Reason for The Draft

Just before WW II the draft was enacted and remained through peacetime and wars until Nixon ended it toward the close of Vietnam. Until then all males 18-25 had to register. In those days, because of the magnificent achievement of draftees during the big war, no one thought of the services made up predominantly through selective service as an ineffective force. The draft was actually considered an excellent way for the nation’s youth to take on responsibility and grow in character, while the DOD simultaneously saved huge sums by token stipends.

The perception has changed by the entrenchment of all-volunteer armed services. The advantage is that with relatively high pay, along with supporting families on base, morale is higher and the troops better trained by virtue of longer tours. On the other hand, voluntary service is infinitely costlier and yet if a global hot war broke out the numbers would not be there to handle it and would definitely lead to the return of the selective service to fill the gap. Even now with a relatively limited war the armed forces are already spread thin and render the nation vulnerable.

If, as is supposed, the threat of terrorism is on everyone’s mind, then the draft of single males and females should be reenacted, if not for combat readiness, at least as supportive personnel to free regulars from pencil pushing and mess halls to be trained for combat duty. This would not only enhance the availability of combat forces on alert, but would instil a truer sense of sacrifice and patriotism among the draftees.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 2, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

14,643 views 53 replies
Reply #1 Top
Seriously in all honesty I don't know how you can support the draft to come back and also glare over the fact that right now according to General Cody the VCSA says there are 640,000 Active Duty Personnel, which includes Reserves and Guard activated. You cannot expect draftee quality to rise after all there was a difference between the 18-25 group during World War 2 and today, that difference being they believed that it was their duty, almost every single one of them, and I can ask my Grandfather (who signed up, not drafted during World War 2). Anyways the youth of World War 2 believed it was their duty to serve their country, today that is not the case, which is why there were problems with it during Vietnam.

Plus I seriously don't know how you can buy into the 'forces stretched too thin', Stop Loss is being put on units 90 days out from deployment til 90 days after they get back, I don't call that stretched, I call that not going into battle either undermanned or under trained.

Most of those drafted today if they were drafted would not provide the same quality as work as those 'pencil pushers' you want to replace, let alone they have to be trained up on the job, not to mention you will always have to chapter out half to a third of all draftees because they are not 'Army Material'. Also do you think Drill Sergeants or other active military personnel want the draft reinstated?

(sigh)
I thought you would know better than this. Oh well.


- GX
Former Specialist 11B Active Duty, United States Army, Nov 2001 - Feb 2004, medically and honorably discharged for Line of Duty back injury.
Also son of retired LTC (4 years active, 24 Reserve) 13 Series Field Artillery.
Grandson of 1SG (Forward Observer) WWII plus Korea and SSG (Combat Engineer) WWII.
Reply #2 Top
Anybody notice it is only Democrats requesting a draft? But Republicans are being blamed.

As a military member myself, I don't want a draft. It's a bad idea and only being brought up so some politicians they get their fingers into the military.

Enlistment into the Active Army has improved in the last year. While all reports of the National Guard will be short by 5000 of NEW Enlistments are true. But prier service enlistments are higher then the norm and reenlistments are at an all time high making the shortfall disappear.

If anything brings back the Draft, it will be Kerry's election into the Presidency. His request to expand the Army by 2 division (most likely with no extra funding, normal for Kerry) will force a draft. Believe me reenlistment under Kerry will be miserable. Ask any competent commander and he will say no to a Draft.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #3 Top
If anything brings back the Draft, it will be Kerry's election into the Presidency. His request to expand the Army by 2 division (most likely with no extra funding, normal for Kerry) will force a draft. Believe me reenlistment under Kerry will be miserable. Ask any competent commander and he will say no to a Draft.
My blog was not meant to be a political bias. And anyone in the service should know that it is undignified to favor a commander in chief--you follow orders regardless of its source. 
Anyways the youth of World War 2 believed it was their duty to serve their country, today that is not the case, which is why there were problems with it during Vietnam.
Tough to compete with "the greatest genration" I guess; still, I believe today's youth would pretty much rise to the occasion if mandated. Your objection sounds like: don't dare tread on my turf. Besides, my point is to free up thousands now in the service that are doing menial tasks that could better be served by a citizens army.
Reply #4 Top
And anyone in the service should know that it is undignified to favor a commander in chief--you follow orders regardless of its source.


Ohh, that's right I need to just be quit. Just like us being ordered for eight years not to tell Clinton jokes. Actually if you check my posts out you will notice I'm not in favor of Bush, but I sure am against Kerry. I'm an ANYBODY BUT KERRY person. Now that's not against the Regs. If Kerry become President I'll shut my mouth about him then, and start counting my days until retirement with a grimes.

That’s My Two Cents
Reply #5 Top
Tough to compete with "the greatest genration" I guess; still, I believe today's youth would pretty much rise to the occasion if mandated. Your objection sounds like: don't dare tread on my turf. Besides, my point is to free up thousands now in the service that are doing menial tasks that could better be served by a citizens army


I just don't buy it and can't make any rationale from it. Last time I checked the National Guard was the best thing next to have citizens replacing 'pencil pusher' and exactly what jobs do you consider menial, all jobs are important in the military, after all each job in the Army has it's function for the greater whole.

Don't dare tread on my turf, hah, I just don't like the fact that you support making a Drill Sergeant's Job harder, especially when a lot of my friends were Drills and some of them will become Drills. It is not the fact that my generation could not live up to your 'greatest generation’, which we could live up to, and than some, but it is the fact that today there exist better alternatives than military service. Face it in your day military service was a job when jobs were bad or few. Today you are asking people to give up their pursuit of high-paying jobs for a draft (though some of the guys that came through Benning came from Wall Street and made six figures), now a days the Military is regarded as more of service for the country than job when jobs are bad.

Sorry but I hated to tell you this, I tried to be nice, but that is the fact. My Grandfather (1SG) stayed in the military because it was the best job he could get and served his best, but my other Grandfather (SSG) served during WWII only got out and went back to being a Mechanical Engineer at Pratt and Whitney (which he helped design the P&W Engine that went into the Thunderbolt). Military Pay is nowhere comparable to being as good as it was back in your day, because of inflation and not that much of rise in pay it is more of a service for a country than a job.

Personally there will never be a 'greatest generation' since that is not a competition if it was I would say the generation that gave us Bill Gates and others is the greatest because they literally changed the world completely without firing a single shot.



- GX
Reply #6 Top
Looking further into what you are saying I can see what you trying to say, but that good natured intent will be blown out of the way by politicians who would use a draft to replace numbers everywhere.

- GX
Reply #7 Top
The draft wasn't considered a good thing by the military in World War II either. Ask soldiers who volunteered in WW2 if they liked having a draftee replacement.
Reply #8 Top

all jobs are important in the military, after all each job in the Army has it's function for the greater whole.
I'm not demeaning the work they do--hell, in my outfit the cooks did a helluva job as stretcher bearers in combat--but many duties could be done by draftees 
I'm an ANYBODY BUT KERRY person.
I hope the days will be short with that attitude.

Oh, my, we're all over the lot on this! I make a simple proposal to relieve the volunteers of extraneous duty so they can do what they're trained for and at the same time give aimless youth a chance to ask not what the country can do for you ... and now suddenly the draftees of WW II are shit.  Inceidentally I enlisted before being called. 

Reply #9 Top
Actually....total end strength for US military..including Active duty, reserves, and guard is roughly bout 3 million+.......secondly...you erroneously stated that our all-volunteer force is drasticly higher in cost than a draft force...that is pure bunk...do some research....a conscript force is far more expensive to maintain...due in part to the high turnover rate of troops and the need to constantly re-train new personnel......currently only 2 politicians are pushing to re-instate the draft...Charlie Rengel in the house...and Tom Harkin in the senate...both dems...both openly doing it for political reasons....

Current problems in the military dont stem from a lack of troops but a military structure problem......

I wrote bout this while back...take a gander at my article on it if you like....it also delves into the draft issue among others that some seem determined to bring up......Link

Reply #10 Top
you erroneously stated that our all-volunteer force is drasticly higher in cost than a draft force...that is pure bunk...do some research....a conscript force is far more expensive to maintain...due in part to the high turnover rate of troops and the need to constantly re-train new personnel..
You are assuming draftees would be on the same pay scale as career personnel; on the contrary, they would be paid much less and single eliminating the cost of family support and housing. Besides, I'm saying that the draft is but a last resort when as currently there is a problem in recruiting and dwindling re-enlistment. Moreover, there are too many in the guard and reserve that are in their forties.   
Reply #11 Top

Reply #8 By: Citizen stevendedalus - 10/2/2004 11:50:30 PM
I hope the days will be short with that attitude.


Ya, only one more month, because in 2008 it will be Hillary Clinton running against who ever the Replublican get to replace Bush. Unfortunately Kerry didn't give up his Senate seat. But I will be glad to see what the Dems. blame him of after he get beat. I have noticed the Dems lately eat their own after they fail. They have to blame somebody, it just can't be the parties fault.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #12 Top

Reply #10 By: stevendedalus - 10/3/2004 12:38:46 AM
you erroneously stated that our all-volunteer force is drasticly higher in cost than a draft force...that is pure bunk...do some research....a conscript force is far more expensive to maintain...due in part to the high turnover rate of troops and the need to constantly re-train new personnel..
You are assuming draftees would be on the same pay scale as career personnel; on the contrary, they would be paid much less and single eliminating the cost of family support and housing. Besides, I'm saying that the draft is but a last resort when as currently there is a problem in recruiting and dwindling re-enlistment. Moreover, there are too many in the guard and reserve that are in their forties.


And your erroneously thinking that they wouldn't! Hate to tell you but drafted private or volunteer private, same rank.....SAME pay! BTW draftees are NOT nessicarily single! So it would NOT eliminate the cost of housing. The draft has no respect for married or otherwise!
Reply #13 Top
You are assuming draftees would be on the same pay scale as career personnel; on the contrary, they would be paid much less and single eliminating the cost of family support and housing. Besides, I'm saying that the draft is but a last resort when as currently there is a problem in recruiting and dwindling re-enlistment. Moreover, there are too many in the guard and reserve that are in their forties.


Ummm...hate to enlighten you...but you are not looking at the bigger picture...as in the fact that conscript militaries tend to cost more due to the need to constantly re-train more troops to replace those that have meet their required term of mandatory service (as one of the biggest expenses in militaries is training)....as to dwindling re-enlistment...what planet you on....all 5 services have meet or exceeded their enlistment quotas....
Reply #14 Top
The planet you're on views only the navy and airforce and ignores boot soldiers--the national guard and reservists are in deep trouble. Recruitment of the guard is down 12 percent; the reservists stateside are being bribed to sign-up till '07 or be sent to Iraq. Moreover, regardless of Iraq, there is no end in sight as far as terrorism goes, not to mention the uncertainty of Iran and North Korea.
Reply #15 Top
The planet you're on views only the navy and airforce and ignores boot soldiers--the national guard and reservists are in deep trouble.


Hate to disagree again but you are wrong once more...first off after 9-11 the military using emergency war powers increased the authorized size of the force by 35,000...secondly...guard and reserve are not in deep trouble as you put it...they have meet their requirements as well....using the term "bribed" shows your utter lack of respect and your viewpoint...theres a shock....finally...in terms of raw numbers...guard/reserves have not been called up as much as it has been made out to seem...why..because only a small percentage of either have units thats are trained/equipted for operations in iraq.....might want to list where your getting the fairy tale stats...might be good for a laugh
Reply #16 Top
As far as reenlistment goes, at the base where I live one out of every two soldiers I talk to says that they will not reenlist . . . and we're not just talking junior enlisted, we're talking career people, too. The deployment strain (which is turning out to be a year long tour every other year) is getting to be too much for the families to take. When reenlistment time comes, maybe these people will stay and maybe they will not (a nice fat reenlistment bonus can work wonders), but the outlook from the soldiers here is not very positive.
Reply #17 Top
Reply #16 By: Citizen Texas Wahine - 10/4/2004 11:14:16 PM
As far as reenlistment goes, at the base where I live one out of every two soldiers I talk to says that they will not reenlist . . . and we're not just talking junior enlisted, we're talking career people, too. The deployment strain (which is turning out to be a year long tour every other year) is getting to be too much for the families to take. When reenlistment time comes, maybe these people will stay and maybe they will not (a nice fat reenlistment bonus can work wonders), but the outlook from the soldiers here is not very positive


I'm not sure who you are talking to, but reenlistments are at a all time high. I'll pull some facts down at work in the morning.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #18 Top

I'm not sure who you are talking to, but reenlistments are at a all time high. I'll pull some facts down at work in the morning.
You must reside on planet Couch.


Couch, There's little point to refer to the source since you are already certain of blind remarks; yet for the record Oct 4, Newsweek.

Reply #19 Top
Thanks, Texaii, for once again being supportive.
Reply #20 Top
Texas and Steve

Read my post on To Despell a Myth. That will burst your bubble. As I said I don't know who you have been talking to.
Reply #21 Top
Lee: You are in no way bursting my bubble with anything you post. I have not yet read your article as I have not been on much lately, but I can tell you now that any statistics you pull out do not change my personal experience. The soldiers here (the ones deploying and not sitting at home on their asses) are fed up. Many of them who have put in 10+ years are ready to get out. That's what's going on with the 25th ID . . . we have over 10,000 soldiers in the middle east. THAT'S who I have been talking to . . . deploying soldiers and soldiers home on leave. I'll read your article when I get a chance, but again, no matter its content, it does not change my personal experience.

steven: No problem. Thanks for being an articulate voice for many who are denied a voice and for those like myself who looking for answers and looking for a tiny piece of hope.
Reply #22 Top
That a girl don't let anyone burst your bubble of hard, personal facts and observations. I love your courage in stating they're are so many who are "sitting home on their asses." Three cheers for grit!
Reply #23 Top

'm not sure who you are talking to, but reenlistments are at a all time high. I'll pull some facts down at work in the morning.


She's talking to the same kind of people I'm talking to. People who are walking the walk, and are serving their country, not just those who sit around and talk.  People are getting out left and right, basically because they're getting treated like shit.  Underpaid, overdeployed, overworked, undertrained....the benefits aren't what they used to be; you can see your medical benefits being whittled away before your eyes. 


Where are you getting your numbers from?  We're getting ours from the horses mouths.

Reply #24 Top

Read my post on To Despell a Myth


Oh, and who wrote this article?  I don't think it was you, as far as I can see you haven't written anything yet.  Can you link to it, please?

Reply #25 Top
Oh, and who wrote this article? I don't think it was you, as far as I can see you haven't written anything yet. Can you link to it, please?


I wrote the post, but the info came from the Army Times.

Link