With Rep. Rangel beating his "inequality" drum over the draft again, I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about the political implications of this.
Also, here's an interesting behind the scenes look at the decision to move to the AVF model as opposed to a draft and volunteer force model for the US military.
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/artic..._thankyou.html
Of course, Meckling wasn't the only hero. Milton Friedman was very persuasive. One of Meckling's favorite stories, which his widow, Becky, recalled in a recent interview, was of an exchange between Mr. Friedman and General William Westmoreland, then commander of all U.S. troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Rangel just wants to get some attention - he's an idiot. Unless we are invaded, Americans will never support a draft. An all volunteer army produces smarter and more motivated soldiers - its one reason why we have one of the best military forces in the World.
@shek
Your Rangel (aside from trying to attract attention) is IMHO, possibly trying to make the prosecution of your insurgency in Iraq even more difficult.
It's highly unlikely your draft would ever fly through the American legislation, but by highlighting the *possibility* of the draft, it makes for good sentiment-provocation or inflamation. Particularly in that age-group in the article you posted.
Which I think is a very good rumor-mongering tactic.
Originally Posted by JBodnar39
Much of that depends on the prevailing job market. and recent current events.
Not really. Despite the war in Iraq, recruiting quotas are still being met. Todays armed forces offers a professional positon with livabl compensation
A draft would insure that the really rich kids still buy their way out of the army, and the really poor kids who get drafted would resent it and ***** about being there completely destroying the integrity of what we have now. All volunteer, professional military is the only way to fly.
dave
Relax. It's worse than you think.
Anyone who takes anything Rangel says seriosuly after his poo-flinging act over the last 3 years needs to be hit with a shovel.
During the 2004 election cycle he proposed a return to the draft, then he claimed that the Republicans had done it, then when it came on the floor he voted against it.
The man is a disgrace.
-dale
Racial inequality my balls.
My INFANTRY unit was over 75% white- easily.
It's total crap.
There really already IS a draft, it's called the unregulated milita.
And if you're 18 and a male, you're IN it NOW.
Immediatly after 9-11 recuitment went up. The people had a cause and were pissed. The last few years the military has been struggling with new recruits. Retention has been good however. Hopefully both will improve since Rumsfeld left. In the early-mid 1980's I know of literally hundreds of lowlifes who enlisted because they could not buy a job. Many did not survive boot camp, but many did and quite frankly, the thought of some of these people "defending my country" scared the hell out of me as I know they were incapable of doing the right thing even if their seargent had a side arm to their head. I also know there are also many good people in the military and I thank God for that so don't think I believe everyone in the military is garbage as that is not the case.
As for the pay, I am willing to bet that few enlist or reinlist because of the pay. Being able to play with cool toys, sence of duty/honor, family history, etc. That I will believe. Anyway, (based on pay alone) I will maintain that when people are faced with joining the military or entering a hot, high paying job market, the military is going to see many of the "best and brightest" walk on by.
Monetary inequality - I remember going to my cousins house while Vietnam was raging and seeing their Dad in pictures with various politicians and those 2 boys going to college for what had to be from 1964 - 1972. A different major each year mind you and different colleges to boot. That wasn't fair and it wasn't right and NO ONE in that house ever talked about Vietnam. I'm not sure about racial inequality, there are professors out there when I was majoring in Ethnic Studies who would like their students to believe that Vietnam was highly integrated and the color ratio was 2:1, but talking to as many Vets as I do, that just doesn't seem plausible.
A draft now?? Realistically I don't think it's going to happen until we get into some deep crap like WWIII
Rangel is an assclown, on top of this garbage he has the gall to insult my home state.
"Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley
Not unless there is a national emergency; and don't go stirring up emergencies just to justify a draft.
The question is, "How do we define a national emergency?"
Does the war against al Qaeda qualify?
Hi Guys,
Three things stand out in my mind about conscription/draft:
1. A lot of people I know in the military complain that there are already too many people doing nothing and would rather not have them under foot;
2. Soldiering is a skilled trade by any stretch of the imagination requiring detailed training and a good deal of motivation.
Taking a whole bunch of people off the street and running them though the basic training mill will not neccesarily good soldiers make, especially if they are not motivated to soldier in the first place;
3. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban used large numbers of conscripts against a modern, all volunteer army and it did not do them much good. I see no need to reinvent such a wheel.
Besides, if we need more, quality troops in a pinch, that is what allies are for . This is how we have effectively countered numbers problems in past wars and I see no reason why we cannot do it again in the future...assuming we have a sound foreign policy.
Happy Thanksgiving or insert-harvest-festival-of-choice-here kind of regards,
William
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
EXACTLY. Conscript armies are the guys we traditionally BEAT ALL TO HELL.
And Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, William.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: