I’m not sure how I feel about this. I certainly feel that this is not a war that was worth drafting for. And if it had been an issue, we would’ve been gone long ago. But I don’t know that there aren’t wars that are worthy causes for those who actively choose that life and to fight for their country but not worth actually forcing unwilling participants to fight for something that’s not so imminently important or worthwhile that they are unpatriotic not to support it and to be willing to die for it. Why do people join the armed forces? They don’t join to twiddle their thumbs. It’s one thing to have a trumped up war and misleading information from the government. But people who joined the armed forces are joining because they feel there are causes worth fighting for that the general public might not.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…
As far as I am concerned, we should not engage in any war that is not worth drafting for.
I would agree except draftees typically make bad soldiers. The military does not want a draft. We should not draft until it becomes absolutely necessary.
We should not go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. One follows the other to me. If war is absolutely necessary, then so is a draft.[/quote]
If an autonomous, free-thinking adult chooses to fight for something you and I don’t think is absolutely necessary from a moral or practical standpoint, who are we to tell them they’re wrong?
Sometimes people join because it gives them access to a good education and an improved life…
It is a risk they are forced to take… and I think a fair number of people were surprised by 9/11, since things looked relatively peaceful with respect to outright war before that.
However, the draft issue is a tricky one. On one hand, it makes sense to “fully involve” the public in decisions to go to war, as that may help keep the country out of questionable wars.
The issue at hand though was, at one point, about whether or not the politburo should be removed from these concerns as a matter of privilege.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The issue at hand though was, at one point, about whether or not the politburo should be removed from these concerns as a matter of privilege.[/quote]
I don’t know Vroom-I don’t think any one was arguing that they should.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sometimes people join because it gives them access to a good education and an improved life…[/quote]
The objective of any branch of the military is to kill people and break things. To enter military service and not know that this is the primary function is the fault of the one signing up.
The term politburo was a term you adopted - and is really not useful for for debate other than to get a dig in.
But none the less, I don’t think the rich and the powerful are automatically removed from anything as a matter of privelage. At least not legally with respect to the draft, or military service. Can they use their influence to affect the same result? Probably. But that is not the same thing as extending government sponsored exemptions to the rich becasue they are rich.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why degrade our military with a draft?
[/quote]
Degrade?! Was the US military degraded when it fortified its ranks in World War II with the draft? Those men were some of the bravest, ablest and most patriotic soldiers this country has ever fielded.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir,
I should have been more clear - when I said “you”, I meant the generic “you”, not as in “you, Varqanir, specifically”.
Sorry for any confusion.
[/quote]
Oh. Well, all right then. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why degrade our military with a draft?
Degrade?! Was the US military degraded when it fortified its ranks in World War II with the draft? Those men were some of the bravest, ablest and most patriotic soldiers this country has ever fielded.
[/quote]
Putting people in a place they don’t want to be and forcing them to do things that they don’t want to do is hardly a recipe for an optimal fighting force.
To compare the greatest generation with the sorry lot we have to choose from today is really quite comical. There are way more titty-baby mama’s boys today than anything approaching the quality of man that was the norm back in the day.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why degrade our military with a draft?
Degrade?! Was the US military degraded when it fortified its ranks in World War II with the draft? Those men were some of the bravest, ablest and most patriotic soldiers this country has ever fielded.
Putting people in a place they don’t want to be and forcing them to do things that they don’t want to do is hardly a recipe for an optimal fighting force.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know what Basic Training was like for you Rainjack, but that’s a pretty good description of every day at Fort Benning.
That’s what soldiers do in addition to killing people and breaking things. They go where they don’t want to go, and do things they’d rather not do, especially not at four in the fucking morning.
How many men wanted to storm the beaches at Nomandy? How many wanted to go to Normandy at all? But they went and did it just the same.
Yeah, you’re right. It is, really.
Well, what better cure for titty-baby mama’s boys than making 'em all join the fucking Marines? I know, they’re only looking for a few good men, but at least send them to boot camp. You never know what a good eight weeks of discipline might achieve.
Then, once enough shit has been cleared out of their heads and bodies, and the truly hopeless cases have washed up, those who are so inclined can choose to enlist for real.
No compulsion, you see. It being a free country and all.
[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The objective of any branch of the military is to kill people and break things. To enter military service and not know that this is the primary function is the fault of the one signing up.
[/quote]
Hey, I wasn’t saying anything about the merit of the idea, just the reality of it.
Again, did people get into something they didn’t expect or not?
It is very easy to wash your hands of the issue and say tough luck, but I guess that is the way of the compassionate conservative these days.
How the hell can it be a dig? A dig against who? Give me a break.
[quote]To compare the greatest generation with the sorry lot we have to choose from today is really quite comical. There are way more titty-baby mama’s boys today than anything approaching the quality of man that was the norm back in the day.
[/quote]
I’m not so sure this holds true.
I’m guessing people rise to the occasion when the need is there. I don’t think there has been much occasion to rise to since bygone days.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The issue at hand though was, at one point, about whether or not the politburo should be removed from these concerns as a matter of privilege.[/quote]
Oh, I think the Politburo should definitely be exempt from the draft. I certainly wouldn’t want any Communist Party policymakers serving in the US armed forces!
irish26 wrote:
“The greater issue is not Republican vs. Democrat and which sons are more “patriotic” by going to the military. Don’t make it that way.
A rich Republican is little different from a rich Democrat- especially when it comes to keeping their children out of a war.”
I agree, irish.
“Altough I know that in your world this is yet another reason why Democrats are the scum of the earth, I don’t think it has anything to do with it.”
I do NOT think all democrats are scum. I am very angry, however, at the left wing of your party. Remember how these loons were energized by that particular scene? Which party do you think the moore-on was hoping to advance?
It does help, now and then, to throw some facts out there to refute some of the garbage.
“The fact is, if there was a draft, which there very well might never be again after the Vietnam debacle, the people like me would get drafted. The sons of government officials, would not have to go unless the did so voluntarily.”
Welcome to the majority of wars in the history of the world.
“As far as I am concerned, we should not engage in any war that is not worth drafting for.”
Interesting perspective. I assume that would include the First Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan.
I’ll defer to the military T-Members, but I do believe the nature of warfare has changed dramatically.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
fightinirish26 wrote:
“The fact is, if there was a draft, which there very well might never be again after the Vietnam debacle, the people like me would get drafted. The sons of government officials, would not have to go unless the did so voluntarily.”
Welcome to the majority of wars in the history of the world.
[/quote]
Not for the majority of wars in in the history of the Western world until about the mid 20th Century.
The front lines of a hoplite phalanx (Classical Greece) was made up entirely of the sons of the wealthiest, most politically connected people in the city…along with their fathers, their brothers, their uncles, and in the case of Sparta, sometimes their grandfathers as well.
And among them, the king himself.
No need for a draft in Sparta. Being an adult male Spartiate was synonymous with being a soldier.
The centurions of Republican and Imperial Rome were also the sons of the best Roman families. Often the Emperor led his own troops.
Up until about the Second World War, it was the royalty and the aristocracy who led the troops into war. Think of Teddy Roosevelt, charging up San Juan Hill. Think of his sons, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post. Think of men like George Pattton, the richest and best educated General in the American Army, right in the thick of the fire.
As an aside, Patton once commented that he’d like to go one-on-one with Erwin Rommel, Patton in his tank, Rommel in his, and the outcome of the duel would decide the war.
What an excellent idea. I want to put George Bush in the ring with Osama bin Laden. A couple good right hooks into the skinny raghead’s kidneys, and that would be it. Then old Dubya could just work his way through Ayatollah Khameni, Colonel Qadhafi, Kim Jong-Il, and, oh, why not? Hugo Chavez.
Axis of Evil? Down for the fucking count.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I don’t know what Basic Training was like for you Rainjack, but that’s a pretty good description of every day at Fort Benning. [/quote]
I hated every single day I was at Fort Jackson. BUT - I was there of my own free will. I signed up. I knew it would be hell for 6 months (including AIT). That is much different than trying to train a bunch of recruits that were told they were going into military.
I’m not disagreeing with that. But do you not see the difference in what you are saying and the point I am trying to make? Youare talking about an all volunteer force not liking their mission, or their office hours. How much worse is it for someone that was drafted? I’m saying that it affects morale to a much higher degree than a bunch of guys that wanted to join.
How many of them were drafted? You are talking about an entirely different game when you start talking about WWII. It was felt that it was their duty to fight. 15 year old kids were joining because they felt it was their duty. Fast forward 40 years - no comparison.
If were going to do that - we might as well copy the Israeli model and force EVERY 18 year-old into 2 years of mandatory service. No deferment for college, no exclusions. Everyone serves 2 years.
I am not at all opposed to that, but I think it should be instituted before we need it. It seems to me that the draft is a little back-asswards. We don’t activate it until we need it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not so sure this holds true.
I’m guessing people rise to the occasion when the need is there. I don’t think there has been much occasion to rise to since bygone days.[/quote]
I think it is absolutely true. My grand parents, and the people their age that I have had the privelage to know are indeed unique in their perspective. Especially when compared with what we have today.
I can’t quantify the difference for you, but I can say that they are very hard people that grew up in a very hard time, and gave everything they had without complaint in a much bloodier war.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why degrade our military with a draft?
Degrade?! Was the US military degraded when it fortified its ranks in World War II with the draft? Those men were some of the bravest, ablest and most patriotic soldiers this country has ever fielded.
[/quote]
I was thinking more of the Vietnam era rather than the citizen soldiers of WW2.
While many were drafted, many also enlisted on their own. They are called the greatest generation for a reason.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The term politburo was a term you adopted - and is really not useful for for debate other than to get a dig in.
How the hell can it be a dig? A dig against who? Give me a break.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a politburo in the U.S. You gave that name to the rich, powerful, and high level public servants.
If it is a made up term - how can it be anything but editorializing on your part? And therefore only used to be derogatory - which is inturn attempting to make a dig.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
How many men wanted to storm the beaches at Nomandy? How many wanted to go to Normandy at all? But they went and did it just the same.
How many of them were drafted? You are talking about an entirely different game when you start talking about WWII. It was felt that it was their duty to fight. 15 year old kids were joining because they felt it was their duty. Fast forward 40 years - no comparison. [/quote]
Okay, try this one on for size.
Of the 16.4 million US veterans who served in World War II, only about a third were volunteers. The rest were drafted. In fact, volunteerism was even less in evidence during World War II than it was during the Vietnam War. Just a quarter of the 2.6 million Americans who served in the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1973 were draftees.
Joseph Balkoski, military historian and author of Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy, gives us this piece of information:
“The newcomers, in fact, usually outnumbered the old hands in each outfit. In the 175th Infantry, which had an authorized strength of about 3,500 men, 2,000 of the troops were draftees.”
I am 100% with you here, brother. But why be satisfied with the Israeli model? I say we emulate the Swiss.
“Happy 18th birthday. Report for duty immediately.”
Only you are in the Militia until you are 50. You keep your rifle and ammunition at home, and you MUST qualify with your weapon every six months.
Like I said, Sparta didn’t need a draft. Neither does Switzerland. And even Hitler wasn’t crazy enough to invade, even though that’s where the gold was, and they were right next door.
“The Swiss are excellently armed and absolutely free”
— Niccolo Machiavelli
We could do with a bit more of that in America. Hell, I might even move back.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
If an autonomous, free-thinking adult chooses to fight for something you and I don’t think is absolutely necessary from a moral or practical standpoint, who are we to tell them they’re wrong?[/quote]
This is really what vroom was trying to say. Look at WW2 , a lot of people were drafted but a heck of a lot of people came up and enlisted too. I wonder how many people enlisted before this pipe dream of a justification for going to war. And no the # of enlistees isn’t the only justification or even a measure of justification at all. It does point in the right direction though