Sunday mouthpieces all say too many tours in war zone is bad, but none admit we need a draft.

[CK_John]

The draft has to be part and parcel of any war situation. Not just to get the bodies to do the fighting and dying but for the political need to insure everyone is part of the solution.

You have to have skin in the game to play, but a draft has to be fair and universal.

[MadHound]

1. Or you could simply bring the troops home and end the war

That would be the best solution, far better than a draft.

[CK_John]

3. IMO, Any war requires a draft,

[Magoo48]

23. No wars, no draft, no war machine

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Fuck the draft. End the war machine. Peace is here if you want it.

[newfie11]

16. damn right

[woo me with science]

18. +1000000

The days are well past when threat of a draft could be used politically as a deterrent to war.

The corporate elite we have in office now would simply exempt whomever they want to exempt. IMO a draft targeted at the poor and middle classes is a real possibility if we allow this insane march toward war and corporate authoritarianism to continue.

[Lurks Often]

4. No one wants a draft,

except those few who think that having a draft would cause the war to end sooner and despite what some would say, history does not support that belief.

On edit: From what I have seen, I get the impression that those most vocal in support of a draft are the same ones that will refuse to serve if drafted themselves.

[CK_John]

6. I doubt this one would not have lasted over 10yr with a draft in place. nt

[uppityperson]

42. Why? What would having a draft in place done to stop the current wars? Serious question.

Would people protested? (they did) Would people write congress and the president? (they did)

What would giving them more bodies to muck around with have done to stop the wars?

[OrwellwasRight]

45. People protested back in 2002-2004, then

the protests started to peter out. The news coverage also petered out. So, it wasn't in people's faces and the public attention waned. A draft would have ensured that protests got more frequent and larger instead of less frequent and smaller.

[TheKentuckian]

11. I support a draft but only when tied to a progressive and harsh war tax

You put the wealthy's blood and treasure on the table along with that of the chickenhawks and war will be an unattractive option. Some will spare their own blood but not their treasure but I notice over the last few generations the wealthy have been far less inclined than decades and centuries past to put their progeny on the line.

Too many are too seperated from the costs to temper their passions and to seek more difficult constructs for solutions.
War must become a profit killer that may well leave you without heirs. I think remotes of all sorts must be banned. I think that our flag pin wearing, ribbon tying conservatives need to come out of pocket in addition to saluting and thanking service.

War must have grave fiscal and physical risks for everyone or it is too easy to get into and too hard to get out of. We have fought in AfPak for longer than it took to break the Axis powers. That's right a barely organized enemy with nary a ship, tank, or a plane with membership in the low thousands has kept us longer than Hitler, Mosilini, and the emperor of Japan altogether and the threats posed and resources that could be brought to bear are not even in the same universe.

We are in a period that war can go on until the economy that supports it crashes completely out with no real benchmarks that indicate victory.

[russspeakeasy]

13. Well put. Thanks.

[shraby]

5. There never has been and never will be a "fair and universal" draft.

It's always the middle class and poor who go to war and the privileged who get "exemptions". That's why the draft is wrong, totally wrong.
Maybe with fewer people volunteering, the politicians who thin the herd from time to time with war will have to rethink their positions toward fewer wars and more diplomacy.

[CK_John]

8. Society needs to insure a draft is fair. Why would it not?

[shraby]

10. To think it possible, is to believe in fairies. The people who

make the rules are the ones who create the exemptions...tilted toward the 2% at the top.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. er - because it never has in the history of human civilization and military conscription?

[uppityperson]

43. Why not ensure that wars are not started or continue for bs reasons instead?

You want to stop the wars, work on that.

[xchrom]

7. I've done a 180 on the draft - I was against it

For many, many years.

But over the last 10 years I've come around - there are too many problems w/ this volunteer 'professionalized' army & I despise the reliance on mercs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. A cynic would suggest that after "many, many years"

one's views on the draft are influenced by the fact that it won't affect him any more.

I would only support the draft if service were required of every able bodied 18 year old man and woman for a two year enlistment.

[xchrom]

24. yes, i think loopholes need to be closed -- if one can't do military service

then time must be served in the peace corps.

it does have to be as close to universal as possible.

but this 'volunteer' professionalized' force isn't working that well -- and the use of mercs is a disgrace.

as far as what the cynic thinks -- i could give a fat damn.

[Muskypundit]

29. In vietnam we had a nearly all draft military

And they committed sanctioned war crimes daily. Now a days its an unfortunate rarity. Mercs are a problem though.

[butterfly77]

9. Most of what I am hearing

on the teevee this morning is,George bush and the republicons had nothing to do with this war.Pres Obama needs to sell the war to Americans.

Republicons didn't say rah,rah,freedom fries,these colors don't run,STAY THE COURSE. It is all Pres Obama's fault like everything else.

Now,they keep telling us Osama bin laden wanted to kill Pres Obama to that I say and....

[sad sally]

38. President Obama has made Afghanistan his war - he owns it.

He said it was the right war; he expanded the military (another surge, like Bush's in Iraq) in March 2009, and again in December 2009.

What did the surge accomplish? Has violence decreased? Have the Taliban been brought to the table for negotiations? Do the Afghan people now trust and believe the US is there to help build a stable, secure Afghanistan?

Sure, maybe al-Qaida in Afghanistan has been degraded, but its moved elsewhere, which means our secret CIA/special ops drone wars have increased all over the planet.

His Af-Pak strategy to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," has created the fact that while the declared war is in Afghanistan, the US drone and other artillary strike as many targets (both al-Qaida and civilians) in Pakistan - a country we claim to be an ally.

Then there's the poppy cultivation - in 2011 it was up 7% from 2010 in Helmand province, which provides the raw material for more than 40% of the world's opium. So much for American intervention making alternative farming a more profitable use of the land.

Yes, Bush started Operation Enduring Freedom, but President Obama owns it.

[dkf]

12. One tour is bad.

If we had fresh Ied fodder we would have even more screwed up people.

[Ian David]

14. What if people are only drafted from congressional districts of politicians that voted for the war?

[Ron Green]

15. K&R. It's remarkable that people aren't OK with privatization

unless it's the military.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. false dichotomy.

the choice is not limited to The Draft or Privatized Military.

There is clearly at least one other choice - reduce the size of our military, dismantle our network of planetary garrisons, stop with the New American Century bullshit. Then we can have a reasonably sized volunteer military with a mission limited to actual defense rather than dominating the planet, and we won't need thousands of mercs as auxiliaries.

[Ron Green]

26. I disagree. As long as it's exclusive to those who've been

enticed, along with hired contractors, it's not of society but of the MIC. It is hard enough to keep institutions public that ought to remain public, whether libraries or hospitals or schools or armies.

In my experience, draftees, while being every bit as soldierly as enlistees, provided a healthy dissent within the ranks that would tighten the reins on some of these bullshit wars. Those reins won't be relinquished by the PNAC, they must be taken up by the people.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Now you are just conflating privatize with volunteer.

They are different. We went without a draft for most of our history. We also went without a privatized military. There is nothing wrong with a small volunteer army. Lots of other nations appear to get along with one and without hiring hordes of mercs. The problem is you can't run an empire without either conscription or mercenaries. The solution is to not run an empire.

[amandabeech]

46. Sounds good to me.

Getting rid of the mercs and cutting down on our obligations would be key.

However, I think that we need to retain the draft mechanism in the event of a real war that has to be fought, like WWII. Women should register for selective service, too, but I doubt that as many of them (us) would be called to uniformed service. We have to remember that there is a real need for desk jobs for folks who have spent too much time on the front lines or active combat areas or who have been injured. Many of those jobs have been privatized or demilitarized, and I think that is one of the reasons why we're having so much PTSD and psychological breaks.

I would also like to see the manufacture of military equipment and supplies moved back to the U.S. We're the ones doing the most fighting. If we can only gain allies by giving them military contracts, like the 2.5 ton trucks being made in Canada now, then maybe we don't need so many formal allies. I believe Rep. Lipinsky from Chicago was investigating this when he was hit with some sort of tax problems, perhaps related to how well his investigation was going.

[MiniMe]

21. They are doing it by not creating jobs

It is a terrible way to do it, if the military is the only job you can get

[Johnny Rico]

22. Robert A. Heinlein on the draft:

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

[11 Bravo]

35. Of course, Heinlein also believed that the franchise should be restricted to those who served.

That's wrong, and I say this as one who served, as well as a big Heinlein fan.

Rico's Roughnecks! HOOAH! Starship Troopers ... (The book, most definitely not the movie!)

[Johnny Rico]

37. That was one book out of dozens, and it was fiction.

Nowhere else in his fiction did such a society appear. It's a bit like arguing that because he wrote "Space Cadet", he advocated United Nations control of all nuclear weapons (as is the case in the novel).

[11 Bravo]

49. Heinlein spoke at the Naval Academy when my brother was a midshipman (USNA '74).

He hypothesized at that time about the effects of limiting the franchise to veterans.

[bluedigger]

25. I joined in the first generation of the "all-volunteer" force (1982).

The draft ended nine years earlier, so I saw senior NCOs that were draftees, and many Vietnam era veterans who stayed in. A few of them were serious dumbfucks who were just coasting to retirement, but most of them were talented professionals that had found their calling. Overall, they were no better or worse than my fellow volunteers. The argument for the all volunteer force for decades was improved quality, but that is a lie. The military consumes fodder indiscriminately, tests it for ability, and places it where it will bring the most benefit. Any choice given to the recruit is just indifference on the part of the military. Draftee or volunteer, it makes no difference to the military.

I think that if we could refrain from overseas wars and occupations, a volunteer force would be fine. We could easily sustain a force for defensive purposes and maintain trade with a small and well trained military.

If we look at our history, however, peace is the exception, not the rule of our ongoing foreign policy. A draft would deter bellicosity, ensure vigorous prosecution, and limit lengthy occupations by our forces. I disagree with the premise that it unfairly targets the poor and minorities. It's true that they are less able to evade it, but the inconvenience and aggravation that it causes the middle and upper classes still works to affect public opinion and policy to the benefit of all. I volunteered, and I support a draft.

[Lasher]

27. I am opposed to the draft.

I was drafted in 1969. The average draftee who stayed on to become a lifer was not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer. On the other hand, the '2 years and out' crowd had less time to develop skills. Further, we were less committed to the job of soldiering. If you have ever seen a veterinarian give a pill to a cat, you can imagine how I related to military life.

Drafting people to discourage war is like fucking to promote virginity. The Vietnam Era draft did none of the positive things you say it would do today.

You say the poor and minorities are less able to avoid the draft than other segments of our society. But you don't think it unfairly targets them? The inconvenience and aggravation of getting a deferment is not equal to two years of slavery as an enlisted person.

[bluedigger]

33. Your experience actually make my case stronger, Lasher.

You were drafted into a public climate that had already turned against an unpopular war that had gone on too long for geopolitical reasons that it could not resolve.

A draft isn't designed to develop a skilled force, but to fill out the ranks. Most of the troops drafted in WWII served for three years or less, and were routinely thrown into battle with little more than basic training (after D-Day). And then we won, and sent the survivors home. Korean War was the same, except we had a lot more experience to draw on. Then came Vietnam, and our goals became grander and more vague. Now we conduct multiple overlapping conflicts with the same troops, and it doesn't work.

I worded my statement on the effect on different segments of society poorly. I think that the poor bear a different and much crueler burden . That is true of all aspects of our society, though, and is better addressed through civil rights and income equality advocacy.

[Lasher]

47. I took no exception to what you said, up until the last paragraph.

Neither you nor I have said anything to strengthen or defend the claims made therein. The draft was in effect before and during the second longest war in our history. We lost that one and sent the survivors home.

We had 58,212 US soldiers killed in Vietnam. 1,678 are still MIA. Compare that with our longest war ever, Afghanistan, where we have had 1,913 KIA so far. Soldiers are not as expendable when we can't fill out the ranks with cannon fodder.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I was with you right up to "a draft would deter dellicosity".

It never has done that. The one time we had a peace time draft - the post WWII era up to 72, we didn't exactly stay out of wars. Quite the opposite. Your argument gets made over and over again and it remains unable to account for how we get into viet nam.

[bluedigger]

31. I meant it would discourage, not prevent war.

You could argue that conscription is a neutral influence, I guess, but it is pretty difficult for me to see how it could increase the call for war. How about if I change "would" to "could"?

Vietnam seems to be an aberration in US warmaking, anyways, from start to finish. It's hard to account for anything regarding our involvement there. The lack of consensus on the lessons to be learned from it seems to be evidence of that, and is a large part of our current dilemma in regards to the use of our military in foreign policy. But I digress...

[Warren Stupidity]

32. It didn't discourage anything.

but it is pretty difficult for me to see how it could increase the call for war.

What it did in the post WWII era is provide an available and cheap supply of bodies ready to use at a moments notice. And they got used, and not just in vietnam.

[itsrobert]

34. Plenty of men or women looking to get into the military

If congress doesn't up the manpower authorizations, what good would a draft do? Plus many service members are force to retire starting in their late 30s.

[CK_John]

36. Aside from manpower, a draft would engage the public much more than now.

Congress may be slow to react but it will be aware of what goes on in their district.

[Lasher]

48. Plus, all those extra drafted privates would ensure no career soldier is forced into retirement.

And there would be allocations for promotions aplenty!

[Jennicut]

39. We don't need a draft. It always hits the young poor minorities the most.

Rich college kids and their parents are not going to care about a draft. Why not just end the war in Afghanistan?

[liberalhistorian]

40. That's because any politician with even a half a brain

cell knows that to make any such proposal would be political suicide, period, end of discussion. I'm not speaking to the merits of that being good or bad, I'm simply pointing out that that is the political reality in this country today.

[uppityperson]

41. No. We don't. Why would ANYONE assume they would pass a "fair and universal draft"? Why spend

time and energy getting that instead of simply....wait for it....stopping the wars?

Seriously. To anyone who thinks congress would pass a fair and universal draft that theirs couldn't get out of, I have a bridge to sell you.

Second point. Why spend the time and effort to try to get them to pass a fair and universal draft (supposedly to stop the war) when that same time and energy could be spent stopping the war?

The draft only gives the War Machine more bodies to use up. It doesn't stop any war.

You want to "insure everyone is part of the solution" of stopping the wars, then get everyone involved in stopping the wars, not in throwing more bodies into it.

[JVS]

44. Drafts suck and I'm glad there won't be another.

[hack89]

50. We can't afford a fair draft

to make a draft fair, a significant percentage of eligible men and women must serve. Which means a major expansion of the military. Which means more salaries, more health care, more bases, more equipment, more weapons - more money.

The US military is much smaller then it was during Vietnam (or even Desert Storm). There are plenty of volunteers - the present military can't accommodate that many draftees.

[CK_John]

51. The draft amount can easily be controled via the lottery method which was much

fairer or subjective than the neighborhood boards of selection used in WWII.

You draft the number you need not everybody.

Percentage wise 5% would yield about 1.5 million give or take. The draft is meant to get the public envolved, either directly or the possibility of being called to serve.

If you don't have skin in the game... you get the idea.

[hack89]

53. We have no problem getting 1.5 million volunteers right now.

and a volunteer army is preferable to a conscript army - you can't build and train a modern army with 2 year enlistments.

[CK_John]

55. I was very young during WWII but some amazing things were done within 2-3 yrs.

Like our Colonial leaders, I fear a standing army. It has nothing to do when there is no war and gets bored.

[hack89]

56. With much higher casualty rates.

war is like any endeavor - experience matters. With a conscript army the price of gaining that experience is more dead and wounded.

A volunteer army with 4 year minimum enlistments creates a better trained and more experienced army.

It is also a higher quality force. Would you, for example, draft high school drop outs or people with criminal records?

[CK_John]

57. Yes and yes, remember you are dealing with a small percentage of about 5-8%

of the population and an age range of about 18 to 24, so these categories would be a reflexion of the population.

If a draftee needs more education send them to school, find them a labor job that they can handle. Also a draft is only during a war not for a standby service.

A professional force is an invitation to creating a god squad and a facist government.

[Romulox]

52. A draft in 2012 will have to include both young men and young women. nt

[CK_John]

54. I agree, but it would be hard to get thru any Congress, but I still think it should be proposed

and hearings held and let the people make their Congress person take a stand.

Also provision must be made for non combat positions.