Female Army soldier pleads guilty to desertion to avoid second tour in Iraq

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Melissia wrote:
I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Well duh. I'd bet the switch could be made in only a few hours though, a couple days at most.

Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

**CptJake**

Grey Templar wrote:
Melissia wrote:
I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Well duh. I'd bet the switch could be made in only a few hours though, a couple days at most.

Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

It would actually take place over the period of months to years. First, the decision is made to do so. Next, additional training capacity has to be grown (currently the military dedicates the amount of gear and trainers and training area and barracks space etc... that they need for the current number of recruits. All that needs to be ramped up. Additionally, you will need units for all the draftees to go to, that means new units need to be stood up, which means cadres of NCOs and Officers need to be organized to accept al the draftees into the newly stood up units. Oh, and all these units need to be equipped and housed (office space, motor pools, barracks and so on). All this takes time...

Of course this assumes you are using draftees to significantly grow the military for some gawd awful contingency... If you just want to replace the current all volunteer force it is slightly easier. A really, REALLY bad idea, but slightly easier.

**d-usa**

I know her lawyer. In the last year alone he has represented quite a few male soldiers who went AWOL, and that is just for him alone. All those were covered in the media, just from that one lawyer alone. And none of them were posted on Dakka.

That doesn't prove that people here are only upset because she's a woman, but it is interesting that nobody seemed to be interested enough to post all the stories from his male clients.

Edit: looks like I missed a page and we may have moved away from that part of the discussion, so feel free to ignore me...

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

So you mean you don't see how you'd treat unprepared, unwilling participants who had other plans and were suddenly chosen arbitrarily to do something else.. differently than someone who planned to join the military, did so willingly, and WANTS to be in it?

**Grey Templar**

As far as training, no difference I can see.

**BlapBlapBlap**

Shock horror, the contract that was fully explained to you and that you could have backed out of at any time before signing requires you to kill people and stay in the military? If only somebody had told that woman at some point so she didn't have to sign!

Also, she needs to learn what a refugee is. A refugee is somebody who is driven out of their home by disaster or war, and who has nowhere to go. She is somebody who signed a legal contract that she fully understood and knew she couldn't back out of and then learned she didn't like doing it. Something's askew there.

**hotsauceman1**

Yeah, No, If you are forced into something you dont like, then you will be more harder to work with. I know this comparison is teneous. But like people who dont want to be in Highschool, They are hard to work with.

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
As far as training, no difference I can see.

I don't see how there couldn't be a difference?

The mentality of an unprepared, unwilling conscript is far different from that of a mentally prepared and willing volunteer. People who want to volunteer often become physically fit BEFORE joining, making basic training courses able to be shorter than for conscripts, where they have to whip them in to shape as well as prepare them for the mentality of fighting. That or you'd have to lower your standards considerably. Furthermore, you'd end up with more discipline and morale problems compared to an all-volunteer army.

The only way I could imagine the draft ever being activated is if we're invaded by massive amounts of Chinese forces or something. I don't even think it'd be activated then, it's probable that in that situation they'd get a massive influx of new volunteers anyway.

**Grey Templar**

If said volunteers were of the same physical fitness as a conscript would there really be a difference in the additional training required?

It doesn't seem like the differences mentioned are enough to mandate a massive shift in how recruits are trained. Especially since we must have a plan already for how to accommodate them.

Seems like it would be a huge weakness for our armed forces to have completely different training programs for volunteer vs conscript soldiers.

**Soo'Vah'Cha**

everybody in the military is held to a same standard scale, PT tests are scored based on gender and age.

All other training is the same regardless of individual, but are all held to the same requirements.

If the US military was to ever have to train draftees, then it would be in a time of war, and training would likely be streamlined to get recruits to AIT as quick as possible.

standards would be maintained and tempo increased and discipline would be the same across the board , likely would just be more guys put on fire watch, and a lot more MPs patrolling the base looking for AWOLs and or missing soldiers, since desertion in a time of war is usually a big deal.

**azazel the cat**

I think it's highly unlikely the US will ever see a draft again; as if the US were ever fighting on its own soil, I suspect that the number of volunteers would likely be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50%+ of the entire 18-30 demographic. And I doubt either party would be willing to commit political suicide followed by a 4-5 term exile by invoking a draft for a foreign war ever again. Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

WWII only even needed a draft because its prior generation had been so soured by WWI's trench warfare that many families actively discouraged military enrollment; which is obviously not the situation nowadays considering the general reverence for military sevice in American culture.

**CptJake**

azazel the cat wrote:
Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

I really REALLY wish folks would quit spreading that myth.

American Casualties by Race:

Race Recorded Casualties
Native American 226
Caucasian 50,120
Malayan 252
Mongolian 116
Negro 7,264
Unknown 215
Totals 58,193

http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp

DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS...
•25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.
•Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
•Reservists killed: 5,977
•National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.
•Total draftees (1965 - 73): 1,728,344.
•Actually served in Vietnam: 38%
•Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.
•Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND...
•88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
•86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
•170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
•70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
•86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
•14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
•34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
•Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
•Religion of Dead: Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none -- 6.7%

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS...
•76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.
•Thee-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.
•Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.
•79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. (63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation.)
•Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South -- 31%, West -- 29.9%; Midwest -- 28.4%; Northeast -- 23.5%.

http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

Frankly this is really NOT supportive of a 'let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot'. Not even close.

**Soo'Vah'Cha**

I hear you Cptjake, that wonderful bit of hype was a product of the 60s/ 70s era media, and was endorsed by many as fact, but as your sources show is not really the case.

Now a MOS breakdown based on race/gender would likely show some facts that the media may not enjoy..but no sense getting into that can of worms.

**Rented Tritium**

Jihadin wrote:
1. Conscientis Objector part. She was never informed. BS on that. You get ask that question at MEPPS

They're just reporting what happened. Her lawyer made a claim and they reported that the lawyer made the claim. It's not particularly ethical of a reporter to decide if that claim is right or not.

**azazel the cat**

CptJake wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

I really REALLY wish folks would quit spreading that myth.

The numbers quoted from your cited websites do not correlate with those of the US census bureau, which lists the AA population of the US in the early 1960s at 10.5%, whereas 12.5% of draftees were AA. That's a wildly disproportionate percentage. However, I'm not about to start a thread on that, as I don't particularly believe race was the motivation. I think that AAs were disproportionately scooped up in the draft due to socioeconomic reasons rather than race.

My overall point was that ever seeing another draft again is highly unlikely.

**CptJake**

Your census bureau numbers don't cover the "percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population" part, they just cover total percentage.

But nice try.

I concur that a draft is highly unlikely, and hope we never see one again.

**azazel the cat**

CptJake wrote:Your census bureau numbers don't cover the "percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population" part, they just cover total percentage.

But nice try.

I concur that a draft is highly unlikely, and hope we never see one again.

I'm quite skeptical that a subset of 10.5% could amount to 13.5%, but I also don't feel like dragging this further off-topic, so you can have this one, as I've said before that I don't really buy into the race-based selection theory.

**NuggzTheNinja**

I think the old rule always needs to apply:

When joining the military, everything in your personal life should be squared away. If you can't square it away, then write it off. Trying to juggle relationship stressors with military stressors is a recipe for disaster.

**Valion**

I just mourn for the lost, promising career of a 30 year-old PFC.