Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Bring back the Draft

[HeyYou]

*SNIP*

 

Won't work. With our all-volunteer military we have now, we are still running short on soldiers for the field. Programs like "Stop-Loss", and extended tours of duty in warzones was the result. Our soldiers are already suffering from long, multiple deployments, and if we had fewer volunteer soldiers, and the draftee's were not to be deployed overseas.... it would only make the problem worse.

Then why don't we stop deploying, minus the international US military bases we have, which is considered US territory.

 

Well, for a time there, we had a couple wars going on..... we are down to one now.... more or less....

 

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't have been in either country in any event. Iraq was not a threat, and we went to war based on lies, manipulation, and false information. We went to afghanistan ostensibly to get one guy.... but, seemed we enjoyed overthrowing legitimate governments so much, we wanted to do it again. Or, at least, some folks in government wanted to.

 

The US needs to STOP playing at world police. We simply can't afford it, and honestly, we suck at it. Iraq is degenerating into a sectarian civil war..... and once we pull out of Afghanistan, it will go right back to what it was when we left..... with the addition of once again being the worlds largest exporter of opium.

[antonkr]

*SNIP*

 

Won't work. With our all-volunteer military we have now, we are still running short on soldiers for the field. Programs like "Stop-Loss", and extended tours of duty in warzones was the result. Our soldiers are already suffering from long, multiple deployments, and if we had fewer volunteer soldiers, and the draftee's were not to be deployed overseas.... it would only make the problem worse.

Then why don't we stop deploying, minus the international US military bases we have, which is considered US territory.

 

Well, for a time there, we had a couple wars going on..... we are down to one now.... more or less....

 

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't have been in either country in any event. Iraq was not a threat, and we went to war based on lies, manipulation, and false information. We went to afghanistan ostensibly to get one guy.... but, seemed we enjoyed overthrowing legitimate governments so much, we wanted to do it again. Or, at least, some folks in government wanted to.

 

The US needs to STOP playing at world police. We simply can't afford it, and honestly, we suck at it. Iraq is degenerating into a sectarian civil war..... and once we pull out of Afghanistan, it will go right back to what it was when we left..... with the addition of once again being the worlds largest exporter of opium.

That's the problem. It isn't in our interests, whoever if you ask many Iraqis most would say that they are happy that America got involved, and like it better now.

However this really shouldn't be our problem. We got enough of our own s*** to shovel.

Back to the topic

If we didn't get involved as much as we did, I think draft would be pretty damn amazing. I mean look at Switzerland, they pretty much got it right.

[Aurielius]

*SNIP*

Won't work. With our all-volunteer military we have now, we are still running short on soldiers for the field. Programs like "Stop-Loss", and extended tours of duty in warzones was the result. Our soldiers are already suffering from long, multiple deployments, and if we had fewer volunteer soldiers, and the draftee's were not to be deployed overseas.... it would only make the problem worse.

Then why don't we stop deploying, minus the international US military bases we have, which is considered US territory.

Well, for a time there, we had a couple wars going on..... we are down to one now.... more or less....

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't have been in either country in any event. Iraq was not a threat, and we went to war based on lies, manipulation, and false information. We went to afghanistan ostensibly to get one guy.... but, seemed we enjoyed overthrowing legitimate governments so much, we wanted to do it again. Or, at least, some folks in government wanted to.

The US needs to STOP playing at world police. We simply can't afford it, and honestly, we suck at it. Iraq is degenerating into a sectarian civil war..... and once we pull out of Afghanistan, it will go right back to what it was when we left..... with the addition of once again being the worlds largest exporter of opium.

That's the problem. It isn't in our interests, whoever if you ask many Iraqis most would say that they are happy that America got involved, and like it better now.

However this really shouldn't be our problem. We got enough of our own s*** to shovel.

Back to the topic

If we didn't get involved as much as we did, I think draft would be pretty damn amazing. I mean look at Switzerland, they pretty much got it right.

 

I presume the you mean this system.... "Under the country's (Switzerland's) militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old."

Unfortunately though it's a nice model to choose, it will leave far to few professionals for our overseas commitments (and I mean the currently non hostile commitments). I'm afraid that wishing for a lack of overseas commitments is really a forlorn hope, maybe once the EU finally comes of age there will be another option from it always being us.

There would have to be at least a 30% mix of professionals and heavily weighted in favor of NCO's, in order to train a militia force effectively while maintaining an adequate infrastructure in the field. NCO's in reality are what keep a service functioning far more so than commissioned officers.

[grannywils]

I have already posted in this thread and have very little more to add. However, I have just reread the quote from General McChrystal wherein he states that if a nation goes to war it should not be solely represented by a professional force, etc.

 

In my humble opinion juries should be comprised of ones peers (i.e. the entire population); elections should be comprised of the entire electorate (i.e. the entire population); opinion polls should include the entire population, etc., etc., etc.

 

However, operations requiring a certain amount of expertise should be carried out by those possessing said expertise and ability. We do not draft engineers, plumbers, electricians, cooks, etc. We train those we believe to have the essential knowledge and innate ability to do the job.

 

Many of you by now are fairly clear on my views on warfare, but if we must fight them, let's fight them with people who have a desire and willingness to learn their jobs and are then professional at said jobs when they are doing them.

 

That is all I have to add.... Have a nice and peaceful day all. :smile:

 

[sukeban]

I would support a return of the draft.

 

Having said that, I would also submit that an all-volunteer force does a superior job of actually being efficacious in a conflict situation; however, I believe that the war-dampening implications of the draft outweigh its actual military utility, especially in this day and age when any conceivable war will fundamentally be a war of choice. It is abundantly clear that chicken-hawk lawmakers and presidents, largely without any military experience and without any sons/daughters/in-laws/whatever in the military, find it far too easy to declare wars of political expedience, to burnish their credibility as "hawks" for whatever fashionable crusade they find will increase their electoral prospects.

 

That this burden increasingly falls on a small segment of the American population (e.g. traditional military families and, increasingly, minorities) absolutely cannot be ignored. Now, I favor an enormous reduction in both our military outlays as well as its "responsibilities" (largely for other countries...), but I also cannot imagine a better method for reducing the proclivity of American politicians to send people they don't know into harm's way for than forcing decision-makers to have "skin in the game" as per McChrystal. That would increase a) the personal dimension of the decision to authorize military actions (politicians having sons and daughters subject to the draft) and b) increase political pressure against war-mongering politicians as middle- and upper-class children (aka "likely voters") are sent into battle (with all the hazard that entails).

 

It may not be the best for actual combat efficacy, but a country is better served without a permanent military class--modern Hessians, Gurkhas, samurai, etc.--subject to the caprice of leaders, that increasingly have little to no connection to their lives. America should re-learn that war requires sacrifice from everybody--not just from the martial class that gives of itself so selflessly. When everyone's children are equally at risk, perhaps military action will no longer be viewed as the best and first response to an increasingly broad set of situations.

Edited November 21, 2012 by sukeban

[Brittainy]

Given that I am 100% anti military and anti war, there's not a government in the world that could make me fight and I would sooner slit my own throat than be forced into a war.

 

However, I say let the cretins who vote for war-mongering governments be drafted. Same with politicians who agree with war. If they want it, they can f*#@ing well fight it themselves. If they aren't willing to join in, then they shouldn't be allowed to condone it / push for it. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

I'm not willing, I don't support it under any circumstances, and I bitterly resent the fact that when it comes to being taxed I have no choice about being forced to financially support a military system I that find to be morally reprehensible.

 

Same applies in reverse, however. Let those of us who don't want war be neutral and have to put up with whoever wins. If I am 100% anti-military, I think that entitles me to freedom from fighting, but also forfeits the right for any 'defence' by the military. Someone wants to invade? You're welcome to it. @^_^@

 

Anyone who wants a military can pay for it and fight for it themselves. From 'commoners' to prime ministers. Particularly the latter. They want to get uppity and push for a fight? Then let them battle it out directly.

 

As for being patriotic and fighting for freedom, that's a load of horse s#*! that gullible people have bought into for centuries. Every government that has ever tried to 'sell' a war to the public will dish out all the 'honourable' propaganda it can. There will always be a million fools to fall for a trumped up 'cause'.

 

So, go for it and have a draft for the all the idiots who want a military. If you condone politically sanctioned murder, then I think you are fair game and deserve a taste of what you vote for.

[Lisnpuppy]

Again this topic hass not been commented upon in over 8 months. Please review the ToS on thread necromancy as this topic is not longer relevant. Thank you.~Lisnpuppy