America should have mandatory military enlistment for its youth

[Deja Q]

* obesity declines
* everybody is treated equally. No wealthy bugger can get their spoiled brats out of it
* everyone gets called on as needed
* no favoritism for the rich, who have an equal obligation to this country - the Constitution says all men are created equal; end of story.

It is ALL our country, right?

[rocktivity]

1. Obesity would INCREASE (not to mention homosexuality)

ESPECIALLY among the richest kids!


rocknaiton

[Rosemary2205]

11. actually

I'd think sending a few of their fat butts through basic training would solve that fat problem.

[pnwmom]

49. Actually, obsesity is a bigger problem among the poor.

[Subdivisions]

2. I fundementally agree with you, but...

Wouldn't we prefer that this sort of enlistment be predicated on the rule that enlistees have a right to protest an unjust war initiated by a childlike narcissist?

[pampango]

3. Actually, if you had mandatory military enlistment at age 50

you might end up with fewer wars. Most of us would take quite a bit of convincing to want to take up arms and wouldn't be the best soldiers even if we were convinced that war was a good idea. 18 year old guys are much easier to convince about the "manliness" of fighting a war.

[Deja Q]

7. I agree... Tom Barnard ought to be drafted; he's about that age...

And he's hot to trot on this war and wonders why nobody's enlisting...

[noahmijo]

8. I agree considering the fact that those who profit from wars is always that age group

(50+) they outta be made to fight their own wars.

"War is old men talking and young men dying"

[pampango]

14. "War is old men talking and young men dying"

Exactly. When the old men have to fight, there will be a whole lot less fighting.

[Union Thug]

20. War is old RICH men talking...

And yes, those tough talking parasites should be leading the charge. But they don't have the balls to do it, so they use their money and influence to build a political system that utilizes the poor, gravy starved plebs to fight their wars.

[pampango]

24. I agree with you in this case, but I do believe that the young

men have fought the old (and rich and powerful) men's wars in every society throughout history. Our current crop are just the most recent in a long and no-so-proud tradition.

[sweetheart]

33. war is rich kapitalists talking

Labour does the fighting when kapital has growing pains.

[Tom Joad]

4. Anyone who has engaged in sexual activity should not be allowed in.

anyone who even thought of such things would not be allowed in.

Military spending would decline to affordable levels.
US imperialism would decline.

[bluerum]

5. I will concede that your first point may be true for military people. Although

when I was in, the chow hall food was not especially low-fat or low-carb.

But, rich boys and girls will always try to buy their way out of life's obligations and responsibilities. That is why god gave their families the money. Because they are special and should not have to sweat, bleed, or experience pain like the workers.

[Deja Q]

13. True, but

in boot camp everything's about building strength and endurance. Low-carb and low-fat isn't going to help anybody. Life is about movement and portion anyway...

And forget the rich, everybody means everybody and they have to pay their part too - they have more they want to defend, right...? Especially those who want to support Israel - a country that DOES mandate all its youth go into the military.

[bluerum]

Not to say that all well off and rich people will try to avoid service. You

are correct - they in principle have even more to defend. But there is always the ability to pay someone off either through influence or cash.

Witness the current (I hold my nose as I write this next word,,,) president.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. That is why we need to make no exceptions for this

look at Israel for this, even those who are CO serve in some capacity.... and getting out of military service is damn hard.

I say, everybody serves, you don't serve, you loose your basic rights to run for office or vote, in that sense Heinlein was right.

Oh and add to this... public financing of political races.

Yes this would mean Clinton would have never been able to run for even dog catcher... but oh well.

Our current mispresident went to a champagne unit, those have to be abolished.

[Jonathan50]

57. Arab citizens of Israel are not required to serve, only Jews

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Yes some elite units are Arabs

Others are druze

[TahitiNut]

16. The overweight basic trainees got "special" treatment when I was in basic.

:shrug: For the rest of us, we used every calorie we could scarf down.

[bluerum]

Yea,,, they got to be the runners! eom

[Dracos]

6. I OPPOSE THE DRAFT

[TahitiNut]

12. Well, that's sure a brave stance.

I guess upper case makes it look even braver. :puke:

[11 Bravo]

17. Yeah, Caps lock rocks me back on my heels every time.

[Selatius]

9. If we had a system like the Swiss militia system, I would have no problem with this.

The problem is we don't have that kind of system. We have a system more suitable for imperial aspirations.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Yep! n/t

PB

[porphyrian]

10. Not while I vote. The ends wouldn't justify the means. - n/t

[HereSince1628]

15. America doesn't need, or want, that large a military.

Forget it. Wrap that idea it in a shoe box and put it at the back of the closet, or in the bottom of a chest in a corner of the attic. Or, maybe put it in an old tackle box, along with a brick and drop it in deep quiet pool in the river. Better, if someone is pouring a foundation, drop it in the forms and let it be lost to generations embedded in the concrete.

Being turned into serfs and becoming equal in poverty is more appealing. And that ain't appealing.

[halobeam]

I've heard that military that is there doesnt' want ppl who don't want to be there

it's safer for them. Is this true?

[HereSince1628]

25. A lot of reservists and guard don't want to be there and they

are not only being called back, they are being stop-lossed against their wishes too.

[Union Thug]

18. No, it is not "All our country."

So long as a minority control the vast majority of the wealth, it is not ALL our country. In my view, those that have the most interest in protecting the system should be the ones to fight and die for that system. In other words, the children of the wealthy should be on the front lines in any war. They are the ones whose interests are challenged. For the poorest in this country, they have no interested in protecting the status quo, and as such, they should not be forced to fight for it.

[noamnety]

58. Time Equals Money

Family wealth could be used to determine length of service. Each enlistee has to serve one month for each $100,000 of their parents' wealth (including stocks and 401K's). Those whose parents net worth < $100,000 don't need to serve.

Those who feel strongly enough that their children shouldn't go to war have an easy solution - donate their money to a charity and live like that other America.

Those who benefit most would have the most obligation. And it sure would be interesting to watch as people choose between their money or their children's safety.

[liberal N proud]

19. The rich still would manage to get out

At the very least, the would be officer's sitting behind some desk.
We have been through this debate many times. Mandatory military service does nothing but make American a military state. What other fabulous examples of nations have mandatory service?
N. Korea; China; Israel among some of the shining examples America should follow...NOT!

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Switzerland, sweeden, at this point even Germany

you were saying?

Having mandatory service does not make you automatically an imperial state

By the way, China no longer has mandatory service either... it is a career choice...

[liberal N proud]

35. Sweden, Switzerland & Germany are not threatening countries like others

Unfortunately America is more like China and N. Korea with regards to former affairs than Sweden.
If it is service you want, mandatory community service would make more sense.
Something other than war making. We have too many running around now who served in the military and still retain that kill'em mentality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. You asked and I gave you examples

you did not like the answer that is besides the point

By the way, your neighbor to the south has an interesting take on military service.

1.- Lottery (which is a problem the kids of the well to do get out of it)

2.- Service, though nominally in the military, involves some close order drill and community service... some aspects of that could be implemented as well

But you asked.

Oh and historically Germnany has been just as big a threat to world peace... but hey, whatever trips your trigger.

The point is, military service perse does not an empire make, and that is fallacious thought that is commonly used

[seabeyond]

21. i wouldnt be opposed to social work of some kind. but not military only

i am opposed to killing. period. how i teach my kids. i wont ever support something that will force my kids to kill. i wouldnt be opposed to two years of giving to the nation thru different programs. never for military

[Union Thug]

23. I would support some kind of national service, so long as lifelong free education and

healthcare were the outcome. However, national service should mean, as you suggest, work that builds a better society, not work as proxy killers for America's elite.

[HereSince1628]

29. Contemplate the logistics and costs of full time mandatory service

for everyone passing through age 19-21. It's pretty damned overwhelming, impossibly expensive I'd say.

[Solon]

43. Not if its done right...

First things first, you have to give people CHOICE in their mandatory service. Also, I wouldn't tie it in with Health care, that should be a right, not a privilege. Instead, make it a condition for free higher education, even to the Master's and Doctorate range, if that's what a person wants.

Second, I would extend the age ranges from 19-21 to 18-25. You can delay the mandatory service for that amount of time after graduation of high school. However, if you want to go to a trade school or college for free, make mandatory service a condition of it.

Another thing, I would limit mandatory service to two years, consecutive or not, mostly clocked by hours, I would imagine, for every 4 years of free college. The service can be served either before you go to college, or after, it wouldn't be mandatory for when you are in college.

The only condition of such service is that you have to work for either an approved non-profit, like Habitat for Humanity, or you could work for the government in any capacity. You could go in for military service, if that is your wish, or some form of social service.

The jobs available for mandatory service will limit some choice, but not to a great degree, mostly because many government programs and non-profits are continuously short of people.

For example, let's say we have a someone who wants to be a teacher, as a condition of free education to become a teacher, they could volunteer for Head Start, in a paying or non-paying capacity, as either a teacher's assistant before college, or a teacher after college.

[HereSince1628]

69. There are over 20 million people in each of the age groups you mention

that's an awful lot of additional people to pay and to make financial promises to bases on tax dollars. I think it'd be the next thing to impossible to get support for the 100's of billions per year this program would cost to pass the law requiring it through Congress.

[TahitiNut]

34. I'd support "lifelong free education" as long as every adult ...

... were required to pass high school examinations every five years or be required to go back to high school. With the exception of those with serious learning disabilities, I think every U.S. citizen should be required to periodically take and pass the NCLB standard examinations for high school until age 66.

[NavyDavy]

22. I totally agree with mandatory service(civil or military)

[Peace Patriot]

26. Bullshit! Until we cut this military budget back by 90%, to a true defensive

posture--no more wars of choice!--then what our non-voluntary young people will be compelled to do is to kill people in foreign lands in corporate resource wars.

Get this fascist idea out of this progressive forum!

When was the last time our "Defense" Department actually DEFENDED us? They couldn't even defend our nation's capital on 9/11. They couldn't even defend the goddamned Pentagon! They are NOT DEFENDING us. They are MANUFACTURING aggressive wars, on behalf of the war profiteers and the corporate rulers. And you want to compel our young people to go along with this? You want to put every youngster in the country--voluntarily or involuntarily--in the position of Lt. Ehren Watada, court-martialled and facing years in jail for objecting to an ILLEGAL war.

You want every youngster in this country to be under the command of George Bush and Dick Cheney?

You want every youngster in this country to be under the command of future "War Presidents" with the extra-legal powers that Bush-Cheney have asserted with NO Congressional push-back (let alone effective push-back)?

Until we have a democracy again in this country--with TRANSPARENT vote counting, and publicly funded campaigning, and a press corps that is not controlled by war profiteers, we CANNOT DO THAT to our young people!

Defense of your country is one thing. Empowering fascists to commit aggressive wars is an entirely different thing. It is a HORRIBLE thing. And it is a HORRIBLE suggestion that we--or anyone--force young people to commit such crimes.

[Poll_Blind]

27. I think the Israeli model has proven an effective tool to break down....

...barriers between different cultural groups, help uniformly expose members of society to a common experience and caused every Israeli to have, or have had, "skin in the game" when it comes to helping the country.

  There should be a number of asterisks and footnotes for the sentence above because, as implemented, there are still numerous inequalities in the mandatory government service programs which Israel utilizes. However, on paper (and generally, in reality) these things are true.

  While the Israeli model is a little broader in scope than what you describe, I think that if more Americans were...compelled by law to participate more in the machinations of the American government they would generally be more knowledgeable about government, care more about what our military is doing, and yes, take more pride in their country.

  Not the kind of "pride" which causes blind allegiance, but real pride which causes action to help the country uphold the standards which we believe it should.

  Back for a moment to the line in a paragraph above: "...compelled by law to participate more in the machinations of the American government" Compelled by law is equible with forced, and not unreasonably so.

  However, as citizens of this country we must realize that, aside from paying taxes, there is an unspoken responsibility to civic and governmental programs in order for our country to be healthy and strong. Currently there are very few responsibities in this regard. We are free to participate in government or leave it entirely to rot or devolve into whatever we allow it to become.

  I would support legislation compelling by law citizens to participate more in the process. I liken it to a person who has eschewed physical activity. Eventually, as we all know, their body will weaken to some extent and their organs will perform less vigerously leading to sickness and early death.

  Culturally, there is little to spur Americans to more participation in government. While some would believe that a call for legislation of this nature would infringe on their concept of freedom in America, I believe that while it may compell interaction which would otherwise not occur, there is no contraint on how each person affects the government through their interaction or what they choose to change.

PB

[Peace Patriot]

44. And you think compulsory killing of Iraqis is "helping our country"?

"...barriers between different cultural groups, help uniformly expose members of society to a common experience and caused every Israeli to have, or have had, 'skin in the game' WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING THE COUNTRY." --Poll_Blind (my emphasis)

How would making compulsory killing of Iraqis and Iranians "help" this country? The overwhelming evidence is that Bush's war in the Mideast is destroying this country. And you want to give him and his ilk access to ALL U.S. youth, by compulsion?

The U.S. is NOT Israel. We are NOT surrounded by hostile countries, or under any threat whatsoever of invasion. 10% of the current U.S. military budget--and 10% of the current U.S. voluntary military force--would be sufficient to defend us from any threat. The extra 90% of these funds and solders is for aggressive war, and the war profiteers behind the cancerous growth of the "military-industrial complex" are now MANUFACTURING wars, in order to feed this beast, along with giant oil corporations who have appropriated our military to their purposes. And you want to force Americans to support this?

So I ask you--since you use Israel as a model--who would compulsory killing of Arabs and Persians, by all U.S. youngsters, benefit--besides our war profiteers and oil giants? Why do you want to militarize the entire young population of the U.S., as Israel is militarized? Do you really care whether it is rich or poor American youngsters who die for war profiteers, corporate oil giants and Israel? Why should America force its youngsters to do this? Is your motive in wanting to make the U.S. more like Israel a benefit to the U.S. or a benefit to Israel?

I am in favor of Israel's survival and prosperity. So don't call me anti-Israel. I can make the distinction between Israel's rightwing leadership and war profiteers, and the Israeli people, just as I can make that distinction here in the U.S. And I think Israel has a great contribution to make to Middle Eastern culture. I also agree with the policy of supporting Israel--so long as the U.S. government is a force for PEACE in the Middle East. But that is NOT currently the case. The U.S. is embarked on an INSANE policy of trying to dominate other Middle Eastern countries by force. And, among other horrid consequences of this policy, in puts Israel in GREATER jeopardy.

And, given this INSANE policy, the notion of FORCING the entire young population of the United States to go kill Arabs and Persians on behalf of our war profiteers and Israel's, and on behalf of corporate oil, strikes me as more than insane. It strikes me as an evil suggestion--a suggestion that is contrived to sound like it has some benefit for U.S. youngsters and for our country in general, when there is, in truth, NO benefit in it for we, the people, of the U.S.

The Founders of this nation were opposed to the maintenance of a standing army. This is why. A standing army is an immense temptation to tyrannical presidents and to war profiteers, not to mention making our government vulnerable to the agents of foreign governments trying to drag the U.S. into their wars. If the U.S. is not at war, why fund and billet an army? If there is no threat of invasion of our country, why have a trillion dollar military budget? Our big mistake--a mistake of possibly tragic proportions--was never de-mobilizing after WW II, and permitting this beast--the "military industrial complex"--to grow into a monster, that now feeds itself with our young, and with our treasure.

Given the realities of the modern world--in particular nuclear weaponry--we cannot currently do without SOME defense--a defense capable of fending off any nuclear attack or (barely conceivable) invasion. (China and Saudi Arabia have invaded us financially anyway--they don't need to bother with ground forces.) But the truth is that the "terrorist" threat is entirely controllable by effective police and intelligence work. "Terrorism" is not a war. It is a DISORDER--a civil matter, not a military matter. In this country. Israel is in an entirely different situation. But the best that we can do, to help Israel in ITS situation, is to broker a peace in which Israel can survive and prosper, in harmony with, or at least in neutrality with, its neighbors. Instead, we are doing the WORST thing possible, and are foreclosing every possibility except a permanent U.S. military occupation of at least two major Mideast countries--an occupation that cannot be sustained. It is financially ruinous to the U.S., and will break our country into a million warring pieces.

So, WHO does military conscription in the U.S. SERVE? Not us. We don't need it. And we KNOW that it WILL be misused! It serves: a) war profiteers; b) corporate predators, out to control all of the earth's resources; c) fascist tyrants in the White House; and d) Israel's rightwing, militaristic, war profiteering leadership--tied, as they are, to OUR war profiteers and to a militaristic policy in the Middle East.

[Poll_Blind]

45. Your first sentence shows you missed my point entirely.

  You interpreted my support for mandatory government service with support of abuse of the military or the government. You are not replying to my message. You are replying to a message you fabricated to create a foil.

  The two most likely culprits given my own experiences are 1) You didn't really read my message, skimming or skipping to the part where you reply after you reckoned you "got the gist" of my point 2) Too much caffiene.

  You spend almost 8 full paragraphs refuting points I did not make, attempting to stuff my mouth with a whole host of vile allegiances. You are shadow boxing. I have done that myself on occasion, I'll admit. But never so prolifically.

  My thesis, boiled down to something a little more binary for your consumption: If Americans more-universally participated in the military and government, we would pay more attention to abuses of same. We would also take more pride in our country and strengthen it overall.

PB

[Peace Patriot]

53. My point-and the reason I go on about it-is that you leave out the CONTEXT

of your proposal. You state that compulsory military service will help prevent government and military abuses, and will cause us to "take more pride in our country and strengthen it overall," in a country that is reeling from abuse of power, in which fascists are dragging young people, who volunteered for the military often because of poverty, into the killing fields of Iraq, and there is NO evidence that the power that these fascists hold over us is going to be held accountable or curtailed--ever. So what you are suggesting, it seems to me, is that MORE young people be dragged into the killing fields in the Middle East--and indeed that all our kids be so dragged--on pain of jail.

IF we had a democracy any more, I MIGHT agree with you that some kind of service should be required, or better yet, rewarded. I would NEVER agree that military service should be required. I oppose any kind of military draft. If a war is just and necessary, then citizens should support it and join it, and even offer their lives to it, voluntarily. Drafts are involuntary servitude. They are undemocratic. And they furthermore violate the consciences of many people, and place people at the mercy of potentially unjust and self-serving leaders.

But the question of voluntary or involuntary social or military service is beside the point--and the suggestion to compel military service is wrongful--in a country in which 70% of the people oppose the current war and an illegitimate president with almost no support is escalating that war ANYWAY. You call that a democracy? I don't. That is tyranny. And to hell with being involuntary slaves and cannon fodder for the tyrants who are running this country and the war profiteers who put them in office.

[Benhurst]

30. Ask not ...

Das Homeland, Das Homeland, Uber Alis!

[JVS]

39. Die Jugend soll dem Staat treu dienen!

[shadowknows69]

36. Kids that should NEVER be near weapons

are trained to be killers. I understand the reasoning but I've been giving it some thought and instead of making people more wary of war due to more involvement I fear it would almost serve to glamorize and deify war even more than it already is in this country. Every parent would want their child to be the first one on his block with a confirmed kill. The human race has too much of an inate bloodlust for this to lead to anything less than more bloodshed IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Been to the movies lately?

checked the games kids play?

Perhaps you've read any of the fiction kids read.

Trust me, glamor is all over the culture, one aspect of fascism.

Trust me, boot camp woudl take some of the glamour out.

What you mean this is 99% boredome punctuated by 1% terror instead off... but, but where is the reset buton?

Miliary service is not gonig to glamorize it perse. Nor does it lead automatically to adventurism. It is a societal choice, but I'm sure you already knew that

[shadowknows69]

61. Its something i'm on the fence about

and I think I explained my concerns. I meet a lot of VERY young guys that seem to be aching to take that step from the video game and get their first real world kill. I just think it would make it too easy for the worst elements to get lethal training and practice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. I write games for a living

and Future Nexus (an RPG) has been called an antiwar war game.

Part of the problem is how we treat those games and how we treat the culture in general

You will not get me to defend it (and yes San Andreas comes to mind), but I am also aware
that the most popular miniatures game currently is made by a british company... ironically the way
kids in the UK talk about the game is very different than in the US, and the fiction around it would not be published in the US, since those are NOT American Stories.

What is more, Japanese Video Games may actually make American games look tame, especially adult ones.

They don't have that much of a problem with glorifying war... now the generation back in the 1930s that was a whole different story, and you and I know exactly why... ahem we call it fascism.

It is a combination. I speak and share experiences with a lot of the kids who play those games, since at times they seat around the table that I have set for a game.

I will give you an example.

Two kids were playing Flames of War (minis game WW II) and they were chattering and hollering and doing the usual stuff. So we went over and casually mentioned that for each Sherman "killed" five guys were either dead or severely injured. So one of them started counting tanks... and became quite a bit somber when he realized, those seven tanks represented 35 guys.

It is in many ways our fault, and I mean as a society. We don't teach history... and our media portrays "american stories" where the hero rarely dies and when the hero dies, he dies doing something heroic. We were talking today of plot arc for one character. He is a somewhat major character... and you know what? he is going to buy it in an upcoming book, in a car wreck... heroic? hardly... oh well I have been building up the assassination.. but he is not going to die in a heroic way, at all.

Oh and by the way, Orson Scott Card's latest book has a major character die in such a "meaningless way" as well. We may be seeing the culture changing and if that is the case, then that will be a good thing

But once again, service perse is not the problem... it is how we, and I mean you and me, behave around it, that things loose their neutral stand.

[Sir Jeffrey]

37. This is a stupid idea

1. The rich will always find a way out. They own this country.

2. Feeding more young people to the meat grinder will not decrease American militarism...it will just create more jingoistic widows and family members who don't want their child to have "died in vain".

3. There are much easier ways to combat obesity...like getting off your ass and doing a situp once in a while if you can.

4. "Everyone gets called on as needed" is misleading. It wouldn't be any older folks getting called on...just people my age. It definitely would NOT include the age group of legislators passing such a law.

5. When Bush or someone like him is deciding foreign policy, I don't want that person deciding whether or not I get to die...and I damn sure don't want that person deciding whether my daughter gets to die or not.

Starving the military industrial complex is a much more effective way to combat US militarism...not to mention that it has already been in effect for years now.

[JVS]

38. No fucking way.

[Katherine Brengle]

40. I agree, I think it would make more people think twice before supporting war. nt

[Bright Eyes]

41. no thanks

with all due respect, i dont want this country to turn into Sparta.

[dysfunctional press]

42. rather than military, i would say "national service"...

some could be military- some more socially-oriented service.

the military side would come with the better benefits(more college money, etc...), to offset the higher degree of danger.

both routes would include stringent physical training, however.

[Bright Eyes]

46. another thought....

how do you plan to pay for training, feeding equipting, etc all these kids? our budget is stressed as it is. we need to be CUTTING BACK on our military, not increasing it

[sanskritwarrior]

47. No thank you

I am a SFC in the Army, I don't want sullen young people who don't want to be there fighting or training next to me. I want volunteers, I want people that want to be there, that enjoy being there. Being in the service is more than Iraq or Afghanistan or Germany, it is a mindset that no matter what you want to be here doing this job. Good decisions or bad decisions made by our govt. are not taken into the equation when we deploy, we are in the military because we chose to be, not because we were forced to be. I don't want to babysit kids that all they think about is how soon they can be free again, I want people focused on the mission at hand, whatever that mission is. Granted, even in the All Volunteer Army there are people that don't want to be there, but it is an incredibly tiny number compared to the ones that love their jobs in the Army. And yes that extends to the infantry as well. Some people love what they do, that doesn't make the psychotics or freaks of society and frankly I'm getting tired of the assumption that anyone that engages in combat is a mental case....But I digress....Bottom line, A draftee army would be horrible for Army morale, bad for retention of key warfighting skills, and impossible to manage in a 21st century conflict......

[Jonathan50]

60. USMC 69-71 here

In WWII the US inducted, trained, equipped and deployed over 16 million troops between late 1941 and mid 1945.

A lot of those troops were draftees.

Would anyone like to argue that "the greatest generation" did a poor job in that war?

We fought the two greatest military machines on the planet to unconditional surrender in less time than we have already been in Iraq.

We had over 400,000 dead troops in WWII.

That is what "total war" is, not the pissy little effort that we are doing in Iraq.

It's not the troops fault, it is the civilian leadership who is at fault for the massive FUBAR that is Iraq.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

He (Shinseki) is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.

On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, USCENTCOM CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. War with Iran comes

and guess what? You will have no choice Specialist.

By the way you are telling me that you need a lot of brains to train a line infantry man?

An M-16 is no more complex today than it was during Nam... for god sakes I hope they have corrected some of the problem

But you know how it worked back then?

I'll tell you how

Career people, like you, got the specialized training.

Draftees got basic and perhaps some combat infantry, then they rotated in country and after a year they came home

Specialized training was not for them. And if we have a draft... guess what is going to happen to them draftees?

You guessed, it, them short termers will be your basic infantry grunt, and last time I checked learning how to close order drill, and fire a weapon has not changed that much...

By the way I am married to a retired Navy Chief and we have talked about it... and he agrees, until most Muricans have skin in this game bad policies and abusing people like you will continue

The people make a promise to professional troops, not to risk you unless absolutely necessary, well son.... we have now done that... and it occurs to me that once every body has skin in the game the good ol... but they volunteered hence they are useful idiots (the rights stance) or they are middles killers (the extreme left stance) will stop. Why? A little familiarity goes a long way.

Now if you told me the real reason the military fears a draft, I will be more willing to listen... and that is... your pay will inevitably go down.

But son, trust me when I say this... you are sounding like any good old hand in the profesional force every time we have had a draft, historically that has always been the case.

[sanskritwarrior]

67. Actually being an infantryman today takes

a lot more intelligence than in days past......I don't have time now but tommorrow or Monday I will definitely explain why.......

Bottom line a draftee infantryman would need one year to learn all he needs to know nowadays.....The volunteer guys don't get enough training, a draftee army in Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disaster or a nightmare.......

[WindRavenX]

48. fuck. no.

I would flat out refuse to serve this country's imperialist goals through the military.

[pnwmom]

50. It's our country. They're my children. And you can't have them.

[Zhade]

51. NO. You will not indoctrinate my son in militarism.

FUCK THAT!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

52. Shall you lead the way by putting on the uniform yourself?

Lead by example, my friend.

(To quell the inevitable comebacks: I enlisted in the Air Force in '73-- I signed the papers four months BEFORE I graduated high school.)

[The Gunslinger]

55. Yea we need more ways for the government to control our lives

mandatory military enlistment - hell no.

[Anaxamander]

59. I could get on board with that

Each new generation of American youth sets new standards for spoiled-rotteness.

[fla nocount]

63. The statement assumes that everyone is a player.

That is simply not true.

[tyj2]

64. LOL!

N/T

[The Straight Story]

68. The term mandatory and freedom seem at odds :) (nt)