Monday, August 13, 2007
General Lute, the Czar of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who reports directly to the President, mentioned the subject of the draft as something worth considering, and went on to say that the President objected to the draft and that the all volunteer army is doing just fine. In many blogs, the idea has been blasted, some with the ridiculous thought that our young men would balk.
It is a huge disappointment to learn from several blogs that our new generation of young men are not willing to be drafted, even in a homeland crisis, just as their elders tried not to be during Nam. (This, of course, is not strictly speaking their option, since the draft is a legal obligation.) So to avoid serving, they do have a few options: run to Canada; hide in the underground somehow; find a disability, or get a deferment, or perhaps a conscientious objector status.
The first two of these options would mark them for life for what they are, and would prevent them from having many opportunities later on. I for one, would not hire someone who would run from his duty to the nation, and every firm I ever worked for or with had the same policy. I respect deferments that are logical and beneficial in the long run for the nation, such as to go to medical school or a critical job, but not those given by political influence. I also respect the objectors if they are sincere and not trumped up.
As for the rest, they get selected, drafted, trained, and sent where needed. If they are demonstrably bad soldiers, they get a courts martial for their lack of military discipline.
It is up to them.
To say that we should not ever have a draft because a large number of the youth would not serve is simply ludicrous. First, we find them. Then we take away their passports and give them a one-way ticket to Toronto. After, of course, their penalty for violating the law has been served and recorded here in yellow ink for all posterity. We will be better off without them.
Labels: Citizenship USA, Draft
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Draft Fears
Bringing the draft back
The first question should be 'what are our needs for the military over the next ten years or so.' If the military is stressed to the limit, this argues for an increase of forces. Obviously, the forces can be increased by Congress authorizing and funding more billets, followed by recruitment of more volunteers. Another three or four divisions could possibly be raised this way in three to five years. That means about 40 to 60 thousand men. My reading is that we are not getting this number of volunteers for the army--not close!
But, what about right now? If our gap is on the order of three divisions now, the only way to fill those billets rapidly is by drafting and training conscripts over a year or so, and perhaps have then replace veterans in non-combat slots in the US, thus freeing up a pool of volunteers for combat.
It all depends on the first question, and the answer given by the powers that be. General Lute is quite right to bring the subject up. It is material to our status of forces and our capability to carry out the missions assigned.
The subject will not die.