Posted on 08/01/2006 8:31:50 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
I'd tend to agree with you. I've seen questionable basic trainees turned into some very capable soldiers. In addition, the wash out rate now is fairly substantial. I'm not sure drafting the average eighteen year old would present that much of a problem. Israel, Italy, Switzerland and Korea still do it to fairly good effect.
It's also interesting that the same colleges that refuse to allow any ROTC programs on campus, or even military or CIA recruiting, are the same ones that crow about their 'open-mindedness'. Yuh, right.
We should have a universal draft at some age between 16 and 18 for military training only of, perhaps 6 months. It should consist only of basic and infantry training with no posting to any job in the military and graduates should not be allowed to enlist in the active military for some period after finishing the draft-training. It would familiarize all with the military which would eliminate the primary reason that young men fight going in and do not consider defending their country. They fear an unknown thing. With the training, all are familiar with concepts and practices of military things. When there is a need for troops the volunteers will be enough that the military can pick and choose to whatever standard it wants and they will need only a couple of weeks of refresher training before they can be sent into the field. The military life will not be a general object of fear.
The countries you mentioned all have a very homogenous population, so they accept a common culture. America is a stew, where each group has its own culture, and blend to form an 'American' one, but sometimes those two ideas collide, and it's hard to meld them. Throw in what Mr. Sowell mentioned about the systematic indoctrination of this generation against the military in general, and it makes for a volatile situation with regards to a draft. Why set it up so that those who are not interested have to resort to breaking the law to avoid it, when that is unnecessary.
Well, Tom Sowell himself wasn't interested in the military but he made a pretty good marine. The chapter in his biography that covers his exploits in the service is fairly amusing. In fact, I think the military has in the past and continues to do an excellent job assimilating people into the country. In any event, I don't think the common experience hurt overall; folks as diverse as Bruce Williams, Louis Rukeyser and Walter Williams served in a conscript military. They seemed to do OK. Many of the more competent NCO's and Officers I served with were drafted. Just my opinion though. It won't be happening any time soon.
Anyway, you could never use that amount of manpower, which would become available each year. Any draft would be inherently unfair.
You wouldn't draft women because women are physically much less capable. Yes, conscription is inherently unfair; governments typically only draft up to the number required. We've never been at 100% mobilization.
There are plenty of jobs in the military that don't require great physical strength. About 18% of our military today is composed of women. Why not draft them for those jobs?
Yes, conscription is inherently unfair; governments typically only draft up to the number required. We've never been at 100% mobilization.
Ergo, if we get a sufficient number of volunteers, why institute the draft?
There is no job in the army that doesn't require you to be able to fight as infantry. Typically, only the Army has used conscripts; the Marines have used it to a lesser extent in Korea and Vietnam. Yes, conscription is unnecessary if we have enough volunteers. Finally, women are in the service because physical fitness requirements (height, weight, fitness tests and body fat standards) are reduced. Were they held to male standards, there would be very few females in the service, and even fewer that stay beyond their initial enlistment.
"What is wrong with coercing people to serve their country?"
Nothing.
" - - Millions of us served as draftees,- - & saw it as a duty, from the 40's to the 60's."
And served honorably. Millions would again see it as their duty if all our elected officials led instead of pandering to polls.
"You wouldn't draft women because women are physically much less capable. Yes, conscription is inherently unfair; governments typically only draft up to the number required. We've never been at 100% mobilization"
Your post is 100% devoid of logic. Women are in the military, therefore, women should be required to register for the draft along with the men. Failing to agree with that statement, you should be one of the first to argue to have no women in the military at all.
Not at all. Women were in the military throughout all of our wars. At no time were they required to register for the draft. A more logical requirement would be that they meet the male standards for everything, unless and until you can predict which soldiers will never have to fight as infantry against a capable enemy.
Are you suggesting that women should not be in the army?
I'm writing that many are in the service courtesy of reduced standards. Draw your own conclusions as to whether that is a good idea.
So what is your solution to raising standards? Forced conscription or a volunteer military?
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.