Skip to comments.McChrystal: Time to bring back the draft
Posted on 07/05/2012 11:51:33 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander of international forces in Afghanistan, said this week that the United States should bring back the draft if it ever goes to war again.
"I think we ought to have a draft. I think if a nation goes to war, it shouldn't be solely be represented by a professional force, because it gets to be unrepresentative of the population," McChrystal said at a late-night event June 29 at the 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival. "I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk. You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game."
He argued that the burdens of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been properly shared across the U.S. population, and emphasized that the U.S. military could train draftees so that there wouldn't be a loss of effectiveness in the war effort.
"I've enjoyed the benefits of a professional service, but I think we'd be better if we actually went to a draft these days," he said. "There would some loss of professionalism, but for the nation it would be a better course."
(Excerpt) Read more at thecable.foreignpolicy.com ...
Based on the number of liberals who stepped forward this week to say that the world would've been better off if America had NOT won its independence, they isn't much left to fight for.
Those in charge are against this nation and do not cherish it.
Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the combat arms, especially in the special forces units and always have been.
I agree with all yo u said but think you far to kind and easy on the General. The idea a military oughtn’t to be the finast it can be and able to win, ALWAYS, is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. This speech was written by Obama for McCrystal.
You will recall Rangle not long ago called for a return of the draft. The reason was obvious. It will give the liberals yet another talking point and a club to beat the anti fight for anything drums. They will as they did before cite the draft as “unfair” having far more minorities then is represented in the general population and on and on.
You don’t fix it if it ain’t broke unless you are looking for an issue to poltiticize and that’s what we see here.
Vietnam is not the only yard stick by which we can measure the combat effectiveness of conscripts. We can also look at Korea and WW2 and draw a much different conclusion. We all know that Vietnam era warfighting was plagued by much more than just unmotivated draftees. It’s political suicide to even discuss it of course but the fact is, any major war waged against a credible threat(s) will require a draft like it or not. If we’re unwilling or unable to even bring it up, we have no business entering such a war and should just rely on bombs and ICBMs.
Interesting thought - my take on this is a little different and disregards the diversity argument: I have been pondering whether one of the reasons we’ve declined as a nation is that EVERYBODY isn’t required to serve when they reach adulthood - no deferrals, no exemptions except for physical or mental inability. It seems to me that when, in McChrystal’s words (though not with his agenda), people have “skin in the game”, they tend to think harder about whether to go to war.
My understanding is that this is true for blacks, but that Special Forces are heavily White Southerner and Hispanic.
He’s probably worried about the gays in the military.
The draft is a way for government to steal the labor and lives of citizens. At most its use is justified in the case of an existential threat to the nation, which is not the case today.
The left used to scold the rest of us that we were “not paying the full price of the oil we imported”. A draft allows government to put a large part of the cost of our defense off on to others. In order to make rational public policy decisions we must force government to pay the full market price for everything that it presses into its service.
Moreover, having nearly free manpower for its armed forces allows government to think going to war costs far less than it does. The Vietnam war cost the lives of tens of thousands of people who would not otherwise have been in a position to die. Had Johnson been forced to pay the full cost in blood for that war, he would have conducted it far more differently. And this is not accounting for the blood shed by the Communists or the civilians who died as a consequence.
My opinion is that a draft FOR ANY REASON (even to be a civilian Obama brownshirt corps assigned to building solar powered wildlife shelters), apart from a substantial DECLARED war is a gross “taking” of the lives and time of citizens.
They ONLY reason we would need a DRAFT is because the HOMOSEXUALS have taken over and no decent straight person wants to go near the military!! I think that time will come very quickly.
Good points, and note that even Korea was arguably not entered into with a view toward defeating the enemy. I think we do better when we seek complete victory, THEN talk about assistance with reconstruction (if at all).
Which is ridiculous - the last time the idiot Rangle brought it up it was proven that the other minorities where under-represented in the military. In other words - it’s those middle class white-boys that make up the largest percentage of the military.
I agree with the sentiment that going back to the Vietnam era setup is just DUMB! As a side note - this idiot NEVER served when the draft existed! He entered Westpoint just a year before it ended!
So you can have the inferior catch the bullets while the professional force drops in behind lines?
That’ll go over well... forcing young Americans to “join up” with the new, politically correct, homo-friendly military.
Huh? We need to fill the military with crackheads, bath-salt zombies and moochers? Yea, that should really make things so much better.
I agree with your sentiment, and am a Navy veteran.
The draftees could fit in a forces category of serving only two years. They would be specifically trained to hold combat positions, on land, on the seas, or in the air.
This would eliminate expensive, long term training in technical schools unless the draftees option to volunteer and sign up for an additional 6-years of active duty.
And of course that gets right back at the "Peace Dividend" nonsense of the 1990s, when infantrymen were separated from the service in the thousands and Fort Ord was closed.
Remember at the time all the DoD rhetoric about how "boots on the ground" wouldn't be needed since technology was the end all-be all of future warfighting.
Do you really want a fighting force representative of the population? Careful what you wish for.