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.

I got into a debate with a veteran over on a political forum I go to. Basically, his position is that "there should be a national draft for EVERY single conflict the US gets involved in"*. Now, maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a really bad idea, since the vast majority of the conflicts the USA has been involved in since WWII have been needless and wasteful (think Vietnam and the Middle-East conflicts of the past decade)

Am I just totally off-base?

~Tim?

*He also thinks that the fact that we don't have this in place is a sign of the moral decay of America, but I digress.

He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise). Unless we plan on doing away with a standing army, drafting up a horde of troops for every little conflict is complete overkill.

Why not just implement conscription at that point? Because we've been involved in conflicts almost nonstop for decades.

 LordofHats wrote:
He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise).

Conventional, massed-forces warfare is kind of a thing of the past by now, thanks to all the advanced tech we have, not to mention what we've got in development. Why bother putting boots on the ground when you can just take the enemy out with a few drone strikes? And when we do have to resort to ground warfare in the future, we'll just be using land-based drones or a few heavily armed and armored troops.

~Tim?

It is crazy. We're the top dogs largely because we're all volunteer. I work with the best (mostly) because everyone wants to be here.

I've encountered plenty in my career who don't want to be, and I'm much happier with them being in the vast minority, then the majority.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
He's crazy. Now I've heard it argued that the US is now wholly unprepared for a conventional war. That it's military personnel and manpower are not sufficient for such a conflict. But we aren't fighting any conventional wars at the moment. We haven't engaged in any wars thus far that need a draft (needless war or otherwise).

Conventional, massed-forces warfare is kind of a thing of the past by now, thanks to all the advanced tech we have, not to mention the advanced tech we're developing.

~Tim?

Definitely massed forces are of the past. All the US conflicts since Korea have been essentially fighting guerrillas forces with the exceptions of Saddam's forces (which were rendered obsolete by the massive technological gulf between the two sides)
Should the US get into a conflict with another major power it would be over quickly I'd imagine due to the missiles getting flung around

My oldest brother is a Marine and has said several times he would never want a draft. Because the men and women he's been deployed with wanted to serve instead of being forced into it.

I think the general consensus in the military is (correct me if I am wrong you dakka military types ) that they prefer being volunteer only.

Being volunteer only has become a major part of military culture (due in no small part to the negative impact of the draft during Vietnam). EDIT: Well US culture as well, also due to the negative impact of the draft in Vietnam XD. Americans today just really don't like the draft.

No, I think Vietnam showed why that is an EXTREMELY bad idea.

 djones520 wrote:
It is crazy. We're the top dogs largely because we're all volunteer. I work with the best (mostly) because everyone wants to be here.

I've encountered plenty in my career who don't want to be, and I'm much happier with them being in the vast minority, then the majority.

How can you be forced into the military these days?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, I think Vietnam showed why that is an EXTREMELY bad idea.

 djones520 wrote:
It is crazy. We're the top dogs largely because we're all volunteer. I work with the best (mostly) because everyone wants to be here.

I've encountered plenty in my career who don't want to be, and I'm much happier with them being in the vast minority, then the majority.

How can you be forced into the military these days?

You can't be forced in, but there are those who join, then decide they don't want to stay.

We just had one in my unit. Total waste of space, no ambition, drive, anything. His last month here, we literally spent more man hours cleaning up his messes then we got with him being here. A contract was signed though, and it had to be served out. In most extreme cases, types like that can be forcibly separated, and often are.

There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it. Case and point; Chelsea/Bradly Manning.

Some people just don't realize what they're getting into and they don't react well.

If there ever again is a need for traditional massed warfare with boots on the ground like we had in the World Wars, then, at that point, it's probably already too late for a draft to make a difference, as circumstances would have to be pretty dire indeed.

 LordofHats wrote:
There are people who join envisioning a life of hot women, exotic locals, and lots of money. Then they realize its not really that glamorous and they regret it. Case and point; Chelsea/Bradly Manning.

Some people just don't realize what they're getting into and they don't react well.

Yes, too often people are sold on the Hollywood glamor of the military, or even on the basic idea of simply "giving up" four years of their life in exchange for an education and other benefits, not realizing how hard just those four years can be.

You mean I dont get to fly around in helicopters blasting "Flight of the valkyries"?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You mean I dont get to fly around in helicopters blasting "Flight of the valkyries"?

Well, assuming you own a helicopter you can totally do that

But then I cant go surfing during the attack.

conscription/drafting of unwilling participants who likely have no aptitude for the actual killing part is pretty much a bad Idea unless you have no other choice,

historically, having a professional, well trained, well motivated army has been the best.

having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.


so pretty much unless there is a threat of total annihilation or close to it that justifies the ENTIRE population being mobilized, there really isnt any need to conscript.

what SHOULD be mandatory, is a few years of civil service in the military/trades/other civil service sector (participants choice OFC) jobs, and using that as a way to get everyone free education/training for decent jobs.

having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.

I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.

The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.

 LordofHats wrote:

having an army that is as large as it can be, filled with people who are forced into it, and have no talent for it, has also been a historical foible generally.

I'd debate this. Some cultures have a tradition of civic service and to them conscription is just part of life. It is accepted as part of growing up which gives it a social glamor and acceptance. Israel for example has a culture that allows this to work.

The US I'd say has a tradition of civic service but ours is somewhat cemented on it being voluntary so it just doesn't work for us.

And it certainly wasn't a foible for us in WW1 or WW2. But the country was different then. The citizenry at large saw military service as something to be done. They weren't encouraged to burn their draft cards and the like, much like following generations.

I honestly consider WWI and WWII to be flukes for us. Our nationalism and imperialist outlook was at its peak. We wanted to one up the rest of the world (and of course Pearl Harbor). The Civil War and the draft did not go that well together. It certainly wasn't the Vietnam War by a long shot but many Americans in the North did not appreciate the draft at all (its muddled by the racism/bias of the period though).

 djones520 wrote:
And it certainly wasn't a foible for us in WW1 or WW2. But the country was different then. The citizenry at large saw military service as something to be done. They weren't encouraged to burn their draft cards and the like, much like following generations.

It didn't hurt that in WW2 the country was attacked and were were legitimately defending the country, instead of these much more nebulous conflicts that followed.

 LordofHats wrote:
I honestly consider WWI and WWII to be flukes for us. Our nationalism and imperialist outlook was at its peak. We wanted to one up the rest of the world (and of course Pearl Harbor). The Civil War and the draft did not go that well together. It certainly wasn't the Vietnam War by a long shot but many Americans in the North did not appreciate the draft at all (its muddled by the racism/bias of the period though).

Depends on how you look at it with the Civil War. Mandatory service wasn't an issue in the South. In the North it was still widely accepted. Of course you had the draft riots in New York, but all in all again a strong sense of nationalism provided in large part a ready core of draftees.

I'd also argue the "imperialist" outlook comment as well. In both WW1 and WW2 we tried hard to maintain an isolationist stance. We obviously had our clear favorite in the fights, but it wasn't until we were directly attacked (to varying degrees dependent on the conflict) that we joined in. We didn't do it to gain more territory, like the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War.

 djones520 wrote:
I'd also argue the "imperialist" outlook comment as well. In both WW1 and WW2 we tried hard to maintain an isolationist stance. We obviously had our clear favorite in the fights, but it wasn't until we were directly attacked (to varying degrees dependent on the conflict) that we joined in. We didn't do it to gain more territory, like the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War.

The Mexican War and Spanish-American War were most definitely wars of Imperialism and both ended in us expanding our sphere of influence. In the Mexican War we gained the American South West which previously were under the control of Mexico and the Spanish-American War forced Spain out of the Americas and we got the Guantanamo Bay, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. We were most definitely Imperialist (Manifest Destiny anyone?).

The US had its own flavor of Imperialism. Ours was twisted in that it was anti-Imperialist (go figure). We opposed the Imperialism of others with things like the Monroe Doctrine, and we fought to expand our own but we never got embroiled in the massive wars of European nations. Ours was a much subtler form. We tended to focus on controlling points of trade and keeping others out of them rather than overt take overs followed by colonization.

That's what I was saying, those two wars were definitely about Imperialism. The World Wars were not.

Yes you are... We would not have got in those wars if everybody had a chance to die in them....

We nuked a country twice in WWII, which lasted half as long as the current conflict we are in now and the reason we did it was to end the war quickly because everybody got a chance to die in it.

A President's son was in the second wave at Omaha beach....

I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....

A draft with NO exceptions for anyone unless they have already served in combat or are missing a limb sounds fine to me....

You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....

 djones520 wrote:
That's what I was saying, those two wars were definitely about Imperialism. The World Wars were not.

My mistake I read your sentence as meaning those wars weren't about territory XD

Allow me to redirect;

WWI and WWII were Imperialist, not in that we sough territory but we sought to enforce our national pride. While the Zimmerman Telegraph directly lead to our involvement (good job Brits!) unrestricted submarine warfare had us pretty peeved. We didn't like the idea of fighting Europe's wars for them, but we also didn't like them involving us. EDIT: And of course, US politicians and business loved playing European wars to our advantage. We took almost all of them as chances to expand our influence.

It's hard to call US involvement in WWII non-Imperialist as it was a clash between the American and Japanese Empires for economic and territorial control of the Pacific. Without the American Empire we held we would have never been sucked into the war at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....

That's just an asinine solution to a problem.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


I did over 22 years at the sharp end and the folks who start the wars in America never have their family members dying in them....

Sen. Baucus had a nephew killed in Iraq. Rep. Wilson had a son nearly killed by a sniper, and an IED. Rep. Akin's son was nearly killed by a mortar explosion. Many other Congressmen had children and other relatives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have sitting Congressmen who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I'd say your claim in a bit off.

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
That's what I was saying, those two wars were definitely about Imperialism. The World Wars were not.

My mistake I read your sentence as meaning those wars weren't about territory XD

Allow me to redirect;

WWI and WWII were Imperialist, not in that we sough territory but we sought to enforce our national pride. While the Zimmerman Telegraph directly lead to our involvement (good job Brits!) unrestricted submarine warfare had us pretty peeved. We didn't like the idea of fighting Europe's wars for them, but we also didn't like them involving us. EDIT: And of course, US politicians and business loved playing European wars to our advantage. We took almost all of them as chances to expand our influence.

It's hard to call US involvement in WWII non-Imperialist as it was a clash between the American and Japanese Empires for economic and territorial control of the Pacific. Without the American Empire we held we would have never been sucked into the war at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


You want to save money on the DoD bring back the draft, do not pay them, only the Volunteer units, see how quick we get out of our current war....

That's just an asinine solution to a problem.

Let me be blunt....

I suspect you have never been in a war and have picked up an education by some fool who also had never been in a war.

War is organized murder on a large scale....

World War Two was fought by us because the Japanese killed a lot of Americans at Pearl harbor (never mind the rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre and the Germans were throwing people into ovens and taking over the world....

The Korean war was over a massive invasion as well....

The draft ensures people get their families into the dying. For the last 13 years a very small part of this country has been dying and the rest has been playing games, going on vacation, etc....etc....Nobody in this country including that piece of gak in the Whites House is interested in ending the war even though he promised that the first thing he did when he got elected was to end the war....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g

It sounds asinine to you because I suspect you fear it.... The point of a draft is to make war distasteful to the public and personally responsible for those politicians who start them by getting their own children killed for picking an untrustworthy fool for commander in chief.

We have a draft and watch how quickly we get out of Afghanistan....








Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sen. Baucus had a nephew killed in Iraq. Rep. Wilson had a son nearly killed by a sniper, and an IED. Rep. Akin's son was nearly killed by a mortar explosion. Many other Congressmen had children and other relatives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [url]

Look at their voting records vs the mas of US Senators and Congressmen and the current President, Vice President... etc....

Unless you have someone at risk in your family most people do not give a gak about ending a war...

You named 3 plus I think 5 others out of how many hundred?

Plainly put most of America does not give a gak. Bring back the draft and watch that focus change...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


I suspect you have never been in a war and have picked up an education by some fool who also had never been in a war.

My family has been involved in every armed conflict since the Civil War. My dad pretty much missed my and my sister's teen years fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq (and Bosnia before that). I know people who lost their fathers and brothers and had their parents break up. My uncle's family was destroyed by the war. My best friend lost his dad.

Don't give me any high and mighty bs about the cost of war.

War is organized murder on a large scale....

Honestly it sounds like you heard that from some fool who has never been in a war.

The draft ensures people get their families into the dying.

And you assume that government officials won't find ways around their children being in harms way? They can and will if they so desire find a way as they have in the past (I believe you alleged an example earlier). All your proposal does is give the government a captive fighting force that has no choice but to fight when it demands. You propose everyone put their lives on hold for something they don't want to stop something else they don't want? That's not a solution its a whole new problem.

You propose everyone put their lives on hold for something they don't want to stop something else they don't want? That's not a solution its a whole new problem.

And that is the point... Wars should only be fought by America if it is worth putting everyone's life on hold.

I am 3rd generation career military with enough memories of people I killed for nothing but a politicians order and my family has hit every war since WW II and we have lost family in every damn one of them.

This casual let them fight it and let the nation keep on doing what ever they want proved to me that the volunteer army is a mistake.

Sure it was the best fighting force the world saw and we did some things that will never be repeated in the history of warfare but we have lost something even more important and that is the willingness of the nation to do whatever is necessary to keep our soldiers alive and end the war...

Give me any other reason why we are in year 13 of this fighting.....especially with this promise of our current President...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g