A friend of mine who's a recruiter says that he won't be doing too much recruiting very shortly; he's heard from reliable sources that the draft will soon be recalled. So what are your thoughts on this? Surely hope that many more of our 18 year-old boys aren't Iraqi-bound.
***********************************************************
05-14-04, 11:11 PM
teeceeum
I think pretty much the same as I did in 1966. National service is a pretty good idea. Conscription sucks. As long as there is clear choice between the two, I have no problem. If there is no choice, I object.

It isn't often mentioned, but serving in the armed forces was an alternative to "doing time" in the 50s and early 60s. That ought to tell ya something.

05-15-04, 11:59 AM
methos
Not to doubt your friend, but it's not the military that makes this decision anyway. Congress and the President must approve it. The President has said there is no need and he doesn't foresee one. There is no bill in front of Congress to reactivate the draft.

There have been many rumors related to the Selective Service Agencies refining and reviewing their plans, but this is really because, with the talk of a draft, its activities are under more scrutiny than usual. They are always refining and reviewing their plans.

I'm not saying that there's no chance of a draft any time soon, but do your friend's reliable sources have ins to a majority of Congress?

05-15-04, 04:21 PM
Kelleygirl
No, Meth, not to my knowledge. I think that he meant that everything he sees and hears leads him to believe that the draft will be re-established in the near future. Perhaps his regular routine of having an outline of where he goes for recruiting in the future, is looking "undefined". Not sure, but I have heard hints of it making a comeback on the news also. Hope that there is no merit to this info.

05-15-04, 07:15 PM
AMoore

quote:Originally posted by Kelleygirl:
A friend of mine who's a recruiter says that he won't be doing too much recruiting very shortly; he's heard from reliable sources that the draft will soon be recalled. So what are your thoughts on this? Surely hope that many more of our 18 year-old boys aren't Iraqi-bound.



Not necessarily for Iraq, but President Bush has other nations in his sights, should he be re-elected. Let him win by a large margin, and the neo-conservatives will see it as essential that we put an end to terrorism emanating from Syria, Iran, Cuba and North Korea immediately. Of course our military isn't up to that, not even one of the above, not while tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And soldiers and sailors are declining to re-enlist in startling numbers. My son, who had considered making a career in the service, is now looking at colleges to attend when he gets out, shortly after his return from the Gulf next year.

Alan Moore

05-17-04, 10:28 AM
Kwll
Like everything else I feel there are pros and cons to a draft. Providing that a draft was truly fair and everyone had an equal chance to be selected not just the poor. The draft provides an equal sense of burden sharing in the nation and would help to ensure that more people had a stake in any actions that were occurring. If one considers WW2, there were very few who did not have a relative or know someone invloved in that war and thus the sense of sharing that burden. In VietNam quite the opposite was true. However on the negative side, I think it would lessen the capabilities and quality of the volunteer force. We have people now who for the most part want to be there and have not been forced into it. Also drafts have never been fair for all, the rich always seem to manage ways to avoid it from both sides of the aisle.

05-17-04, 01:18 PM
Rakuchild
Well if Bush says there's no need for a draft and he doesn't forsee one, that's good enough for me. It's not like the man has ever lied about anything...

I'm very much against a draft. Especially since this current war is so questionable as to real purpose. I'd feel this way even if I didn't have a 22 year old son who is poor, non-white and chose working over college. Every draft is an unspoken war against the poor young men in our country.

For a short time, I worked in a prison. There were inmates there, one in particular, who were Vietnam vets. The one that stands out most in my memory is the black man who was in & out of trouble as a youth and sent off to Vietnam at 17 by the courts. He told me if it wasn't for his commander realizing that he was a kid and watching out for him, he'd have been killed. Sometimes when we talked, I got the feeling he wished he had been. He came back to nothing and went back to what he knew and wound up in prison anyway. Things he'd seen in Vietnam scarred him deeply. He was a spiritual man and a lost man in this world. I had to wonder who had the right to send a 17 year old kid to Vietnam. If he'd been a white kid from a moneyed family and involved in the same things (drugs) at the time, he sure wouldn't have gone to Vietnam, eh?

05-17-04, 04:52 PM
teeceeum
Rakuchild, the way I recall the draft being used as punishment is that the court would give the offender a choice. Something like a 4 year prison sentence against a two year stint in the service. The thinking was that the discipline of the military would straighten those "kids" out.

I have no idea how successful it was but it sure sounds like the boot camps in use today.

05-17-04, 05:01 PM
juanruiz
All the draft accomplished in Viet Nam was to give Johnson an endless supply of cannon fodder so that he could carry out his peculiar military strategy.

05-18-04, 11:44 AM
Rakuchild
Your information is probably more factual on the draft being used as punishment, TCM. Part of my job in the prison was to listen to the inmates. The man I wrote about was a Vietnam vet, that I know for sure. Since he said he was sent, he probably felt he had no choice in the matter. He was young, black and poor at the time with no family support and probably a public defender. In his case, it did't straighten him out, it damaged him further.

I know some people have turned their lives around and found the discipline they were lacking by entering the military. But with any self-improvement program, the person has to be willing to make changes to begin with.

Something that has always puzzled me about drafted individuals- what makes them decide to fight for the cause if they don't agree with it? And if enough individuals banded together and decided they weren't going to go along with the plan, wouldn't that make for a very unstable military unit? I don't really understand how a drafted military force can be controlled. What do they do with guys who absolutely won't conform?

05-18-04, 12:30 PM
teeceeum

quote:Originally posted by Rakuchild:
Something that has always puzzled me about drafted individuals- what makes them decide to fight for the cause if they don't agree with it? And if enough individuals banded together and decided they weren't going to go along with the plan, wouldn't that make for a very unstable military unit? I don't really understand how a drafted military force can be controlled. What do they do with guys who absolutely won't conform?


Trouble makers can be court martialed, sent to military prison and/or dishonorably discharged.

The one thing that one should understand is that basic military training is about taking away one's individuality. It's about building a team and training a soldier to blindly follow orders. Those are great traits to have in your soldiers, but not so ideal for society. But as Kwll said, a voluntary force is a more focused and dedicated group.

I was 4-F, by the way. And shortly after my reclassification my lotery number came up. 348.

05-19-04, 08:33 AM
Rakuchild
Thanks for 'splaining that, TCM.

Wonder what would happen if they got a whole group that just sat down and refused to conform?
Along the lines of what if they threw a war and no one showed up.

05-20-04, 03:47 PM
Elexina

quote:Originally posted by teeceeum: Trouble makers can be court martialed, sent to military prison and/or dishonorably discharged.

Of course, if they don't want to be there in the first place, what do they care if they get dishonorably discharged? And if they disagree strongly enough, military prison would be favorable to serving.

The draft... I don't think it's a good idea. I know there are countries where everyone (every male, usually) has to serve, and it works in other places, but I think Americans are too riled up about independence and freedom (not that this is a bad thing!) for the draft to do anything but create disillusionment and unpatriotism.

Just as you shouldn't be forced to volunteer but rather should do it out of desire to help, you should not be forced to serve your country. That is just not the right route for some people. And there are other ways to show your patriotism.

05-20-04, 06:19 PM
FredPuli
Conscription was abolished in Britain in 1960. The army does not want it back. They do not need the manpower. They do not need people who are not motivated. They do not want to be the means of bringing discipline and order to every eighteen year old in Britain. They do not want to train soldiers who will serve only two years. They think that if they cannot get enough men or women to serve voluntarily then they are not trying hard enough in the jobs market.

Why would the American army be any different?

05-20-04, 07:32 PM
frankvan
An all volunteer army is motivated all right, but not necessarily by a burning desire to 'liberate the Iraqi people' or root out the terorists who threaten our shores, etc. Realistically, far too many are motivated by unemployment, or inability to afford a wanted education, etc. Far too many of those who are being killed and maimed are recruited from the poor and the minorities, while the sons and daughters of the affluent escape service of any kind. It may be comforting to believe that those who bear the burden of war were not "conscripted' by their economic level, but it simply is not true.

I submit that if we had a policy of universal military service, and a draft from which the children of the wealthy and powerful were not exempt, we would not be embroiled in the present conflict. There was no evident lack of motivation in the U.S Army of WWII - as far as I could tell. I believe that if the country is to go to war, and that war is justified, everyone should share in the sacrifices that must be made.

05-21-04, 07:18 AM
Kwll
Frank, no surprise here but I've got to disagree with you. The primary motivator for most of today's enlistees is not because of a lack of jobs or inability to afford an education. Granted those are factors but not the biggest factor. In fact I know quite a few who enlisted with degrees in hand, some at Masters and even a doctorate. Most are middle class and certainly not poor nor minority. Most enlist because they have a sense of duty and want to serve something bigger than themselves. I have known very many of them on a personal level and this is what I hear the most as do many of my peers. Patriotism is still a strong motivator. This is a far cry from the military of the 1960's and 70's.

05-21-04, 01:35 PM
frankvan
KwII, with all due respect, it doesn't surprise me that you would admit that unemployment and financial difficulties IS a factor - but that it is not a main one. Would you also acknowledge that people very often take credit for the more noble sounding motivations than what are often the more truthful versions. I also know people with advanced degrees and including PhD's who have considerable difficulty in finding employment. I doubt that those with advanced degreess expect to remain at the entry level rank for long.

05-21-04, 03:39 PM
Kwll
Frank, I do agree with you that "some" people take credit for more noble sounding motivations but I see them everyday and in most cases the actions speak louder than the words. Most of those with advanced degrees do not even come in at entry grade rank so of course they don't expect to stay there. But as I said, we are not in the VietNam era and reasons for joining are considerably different than you might think. Look at Pat Tillman and his brother as a very visible example. There are many more of that type out here.

05-21-04, 07:36 PM
frankvan
KwII, perhaps, if more people felt as you and Pat Tillman do about the Iraq war, there would have been enough troops to not only defeat the Iraqui army, but also to provide a secure occupation with law and order. Instead, almost 800 additional Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed and thousands maimed since your Commander-in-Chief declared major combat "over". Forgive me for saying so, but what you believe is a laudable desire to serve something bigger than oneself, I would call misguided patriotism, a criminal waste of lives in an unnecessary war. This may not be Viet Nam, but it doesn't appear to have accomplished any more than that fiasco did. IMHO.

05-24-04, 07:47 AM
Kwll
Frank, in case you didn't notice I wasn't specifically talking about the Iraq war, I was talking about serving in general. You of all people should know that Soldiers don't pick and choose which wars to fight in. The honor is in serving when the nation calls despite how one personally may feel about it. Besides, what you see on your local 5 o'clock news is always going to be aimed at sales, the more lawlessness the better, but it is not always completely accurate.

05-24-04, 02:56 PM
frankvan
KwII, you, of all people, should realize that Soldiers have no choice in whether or not they serve in an unpopular war. They obey orders or they are insubordinate. I was talking about the shortage of recruits that may account for the undermanned forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the contrast between 1941 and now. I believe there is less honor in simply folowing orders than in doing the right thing when one doesn't have to!

05-25-04, 07:33 AM
Kwll
Frank, that statement is pretty nonsensical at best. I do realize that as I said in the previous statement. As far as shortage of recruits, I'm not sure how you can compare apples to those oranges. As I recall WW2 had a draft and that war was popular from a number of standpoints not least amongst them that nearly everyone in the nation had a personal stake. You were probably one of those draftees. Today all of us are volunteers, we don't decide where we are sent nor do we pick and choose what wars will be popular. As far as "having less honor in following orders than doing the right thing when one doesn't have to" I'm still trying to make heads or tails out of that non sequitur. Most of those who are serving there now have either been in before this war or had enlisted about the time of 9-11 due to a sense of patriotism and national defense. As far as undermanned, I'm not sure where you got that information either, the Army is at or above planned manning strengths that were forecast during the five year appropriation plan. That was forecast under a different President.

I guess you think it is more honorable to be forced to serve than to go willingly, hopefully I'm incorrect in that assumption.

05-26-04, 12:38 PM
frankvan
" As I recall WW2 had a draft and that war was popular from a number of standpoints not least amongst them that nearly everyone in the nation had a personal stake".

My point, exactly. Unless and until there is at least some general consensus, sufficient for CONGRESS to declare war, there is no justifcation for invading another country.

. "You were probably one of those draftees"

Do I detect a hint of condescension ??As a matter of fact, I was probably the only Canadian citizen, living inCanada, who was drafted from Canada into the U.S Army. Unable to meet the physical requirements in Canada and non-citizens not being permitted to enlist in the US, I crossed the border to register with the draft in Rouses Point, N.Y and signed a request for immediate induction, giving my place of residence as Rouse's Point and my mailing address in Canada. I believed that all able bodied men had a stake and a common interest in the outcome. So, by your standards, yes - I was one of those.

."Today all of us are volunteers, we don't decide where we are sent nor do we pick and choose what wars will be popular"

"Volunteer" is a bit of a misnomer when 40,000 soldiers have involuntarily had their expiration dates extended to sometime after 2030, through no act of their own, and 16,000 National Guard troops eligible to leave the service this year have involuntarily been prevented from doing so. If that is not a draft it's a pretty good imitation.

"Most of those who are serving there now have either been in before this war or had enlisted about the time of 9-11 due to a sense of patriotism and national defense. As far as undermanned, I'm not sure where you got that information either,"

I got that from, Gen Eric Shinseki - also Norman Schwartzkopf, Brent Skowcroft, and Anthony Zinni. among others

" the Army is at or above planned manning strengths that were forecast during the five year appropriation plan. That was forecast under a different President."

And that President was not planning an invasion of any other nation

I guess you think it is more honorable to be forced to serve than to go willingly, hopefully I'm incorrect in that assumption.

No, I don't, but it depends on where one goes 'willingly' how honorable the going is. I think you are incorrect in assuming that the majority of those who enter the armed forces in peace time, like the president joining the National Guard, are motivated by undiluted patriotism. Do you have figures of how big the Army was before 9/11 as compared to after the event? Why would reservists and National Guard units be retained beyond their normal tour of duty, if there had been enough forces to win the war AND secure the peace.?

05-26-04, 03:27 PM
Kwll
Frank, with regards to your thoughts above:

"My point, exactly. Unless and until there is at least some general consensus, sufficient for CONGRESS to declare war, there is no justifcation for invading another country."

I would assume from this that you approved of the First Gulf War by that quote then? With reference to that topic I agree Congress should declare war, have all along, but hasn't been much of a fact for many years. http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-18-02/discussion.cgi.20.shtml

As far as condescension for you being a draftee, I never would be thus inclined to anyone who served. I have WW2 draftees in my family and of course am proud of their service. My thought here is that perhaps you harbor some animosity to those of us who volunteer during peace. Just so you know I came in during the Cold War of course and was ready to go any day against the Bear and/or North Korea should that day ever come. Fortunately it did not. As far as your targeting of the President in much of your argument, you clearly misunderstand the position from which I am arguing. I am not defending him or his position in this case, merely defending the honor of our troops who are there now.

As far as your volunteer being a misnomer, if you don't like extensions get the law changed. We all knew the risk when we volunteered.

For these snippets:
"I got that from, Gen Eric Shinseki - also Norman Schwartzkopf, Brent Skowcroft, and Anthony Zinni. among others"

" And that President was not planning an invasion of any other nation"

"Why would reservists and National Guard units be retained beyond their normal tour of duty, if there had been enough forces to win the war AND secure the peace.?"

You obviously don't understand the way budgets are created for Congress. Its called the five year plan. Shinseki and the rest were arguing that we had a need for more Soldiers back before the war. We had just decreased the Army from 18 divisions to about 10 and we were being spread throughout the globe on peacekeeping missions. When the current amount of Soldiers was approved it happened during the plan under Clinton. Note, nowhere in there do I blame him for anything, that is just how the process works! So we have troops deployed in a bunch of places and 9-11 happens. Well guess what, the system is not responsive enough to adapt that rapidly to the change and this brings us to the reserves. For many years now the National Guard and Reserves have increased their share of the total force. Most of that reason is because they are less expensive to maintain. So in national emergency plans reserves are called up to serve missions because we already knew there weren't enough on active duty to fill all of those missions and still provide refit time. The success of the first Gulf War led people to think we would need a smaller military but as usual hindsight is 20-20 and folks tend to forget those other missions that may be called upon to perform, like occupation. Maybe you'll recall some of this info: http://www.g2mil.com/demobilize.htm If you've ever dealt with the government, you can always take from but rarely add to any budget. So to answer your question, this is all a product of the post 1990 Berlin wall meltdown that has never corrected itself.

As far as going willingly anywhere, I'll go wherever my nation calls. I guess the alternative would be anarchy and everyone fends for themselves, sorry, I'm just not made that way.

10-08-05, 01:12 PM
newnickname

quote:

Look at Pat Tillman and his brother as a very visible example.

'"I don't believe it," seethed Ann Coulter.

Her contempt was directed at a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle story reporting that former NFL star and Army Ranger war hero Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was "******* illegal" and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors. It must have been quite a moment for Coulter, who upon Tillman's death described him in her inimitably creepy fashion as "an American original--virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be." She tried to discredit the story as San Francisco agitprop, but this approach ran into a slight problem: The article's source was Pat Tillman's mother, Mary...' www.thenation.com

Another angry mom. Another lame propaganda ploy falls apart.

10-08-05, 02:17 PM
DorianGreyed
More about Tillman, his mother, Coulter, and the show in which Coulter clearly states that she does not believe that Army Ranger Tillman was a fan of leftist author Noam Chomsky, opposed the Iraq war, and planned to vote for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in the 2004 presidential election is available here on MediaMatters.org. Included is a partial transcript of the TV show.

Some links showing just how Tillman's mother feels.

Yet other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, “Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.” - SanFranciscoChronicle.com

A colleague who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. ... We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f— illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush.”

Another soldier in the platoon said Tillman urged him to vote in the 2004 election for Sen. John Kerry. - Editor and Publisher

Mary Tillman told the Post she felt her son was being used, to distract from the Abu Ghurayb scandal and as a tool in the presidential election.

``This lie was to cover their image,'' she told the Post. - The Mercury News

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,