Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Return to the Draft

Tigerhawk has extensive passages from Stratfor which argues that a returnn to the Draft, ideal to produce a large and unskilled army for the duration of conflict -- like World War 2 -- will produce entirely the wrong force to fight a generational war, and that moreover, any draft will produce inequities which can endured, but certainly not welcomed.


And there is an even more fundamental issue. During World War II, conscription, for just about everyone, meant service until the end of the war. During the Cold War, there was no clear end in sight ... Training during World War II took weeks for most combat specialties, with further training undertaken with soldiers' units or through combat. In World War II, the United States had a mass-produced army with plenty of time to mature after training. During Vietnam, conscripts went through basic training and advanced training, leaving a year for deployment in Vietnam and so me months left over after the tour of duty. Jobs that required more complex training, from Special Forces to pilots to computer programmers, were handled by volunteers who served at least three years and, in many cases, longer. The draftee was used to provide the mass. The complexities of the war were still handled by a volunteer force.

Today, a two-year draft would be impractical because, on the whole, it would result in spending huge amounts of money on training, with very little time in actual service to show for it. Conscription could, of course, be extended to a three- or even four-year term, but with only selective service -- meaning that only a fraction of those eligible would be called -- that extension would only intensify the unfairness. Some would spend three or four years in the military, while others would be moving ahead with schools and careers. In effect, it would be a huge tax on the draftees for years of earnings lost. A new U.S. draft might force the children of the wealthy into the military, but only at the price of creating other inequities and a highly inefficient Army.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The political goal of returning to a draft, of course, is to create a wedge in the solid GOP-voting bloc that is the current all-volunteer armed forces. When they say they want to make it "look more like America" that means they want it to be closer to 50:50 Donks and Pubs. And they want to get the kids on campuses and the high school halls to put down their Playstation III and get riled up again. Facing four years in the sandbox fighting the "Long War" would do very nicely.

11/21/2006 05:55:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Italian Sausage Recipe

Pork ........................................1 lb
Red Wine .............................2 oz
Salt......(pickling)...................1 1/2 tsp
Fennel.....................................1 1/2 tsp
Black pepper........................1/8 tsp
Ground coriander................1/4 tsp
Oregano................................1/2 tsp
Garlic powder.......................1/8 tsp
Caraway seed......................1/8 tsp

Measure out spices, mix with wine and set aside.

Cut meat into 1" strips and grind them through a 3/16" plate. Meat should be as cold as possible when grinding. Partially frozen is best if the grinder can handle it.

Add spice mix to meat and mix thoroughly. Chill in freezer for 30 minutes.

Run the mixture through 1/4" plate. If you are going to stuff into casings, return to freezer while setting up stuffer. If bulk sausage is all that is required, just divide it up into lumps as required, wrap in plastic or freezer bags and freeze till needed.

For sandwiches, stuff into 32mm to 35mm hog casings. Hang the stuffed sausage in a cool place until the casings are dry to the touch. Refrigerate or freeze immediately after drying.

11/21/2006 06:26:00 PM  
Blogger Boghie said...

The 'Draft' concept put forward by Rangel et. al. is just another euphemism for social engineering. It will not make the military more capable.

Everyone should read Donald Sensing's discussion (to the end) on The 'Draft' concept put forward by Rangel et. al. is just another euphemism for social engineering. It will not make the military more capable."Rangel Dumb and Astronomically Expensive Idea".

Basically, is a draft worth the $800 Billion price tag. And, how do you task an additional 8 million barely trained teenagers?

11/21/2006 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

We've been doing the heavy lifting for 55+ years for these peckerwoods. Isn't it about time, in an oh-so-enlightened multilateral world, that someone else takes up some of the slack?
It seems to me, also, that the rest of the world increasingly see American soldiers as some kind of Arnold-robot which you wind up, program,and send into battle. The American soldier, as such, is ever so superior to regular mortal soldiers, like the French or Canadians can field, and certainly are superior to something like mere Iraqi soldiers or the dreadful Palestinians.
In that case, why not arm the Kurds in Syria and work those kind of angles?
Anyone got the numbers?? What is the UN molestation rate in Haiti?

so many questions..taken from earlier blogs

lemonade recipe
juice of lemons
water
sugar
mix

11/21/2006 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

One bottle Marca Demonyo gin.
One bottle San Miguel beer.
One small tube Colgate toothpaste.
One salteen cracker.

Pour gin in pitcher. Add beer carefully. The mixture will foam up violently. Carefully lay salteen cracker on foam to settle the compound. Add toothpaste according to desired proportions to add fresh, minty flavor. Stir with any inert object. Pour into glass. Drain glass at a gulp. Repeat as often as necessary. Goodnight, sweethearts.

11/21/2006 06:44:00 PM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

Leftist Democrats' interest in resorting to a draft in the US is consistent with the general policy of the secular left in Europe, which can be summarized as: 'whatever problem may come along, let's start by throwing the younger generation at it'. In Europe for instance a major problem is not enough jobs, so the rules are arranged so as to ensure that joblessness is concentrated among the young.

In this case Rangel is quite happy to play around with the futures of the entire nation's young people using them solely as pawns in a cultural war between two groups of ageing baby boomers. Most likely he doesn't even perceive any sense in which this could be seen as inappropriate. Such is the egoism of leftist boomers that they are only dimly aware that other generations exist - everything has to be about them, all the time, until they end up raging at each other from wheelchairs (seriously, we're almost there already).

In truth this is a shamefully irresponsible and wasteful path to take us down as a society. Quite apart from the selfishness of it from the point of view of older people, and the total irrelevance to an effective defense, the Europeans have already pushed this ubiquitously controlling approach beyond the point where many of their younger people respond in kind, using the few tools left under their control: a toxic mix of childlessness, shiftlessness, propertylessness, alcohol, drugs and feral street crime. Sadly, this is what a degenerate gerontocracy looks like.

11/21/2006 06:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am personally in favor of a draft. I am in the military and I regularly vote republican. What worries me is that most of my brothers and (to a lesser extent) sisters lean further to the right than I do. This large difference between American society and military society could eventually endanger the principle of civilian control of the military. A classical example that comes to mind are the military reforms of Marius in 107 BC. Troops became more loyal to their military leadership than the state itself and within 100 years the republic itself was destroyed by civil wars. Unfortunately, the left wing elites are unlikely to allow their children to join up even if it means survival of our own republic. Charlie Rangel has it right for once, though for all the wrong reasons.

11/21/2006 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger charlotte said...

When they say they want to make it "look more like America" that means they want it to be closer to 50:50 Donks and Pubs--- Woman Catholic

IOW, Democrats have to be FORCED into the "solid GOP-voting bloc that is the current all-volunteer armed forces" with a draft.

And to what end? "Facing four years in the sandbox" by kids who have no inclination to serve would pretty much undermine any military "adventures" and "splendid little wars", as WC puts it. We'd gain a whole new generation of noble protesters who, in their later years as leaders of business, media and politics, could lead this nation further into apology and submission to the rest of the world.

11/21/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

snowflake said:

This large difference between American society and military society could eventually endanger the principle of civilian control of the military.

Surely you must realize that a draft reverses this, and gives the military total control of civilians. They could say, "Gosh senator Jones, if you don't vote for our nice new airplanes, it would really be a shame to see li'l Private Johnny Jones rotated back into the shit just when he was planning to rotate back to the world and go to law school." With no more all-volunteer system, young American men (and maybe women) would literally become slaves. Rangel is also pushing mandatory community service for those kids who do not end up in the military.

11/21/2006 07:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tranz wrote:

And to what end? "Facing four years in the sandbox" by kids who have no inclination to serve would pretty much undermine any military "adventures" and "splendid little wars", as WC puts it.

You know, I'm starting to feel a little less grouchy these days, in general. I hope nothing unfortunate happens that would call for another Midol.

11/21/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WC said:
"With no more all-volunteer system, young American men (and maybe women) would literally become slaves."

I disagree. This was hardly the case in WW II. I argue for a draft because the left is unwilling to recognize the benefits in serving a tour and the desirability of having a the military represent our society. A properly administered draft would be more or less random and limit exceptions. I predict in 50 years or so the only people in the military will be the children and grandchildren of servicemen. Probably the best indicator of this are the people who superficially "support the troops" but put their own children on the recruiter's do-not-call list.

In the Marine Corps, we have a standard boot camp for enlisted Marines and a standard Officer Basic Course for officers. This provides a common ground we can all relate to despite our disparate backgrounds. Seems to work much better than the other services system. One thing I've noticed in more than 14 years of service is that military service gives us access to a much broader range of society than most civilians . Common ground provided by a draft would help this country rather than hurt it.

Lastly, it would probably hurt us somewhat tactically, but I'll trade the tactical shortcomings for the overall gains made nationwide.

11/21/2006 07:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snowflake said...

WC said:

"With no more all-volunteer system, young American men (and maybe women) would literally become slaves."

I disagree. This was hardly the case in WW II. I argue for a draft because the left is unwilling to recognize the benefits in serving a tour and the desirability of having a the military represent our society.


"...[c]onscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society." --Rep. Ron Paul (L-Texas)

11/21/2006 07:54:00 PM  
Blogger Ed Nutter said...

Rangel's draft has about the same chance of passing as Kerry permanently withdrawing his foot from his mouth.

If some sort of draft, something more akin to the Viet Nam era military draft, did come to be then I suggest this...

Once sworn into the military, the disposition of the troops falls squarely under the President's Article II section 2 authority. A draft hitch was and is likely to remain 2 years, and it takes about a year and a half to train a competent combat soldier. The policy should be to train draftees only to a basic proficiency, then evaluate whether they seem worth training further. The criterion would include motivation, intelligence (a factor now since the dim bulbs can't be filtered out as they are now) and competence. Those who don't cut it would get the low level clerking, parts running, and bottle washer type jobs that Halliburton now handles. The troops that demonstrate potential would be trained further, but would be assigned non-combat rolls unless and until they voluntarily reenlisted for a full tour.

Voila! An all volunteer combat military plus a conscript noncombatant "tail."

Congress might try to interfere, but SCOTUS would have them go pound sand short of a Constitutional amendment.

11/21/2006 07:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WC,
You, or the representative you quote, has an interesting point. I agree with the idea that the state exists to serve the individual, but what do we as individuals owe the state? Apparently, a significant percentage of Americans have decided that they are entitled to something from the government without contributing anything meaningful to it. I see a danger in having a military with a monopoly on serious violence that overwhelmingly votes one way (even though I vote the same way). A draft would fix this, in my opinion.

11/21/2006 08:30:00 PM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

Snowflake: "A properly administered draft would be more or less random and limit exceptions."

Yes, large government programs always start out with lots of advantages and no defects. Then they interact with real people who don't necessarily share their goals and may be smarter than the legislators who wrote the rules or the bureaucrats charged with enforcing them. Just like last time, the 'exceptions' would be 'random' for the first five minutes, if that.

11/21/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Some people that oppose the Draft focus on the lowest quintile of potential recruits joining - somehow ignoring that a Draft would bring in the upper 5th Quintile as well, which the volunteer military has trouble attracting in adequate numbers.

70% of the jobs in the military can be done by Draftees in a postwar type environment after the lethal high tech war phase is over. Training done, as we did in the past and Euro high tech military conscrpts do - in 6 months.
And "super-training" and careerist ambitions and above average intelligence and motivation don't matter at all when facing an illiterate enemy Arab with 2 days of training - paid 300 bucks to plant an IED be willing to risk his life for Allah, and push the 21 dollar cell phone switch that will kill or turn into mangled invalids 5 high tech US supersoldiers with 44 years collective experience and destroy their 1.7 million uparmored, fully equipped Bradley.

Too many elite soldiers are dying in Iraq doing chickenshit tasks. Too many are facing 3rd and 4th combat tours this year.

The Draft would also do what it has traditionally done - drive top quality recruits into volunteering for longer 4 and 6 year terms in return for a position that definitely has marketable skills later. In Vietnam, as the saying goes, "We were stuck with some substandard enlisteds, but we had our pick of the bunch trying to volunteer or be officers."

Snowflake was dead-on that we are now on the road to creating separate military and civilian societies.

11/21/2006 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Rangel wants to aim the draft at the colleges which have a number of ready to riot folks who could care less about social responsibility. His hope is that the draft would hamstring the military so as to render them ineffective for use. The POS figures that if they can't be used then no but an LBJ would use them. Peace in our time. Huzza Huzza.

My how you've changed Habu.

11/21/2006 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

meme chose

Just like last time, the 'exceptions' would be 'random' for the first five minutes, if that.

In a draft situation there would have to be a queer deferrment, unless they wanted to adversely affect "unit cohesion" as they testified would happen if gays were permitted in the military.

11/21/2006 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger gdude said...

c4 - since the upper quintile is no longer vast majority conservative (see how effective those Ivy League educations were!), most of it will be too busy relocating to temporary lodgings in other countries for us to have the pick of the bunch this time around. We'll still be picking from the motivated conservative ones. So how will that be different from what we get now?

WC - maybe we should give in on this, but make all-gay units, like the all-Black squadrons in WWII. That'll take care of the problem, won't it?

Sure looks like we're headed for our own civil war, sooner or later.

11/22/2006 01:05:00 AM  
Blogger Mr.Atos said...

Consider for a moment, the motives of such a seemingly absurd proposal.

Of course Rangel and other advocates of consciption don't believe a draft is either effective or required. They're just looking for the latest 'angle' ... like any thug or con-men. And I suspect, a draft would serve to self-fullfill the Left's otherwise absurd view of America while providing some exceptional power to manipulate its selections of service.

Afterall, would you speak against Rangel's faction if you suspected he might nab your son or daughter by selection and send them to the latest UN-created sub-saharan nightmare?

But, the motives may run deeper than that. Clearly, as they look for ways to secure power indefinitely, The Left recognizes that it cannot control a volunteer military; where men of virtue and honor, recognizing their value and those of their countrymen, dedicate their lives in the service of defense of their highest values on the frontiers of chaos. Such men and women, not only have no respect for the likes of a thug like Rangel, they LOATH him and his ilk.

But, slaves forced to serve their nation and its people by 'selective' compulsion, will not only despise such service, and loath their brethren, they will hate their country and yield readily to the whim of a fungus like Rangel.

That is what the fungus desires. Is that the kind of man we want to 'defend' our values?

11/22/2006 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

gdude said...
c4 - since the upper quintile is no longer vast majority conservative (see how effective those Ivy League educations were!), most of it will be too busy relocating to temporary lodgings in other countries for us to have the pick of the bunch this time around.

Well if it is true that the upper quintile is predominantly liberal and as well-heeled WASPs and Jews too focused on making money to volunteer and would flee to other countries with their wealth if required to do national service - what is the point of lesser Americans volunteering for risking their lives to defend the top people's wealth and multinationals?

I think your view of the Upper 1/5th is flawed. Since it breaks down under both a Draft or Volunteer Military - in that no one would risk their lives to protect their socioeconomic betters if they truly believed that the Upper 1/5th is too liberal and too into never risking their own asses. The WalMart families now serving believe that in a crunch the scions of Brandeis Law school and Patrons of Abercrombie&Finch WOULD serve in a crunch.

Those that did flee in a Draft would be well-advised to think that Jimmy Carter's Pardon was a one-time thing and that future dodgers may endure the lifetime stigma and being cut out of the Ruling Elite that pre-Vietnam Draft Dodgers faced. Even the Vietnam draft dodgers who returned face significant stigma. They don't advertise who they were, once, by and large, even in uber liberal areas - because even the liberals will question what poor Appalachin hillbilly or black kid died in their stead while they were in exile skiiing in Switzerland.

11/22/2006 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gdude wrote:

WC - maybe we should give in on this, but make all-gay units, like the all-Black squadrons in WWII. That'll take care of the problem, won't it?

Staff Sergeant Henry Fitzpatrick breaks a fingernail loading an M-16 magazine on patrol outside the Green Zone, calls Lieutenant Patrick Fitzhenry a bitch. Drama ensues.

11/22/2006 11:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cedarford wrote:

Those that did flee in a Draft would be well-advised to think that Jimmy Carter's Pardon was a one-time thing and that future dodgers may endure the lifetime stigma and being cut out of the Ruling Elite that pre-Vietnam Draft Dodgers faced.

Q. What do you get when you cross a draft dodger and a lesbian?

A. Chelsea.

11/22/2006 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ed nutter is right on! However, we cannot effectively use more than about 2 million of these young people in the armed forces and police, I believe. What happens to the over 100 thousand youths per state remaining? Road crews? Sweepers? Runners? Or are they left to their own devices?

This won't fly, but some form of national service is a good idea.

11/22/2006 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

reinstating the draft, if done right, would help our country gain a sense of equality. its a chore that should be shared amoung all the citizens and for those "people" that choose to dodge it, thier citizenship should be taken from them. Those "Cherry Pickers" should be used to as an example that paying taxes alone is not considered "doing something for your country".

11/22/2006 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Manning - I think you miss the idea of Selective Service. They "select" from a Draft based on need. The Draft does not conscript everyone. If there is a need for 2 million, the Draft assigns various lottery numbers that will cover drafting adequate numbers from the pool of 42 million men. Not Draft all 42 million so 40 million (not 100K per state) are sitting around in uniform with no job.

The Selective Service can be selective enough to be "discriminatory" and thus enrage the ACLU Jews into tort frenzy. Gays, morally depraved, the irredeemably stupid, men too short - may be excluded. Unless they change their mind, they blatantly discriminate based on gender - with males getting 100% of the burden. Or they may discriminate the other way - drafting doctors, nurses, critical language skills personnel, scientists, computer experts at far higher a frequency (special needs of the nation).

Now, it may be "unfair" - the sole moral underpining that concerns the Left - but doctors get screwed so that people in a war essential to the nation do not die from lack of doctors, and lightly wounded are returned to mission ASAP.

********************
I have to disagree with Wretchard on the Draft equating to "large and unskilled".

WWII? Unskilled? Men drafted were operating cutting edge technology of that era in 6 months, sometimes complex technology that didn't exist at war's start. Radar, mechanical computer driven fire control systems. UDT divers. On top of that, in 1 year, high testers were not only flying but doing carrier landings. Operating advanced sub systems. In Spec Ops missions. Repairing highly complicated, close tolerance supercharged Merlin engines (so intricate that Vets that went on to repairing jet engines later in their careers considered jet engines a let down - child's play)

The best example is the Germans. Limited by Armistice to a total military of only 50,000, they realized that most military jobs had civilian analogues, recruits if trained could master any technology no matter how new or sophisticated in their essentials in 95% of military skillsets...professionals in civilian life taken to fill in the gap - and they could focus their careerists not on the equivalent
of what the US volunteer military does today - but on leadership, tactics, aviation commanders, and special military logistics.

The Wehrmacht was a "plug-in" military. A fast-trained force that arose from nothing, and it was the best military fielded in WWII.

70% of jobs in todays military are things Draftees can readily handle. As for the other 30%? Yes, technology has advanced, but forcing the smartest and quickest to serve and realize their mastering skills is a matter of life and death goes a long way towards having people operate complex high tech systems FAST.

Nor would a Draft necessarily be limited to 2 years. In our past major wars, EXCEPT Vietnam with its 2-year service, the Draft was for the DURATION of the war. Today's volunteer military is at their limit fighting in a pissass country - and the only reason a volunteer military exists was with reassurances back in 1973 that if we got into a large protracted war, we would use the Draft so a small professional active duty corps of volunteers would not be burned out, and that the reserves would not be wholly committed before the Draft resumed.

Bush's determination to not ask the American public to sacrifice anything, and keep his tax cuts intact ensured he failed to grow the military and so far have ensured a draft was off the table as "unthinkable!!:.

Well, as the crises mount, it's time to discuss the unthinkable.

11/22/2006 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cederford: Ed talked about "some sort of Draft," and I had in mind "some sort of National Service." Your comment referred to "Selective
Service." These aren't commensurate, I think, but the problem is worse than I thought if there are 42 million kids in the pot.

Happy Thanksgiving

11/23/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Addendum: Yes, SS isn't NS exactly, since the idea for NS is everyone has to do it for a year or two, which is simply not on.

11/23/2006 08:00:00 PM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

Heil Cedarfart! "The Wehrmacht" "A fast-trained force that arose from nothing, and it was the best military fielded in WWII." Bullshit!! You must be using "Nazi crank"! You know the stuff the Nazis used! (Crystal Meth was developed in Japan in 1919. Used by troops in war to stay awake for periods. Hitler is rumoured to have injected it daily Methamphetamine was discovered by a Japanese chemist in 1919. During World War II the Japanese government and their allies in Nazi Germany mass produced ‘meth’ as one of several drugs used to medicate troops on the battlefield. Meth, along with anabolic steroids, were just two of several new drugs that the deranged Dr. Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death," had at his disposal to experiment with on humans, including young twins, being held in the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. To this day, one of the two main methods for producing meth is called by law enforcement the "Nazi method." F*CK the Nazis! My Grandpa definately killed his share.

11/24/2006 03:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger