"Army Needs Rebuilding"

[Ken White]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?