Posted on 10/27/2017 6:55:03 AM PDT by C19fan
The Pentagon recommended that women be required to register for the draft to boost military enrollment, according to a Defense Department report addressed to Congress. The report, obtained by the Washington Times, said the Selective Service System would increase enrollment by 11 million people if the U.S. required women to sign up for the draft.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I believe you will find for the last wars dating all the way back to WW1 that women, voluntarily have served, been injured and killed. All this talk of 'frontlines' being the only place the military can get killed. I owe a few women a lot from the Army. The nurses at 93rd evac hospital in Long Binh during TET for example. The constant rocketing/mortar shelling of this facility had to be nerve wracking for these 'non-combatants'. At 18 yrs old watching nurses a few years older than me feverishly moving wounded grunts under the beds as crud from the ceilings rained down on the beds from concussions of close hits. My nurse, a bare slip of a girl staying by my bedside because with a lung wound I had to stay on the bed for the chest tube to drain, staying close in case I needed intervention instead of being safe in the bunker. I wouldn't wish any more combat exposure for her or her fellow nurses. What should I owe her for protecting me ? As Chainmail stated above, if we are down to 'having' to draft women into combat roles, we are lost. The snowflake millennials in the colleges better all be in front of the first woman drafted to take a bullet instead of them.
I believe many here on FR are failing to take into consideration the resulting change in young women's voting habits once they have some skin in the game of war, which is the continuation of politics by other means.
Uncle Sam will go from a Benevolent provider to a potential threat to a young women's life and freedom. Much more mature and responsible policy ideas will consequently rise in importance to young women when they step into the voting booth.
Voting will become the ultimate exercise in “choice” and what one does with ones body willingly or by the draft. It's a choice about your own life and not some hypothetical “fetus”.
Are you queer that you would call a 63 year old man, married for 40 years, “Dear”, or has posting 90% of your FR posts as vanity posts addled your brain from going to my About page and doing something substantial like research. How does your ‘wife’ of thirty years like the endless hours you spend in your pyjamas being a keyboard hero for our gender? (sarc)
Gosh, you’d have thought that George would’ve called Martha to the front lines then, wouldn’t you?
We shouldn’t have a draft registration at all
Well spoken. Glad you survived.
But of course he did, and she came, when he and his army needed her most.
However, Martha Washington was never a full-voting citizen and so her military service could not be required by law.
Today her great-great-great+++ granddaughters are full-voting citizens and therefore share in the full duties of citizenship, including military service if required.
Yes.
Are you acting like a troll by belittling my hundreds of articles on FR?
Also yes.
Are you using left-wing trolling points "endless hours in your pajamas" ?
You betcha. You might note that there is an entire group on the Internet (PJMedia) which made fun of this meme: it includes a LOT of right-of-center bloggers and discussion boards.
Historical point taken.
Since WWI, WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Gulf conflicts have never posed such threats as to “require” involuntary female involvement in the military, what plausible engagement can you theorize would cause such an existential threat to the most powerful military nation in all of recorded history?
And somehow this feeble response excuses your excesses of infantilism?
RRiiigghhhtt!!
And we wouldn't if this were 1788 or 1860 when there was no need to go from "peace" to "war" in the blink of an eye.
But just imagine if little "rocket-man" launched a nuclear EMT attack followed by coordinated bad-guy assaults on our treaty-allies, how long should it take for us to respond?
The US buildup to WWII began in 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, our first troop landings in late 1942.
The result was Axis powers ran amuck for three years, grabbing territories & resources which made them all the more difficult to defeat when we were finally ready.
I don't think we could successfully repeat that delayed time-line.
We must credibly be ready to go much sooner.
We don’t need a draft. The all volunteer services seem to be doing just fine
A draft gives you people that are not at all fit for modern warfare. This is not about throwing bodies at things. Our fighting forces happen to be highly skilled and trained. A draft does not hep that in any way
Better yet end the registration. We’re never actually going to do a draft again, modern warfare doesn’t need the millions of bodies it used to, and it’s political suicide so even if we did need the warm bodies nobody would vote for it. It’s nothing but pointless paperwork, end it, save some money.
First, remember all power, military or otherwise, is relative to the power opposing it.
And all power is vulnerable to what we today call "asymmetrical threats" or in the old days: surprise attacks.
Surprise air-attacks destroyed the US battleship fleet in Pearl Harbor and British battleships at Singapore.
They rendered our capital-battleships obsolete.
Today potential enemies have spent decades dreaming up missile or advanced torpedo attacks to take out our capital-aircraft carriers.
Suppose they succeed & render carriers obsolete too?
Suddenly the "most powerful military nation in all recorded history" doesn't seem quite so awesome, does it?
Regardless, your point is valid so long as we remain and are seen as the "most powerful military nation in all recorded history", and what that really means is: so long as we don't parade before the world any obvious military weaknesses.
What draft registration does is demonstrate to any & all that if needed, what they see today is just the tip of the iceberg of what we could quickly become.
Remember: weakness provokes aggression, so show no unnecessary weaknesses.
Being an old geezer myself and never having been particularly "hip" I'm not sure what "talking smack" about women sounds like.Maybe if I followed this thread from the beginning I'd know...I posted early on about my opposition to women in combat.I hope that doesn't constitute "smack".
Agreed.
Never having been a "grunt" myself I can't speak from personal experience.However I think I know enough about the Armed Forces to understand that there are always people needed stateside,away from the shooting.Having women serve in that way frees up able bodied guys for the heavy lifting.
Yes,I know that some demand that women should be in combat.IMO you've gotta question their sanity and/or motives.
He’s also not too bright; he thinks you’re a girl.
Got it, but we are not talking about today's world, rather contingencies for a very uncertain future.
We are also talking about the duties of US citizenship, one of which is military service if needed.
Everyone knows the metaphor, "tip of the spear" meaning the fighting forces engaged with an enemy.
Those people have to be the best of our best.
But for everyone on the "tip" there are many more in support roles behind them who do not necessarily need to be our very best.
Second or third best will do just fine in some roles.
That's what we're talking about here.
You disagree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.