Posted on 12/15/2014 10:06:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Of course it was. Explain how someone being forced by government to do something, at threat of prison for refusing, is not a slave.
Its the very definition of slavery.
Drafts are slavery and are indecent. They could at least have the decency to use social ostracism instead.
agreed
That’s an amazing story and he sounds like a great guy. But asking the survivors of a war their opinion of the draft has an obvious problem. You -might- just be asking the wrong guys.
And he does indeed wish for a reinstatement. He just doesn’t think it can happen. That’s a BIG difference from “doesn’t advocate a return”.
“He says he understands that there is no political constituency in the American body politic for such a dramatic reversal—and that military leaders, now accustomed to a level of competency attainable only by a force of professionals, wouldn’t embrace conscription if given the choice”
IE,, “no matter what I think, it really cannot happen in due to politics right now”
Actually it was a draftee’s opinion on the draft.
Were you a draftee or enlisted?
“and that military leaders, now accustomed to a level of competency attainable only by a force of professionals, wouldn’t embrace conscription if given the choice”
So his preference is a less competent military full of people who don’t want to be there.
okaaaaaay
Thanks for posting the article, 2DV. Very interesting read.
I read every word of this article, and it made a lot of sense to me. For many years I have agreed that we need to subject every 18-to-26-year-old in this country to a form of discipline that will improve response to authority and a sense of personal investment in the country.
I did my national service in 1956-62 in the New York Army National Guard, and was discharged as a machine gun squad leader. It taught me how to show gratefulness to the veterans who have made this country great. I still serve in the Veterans Affairs Volunteer Service to show my appreciation.
The six years of Army training certainly gave me a perspective that never would have come from merely listening to the college social theorists, but with it came the ability to recognize the "gimme" segment, the fools who have no interest in investing one hour into making this a better country.
I understand--reading the article probably wouldn't have made any sense to you, anyway.
Go ahead, do your own thing. For a while.
and/or Lincoln?
the peoples of ‘Iraq’ are tribal.
they don’t want democracy.
they want their tribe to be on the winning side.
what about that is so hard to understand?
Article acts like the draft was a longtime American tradition.
We had never had a real peacetime draft till after WWII, so when it was ended in 73 it was less than 30 years old.
Then why bother to post? Without reading the article you have no idea what's in it
It took me ten minutes to read. You're just too lazy.
Indeed, all the draft did was give an Obamao the ability to force people to fight for his agenda.
Historically when the Army ranks were too thin, members of the King’s own police were deployed. We have plenty of fat BLM, EPA, Education cops doing nothing but trouble here at home and they should be sent out.
It is Great Society military bull sht
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey has launched a program called “Commitment to Service,” in which service members and veterans work with civilians to address common problems such as hunger, the better to form new bonds of shared experience
Basically, feel guilty for the poor, be convicted, become a willing slave.
The Great society and Obamacare are just such ploys by antiwar people which force us into some kind of socialist draft in wars against poverty. It is basically like a church of the world instead of Catholicism, it is ridiculous.
Serving between 1967 and 1974, I saw the draft as having strengths and drawbacks. As an EM, I was mixed among men from all parts of the country and society. I had friends who had MBAs and those for whom graduation from AIT was the pinnacle of their education. We were trained to work together irrespective of those, and did so for the most part.
However, the professionalism (i.e. fire discipline) and effectiveness of today’s Army are light-years beyond any unit I saw in RVN.
Bit long, but here is one of the best articles on why the draft is not only unconstitutional, but also contrary to the interests of the US:
“Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?
The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.
One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.
The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.
Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”
A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes—if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army—an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why—is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.
It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.
Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.”
Ayn Rand
I DID read the whole article. If you had, you would have come to a different conclusion. I can summarize the General’s comments in three points:
1. As usual, Congress has failed to do its job. It has ceded its authority to the Executive branch, without bothering to declare war, without clear objectives and an definitive end.
2. In an era of cuts to the military, we make our military, already stretched to the point where it is insufficient to complete its mission.
3. The military is increasingly separated from society because so few are required to serve.
As for your slavery comment, I never met a single military person who signed up for the pay. There is such a thing called patriotism. Try it, you’ll like it.
To the larger point, when I wrote "America's Victories" in 2006 I found the volunteer force remarkably diverse, including a lot of Ivy Leage grads, and not all of them officers.
I don't know the 2014 stats are but in 2006 the % of kids of senators and representatives serving was HIGHER than the % of people serving in the military in the population as a whole.
I think like most "total war" measures there are things justified that that are not under any other conditions. WW II was such a situation. The war on terror is not because this is not a fight won by sheer manpower.
The best arguments for the draft are that it forces a common denominator. That is significant but doesn't outweigh the disadvantages.
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.