Former Afghanistan General Calls for Reinstating the Draft

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
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.

You're ignoring the civilian option under this proposal. And in any case, it's not even a proposal being debated in Congress. It was just an idea mooted about by a retired general.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It already exists - on the federal level. And as I said, Selective Service never ended. It's still around as well.

http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26.

The draft never ended. The unorganized militia already exists under federal law. Sorry.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
You're ignoring the civilian option under this proposal. And in any case, it's not even a proposal being debated in Congress. It was just an idea mooted about by a retired general.

I don't think it will end being a separate option, especially when so many of the attacks in our current wars target supporting personal. The "civilian option" is a political term.

And yeah it's not being debated by congress, but it's still worth discussing as a "what if" scenario.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311



It already exists - on the federal level. And as I said, Selective Service never ended. It's still around as well.

http://www.sss.gov/default.htm



The draft never ended. The unorganized militia already exists under federal law. Sorry.

Sure but its defined in federal law as being the National Guard...state units. I'm well aware of selective service....I registered years ago. I'm just saying that as it stands now, the draft is for calling up soldiers in time of war...the militia, historically was a State affair and is currently defined as the NG of the several states.

If you want to say that a draft is constitutional and we should use a draft to man military positions...id say that's clearly constitutional. If you are saying that everyone is part of a militia and subject to service I would say that would be under the authority of the individual States vs the Fed.

Either way...try enforcing it. I doubt it would work. Raising armies is historically an issue of fighting wars in this nation...not an Israeli style compulsory service affair. Id think there would be little public support.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I don't think it will end being a separate option, especially when so many of the attacks in our current wars target supporting personal. The "civilian option" is a political term.

And yeah it's not being debated by congress, but it's still worth discussing as a "what if" scenario.

Agreed...its an interesting issue to discuss. Who knows what the future holds?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
Might be a way of helping young people out with jobs and job training, therefore kick starting the economy a bit too. Roosevelt had a program in the 30's that was similiar. I cannot remember what it was called. However, young men would go around the country working on government projects, like clearing wilderness for roads, building national parks, bulding damns, etc. My grandfather did this and said it was the only reason he didn't starve to death in the depression. He also said it taught him a good work ethic and to appreciate a job that wasn't back breaking labor :)
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
It is interesting to me that nobody has commented on the part of the proposal that it would give many people a shared sense of service to country. There was a time when most men who walked in to a bar, or other gathering, had one thing in common: service in the military. And there was a sense of something shared.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
It is interesting to me that nobody has commented on the part of the proposal that it would give many people a shared sense of service to country. There was a time when most men who walked in to a bar, or other gathering, had one thing in common: service in the military. And there was a sense of something shared.

I think some of that is lost in a "forced to do it" situation....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
Sure but its defined in federal law as being the National Guard...state units.

Not true; that's the organized militia. The unorganized militia is as the law describes it - federal troops.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
I think some of that is lost in a "forced to do it" situation....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Again, the draft was a fact of life for much of our country's history, so no it wasn't lost. Many WWII vets and Vietnam and Korean conflict vets were drafted; I go to lots of veteran events (I am official photographer for some of them) and let me tell you, a tighter band of brothers you never saw. Draftee or not.

Again, the draft has only been shelved since the end of the Vietnam war. That makes it seem to this generation like it never happened, but it was actually the normal way of bringing in troops prior to that. It was dead common, normal, and few argued about it or saw it as an evil thing that they were 'forced' to do it. That's an invention of this most recent generation.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Again, the draft was a fact of life for much of our country's history, so no it wasn't lost. Many WWII vets and Vietnam and Korean conflict vets were drafted; I go to lots of veteran events (I am official photographer for some of them) and let me tell you, a tighter band of brothers you never saw. Draftee or not.

Again, the draft has only been shelved since the end of the Vietnam war. That makes it seem to this generation like it never happened, but it was actually the normal way of bringing in troops prior to that. It was dead common, normal, and few argued about it or saw it as an evil thing that they were 'forced' to do it. That's an invention of this most recent generation.

Sure...in a war, not washing clothes for the govt without military rank, training, or camaraderie so that you can collect your Social Security.

Of course this is all simply for discussion sake. I already earned my SS benefits and enjoyed doing it. I'm just not sold on forcing people into the military short of a necessities of a war situation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Not true; that's the organized militia. The unorganized militia is as the law describes it - federal troops.

Actually I believe all that means is the pool of males eligible for the draft.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Tgace, I have the original kindle, how do you like the fire?

I like it as an "I pad-lite", but I'm not a big fan of touch screen keyboards...I spend more time backspacing than I do typing at times Lol!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
Actually I believe all that means is the pool of males eligible for the draft.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Umm... that section of the law has already been quoted in this thread, so you really don't have to believe one way or the other. Just read it. It is pretty straightforward.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
I heard a version of the draft I could get behind:

The decision to go to war becomes a popular vote instead of congressional. Then if it passes, those who voted yes are the first to be picked in the draft. And the only people eligible to vote to go to war are those who fit the criteria to go to war (able-bodied men {and women?} between 17 and 45).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Well, one aspect of that version of the draft seems to exist already. It is no mystery that we are fighting around the world and that that fighting is really dangerous. Yet, at least in the recent past, I don't know what it is like currently, people have still been enlisting in the military where they currently have a chance of being seriously injured or killed. So those who support the effort already seem to be enlisting and fighting, since if you don't support the effort, you don't have to enlist or go and fight. The bad part of that plan is if the war really needs to be fought, but the opposition blocks it through a more effective but wrong propaganda campaign. Remember in the 30's the communists worked very hard to keep the U.S. from interfering with the war in Europe, that is until Hitler invaded Russia, then they of course switched their tune.
 
Top