On one hand, this works in Europe because those nations are substantially smaller than the US, and it’s important that all citizens be trained in the use of arms in the unlikely event they have to fend off an invasion. On the other hand, with the US launching little mini-wars all across the globe in the name of “preventative maintenance”, I’d really hate to give them an incentive to expand their operations, especially with my child. Defense is one thing, offensive maneuvers are another matter entirely.
I’ve certainly seen a fair number of utterly useless 18-20 year olds who no doubt would benefit from a little discipline and teamwork training. On the other hand, you’re asking kids who already have a plan to put their lives on hold while they learn skills that really have no application outside of the military.
So I really have to ask what the point of this bill is: to bring a little discipline to our kids, or to keep the military nice and fat for those extra little incursions with a low possibility of success?
This is why I don’t like it at all. I don’t trust my government’s ability to decide what actions are worth risking my life for. As said in the quote, defense is one thing, but the way Bush has used the military hasn’t made me feel all that comfortable.
Also, just how big of a standing army do we need to have?
Depends on the kid. Some kids would probably decide not to go back to college after they got out of the habit of going to school.
I had originally planned to get my PhD, but after our company was sold and my tuition reimbursement plan got pushed back another year, I was far enough removed from academia that I was ready to move on. And I can imagine some kids would be the same way about returning to college after a two-year break post high-school.
Most of all, though, I don’t think the f*ing government should be able to tell you how to spend two years of your life. Sure, if the Nazis are sinking American ships or the Russians are crossing the Bering Strait, draft away. Otherwise, let the heroes who want to defend our country do their job and let my kid make his own choice about how he wants to spend his life.
This is why I don’t like it at all. I don’t trust my government’s ability to decide what actions are worth risking my life for.
That’s part of the point - politicians won’t be so eager to get kids killed if they’re not all poor. Note that Vietnam’s “draft” force was even poorer than today’s AVF; it’s part of the reason it went on so long. No one with power had to worry about anyone they knew dying.
Anyway, it’s “how dare they government tell me what to do for one or two years!” vs. “how dare the government only use the poor to fight wars!” I totally don’t get the objection to the first - the government (also known as “the voters”) does lots of things without your personal approval. If you don’t like it, vote against it.
That’s part of the point - politicians won’t be so eager to get kids killed if they’re not all poor. Note that Vietnam’s “draft” force was even poorer than today’s AVF; it’s part of the reason it went on so long. No one with power had to worry about anyone they knew dying.
That’s part of the point. To make the military more ineffective and increase the number of casualties of americans deployed in combat areas. Why not just start issuing infantrymen BB guns as well? The losses in any action would be so high that it would force the leaders to “rethink” the use of force.
While I won’t deny this as one reason for Israel’s required service, I think the most important reason would be the fact that Israel is surrounded by populous countries who would like nothing better than to see Israel destroyed (especially earlier in Israel’s history).[/quote]
Not really (and, again, this ties into the US question). You can take someone through basic training in 3 weeks (although 18-yr-olds get 3 months); after that, unless they’re in a combat unit (which you have to volunteer for), they’re not particularly useful.
At any given time, most of the 18-20 yr olds in Israel’s army aren’t doing a whole helluva lot. You could probably dump 1/3 or more of them with no significant changes. When I was in the army (before intifada 2), that proportion was probably even higher.
How does this relate to conscripting Americans? Well, for one thing, the army would be spending a lot more money, and not getting a lot back for it, unless we were in another war. And it wouldn’t necessarily create a whole lot of discipline. When soldiers aren’t training or fighting, there’s not much to keep them occupied–it’s hard, and kind of pointless, to make people get up at, say, 6 AM when they’re going to spend the whole day sitting around, maybe doing administrivia. Referring back to my experience in Israel, which is on more of a war footing than the US, you’ll have 3 people in a room counting pairs of pants to make sure there’s the right number, when 1 could do the job just fine.
Well, given that you’ve gone through it, I have defer to your knowledge. The closest direct experience I have is IDF deserter in college who portrayed the service as anything other than as a “melting pot” (unless getting shot at is a typical melting pot experience.) Still, I would be kind of surprised if Israel would have developed this particular type of forced “common bonding experience” had it not been for the Arab hordes seeking with every fiber of their soul to destroy Israel.
Well, lets compare Israel to the last major European country with universal conscription: Germany. Germany is considering dropping their draft, because they can’t afford it anymore. Without the Warsaw Pact, why does Germany need a large army – especially one that they don’t want to fund and can’t deploy?
Now, I gather than one problem is that people that object to serving in the army do various other tasks (afore-menitoned road building, healh care, and what not), and so stopping conscription would stop that supply of volunteers.
So you go “well, let people do military OR social service…” But I read more and find out indeed, that “national service” was used with great effect by the Nazis to indoctrinate people.
So yeah, Nazis. End of discussion. If you’re for a national service program, you’re a Nazi. Unless you’re McCullough – then you’re a Commie-Nazi. :lol:
I think it was a year after me that kids who turned 18 didn’t have to sign up for it. After September 11th, they started making them sign up again. I guess they figured that by the time I turned 18, they already had enough people signed up for it. Though at 30, if they draft me, they’d really be scraping from the bottom of the barrel.
Conscription-based armies are a relic of the past. They were great when wars were fought WW2-style; giant slugfests with nations fielding numerous army-sized formations in the field. But the problem is that conscription-based systems are limited in what they can do. You can’t equip dozens of divisions with modern equipment, it would cost trillions. And the problem is that it takes over a year just to turn a teenager into an effective soldier, but they’re only in the service for two years. So you’re spending most of your time training them, and then letting them go just after that. It’s a total waste of money and effort.
I think most European nations are actually looking to get rid of conscription-based sevice and going with the American and UK model of smaller, professional armies. It’s better to have a few really well-trained and well-equipped divisions, rather than a bunch of useless ones.
But 10 active-duty divisions for the Army is too small. That’s where we’re at now. We need to get back to at least 12. We could bring back a couple of the Light Infantry divisions. The two we have right now get a lot of work (the poor 10th Mountain Division gets deployed everywhere), and as Iraq shows, we need more infantry and less heavy armor in post-war scenarios. We should also expand Special Forces, and we could use more Armored Cavalry Regiments. But the answer isn’t drafting every 18 year old in America.
I’m 31, and I don’t remember them getting rid of Selective Service two years after I had to sign up. Considering that I was on a liberal college campus for four years after I signed up, I think I would have heard some of the commie-hippy-freaks squeal with joy had they disbanded it.
On the SSA’s web site, they don’t mention anything about whether or not they’ve been disbanded only to be reorganized right after 9/11, but this quote:
On May 18, 1994, President Clinton informed Congress that: ‘Maintaining the Selective Service System and draft registration provides a hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost “insurance policy” against our underestimating the maximum level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face…’
indicates that SS was still active in 1994, which, if my math is correct, is about 2-3 years after you had to sign up. Acting Director Lewis C. Brodsky has been with the program since 1986, further indicating that the program stayed open in the '90’s. The closest to “continuous years Selective Service has been in effect” that I’ve been able to find is implied from one of their news releases, “Since 1982, Federal Pell Grants and student loans have been denied to men who fail to register with Selective Service.” If the program was shuttered in 1992, there’d be no reason to deny student loans to men that didn’t register with a closed program. Of course, I have no idea why they would note “Hey, just in case anyone asks, we weren’t shut down in 1992 and opened back up in 2001!” on their site.
As for whether you’d get drafted at 30:
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.
