Posted on 01/07/2011 4:58:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It would raise patriotism and educational standards. It would make citizens take a higher interest in world affairs and politics. It would make society in general stronger, both physically and mentally, and it would make our government officials less trigger-happy. Foreign countries would be less likely to attack America and it would become impossible to take our great country over. Our society would be completely reformed back into a strong nation again.
Upon leaving high school men and women are required, by law, to join the military for at least two years. There is no choice in the matter; if they don't go they get the same rights as a felon. Yes, when a person goes into the military they lose certain rights for a little while, but is that necessarily bad? No. If they have never had their basic rights taken from them they will never place as high a value on those rights, or on the sacrifice their ancestors made to give them those rights. It is a growing problem in America for people to take their rights for granted. Take peoples rights away temporarily and people start to value what they have more; and they start to value their country more. Patriotism will be on the rise.
The men and women that leave high school will have to get an assessment test on their knowledge and intelligence levels. Naturally, they studied hard in school so that they could place high and choose what job they would have; so they could choose where they would be on the battlefield. Of Course, they (and their parents) would take school more seriously they do now, their futures would depend on it. These days a high school diploma is just a pretty decoration you get after twelve years of being babysat. People would become more serious about how their children were taught. How much money and supplies would schools receive in order to teach their children? A lot more then they do now. How much respect would teachers finally receive? A lot more then they do now. Hoe many children would get lost in the shuffle educationally? A lot less then they do now.
After selecting or being placed into a field, the people would go to basic training. This would install discipline, physical fitness, pride, and self-esteem. It would teach them that they could achieve anything they set their minds to. How many people in America could use those traits? Our society would shed the flabby Athenian traits and become a well oiled Spartan machine. How many Americans could have benefited from those four traits when they were first starting out in life? How far would America be today if we were all physically and mentally fit when we first started out?
After going through basic training, they would be required to serve at least two years in the armed forces. In that amount of time, they get to travel the world, learning about other cultures and world events. They gain a wealth of knowledge from their travels. They learn that the rest o the world does not have it as good as we do, and to not take our great nation for granted. They carry this knowledge about world events and cultures with them to teach their children, making the world less America centric to Americans.
Because people would be required to become physically fit, (in order to survive in the military) obesity levels in America would drop causing medical problems associated with it to drop. In addition Americans would be near impossible to surprise because they would all be knowledgeable of combat techniques. No one would dare attempt an invasion, because every man women and child would know how to defend themselves.
The presidents children are in the military; congresses children are in the military. How fast would they be to go to war with the knowledge that their children would be deployed? Not as fast as they were willing to in the past. The government would defiantly become more willing to look at other options before leaping headfirst into a major conflict. There would be more protests from congress if the president went crazy and decided to charge into a foreign country.
The effects of making military service mandatory are numerously good. A chain reaction would take place and American society would reform itself. We would become less ignorant of the world around us. Fewer people would burn flags and take America for granted. American government would be less likely to jump into a war. The children would not be lost educationally and schools would receive better funding. Obesity levels would drop dramatically, reducing health problems associated with unhealthy lifestyle. America would become stronger, mentally and physically due to a chain of events created by making military service mandatory.
The military is not what it used to be.
Grunts refuse to require their troops to perform field days because it is beneath them.
Go figure.
Interesting that the author is described as a Libertarian??!!
This proposal does not seem very libertarian to me.
We don’t need no steenking mandatory service.
Does America Need A Foreign Legion?
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/new/article056.html
An American Foreign Legion
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_012104_Foreign,00.html
Big ideas but they would never work for Americans. Mogadishu Somalia in 93 was commanded by a frog general and all he did was get a bunch of rangers killed. He didn’t have a clue. Frog culture is good for frogs, not us. If it hadn’t been for the reaction of other Rangers and Marines with their choppers it would have been a lot worse. It does not seem to me that you have any military experience at all. There are a million jokes about the French military running away. They are well deserved. Can you name a successful campaign in the last hundred years that they were responsible for?
And now you want to make the most effective military in the world just like theirs.
Don’t think so.
I support the Volunteer Military concept 100%. So did Reagan. When our economy went bad in the early 1980's he opened the doors for enlistemnts and let volunteers join. When our nation was attacked following 9/11 neither Congress nor GW Bush called for troop strength increases. We need to do right by the military we now have. That should be the current GOP congressional priority. We as a nation have not been doing such since 1989.
I have a total of 8 years and two services. 4/2 Navy and 1/1 Army NG. All was volunteer obligations. I've seen enough to know that what you are proposiing would among other things be a strain on our already depleted military resources.
I support re-instating no gays, no women serving in combat units or zones, nor especially being allowed to be on combat ships.
I think it’s a great idea. If all the teens on their way to Harvard, Yale and Wall Street had to serve for two years, it would go a long way toward dispelling the contempt and hatred the ruling class has for the rest of America.
Women could do all the support jobs instead of training for combat, just like in WWII.
The whole idea of a rational draft is a fantasy. Can’t happen in America. Won’t happen. Given that, I can describe such a thing as it should be. It should be for 6 months and should be concentrated infantry training, nothing more. The one country that seems to have a similar system is Turkey, or it did 40-50 years ago, anyway. The draft was universal male for one year. I suspect it is the same now. The draftees, however were in the operational army for that year and were posted and used in action. But the Turkish army, if there is a threat or a call, is flooded with recruits and can pick and choose only the most suitable at whatever force level they need.
The FFL has French officers, but is not part of the French Army.
Battle of Kolwezi (Operation Bonite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolwezi
Here is the bloody play by play:
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/LuisSilva/00000019.htm
In any event, I cite the FFL mostly because it is the best modern example of a mercenary army. The nations of Europe used commercial armies for over a thousand years, as a much less expensive, yet effective, means of defense.
And yes, oldenuff2no, a know a great deal about military history and operations.
I would also point out that your example of the battle of Mogadishu is a poor one, because that was a French regular army officer directing regular US forces, who generally do not OPCON well to foreign leaders, sent on a mission without their requested heavy armor and other equipment, which was allowed to be compromised from the minute US forces set down on the beach. Mogadishu was a cluster.
An AFL, as private contractors, have no obligation to conduct operations in ways they do not choose, under leaders they do not want, and poor ROE.
I would also like to add that the contractors I have known were all former elite US military veterans, so if you assert that they would be incompetent, you also assert that the US military is incompetent.
As a guy who was drafted in WW II, I resent some of the comments that drafted guys would not fight. WW II was won by draftees since most of the regular army guys were lost in Africa and Italy. Normandy and the Bulge were fought by soldiers less than 25 years old.
Anyway saying that I don’t go along with military service draftees in other than war time. A peace time army would only encourage military action as all presidents seem to want to be a ‘war time president’. Giving them a ready available army would be too much of a temptation.
If Congress formally declares we are at war, then a draft would be appropriate.
The new volunteers were head and shoulders better soldiers than the old draftees.
So, I'd say, any suggestion about returning to a draftee military is really an attempt to degrade our forces from today's levels -- which are universally acknowledged to be the best ever.
Perhaps more importantly:
Point is, while militia service was near universal during colonial times, the nation managed without a national draft until the Civil War, and when the draft was applied long-term, from WWII through Vietnam, it was not ultimately good for the military.
Further, unlike past militaries -- which were built on masses of "canon fodder" troops -- the whole concept of war-fighting today depends on the few, the well-trained, the highly-motivated and equipped with the best weapons possible.
These people have to be volunteers, they have to be good people to begin with, and they have to be carefully selected for their roles. In short: they have to be professional.
So in a sense, they have to be the best our nation can offer, not your "average Joe", and certainly not the dregs which can be over represented in a drafted army.
If you ask, how can we maintain adequate force levels without a draft? The answer is: pay them more, and give them more respect where it counts -- in their home communities.
Final thought: America has never been a "military state" like the old Prussian Empire. We only reluctantly raise and maintain barely adequate armies during wartime, and can only hope and pray we don't lose too much military expertise during long years of peace.
An American military today, equivalent to the peak of World War Two, would include nearly 50 million citizens, nearly all of them drafted.
Can anyone even imagine a scenario (short of total nuclear war) in which such a force might be required?
That generation in the US is quite different compared to the generation that one would be pulling service members from. You are comparing the WW II types to a pool of society that shares nothing with the forties/fifties...your comment is so out of line from my MOST RECENT experiences in the military.
What about your service - how tours did you do since you feel the need to lecture me on being unvoluntarily enlisted compared to those that join freely as I did. I di both enlisted and officer - and being a Captain with 4 yours in Iraq under my little unknowledable belt - prehaps enlighten us on that little smart a$$ comment. I just live types like you that jump and bash a comment with information that is not current...no wonder so many drop this sight and never visit it again...I’m pretty much there at this point. Everything you said about your WW II family happens without forced enlistment - the difference is that today’s generation has been brought up on different morals, norms, and values - and IT WON’T WORK!!!
That generation in the US is quite different compared to the generation that one would be pulling service members from. You are comparing the WW II types to a pool of society that shares nothing with the forties/fifties...your comment is so out of line from my MOST RECENT experiences in the military.
What about your service - how tours did you do since you feel the need to lecture me on being unvoluntarily enlisted compared to those that join freely as I did. I di both enlisted and officer - and being a Captain with 4 yours in Iraq under my little unknowledable belt - prehaps enlighten us on that little smart a$$ comment. I just love types like you that jump and bash a comment with information that is not current...no wonder so many drop this sight and never visit it again...I’m pretty much there at this point. Everything you said about your WW II family happens without forced enlistment - the difference is that today’s generation has been brought up on different morals, norms, and values - and IT WON’T WORK!!!
OK, good points, now tell me, how many draftees have you actually worked with? As a Captain how many were in your company? I was in a company made up with about 70% draftees albeit in the 60’s. Great bunch of guys, but then again, many if not most, were college grads from the NYC area and New England. Sure they couldn’t wait to get out, but they weren’t a problem, they did what they had to do and left. They also did their 4 year standby. As one of them I was called up for ADT 2 years later and assigned to a reserve unit as a filler for 2 weeks.
Go to my profile it better explains my point of view. My concern is an all out WW, not a brush fire. When we need a large amount of trained troops, where are they going to come from? How much time will we have to train them and what resources will be available to move and care for them? Your “MOST RECENT” war is not an all out war like WW II. Luckily we are fighting an enemy that isn’t totally sophisticated, and lacks the means to cause massive casualties on the battlefield and on our cities. Its a different war for a different generation and unfortunately it is controlled by PC. I’d still be in if it was up to me, but the Army doesn’t need a 70+ Colonel, or do they? Nahhh.
The “NEW YORK” DAILY NEWS?? Do you really expect the NY’ers NOT to Blame Palin? To the NY liberals she is the most hated woman on the planet. Did you not expect the MSM to get as much mileage as they can from this incident to work against Palin? Its a Propaganda war that is weighted on the MSM side and directed to the stupidity of the dumb-ass voters they cater to.
BIG OOOOOPS, NOT FOR THIS SITE. I HIT THE WRONG KEY.
I note your comments and agree with most of them.
Let me suggest some points here:
How much of our world would we even recognize after hundreds or even thousands of nukes go off over population centers?
So, unless someone can convincingly describe a scenario where today's world drastically changes, I think we stay with what we have, while steadily improving over time.
Out of curiosity, have we ever had a president with draft-age sons during his administration? The presidents in my lifetime only had daughters or much older children.
With due respect - Sir - Draftees of today would be poor. I’m sorry, but present troops that do volunteer are the best the US has. I’m sure that if transcript personnel that were made to serve would do fine only if the work ethic is present. Over the last 20 years - about the time you retired - a major shift in personal ethics and a righteous duty to ones country started to be drummed out of the average US teenager. I have spoken in many school, went to study the dynamics to assess what impact this trend would have if continued towards national security - my results of this is staggering. Those that volunteer are it - that’s what we are stuck with presently. Until things in society change - until the elitist in WASH DC are voted out - and until Christianity and the values that rest on that religion are put back into the school system and pressed into the moral consciousness of every US student - then a draft will not work. From one veteran to another - times have changed Colonel. Those men you served with were from a different time - as a Captain who has earned his combat commander tabs, lead me into battle, and trained platoons of new soldiers and leaders - I do not want any part of a draft until those things above change!
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.