bodies is not enough. You need to get motivated warm bodies to be effective unless the army you are facing is also conscripted. You can blame the policies of Vietnam all you want, but history shows a conscripted army *always* performs worse than a volunteer army. It was true in every war we have fought. It was true in Korea *before* the screwed up policies of Vietnam. Even where a draft supposedly worked in WWII, you need to remember it is debatable if a draft was even necessary since you had a society where men were ashamed not to go to war and were looked at askance if they stayed home. I know no male member of my family was drafted, all volunteered. You had 4F's committing suicide because they could not go. Hardly the society we have today.

Having a draft mechanism in place is a good idea for an emergency, but activating a draft itself is a terrible idea unless circumstances absolutely require it, especially in the case of a peacetime draft. Why turn a 1st rate professional military into a discontented 2nd rate one? There is a far better answer to our security needs.

You can blame the policies of Vietnam all you want, but history shows a conscripted army *always* performs worse than a volunteer armyAgain, perhaps more people would have decided to go to Vietnam on their own if it wasn't suck a cluster fuck.

Probably a large reason why conscripted armies fare worse is that by the time you have to start conscripting people, odds are good your army is already screwed. That, or your cause for war isn't the best to begin with, such as in Vietnam.

I'm not disagreeing with the validity of having a volunteer army; I don't want a peacetime draft. You're ascribing points to me that I'm not trying to make.

history shows a conscripted army *always* performs worse than a volunteer army.
I can think of two conscripted armies off the top of my head that outperformed volunteer armies (the French Grand Armee under Napolean and the German Wehrmacht versus any army except the AEF. The French hated Napolean's conscription policies but fought very effectively until he got them all killed in Spain and Russia. The Wehrmacht carried all before it until the US started supplying the Russians and the AEF forced them to fight on 3 fronts). Simply being drafted doesn't implicitly cause bad morale.

That aside I see absolutely no reason for a draft at the current time, since last time I checked the only people we're "at war" with (and I use the term loosely) can't field an army period, much less one that outnumbers us. Even at our peacetime strength the US military is significantly larger than it actually needs to be to secure our territories and provide deterence, given the possibilty of an invasion is up there with an asteroid falling on us and our global air supremacy is virtually uncontested.

You forget that the enemies Napolean faced (Prussian, Russian, British) were *also* mostly if not entirely conscripted armies, so its not really an accurate comparison. The Wehrmacht was not a volunteer army overall, but the elite portions that kicked so much ass early in the war *were* volunteer at the beginning. Like everyone else, they introduced conscription as they started to have problems. Add to that fact that their foes (especially the Russians) were also conscripts, and it does not argue the case one way or the other.

If you want a comparison between conscripted units and volunteer, take a look at the effectivity of the Hitler Jugend division during the late stages of ww2. They were practically kids, but with innovative tactics (and SS armament) they kicked serious booty. In fact, they kicked so much ass that the high commands all forgave them for their extremely unconventional behavior and tactics

The whole concept of mandatory national service seems to be trying to legislate civic responsibility into our youth. The place to raise civic awareness is in our schools IMO, not in our army. Being a member of the armed forces should come from civic awareness and sense of duty, not the other way around.



No as stated by those who are sponsoring the bill, it is a social engineering scheme to force middle and upper income kids to serve, since they believe the current structure is racist and classist, and it's a ploy to try to scare as many younger people as possible to vote for whatever candidate they believe to be a bigger pacifist.

Add to that fact that their foes (especially the Russians) were also conscripts, and it does not argue the case one way or the other.I think in the case of the Russians, it was anyone who could hold a gun was going to fight no matter what.

Seriously, the Russians were pounded on, but they just kept coming with everything they had (including some really bad-ass women snipers).

Oh, and thank YOU, anon person who left me the following rep:
"war on terror doesnt need a draft to fight, we have the best military in the world atm" complete with errors and all. Thank you for missing the point of the post I made.