Former Afghanistan General Calls for Reinstating the Draft

[Makalakumu]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/11/ex-us-commander-mcchrystal-calls-for-reviving-draft/

WASHINGTON — The former US commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, has urged that the draft be reinstated to spread the burden of fighting and to instill a sense of shared civic duty among young Americans.


The country’s all-volunteer force has performed with great skill but after more than a decade of war “we’re running very, very hard and at a certain point you can’t expect it to go forever,” McChrystal said at a conference last month.


Apart from the strain on troops and their families after repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, only a small fraction of the population was affected by the conflicts, the general said.


“It’s less than one percent of Americans touched by this,” he said at the event organized by the Aspen Institute.

What are the chances that this would actually happen? What do you think would happen if the draft WAS actually reinstated?

 

[WC_lun]

I don't see it happening. The public would have a collective fit. Though if it were instated, I doubt we'd be going into anymore wars of choice. Politicians might think twice about war when thier families would be some of those in harm's way.

 

[Big Don]

Charlie Rangel has floated this one for YEARS.
The military HATES the idea.

 

[billc]

Most politicians kids would not be in harms way, they would get exemptions.

 

[ballen0351]

A military full of people forced to do it would never be as strong or effective as a military full of people that want to be there it seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You have to read the entire proposal. He's not suggesting the draft be reinstated as it once was.

What he suggested was a draft that essentially requires a period of national service. Two options for military, one for civilian.

In other words, at a certain age, all young men (and women in this scenario) would have to make a choice. They would serve a short period in the military as essentially low-rank, low-pay non-combat troops, doing administrative work, manual labor, etc. The kind of work that the military often outsources in today's military to contractors. They would not even be part of the regular rank structure or have weapons training. Or, if they didn't want to serve in the military, they could do the same kind of administrative/manual labor type work for the federal government in a variety of places. For those who refused all compulsory service of any kind, they could opt out of all of it, but would forever lose all benefits such as medicare, etc. They could be as 'individualist' and 'libertarian' and 'small government' as they wanted - by carrying all those burdens of providing the 'social security net' for themselves in the future. In other words, if you don't do SOMETHING during your period of national service, that's fine, but you get nothing in return in the way of social benefits - ever.

For those who chose the military option, if they did their term and opted to remain, they could transition to the 'real' military and be trained in weapons, be assigned a rank, etc, and it would be considered a career option. They could always leave at the end of an enlistment as any one can now, but they'd be considered to have made the career military choice. This is not unlike many military groups in the world; it was not unusual for me to run across 50 year old Lance Corporals and Corporals, in the military of other nations, because the military was their career for ALL of them for the most part, not like ours where 90 to 95% do one tour and then out (I did two tours, but I also did not make it a career). Those who chose the first and then the second military option would get big rewards, including college tuition paid for, etc.

This would work if, and only if, we continued to have a large drawdown in military forces and cuts in spending on defense contracting. Personally, I do think it could work. I'm not sure that it can get any kind of traction, so it may not be possible to get it done politically, but yes, I believe it could work and work well.

I get the idea. A two-part military, combat and non-combat. That really does kind of eliminate the "I won't fight for my country" objection - you don't have to. You just have to serve. And if uniforms are more than you can bear, there's a civilian option. But everyone does a short period of national service. And for those who can't even stomach the idea of doing anything for their country, they can go it alone; no problem. Just no benefits down the road.

Works for me.

 

[ballen0351]

We already have a 2 system military. The Marine Corps and everyone else

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We already have a 2 system military. The Marine Corps and everyone else

LOL! I can't deny that, brother.

But the other services get a mite tetchy when we tell them they're just our support system.

 

[Tgace]

Self confident people don't have to keep reminding everyone around them that they are the best....like us Army Soldiers.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[mxav]

A military full of people forced to do it would never be as strong or effective as a military full of people that want to be there it seems like a bad idea to me.

beat me to it, Volunteer over Conscripts any day

 

[Bill Mattocks]

beat me to it, Volunteer over Conscripts any day

Again, you're not reading the article. The actual proposal is for a two-part military; armed combat troops and non-armed adminstrative/manual labor types. The armed part would be purely voluntary.

 

[billc]

It isn't a good idea to get people used to seeing themselves as beholden to the government. Remember, the government is supposed to be in service to us, not the other way around. It would be great if more people wanted to help out, but mandating it creates the wrong mind set for a free people, even if there is a civilian component to the program.

 

[ballen0351]

ARMY= Aint Ready to be a Marine Yet

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It isn't a good idea to get people used to seeing themselves as beholden to the government. Remember, the government is supposed to be in service to us, not the other way around. It would be great if more people wanted to help out, but mandating it creates the wrong mind set for a free people, even if there is a civilian component to the program.

Well, that's not a bad argument, I like it. But I would still rebut it.

First, we've had military conscription for a big part of our history, only ending it (to some extent) after the Vietnam War.

There *is* still a Selective Service, so it's on ice, not eliminated. Technically, it can come back any time. Every male must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 in the USA, no exceptions. Failing to do so means (as of a couple years ago) that you get no federal student loans - ever. Lots of older adults who are trying to go back to school now are finding that out to their chagrin. If they did not register for the draft, they get bupkis, and that's for life, no appeal, and no you can't go register now.

Second, according to current US law, all 'able-bodied men' between the ages of 17 and 45 are already considered to be members of the unorganized militia, as most 2nd Amendment fans know already. The federal conscription laws are not about turning civilians into military; they're about activating people who are already technically military (militia) and moving them into an active component.

And frankly, there was a time not that long ago, when I used to advocate that the right to vote should only be extended to those who had served our nation in the military or some civilian component such as the Peace Corps. But I don't feel that way anymore - like you, I don't like the idea of a free citizenry owing a debt to the government, nor of restricting a civil liberty (hence my opposition to voter photo ID laws). So I've changed my position on that 180 degrees.

In any case, I don't think I have a big problem with mandatory national service, but I do see your point of view on it.

 

[Tgace]

While my Veteran brain says ABSOLUTELY F'n A! To the idea..my American gut says that our founding fathers would have been dead set against a service for benefit style compulsory service.

 

[Makalakumu]

2000 years ago Roman Generals would make promises of land and pillage in order to get men to fight for the Empire. Now, we're going to offer social programs like social security, government health care, and federal student loans in order to get people to fight for the Empire. This deal gets worse and worse every cycle!

Seriously, I wonder where this is going to go? It sounds like the first step toward a Starship Troopers type society.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

While my Veteran brain says ABSOLUTELY F'n A! To the idea..my American gut says that our founding fathers would have been dead set against a service for benefit style compulsory service.

Well, they didn't say that at all. In fact, they set into law the notion that everyone was a member of the militia, liable to being called up for service in emergency. Granted that at first it was for white, land-owning, males only, but that definition expanded with the times. The idea was that all 'able-bodied' men were already part of the militia. Really.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm

The founders were both for and against the idea of national service at different times in their lives. Jefferson has many notable quotes against it, but later in life said that if a standing army could not be abolished, then a short period of mandatory national service was the only other solution.

We've had it most of our existence. The youngest generation isn't familiar with it, but this is not new ground we're treading.

 

[Tgace]

Well, they didn't say that at all. In fact, they set into law the notion that everyone was a member of the militia, liable to being called up for service in emergency. Granted that at first it was for white, land-owning, males only, but that definition expanded with the times. The idea was that all 'able-bodied' men were already part of the militia. Really.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm

The founders were both for and against the idea of national service at different times in their lives. Jefferson has many notable quotes against it, but later in life said that if a standing army could not be abolished, then a short period of mandatory national service was the only other solution.

We've had it most of our existence. The youngest generation isn't familiar with it, but this is not new ground we're treading.

In times of war or national need sure..but I doubt that they would have gone for a "work for the fed or you dont get social security" plan.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In times of war or national need sure..but I doubt that they would have gone for a "work for the fed or you dont get social security" plan.

It's not that extreme. And there was no social security then - they'd probably be a lot more against that, now that you bring it up.

 

[Tgace]

I believe that militias were a state affair and that the feds didn't have the power to draft for quite a while. I think that it was attempted during the war of 1812 to quite an uproar and started riots in NYC during the Civil War.

Again..I'm not personally against it but I'm not sure the idea fits well with our founding documents/philosophy.

A call up to state militia duty vs federal service would probably fall closer in line with the militia concept.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk