Redstate

that I was a draftee and served honorably.

So did alot of others who saw fit to answer the call.

There's a big difference today vis 1968. In the '60's, the draft was an on-going part of the fabric of America. Today, it is being promoted by Democrats solely to undermine the US military and to make it effectively impossible to use the military in any broad sense.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

that the Democrats are using the draft as a political tool.

I have three sons who are registered for the draft - although 2 are over 30 now.

It is not hard for me to envision a scenario where a draft will become necessary. A broader war in the ME, for instance.

Primarily for the very simple reason that it takes too long to make a unit operations ready. Go draft 50,000 kids and then what. Who gets them through boot camp? Will they all be "infantry"? Etc...

If a broader war breaks out in the ME, it would take probably three years to significantly increase the military in any usable fashion. Streiff is better able to comment on this than I, hopefully he will...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

could have been used prior to WWII.

between the WWII infantryman and today's infantryman. Squad leaders make decisions and control assets that would have been at the division level or higher in WWII. The WWII infantryman had more in common with the elbow to elbow cannon fodder of the Civil War than he does with the modern professional military. And I don't say that to denigrate the WWII infantryman or his forebears, it's just that modern technology has completely changed the battlefield and the training, tactics, and strategies put into play on that battlefield.

In Vino Veritas

and assets controlled by squad leaders?

just federalize the National Guard and call up the Reserve, including the IRR? You'd have about 4 million trained troops in short order.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

you will admit that yourself and the vast majority of those you went to Vietnam with who were drafted were handed rifles and sent out to catch bullets so the real soldiers (i.e. Rangers and career-types) could get on with the job.
In Korea and the WWs, the difference was much reduced being that the difference in training received over a long career versus that received in just a couple months before being deployed really was nonexistent.
Today, the difference between the bullet-catching draftees and the real soldiers would be even more pronounced. Training never ends in today's Army because of the technology available and how quickly tech and doctrine change.

As for your available assets that, even in Vietnam, existed only at the brigade or division level, the average infantry soldier today outguns an entire platoon of soldiers from your day (nearly a company if equipped with a SAW), an entire regiment from WWII or Korea and an entire division from the Civil War. He has more information he must absorb simultaneously than a regimental commander had in an entire day in Vietnam and he must do so while under fire. He has the individual ability to call in artillery or air support as needed. He must effectively communicate with his allies who may speak as many as a dozen different languages or dialects and may or may not be equipped with communications gear of any kind, let alone gear less than a decade old.

As to decisions, correct me if I am wrong (though both the uncles of mine who went to Vietnam say I'm not), when you came under fire, you could pretty much spray whatever you saw move.
Today's soldier must not just figure out who in the crowd in front of him is armed, but which of them is the enemy and then decide whether the current ROE will allow him to return fire. He must decide whether air or artillery support is neccessary and then again whether it would be permitted by the ROE, and further whether to risk his career to call it in even if permitted on the off-chance of killing a civilian or 2.

No offense intended, but Vets from any war prior to Desert Storm just have no idea what it is like to serve in today's Army. A draftee would be instantly out of his depth and more of a hazard to his fellows and himself than to the enemy.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

See the Academy

But I am not now, nor was I ever an infantryman, so I don't really know exactly how much of what is possible is being fielded...

I do know that is possible (and planned to be fielded, if it isn't already out there) to have each and every soldier monitor the health, position, amount of ammunication, status of weaponry and communications of all friendly forces down to the individual soldier level and also the position and communications of identified and suspected enemy forces and of civilians.

The greatest danger a modern infantryman faces is not enemy fire or IEDs, but information overload. Ask any serving infantryman and that is what you will get.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

n/t

Nice campaign theme for 2008.

I remember when I bought my first car . . . a beautiful, shiny Mercury Cougar convertible. Instead of tooling around all summer at the beach, I spent three months wondering if there was anything remaining on the car that *didn't* need fixing.

Same feeling the "Blue Dog" voters must be feeling right about now. Their shiny new car has some ugly rust spots.

--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch

"We do not now, nor will we ever have a desire to reinstitute the Draft. The all-volunteer force has proven successful for over 30 years now and shows no sign of failing these United States."

Oh, but they already have. And continue to do so every time the Draft is brought up...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

You don't have any basis for calling Murtha a "war hawk" he's not. He's a "pork hawk." Murtha was against the Iraq War and he was in favor of the retreat from Somalia.

Second, I don't see how the Dems pushing for a draft helps them or promotes their agenda so long as the president, and Defense are saying the draft is a bad idea.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Love it! I about fell out of my chair!
Don

He's supportive of the military as long as shots are not being fired. At the first sound of gunfire, he can be found under Nancy's bed. And he's been that way forever.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Sorry about responding in the wrong place. I agree with the pork-hawk and I've always thought his practice of buying votes should be illegal. My response:

The Dems are not going to push for a Draft. Nancy made that clear when Rangel brought it up. Murtha can get away with it because he's always supported it anyway. For you and I, this ploy is a no sale. Considering that there's a lot of people in this country that aren't news analyst and squander their time earning a living, paying bills, going to the golf course and waiting to see who will replace Tubby, Murthas military credentials will be honorable to most of them. Even if not, it's fear mongering. Those afraid aren't going to say, "let's get rid of the Dems and the problem goes away". Again, the Dems aren't supporting it but it keeps coming up. They'll look at the war as the problem. Stop the war, my kid doesn't get drafted. We both know the draft ain't gonna happen. It's a good stratagem for them.

First of all, one year of training will will barely get a young man to a point of being trained in his basic MOS. My son the Marine shipped to boot camp in early March, graduated on June 15, and it was January of the following year before he was in the fleet (assigned to a battalion). He was a machine gunner. If you are in any kind of technical MOS, the school can easily run six months or more after boot camp and AIT.

Second, this would be horrendously expensive with almost no benefit.

Third, very bad on morale. My son's unit had very high morale, including just before, during and after deployments to Iraq. These guys all wanted to be where they were, nobody was forced. They absolutely hated the idea of draftees being thrust on them.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I posted this downthread, but thought I also ought to put this up here since your misconception was similar. If you have further commnets, could you respond to the downthread line? That way we can keep it all together.

I guess you missed my idea- I don't think these traniees should be sent out on missions around the world, rather I think that our society would benefit if all the male mambers had some sort of experience with the military. (Particularly before they get to college and have their professor teach them what to think about soldiers).

In addition to these trainiees, there would be a normal professional army.

In most situations the professional army would be sufficent to deal with military conflicts, but in particularly severe cases, (such as the unlikely case of invasion), where more extensive mobilization is needed, we would have new inductees who have at least some basic training allowing them to hopefully be prepared for battle more swiftly.

Sorry for the confusion- I should have been more clear.

Interestingly, it appears my view on the effect of a draft and the Dem. view area at odds with each other. Dems see a draft as reducing popular support for wars. I see Universal Military Training as resulting in greater support for (certain kinds of) war.

Or maybe I'm even MORE opposed. Creating two classes of "military" is a very bad thing. How would you treat things like VA medical and education benefits?

Bottom line, the military serves (or should serve) one purpose. Protection of national security. One year of "training" with no intention of using these people as "real" military serves no purpose.

If it's readiness that you're concerned about, we should more likely be looking at the ready reserves and national guard force. Streiff addressed this somewhat downthread.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

And you'll get more support. 1 year gets you trained in a job that requires only a short amount of training. In many cases, my wife's in particular, the length of training can reach beyond even 2 years before the soldier is deployable.

You get no significant experience of the military with only a year. Training schools are not the Army. They are just preparatory training For the Army.

Unfortunately, this would mean that we would need to relax enlistment standards. The bigest problem with a Draft or Mandatory Service is the quality of the modern American Soldier. A mere 3% of those who fall within the age limit of 17-42 (now apply that to the population, it's a tiny %) are qualified to join.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

What knocks out the other 97%? I know criminal history will take out a big number, I assume people without HS diplomas are also out. Does the Army take GED's or alternative HS's? Are you counting physical conditioning (ie: too fat) which could be addressed prior to boot?

Do you have any stats?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

For me to update and rerelease the Army Enlistment Qualifications threads I wrote last year...

Quick and dirty:
the vast majority of those not qualified are DQd because of the ASVAB. You can't pass, you can't join. AS simple as that. Criminal history actually disqualifies a smaller % than you'd think, though it hits a disproportionately large number of those who played with alcohol and/or drugs a time or 2 and were unlucky or stupid enough to get caught. They don't get a second chance anymore.
You must have either a GED or HS Diploma to qualify, though homeschool programs are evaluated on an individual basis and often accepted.
Fat and medical covers the rest. Though we are playing with letting in men with up to 30% body fat and women with up to 36%. Test programs only, to see if they can lose that fat in Basic without dieing...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

any idea on how many troops would have to be diverted to being drill sergeants, training instructors, and support staff to staff a UMT program? And what it does to readiness to have 100% turnover each year in a unit?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

No offense, I just can't imagine any one of my NCO's saying they want to lead soldiers that don't want to be there.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

and made E5 in September of that year.

Right out of AIT (11C)(11B) I received orders for NCO Candidate School in Ft. Benning, GA. We were called "Shake N Bakes" because we earned our stripes in a short period of time. Several graduates from each class were promoted to E6. this created alot of jealousy among career NCOs, but most of us didn't care.

One hitch was when one recieved orders for NCOC, he knew his ultimate destination was Vietnam.

You might be interested to know that many if not most (I'm inclined to believe most) who graduated from NCOC were draftees.

My experience in those days is that there were a good many RAs who did not want to be in the military as well as draftees.

Most amusing were the RA types who volunteered for Vietnam because they hated garrison duty in places like Germany. They changed their tune PDQ once they got there.

Here's a link to Budd Russell's NCOC locator. (Sorry for not formatting it properly)

http://w3.ime.net/~ncocloca/NCOC-1~1.HTM

Mainly due to poor health.

I guess you missed my idea- I don't think these traniees should be sent out on missions around the world, rather I think that our society would benefit if all the male mambers had some sort of experience with the military. (Particularly before they get to college and have their professor teach them what to think about soldiers).

In addition to these trainiees, there would be a normal professional army.

In most situations the professional army would be sufficent to deal with military conflicts, but in particularly severe cases, (such as the unlikely case of invasion), where more extensive mobilization is needed, we would have new inductees who have at least some basic training allowing them to hopefully be prepared for battle more swiftly.

Sorry if I was unclear.

of requiring military service before you are allowed to enroll in college or a professional school? Seems to me that UMT penalizes those who serve otherwise.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Since every man at age 18/19 after graduating from high school would be required to spend a year in military training before doing anything else with their lives. (Exemptions only for chronic medical conditions making the person "unfit for service").

Or are you suggesting that only volunteer service beyond that year would allow you to enter college? That doesn't seem right to me.

The reason I support universal military service is because I think it a fundamental rule that the possesion of the level of freedom we have requires some level of service and sacrifice- and that spending one year learning how to defend those freedoms is a reasonable cost.

Even if they never end up having to actual defend our country, those who exerience such training would be more understanding of those who do.

once you have exemptions you don't have UMT. The Vietnam draft has tons of instances of chronic disease being used to avoid service.

Your copy of the Constitution must be different than mine because your statement in your second para has more in common with Heinlein's Starship Troopers than it does with the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or US tradition.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

See the Academy

And it could be run much like ROTC or, even better, JROTC is. With NCOs and Officers who are at the tag end of their careers (or even those already retired) being the instructors/DSs and the senior leaders of the militia units...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

Maybe I should have explicitly used the word milita, but that's what I tend to this as. I feel that UMT would result in a great appreciation of the Second Amendment for one thing.

I'm certainly open to an and all improvements- I guess I just feel that there are few things to think about:

1: To function at peak efficency we need a proffessional volunteer army.

2: Civil society and military society must remain connected to each other. I am very disturbed by the disconnect so many civilians seem to have from our own military. This is the problem my proposal is seeking to address.

is "there is not draft so my kid won't get drafted and the Dems want to start a draft so my kid might get drafted so I'm opposed to the war so my kid won't get drafted. And because the Dems are against the war they will be the ones to end it so my kid who can't be drafted now won't be drafted by the draft the Dems are starting."

Hell, it could work. There are conservatives who were hoping for divided government back in November.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

See the Academy

up in a conversation with someone who was very worried about the "Bush and the draft" theme that the Dems very cleverly inserted into the campaign. I told him not to worry about Bush, because it was a classic piece of disinformation.