Why America Needs A Draft

**Frank_K** · 11th November 2007 17:06

The United States throughout its history has relied on citizen soldiers to fight its wars. A small permanent military was maintained and in times of crisis a draft was instituted to fill out the ranks. The Civil War, World Wars I & II, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts were all fought by draftees. Loyal Americans answered their governments call and bravely fought at its behest. Recent history has seen the weakening of this historical relationship between the people and their defense.
With the rise and predominance of the military industrial complex this time honored method of America going to war has fallen by the wayside. The companies that make their profits by supplying the military need a large permanent force to milk. Endless bloated contracts weaken the private sector and increase taxes. The Pentagon perpetuates this system to its own benefit, weakening the overall American economy as a result. For a long time this system was defended as necessary because of the threat from international Communism posed by the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR this lie was exposed as the so called ‘peace benefit’ we were all promised never materialized. Troops were not brought home from Europe and the overly large nuclear arsenal was reduced only marginally. US troop strength should have been reduced and the savings passed on to the public.
The rise of a large permanent military has made possible the use of it as an instrument of policy instead of as a defense for the homeland. Congress’ abrogation of its role in the process, through passage of the War Powers Act has exacerbated this trend. The President now has authority to commit US forces unilaterally into ill advised conflicts. Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the present fiasco in Iraq have all been conducted without a formal declaration of war by the Congress. This has made the President a much more powerful CinC than envisioned by the Constitution.
Since Vietnam the military has sought to avoid civilian interference by promoting an all volunteer force. If the general public is not inconvenienced by the possibility of a draft the President has more freedom to use force as an instrument of policy. Since the Congress is unwilling to exercise its oversight role we end up with an imperial presidency able to engage in military adventures unimpeded.
If we were to institute a draft this trend would surely be reversed. The American public would be engaged and care deeply if the cost of war reached into middle class families. The democratic ideal of the citizen soldier would once again be ascendant The use of ‘security contractors’ to protect US interests overseas is a direct result of the refusal of the government to institute a draft. These mercenaries embarrass the US, they are not subject to local laws in the countries they are stationed in, neither are they subject to the UCMJ. The result is an extra-judicial Praetorian Guard that acts as they see fit with little or no formal oversight. Shame on the USA for this, our defense should be our responsibility. The resort to hired guns demeans US efforts. The recent use of these ‘security contractors’ inside the US is even more disturbing.
Let’s end these troubles by reinstating the draft. Following historical precedent will restore honor to our efforts in conflicts around the globe and share the burden equitably through society. Private contractors can be reduced, and or eliminated. Soldiers should replace contractors in chow hall kitchens and on the front lines. Bad policies that misuse our brave troops will not stand under the scrutiny they would undergo as a result. The War Powers Act should also be repealed and the congress forced to abide by its Constitutional duty to either declare war in conflicts or withdraw US forces. It’s not too late to turn America from this drift towards imperialism, but the time remaining for a turn around is short.

**gunnut** · 11th November 2007 21:39

Originally Posted by Frank_K

With the collapse of the USSR this lie was exposed as the so called ‘peace benefit’ we were all promised never materialized. Troops were not brought home from Europe and the overly large nuclear arsenal was reduced only marginally. US troop strength should have been reduced and the savings passed on to the public.

Oh yes the "peace dividend" did indeed materialize. The "budget surplus" during the Clinton years came from cutting the military. All the social spendings remained the same while the military was gutted.

The Pentagon downsized dozens of bases across the US and all around the world. We cancelled many weapons projects aimed at our cold war enemies since they no longer exist. The military had to pick and choose what to put their money in, that's why you see the airforce has a tanker fleet that's 40+ years old and the navy's carrier groups cut down from 15 to 10.

I can go on and on, but you get my drift.

By the way there was a thread on instituting a draft already.

**troung** · 11th November 2007 22:55

I guess the whole point to the above was that with a draft then we would not do silly foreign adventures...

**Feanor** · 12th November 2007 00:38

Bring back the draft. But don't do it for combat units. Only for training units. Then American youth can get a taste of discipline and physical labor. It would certainly go a long way towards trimming off the fat.

**gunnut** · 12th November 2007 01:07

Originally Posted by Feanor

Bring back the draft. But don't do it for combat units. Only for training units. Then American youth can get a taste of discipline and physical labor. It would certainly go a long way towards trimming off the fat.

That's a lot of money spent on a government diet and exercise program.

**gunnut** · 12th November 2007 01:09

Originally Posted by troung

I guess the whole point to the above was that with a draft then we would not do silly foreign adventures...

Yeah, that worked real well in Vietnam.

The politicians are free to bring a resolution to the table to bring back the draft. The last time someone did it, Charlie Rangle just last year, he himself voted against the measure.

**Feanor** · 12th November 2007 01:13

Originally Posted by gunnut

That's a lot of money spent on a government diet and exercise program.

A social program rather then a military institution. It would give a lot of discipline and maturity to American youth, I would think. And really not that expensive. You don't need tanks or airplanes for them. Just some M16's and a bunch of drill sergeants.

**smilingassassin** · 12th November 2007 01:57

Originally Posted by troung

I guess the whole point to the above was that with a draft then we would not do silly foreign adventures...

Which ones would those be?

**troung** · 12th November 2007 02:05

Bring back the draft. But don't do it for combat units. Only for training units. Then American youth can get a taste of discipline and physical labor. It would certainly go a long way towards trimming off the fat.

Sigh...

How many people would then be drafted, and how many young people would that take out of the economy and turn them into unproductive dependents of the state for a diet camp?

Yeah, that worked real well in Vietnam. The politicians are free to bring a resolution to the table to bring back the draft. The last time someone did it, Charlie Rangle just last year, he himself voted against the measure.

If someone actually brought up a draft to actually draft people (not the stupid Wrangel/Rangle... whatever) then there would be a massive backlash from the voters.

**Feanor** · 12th November 2007 04:04

Originally Posted by troung

How many people would then be drafted, and how many young people would that take out of the economy and turn them into unproductive dependents of the state for a diet camp?

Are we talking about the ones busy going to college smoking pot? Or the ones working part time service sector jobs, and smoking pot?

**Dwarven Pirate** · 12th November 2007 06:00

Unproductive? Why? Whether the work is done by the state or the private sector, peoplke are still doing the work.

I think the main reason US has/is moved away from government support for military is simply economic. Tho the upfront costs are higher, the govt saves money by denying military benefits to these people who would be eligible for veterans programs otherwise. The people can simply be fired by the private sector once the need for them has passed.

Offhand, I think its a poor decision for a number of reasons. One main reason is that oversight is made much harder (if even possible). If the army were running its own logistics I think there would be much less reports of corrupt and unsatisfactory services provided to armed service personnel overseas.

Could be wrong tho.

**omon** · 12th November 2007 17:05

you really can,t expect conscrips to be trained, as well as pros. i can only imagine what conscrips will do to a expencive equipment.

**HistoricalDavid** · 12th November 2007 17:26

I still have OoE's old post in mind: "I have enough problems training people who want to be here."

**Dreadnought** · 12th November 2007 17:43

Originally Posted by Feanor

Are we talking about the ones busy going to college smoking pot? Or the ones working part time service sector jobs, and smoking pot?

So you are assuming everybody smokes pot?

**Confed999** · 12th November 2007 18:29

Originally Posted by Frank_K

The United States throughout its history has relied on citizen soldiers to fight its wars... ...Loyal Americans answered their governments call and bravely fought at its behest.

That is what we have now, only difference is that they FREELY answer the call, instead of being forced to answer.

Originally Posted by Frank_K

Endless bloated contracts weaken the private sector and increase taxes.

They actually strengthen the private sector. More money, more strength. Otherwise what do you expect? I mean seriously, what does the government do efficiently? The answer is nothing. Everything the government does costs at the very least double. It's the main reason govenment should be left only to it's constitutional duties of international defence, international and interstate trade regulation, and protecting the people's rights, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Frank_K

Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the present fiasco in Iraq have all been conducted without a formal declaration of war by the Congress.

Korea was the UN, and a perfect example of how "containment" and "appeasement" do not work. Vietnam was lost by the politicians, much to the detriment of the Vietnamese. The legislature voted overwhelmingly for the Gulf Wars. Though I consider both Gulf Wars the same war as the second came about due to a failed cease fire. This may happen in Korea too since the only barrier there is also a cease fire.

Originally Posted by Frank_K

It’s not too late to turn America from this drift towards imperialism, but the time remaining for a turn around is short.

What "imperialism"? What have we taken and kept in the last century? We do not want, and can't get rid of the territory of Puerto Rico, the last one we got, and only got as a term of Spanish surrender.

Originally Posted by Frank_K

Why America Needs A Draft

Because there hasn't been enough slavery in this country?

Bottom line: Conscription = Forced Servitude = Slavery

Thread: Why America Needs A Draft

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Why America Needs A Draft

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Why We Are in Iraq

Why We Need a Draft: A Marine’s Lament

Developing countries’ goods trade share surges to 50-year peak

36 Ways the US Is Losing the War on Terror

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions