The Draft Coming Back?

KenH, you said:

. Correction! Zell has been our darling for a long time, even as our Governor he was quite conservative.

Diane

 

Uh, we currently have the draft. I know I had to register. What we're NOT doing is calling up names of registrants, because we have an adequate number of volunteers. But everyone male who turns 18 knows that there's that possibility of getting called should the need arise.

 

If the draft is done correctly (no college deferments, no "ministerial candidates" that suddenly lose the call after a "safe" age is reached), it could be a good thing. I served for 20 years in the Air Force, 8 as an enlisted man and 12 as an officer. I have been in the retired reserve since 1992, and would hit the door running and grab my duffel bag on the way out if they called (at my age, unlikely); I volunteered to return 9/12/01. I think 2-4 years of active service would be great for any young man, Kennedy, Bush, and John Doe alike. The ones who don't want to be a grunt can enlist in the Navy or Air Force and support the mission that way.

 

My own belief is that all American youth especially men should have to go in the service for a period of time, with the exception of legitimate deferments. Some might say we would end up with some real dumb people and the services don't need them. It doesn't take too many brains to guard an oil pipe line in Iraq as a radio man, in warning of possible danger. It's time to give our soldiers some home-time and get some of these lazy people into active duty.

Moreover, placing these youth in the services, would rid our nation of much of the drug problems that we now coddle.

 

I think the Draft should only be used in times of urgent National security (Iraq does not fit in that category..Imperial Japan in 1941 would in my opinion). I do not want the Draft to be used to build up the US military to fight in police actions or other Miltary adventures a President might promote that does not pose a urgent and direct threat to US National security. I'm not opposed to the Draft in certain situations but am leary of the dangers of abuse by the Federal government and lack of respect for the US Constitution on war powers by recent Presidents.

 

In such a situation though, the standard of military effectiveness would go down the toilet. All pertinent research that I have ever seen supports what is even military brass's view that draftees generally are much less effective soldiers than volunteers. And as far as the "no exemption" philosophy - it will never happen. Because congress is not going to send off engineers, accountants, and other highly educated people with administrative and managerial capabilities to die. In the event of a national emergency when all is said and done and the rebuilding of society begins it is these people that are most crucial to that success. People who are highly educated as such are much more expensive to replace, in terms of both time and money, than the burger flipper. Aside from that could you contemplate the feasibility of pulling random, male, youths from our population pool in todays society and political climate and forcing them into compulsory service? During Vietnam the situation was a little different, and although the youth of that day had a streak of rebellion, most had a parent that was from the WWII/Korea generation that likely served their country in some capacity.
Think about it - whats going to happen to our military recruitment and enlistment policies under such a hypothetical situation considering the disrespectful and rebellious nature of todays youth? Is the military going to clog up the courts with court martials for half or more of the draftees who show insubodrdinate behavior due to the fact that they were forced into service and don't want to be there? Or are they going to "lower the bar" to avoid conflicts detrimental to their immediate mission and thus produce soldiers who are less equipped to perform on the battlefield? I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

ooooh!....Excellent point Ken! I think I will stand corrected on that.

 

I'd have to take issue with the notion that draftees are less effective than volunteers. I had the misfortune to be running a clinic in the AF when the draft ended (yes, I know the AF didn't need to draft, but that was because people who didn't want to join the army sought a better place to go.

When the draft ended, the quality of airmen plummeted, along with educational level and pride in their work.

 

I'd have to take issue with the notion that draftees are less effective than volunteers. I had the misfortune to be running a clinic in the AF when the draft ended (yes, I know the AF didn't need to draft, but that was because people who didn't want to join the army sought a better place to go.

When the draft ended, the quality of airmen plummeted, along with educational level and pride in their work.

 

I found two different schools of thought on this and posted them both so as to show not only do I value valid opinions from all, but to present the arguement from all aspects.

Now we all know the final outcome, but in his book - in retrospect, Fussel goes into detail about the lesser known lurid details of WWII that never get acclaim by the media. Fussell documents a massive number of soldiers (almost 25,000) who deserted from D-Day to the closing acts of WWII. As well as rampant insubordination among the ranks composed mostly of drafted troops. His story of how the war unfolded, from the eyes of a "grunt", paints a picture of units on the brink of collapse from lack of cohesiveness and people who regularly risked counrt martials and firing squads as preferable to the horrors of battle. And of course these aren't politically correct images that weave an aura of romanticism around the people and the period, but many interviews with vets support that they occured more often then supporters of the romantic mythos would like to believe.


Both points of view must be taken in context, but both men, known authors, do allude to the fact that draftees tend to exhibit many behaviors that are not condusive toward the development of character traits that typically comprise good soldiers. There were many good soldiers who were draftees and we should never generalize and lump them all in the same boat. But when looking at the feasibility of such a proposition in the context of the wars that are happening now, we should ask ourselves if the negative aspects will be justified with the final outcome?

 

"The German propaganda here had been expert. The people had been convinced that Germany would win. Apparently lacking any great nationalistic feeling at that point, they jumped onto whatever seemed to be the leading band wagon, and they thought it was Germany. The same propaganda had also made them think America was very weak. Literally, they believed we didn’t have enough steel to run our factories or enough oil four our motors. German propaganda had also drilled into them the glories of the New Order. Those people believed that life for them under German control would be milk and honey, perpetual security and prosperity. They really believed it. Also, our troops made a poor impression, in contrast to the few Germans they had seen. We admittedly are not rigid-minded people. Our boys sang in the streets, unbuttoned their shirt collars, laughed and shouted, and forgot to salute. A lot of Algerians misinterpreted this as inefficiency. They thought such a carefree army couldn’t possibly whip the grim Germans.

Most of the minor peoples of the world expect discipline. They admire strict rulers because to them strictness is synonymous with strength. The Algerians couldn’t conceive of the fact that our strength lay in our freedom."

- Ernie Pyle, "Here is Your War"

Pyle, Like GI cartoonist Bill Mauldin, knew that those "sloppy" draftees were winning the war.

Ernie Pyle, possibly the greatest and best loved war correspondent in American history, was killed by a Japanese sniper on patrol with American forces in the Pacific.

 

Let me interject with a short story---I have a buddy of mine who graduated high school in '66! He knew he was gonna be up for the draft---and also had "heard" that if you joined the Air Force---that they were not sending any airmen to Vietnam! That is what he had "heard!"

So he goes to the recuiter---joins the Air Force---all along still "hearing" that the Air Force will not send you to Vietnam!

He does his basic at San Antonio! He'd write home--"This is great! And I 'hear' they ain't sendin' us to Vietnam!"

He finishes basic and receives his first orders---get this---Honolulu, Hawaii!!!! He takes his leave before departure--and tells family and friends---"See! I told ya'll Air Force life is great!"

He departs for Honolulu--he's thinkin', "Man! This is great!! The Air Force life is for me!!"----the plane touches down and taxi's to the terminal---there, waiting at the terminal was an Air Force officer with "further orders" envelopes in his hands--sittin' behind a desk!

The buddy gets the envelope with his name on it---departure for Saigon, Vietnam!!!! He received a twenty minute "tour" of Honolulu--then a 12 month "tour" of Vietnam!

In less than 24 hours he had gone from Hawaii to the Republic of Vietnam---guarding F-4 Phantom's and B-52 Bombers with his M-16 rifle!! Sleeping with a mattress as his blanket and the blanket as his mattress!!!

Blackbird

 

I can vouch for your story. We had AF personnel operating gunboats on the Mekong River. We had AF personnel out in the jungle, spotting for air support.

We had AF personnel flying helicopters to the suburbs of Hanoi, looking for downed airmen.

It wasn't a way to get out of the fighting.

Unless you joined a Guard unit flying obsolete aircraft, and went AWOL to avoid a drug test.

Then it worked. But you had to know someone.

 

I se nothingwrong with a draft. We need to have national service in this nation. I am 41 years old and served in the United States Air Force. I enlisted the year Reagan got elected President.