Could you provide a basis for this thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I think it will be the right time and place in 4 - 8 more years, should the 'long war' continue.
Should the long war continue, the issue of National service and thus a military Draft will solve precisely what problem in that 'war?'
I place 'war' in quotes because as I indicated, I think this is at the same time less than a war and more than one -- it is not a war, it is an ethnic conflict with worldwide intelligence, military and law enforcement ramifications induced by the appeasement oriented western civilizations tolerance of some pushy and fanatic purported Islamists during the period 1972-2001. If you have not yet read it, I suggest you obtain access to a copy of the Nixon commissioned Global Terrorism report produced in 1976 and as a result of the attack in Munich in 1972 - LINK.
Your desire for a Draft to me indicates a need for mass; the only major military advantage conscription offers. What do you propose to use that mass for?
Quote:
Hence my question of: "is a "perpetual" war on terrorism a consequence of policy or is our policy a consequence of the enduring nature of the war?" IIt seems to me that as expensive as a perpetual war and national service may be, if it is a consequence of policy, then we have the option to change the policy in anticipation of the discussed problems. If, however, the perpetual war is imposed upon us, then what other choice do we have than to sustain the conflict?
I think 'perpetual' is a quite significant over statement and would submit that even if true, adding to the cost of said 'war' by going to an unnecessary added expense of conscription that will produce a large quantity of military personnel that are not needed is somewhat counterproductive.
Quote:
True. That is why I suggested that in a national service institution, the combat arms be reserved for volunteers only.
Said combat arms are already served by volunteers -- what would you use the rest of the conscripted persons for?
Quote:
The resources are there. It's a problem of distribution and use. It would require the federal government to reassert its power over the monetary system.
Perhaps, the issue is whether that's the best use of resources and if so why. To my knowledge, you have not yet explained why national service is a good idea in practical versus esoteric and idealistic terms.
Quote:
That's a failure of leadership to define the enemy. That's a problem of context, and not of national service itself.
Not totally true. WW II conscripts served for the duration plus 6 months in a somewhat existential (certainly large and all encompassing by any definition) war. That aided in the development of military and battlefield competence significantly and there was little difference discernible in those area between draftees and regulars at the end of the war.
Since then, there has been no need for such harsh terms of service and the politicians left the two year, peacetime draft term in place. Can you provide any reason why they should not have done so?
Quote:
I agree. Necessity is the last and strongest weapon. Under what conditions become necessary?
Fair question. Barring a significant miscalculation by one nation or another, a very slim possibility, I can foresee no conditions in this effort that would provide such necessity. You apparently do see such a necessity or possibility if not a probability; could I ask what, precisely, that is?
Tom is correct in that the times we had a Draft
it served us well and the guys who got drafted mostly did their thing and did it well. There is no other way to get a large mass -- if that is militarily required -- of people into the fight.
Having said that and having lived around the Navy and Marines from 1932 until 1940 and from 1946 until 1950 with no draft and recalling not only service but civilian and national attitudes, Steve is also correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
Actually the draft wasn't at all possible prior to 1914 or so, due in no small part to the furor caused by the riots during the Civil War. There was a lingering faith in the power of state volunteer units (and later the National Guard) to augment forces (in fact it was state troops and special volunteers that filled the ranks during the Spanish-American War).
I'd submit it was also not possible between the world wars; post WW II the Cold War -- and the way it was couched to the nation and the bi-partisan effort that it became -- made it possible until Viet Nam showed the political (NOT military) fallacy of the concept in less than major existential war in a democracy.
Quote:
I think you need to look deeper than the threat of the draft to the main causes for such 'volunteerism' (and mostly in state or special units...the Regulars usually remained understrength). The sense of Manifest Destiny, though mocked today, was still strong then. It was more of a social calling, combined with the 'thrill' of experiencing conflict.
Exactly; I'm old, I can remember the US before the mantra of big government and dependency on the government (and thus an attitude of "it's not my yob...") became prevalent. Today's lack of involvement and interest in the Armed forces is fault of said Armed Forces as well as of sweeping general and not always beneficial societal change. If the Armed Forces were smart, they'd have an outreach program that relied on the Reserve Components -- but that would mean giving them another mission, more money and some clout and thus is unlikely... ;)
Quote:
Points to consider, at least. I've never quite bought into the draft as being either a natural state for the United States or that it was really a good motivator for service. The historical record seems to suggest strongly that there are other factors at work.
Agree strongly. The myth of 'national service' of some sort sounds good to some -- it does not sound at all good to others and its record world wide is mixed at best. Here, it has not fared well and is highly unlikely to do so. A draft is an effective military tool when needed; the rest of the time its better left alone as it creates more problems than it solves. It emphatically will not convince the majority of teenagers to be good citizens (said as a guy who's raised four of 'em who finally outgrew their teenage insouciance -- though I have not outgrwon mine... :D).
National Service Should Bring Rewards For A Lifetime
A national program, intended to encourage young people (say, 2 years' time between the ages of 18 and 27) to spend a period of their lives, that is devoted to the service of their country, is a good and wholesome thing; but I don't believe that it should be mandatory, especially in a Democracy. If the rewards for national service were tangible, and were of the kind that would continue to reward over the course of a lifetime, there should be plenty of volunteers for such service, even in a time of war.
What I have in mind is an "Affimative Action"-type program. "Veterans" of such service should be placed at the top of every list for positions within the Federal Government, including for politically-appointed positions. Further, there should critical review of staffing, and should be adverse consequences to the head of any department or to the elected official, whose proportion of personnel who have served in such a way, is below average.
If such a program/affirmative action plan could be enacted, I imagine that a significant number of the graduates of the finest schools, as well as most of those with political ambitions, will see national service as an increasingly attractive way to start their careers. It would be up to the Federal Government to apportion these volunteers according to the needs of the country. In times of war, the military could lay claim to a larger portion of these volunteers than would be needed when there is no conflict. Yet, because of the unique appeal of military service, there should be plenty of youths pereferring to serve in uniform rather than to serve as social workers.