BS: Avert The Draft

Subject: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM

Hell no! We won't go.

I'm just sayin.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 01:55 PM

And also, advert plans for a draft.
[as a means of stopping it]

There's more rumors of war.

Where they gonna get folks to fight their wars?

Robots?

Now that's a scary thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 01:58 PM

And furthermore, how 'bout convert the plans for a draft to plans to help the middle class and poor in the USA.

Not to mention helping rebuild New Orleans into more than a rich folks resort.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:03 PM

Weatherstripping on doors is always good, but sometimes the best way to avert a draft is by making (or buying) a cloth tube stuffed with rags to put in front of (or under) the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:03 PM

Too many subversive stuff been goin down.

Avert the draft.

Advert nefarious plans for the draft

Convert the money to health care, social services, re-building New Orleans, re-building our crumbling infrastructure.

It's too drafty in here.

Do you get my drift?

Holla out if you got something to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:29 PM

um.

What does having a draft have to do with health care, social services, or rebuilding New Orleans or our crumbling infrastructure?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:37 PM

Is anyone else perturbed at our government's response when there is a new disaster, such as floods and the Minnesota bridge, et al? The government says they're going to fix it, they'll get right on it... The way they got on New Orleans?

I think I'd be less than comforted by their pieties.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:51 PM

With thanks to Amergin for posting this in another thread a ways back: draft registration.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 03:15 PM

Somebody...CNN? is running a poll For or Agin. I voted Agin, and so did 65% of the other people voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 03:31 PM

This is a curious thing. Reinstatement of the draft is a Democrat proposal. Some (from the right) might cynically......might, nothing.....some from the right HAVE said that it is proposed for the sake of bringing a quick end to the war.

The assumption -- by the likes of Charles Rangel, the bill's proposer -- is that the military is made up entirely of poor people who have no other employment options and are thus trapped into a life in the military.

He has proposed the draft in order to force more middle class sons and daughters into the war, and thus hasten its end. His reasoning being that middle class people don't care if poor people are killed in war, but they will care if it's their own kids.

In reality, it's not a bad proposal. And my leftist friend (professor at Notre Dame) has convinced this righty that a draft is the most moral way to man a military.

Of course, if you are naive enough to think that there is no need for a military at all, well, take that up with Rangel. He's your guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 03:37 PM

If the draft comes in they'll be thinning out the slums and trailer parks first. Always the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 03:46 PM

Because the middle and upper classes can get deferrments...for education for one. The poor can't afford education.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 04:50 PM

Again, tell it to Rangel. He's your guy, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 04:58 PM

"Because the middle and upper classes can get deferrments..."

Y'know, I should leave it at the fact that it is a Democrat proposal, but I do kind of like the idea. And in the long run, it was because of the draft that Viet Nam was ultimately so unpopular that we accepted the loss of a war so our brothers could come home.

I was raised middle class through much of the 60s -- 'til dad offed himself -- but though I was one year too young to be drafted, my family went three for three -- all three of my older brothers were drafted. One of them even avoided -- so to speak -- the draft, until he finished college. Then his number still came up.

It is a re-write of history to say that enough middle class boys avoided the draft, such that a draft would have no effect on the middle class.

Surely every American mudcatter knows of at least a few middle class classmates who were drafted. I sure did.

And if the poor are drafted, well, curiously, the arguement (a la Rangel) is that the military is already made up of all poor people now. How much different would it be?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 05:05 PM

Yeah, I get your drift, Azizi. You're clearly a
"dangerous radical"! Quite possibly you might be seen as a threat to the powers that be. ;-) I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM

We call it conscription, much more English.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 05:34 PM

The draft is a good idea, with some conditions:
    1. No exceptions for anyone unless they can't meet some fairly loose medical requirements (most "disabled" people would qualify for service) and some pretty firm moral standards. For example, IMHO, habitual criminals should be excluded.
    2. Gender and sexual preference are not relevant.
    3. No deferments, except for time-limited things such as completion of a current semester of college.
    4. Multiple alternative service opportunities, other than military service, such as (and certainly not limited to) medical attendant in public hospitals or (gasp!) stoop labor on farms.
    5. Service under these conditions would be required for certain privileges of citizenship (a la Heinlein), such as voting.

This is, of course, about as unlikely to ever happen as is a return to a purely military draft.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

Artbrooks, I liked your first post; we call them "snakes" out here but I think they're called "sausages" in the British Isles. I can't say I'm enamoured of conscription, press ganging, draft or any other form of (or term for) govt-sponsored compulsory labour.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 06:18 PM

It's the flip side of the "Chicken Hawk". Those who want government to take care of them from cradle to grave (when is the goddamn GOVERNMENT going to fix the _____...fill in the blank)...

...but don't feel compelled to lift a finger in service of that government.

Who's taking advantage of the poor fighting man?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 06:30 PM

I have sons.

I am afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 07:38 PM

How about stopping a war. Adding the draft will be like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline. If you think this government won't seize the oppotunity you're swimming in da-Nile.

Stop the war, there will be another march this mid Sept. on DC.

I beat the draft for Nam but what about those that didn't & died & it wasn't the draft that stopped the war back then. It was the those that did the right thing, many were not motivated by it being personnal, you discredit the whole movement & effort that was put forth by folks nobler than that.

Get a grip!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 07:58 PM

Then explain Rangel's reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:34 PM

I agree [shudder] with Art.

The point of Rangel's proposal is that it should be inclusive. No one except those with permanent mental disability should be exempt from a civic duty. Even those with these problems can be allowed to served if they so choose, just not in situations where they would endanger others.

To paraphrase the example in Heinlein, even if you are blind and deaf, if you can count the fuzz on a caterpillar, an assignment can be fitted to your abilities. Of course, with so many of our youth being brought into service, perhaps we can give them useful assignments, such as medical training, teaching in the inner cities, being assigned to the Peace Corps, etc.

Of course, if the person volunteers for these specific assignments, they cannot be sent to Iraq or whatever other hellhole our government has selected for demolition.

By the way, I managed to avoid Viet Nam--Lottery number 357. My brother was not so lucky. His number was 120. Being one of those invited to leave after Mark Rudd's takeover of Columbia, he and a companion went to Mexico to check out the Medical School of the University of Mexico in Mexico City. They got robbed of everything except his car and got killed on the way home. My parents still have not recovered.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: van lingle
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:38 PM

If we're going to keep at this thing going (god knows why) it's only fair to give our troops out in the field some relief. Asking them to do a 15 month tour is insane.
Mitt Romney's got 5 sons who are serving their country by campaigning for their war-supporting daddy, according to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:48 PM

Those who want government to take care of them from cradle to grave (when is the goddamn GOVERNMENT going to fix the _____...fill in the blank)...


It's not about that, John. This admin. has destroyed ANY safety nets that anyone of poverty or middle class had while it continues to intrude in our lives more and more, taking away the rights our country was founded on. Bush's government will take care of us IF we do exactly as he deems fit...he is about to get a rude awakening.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

I asked the bank for an overdraft - they loaned me a ladder to open the fanlight over the front door...

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 09:06 PM

There's going to have to be a draft at some point. Our military is running out of people and we have to have a functioning military. Trying to start a draft in the middle of an unpopular war will be fun to watch. But sooner or later, there must be a draft because our military is seriously outstripped. We're not talking just being low on people, we're talking about the military's very ability to function is being compromised by a lack of personnel.

We need a draft just to get enough people to repair all the worn-out and damaged equipment and much of that needs to be upgraded as well as repaired.

Then there's all the stuff we will end up leaving in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's huge amounts of equipment there that will never return stateside and all that will have to be replaced and more people brought in and trained for it use.

Our military is in crisis, folks, and things cannot keep going the way they are going for much longer. That's why I scoff at the notion of this war dragging on for years. Not hardly. Not without a draft and raising taxes and I don't see that happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 10:26 PM

282R, the major military equipment depots, where equipment is repaired and upgraded, are staffed almost entirely by civilians. The personnel issues that exist in the military itself are entirely due to the ridiculous deployment/redeployment tempo.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 11:44 PM

Rangel's reasoning is very compelling. (shuddering with Ebarnacle as I type.)

Barry, opposition to the Vietnam War surged when they changed the draft to a straight lottery. Parents of middle class college students changed their positions real quick when they saw their own son's were at risk.

Yes, stop the war. It is up to the American people to stop the war. Or rather, the approximately 50% of Americans who feel empowered to vote.

Look at the faces and the names of our troups in Iraq. I see a lot more Black faces and Hispanic names among troups fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan than I see in the halls of Congress, state legislatures, County boards or town councils.

When this country chooses to engage in military actions that push our volunteer military beyond their limit, social justice is well-served by a lottery draft. Daughters should be at risk of being drafted as well as sons. In the end, social justice would be served in two ways. All of our youth become potential cannon fodder, not just the poor in general, and minorities in particular.

Like Mrzzy, I have a son. I am very afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 11:51 PM

Heh - Now it's a music thread!

DRAFT DODGER RAG - Phil Ochs

Oh, I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town
I believe in God and Senator Dodd and a-keepin' old Castro down
And when it came my time to serve I knew "better dead than red"
But when I got to my old draft board, buddy, this is what I said:

CHORUS
Sarge, I'm only eighteen, I got a ruptured spleen
And I always carry a purse
I got eyes like a bat, and my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse
Yes, think of my career, my sweetheart dear, and my poor old invalid aunt
Besides, I ain't no fool, I'm a-goin' to school
And I'm working in a DEE-fense plant

I've got a dislocated disc and a wracked up back
I'm allergic to flowers and bugs
And when the bombshell hits, I get epileptic fits
And I'm addicted to a thousand drugs
I got the weakness woes, I can't touch my toes
I can hardly reach my knees
And if the enemy came close to me
I'd probably start to sneeze

CHORUS
I'm only eighteen, I got a ruptured spleen
And I always carry a purse
I got eyes like a bat, and my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse
Yes, think of my career, my sweetheart dear, and my poor old invalid aunt
Besides, I ain't no fool, I'm a-goin' to school
And I'm working in a DEE-fense plant

Ooh, I hate Chou En Lai, and I hope he dies,
Onething you gotta see
That someone's gotta go over there
And that someone isn't me
So I wish you well, Sarge, give 'em Hell!
Kill me a thousand or so
And if you ever get a war without blood and gore
I'll be the first to go

CHORUS
Yes, I'm only eighteen, I got a ruptured spleen
And I always carry a purse
I got eyes like a bat, and my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse
Yes, think of my career, my sweetheart dear, and my poor old invalid aunt
Besides, I ain't no fool, I'm a-goin' to school
And I'm working in a DEE-fense plant

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Greg B
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:06 AM

As the peace-nik child of a peace-nik (my father was a grad-student
at UCSB in the late 60's; when I was 8 years old I was sticking
stamps for Eugene McCarthy) I'm a bit embarrassed to say it:

I've become convinced of late that there are a rather large group
of middle class young men and women who are at much more risk
from their own self-centered egos and senses of entitlement than
they ever would be in the infantry, in Iraq, and from IED by
the side of the road.

I'm only half facetious when I suggest that anybody who uses the
F-word to (or perhaps even in front of) their mother or father
ought to wake up next morning on a bus to boot-camp. Where they
can crack wise to the DI about their 'rights' to free speech
and self-expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:11 AM

John Hardly--and Rangel--are dead right. Do you honestly think that with a draft, the blank check would have been given to Bush to invade Iraq--without asking any of the vital questions that somehow weren't asked?

A draft would have stopped George's excellent adventure right in its tracks. And saved the world a lot of grief.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:17 AM

And Janie's depiction of the Vietnam war period and the effect of the draft is also right on target. I don't see how anybody can deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:12 AM

If they can rig an election or two, rigging the draft should be no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:46 AM

There were many who were not personally effected by the draft that protested the Viet Nam war, that's akin to saying only those that were effected personnally by the civil rights issue marched for the cause of the civil rights movement, not true. Many marched & protested because they were morally compelled to, we still march today. I say we because even though my draft number was low I knew that no matter what, I would not being fighting in that war, I could not afford to go to college, I may have been poor but I wasn't a fool. I still feel the same way today as I did then & I still march & protest along side of others that feel the same way. It's not just those that are affected. It took the nation a long time to come to the realization that that war was unjust, just as it's taking the nation to realize the same thing all over again.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:04 AM

" It took the nation a long time to come to the realization that that war was unjust,"

That's not why we quit/lost Viet Nam. We didn't come to the realization that that war was unjust. We came to the realization that it was not win-able.

When the numbers of people who realized that it was unwinnable (and therefore a waste of their men's lives) grew, and joined with the few who thought it was an unjust war, the war was brought to a close...

...and a renewed slaughter in Southeast Asia began.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:55 AM

That's quite right John. No sooner had the Americans withdrawn, than the slaughter began in Cambodia. Though Laos and Vietnam were relatively quick to settle down, after the inevitable score- settling with the unlucky losers who couldn't get away.

The same is likely to happen when the Allies withdraw from Iraq. Some areas will be dreadful- others relatively smooth in transition. It would have been easier had the withdrawal been some years ago, and easier still if the invasion had never happened.

It's worth reflecting that the Cambodian situation was (probably) a direct result of American intervention- the overthrow of Sianoukh was engineered by the US, and it was this that ultimately brought Pol Pot to power. Deja vu?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:10 AM

The destabilization of that region was the fault of France. They took control of the whole area under the name French Indo-China. Froggie ran when things got rough and the good ol' US of A got stuck cleaning up the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:55 AM

Well, if we're going to go back and speculate on who may have caused what, let us not forget that Ho Chi Minh was on the OSS payroll at the time, and the entire history of SE Asia could have been different if De Gaulle hadn't been determined to roll back the clock to 1940.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:58 PM

>>282R, the major military equipment depots, where equipment is repaired and upgraded, are staffed almost entirely by civilians.<<

Those are support level repair stations not unit level. Unit level is entirely military and there's not enough of them to do the work so the equipments gets sent to support facilities that are now severely backlogged.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:38 PM

282R, unit level motor pools, at least in any Army unit I ever served in, were (at best) able to do pretty low level maintenance. Anything that required pulling the engine and anything requiring work on the chassis went to higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:55 PM

"Froggie ran when things got rough and the good ol' US of A got stuck cleaning up the mess."

That's one view. Another is that Uncle Sam arrogantly though He could easily make a profit and do a better job than those gutless Froggies.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:48 PM

>>282R, unit level motor pools, at least in any Army unit I ever served in, were (at best) able to do pretty low level maintenance. Anything that required pulling the engine and anything requiring work on the chassis went to higher.<<

Not now. The IED-proof vehicles have to have the entire power pack pulled to do even the simplest things because they hulls are not open on the bottom and there's no access even with the floorplates removed. If they sent these vehicles to support for that everytime they had to pull a power pack, they'd always be low on these vehicles because at least half but probably more would be in the states at a given time. It only goes to support when the trans has to be separated from the engine and that's only because it's unlikely that that will need to be done most of the time. But pulling the entire power pack will be done at least half the time. These vehicles take top priority and the one I'm writing procedures for requires four people to pull the power pack. There's just not enough guys to do the other work on less important vehicles and so those get shipped to support units and I've already had to visit several of those in the last two years. The backlog is unbelievable. Some equipment on a FIVE YEAR waiting list!! We can't win a war like this. It simply is not possible.

They keep saying this will break out military. It already has broken it. It's like a reel-to-reel tape recorder when the last bit of tape comes off the feed reel and the reel stops turning, you still hear the music playing but not for long. Our military is at that point now.

Here's another reason it's bad: we have been instructed by the govt to tone down our vocabulary and to explain every maintenance and repair procedure as if we were writing a Dick & Jane book. We are no longer to say "Release the belt tensioner" for example. We must now explain how to release it. We cannot assume the field tech knows how. Thinking, "Well, if he needs me to explain something that simple, he shouldn't be touching a vehicle" is no longer permissible. We must explain every little thing in as simple and concise a fashion as possible. Even installing a drive belt with the radiator still on is not to be explained that way because the techs now do not have enough experience to be able to do it, so the whole radiator assembly must be removed just to install a drive belt.

That's what happens when you drop intellectual requirements. And these people are working on that equipment. Guys are putting their lives in the hands of techs who have no idea how to do a runout check or why. And a lot of the components are very hard to get to even for a seasoned tech so imagine what a nightmare this will be for these newbies and flunkies. It's bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:50 PM

Unfortunately, we [the US] volunteered to stabilize the situation in Viet Nam.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:27 PM

pdq--

So sorry the French didn't live up to your requirements for an empire--to hold onto their colonies til the absolute last minute, regardless of what the native populations-or even your own electorate--may think. I'm sure the Belgians and Portuguese are more to your liking--though Africans may disagree. It's fairly obvious that your attitude towards colonized peoples is perfect 18th century--or perhaps before.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 01:47 AM

"The destabilization of that region was the fault of France. They took control of the whole area under the name French Indo-China. Froggie ran when things got rough and the good ol' US of A got stuck cleaning up the mess."

Destabilisation of the region was caused by the Japanese invasion during the Second World War - That was Ho Chi Minh, Giap & Co started fighting. Vietnam was "liberated" by the British at the end of hostilities, then the French returned. Ho Chi Minh decided to continue the struggle and the French came very close to defeating him. But close was and never is good enough and Dien Bin Phu put paid to the French in South East Asia. As with Korea the UN mandated that the country be split North and South, with Ho Chi Minh safely ensconced in the North the United States of America was handed the mandate to look after the South, in exactly the same way that Palestine and Iraq was handed to the British by the League of Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 02:26 AM

Barry,

The number of people clearly opposed to the Vietnam War was gradually increasing even before the draft changed to a lottery, because of activists who educated and kept the issues firmly in the public eye, and developed and maintained the structures through which opposition to the war was made clear. The draft lottery significantly accelerated the process. Saying that takes nothing away from those who worked tirelessly before that point. I doubt I was as active as you, but I also was involved, on moral grounds. I had no brothers and no cousins of draftable age at the time, and all my close male friends were deferred college students.

But the great, voting, middle class of the times did not actively begin to oppose the war until their own sons were at risk. They would have eventually come around, I believe, or simply have grown weary of the war. There can be no doubt, however, that the lottery draft sped things up considerably.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 07:40 AM

The institution of the draft lottery in December 1969 had little or nothing to do with the withdrawal of troops or the rising tide of protest. Nor, to the best of my personal recollection, did it have any significant change in the types of draft deferrals available. By the end of 1969, troop levels on the ground in Vietnam were down nearly 200,000 from their 1968 high of over 530,000. Fact is, the basic reason for the lottery was that fewer troops were needed as the war drew down, for which we can largely thank (shudder) Richard Nixon.

The sons of the wealthy and the middle class were never exempt. On the other hand, they could afford to stay in college, thus qualifying for their II-S draft status, and study Underwater Basketweaving or something equally useful until they turned 27 and were out of danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 08:04 AM

Deferral is the correct term. With the change to the lottery system, my recollection is student deferrals were eliminated. But I may recollect wrong and will go google when I have a chance.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 08:41 AM

Perhaps so, Janie. There were other options available...David Eisenhower (Nixon's son-in-law) joined the Navy Reserve as soon as he graduated from Amherst in 1970 (his draft number was 30) and our beloved leader's stellar military service is well known. It was pretty difficult to get into the Reserves and Guard, in some places, at the time.

My brother, on the other hand (with a draft number of 350-something), was politely asked by a judge in Salt Lake City to volunteer to be drafted in 1970, even though he was a full-time student. A Journalism major and German minor, he ended up assigned to an Army newspaper in Stuttgart and complained bitterly about his fate. I was in Vietnam at the time, and didn't really want to listen.

BTW, 49.2% of the Army casualties in Vietnam and 94.8% of the Marines were volunteers. The Navy and Air Force didn't use the draft. I include members of the Reserves and Guard who were killed in these numbers. If officers are included (and they were as exposed as anyone else, except for the REMFs in Saigon), than just about 70% of the combat deaths in-country were volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 08:41 AM

Without Press Ganging, many folk songs would simply not exist!

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM

"BTW, 49.2% of the Army casualties in Vietnam and 94.8% of the Marines were volunteers. The Navy and Air Force didn't use the draft. I include members of the Reserves and Guard who were killed in these numbers."

Very pleased to see that somebody appreciates that joining the "Guard" did not guarantee that one would escape service in a "Theatre of War".

And please do not resurrect that old myth about GWB going AWOL, about him dodging the draft, about him not completing his service. The dog won't hunt and to dismiss the purely partisan and subjective arguements put forward, backed by very little substantive fact to support the contention, is all rather easy and very boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 11:55 PM

The Navy and the Air Force didn't need to use the draft directly. I knew a number of young men who 'volunteered' for the Navy as a means of escaping being drafted into the Army, where they were much more likely to be sent to Vietnam, or if sent to that arena, were much more likely to find themselves on patrol in the jungle. If there were no draft, they would not have entered the military at all.

Just in case anyone should misinterpret, I am not denigrating the service of those who opted to go into other branches of the military during the Vietnam War. I also value the courage of those young men who chose to go to jail or into exile. And I am ashamed that the antiwar movement behaved in a blaming manner toward the soldiers themselves.

Art, I was wrong. The classification system regarding deferrment did not change. See this.


Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 11:25 AM

Janie is absolutely right. Since if you were drafted you had no say about where you went, there was a powerful incentive to enlist--especially if you could get-- in writing-- some
commitment by the Army to give you training in an area you might be able to use later. For instance, you could sign up for language training--as long as you were able to insist that the language would not be French (for French Indochina), Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian or Laotian. Japanese, German and Russian were also available--and we had lots of troops in Germany, for instance. If you signed up for German, you had a very good chance of going to Germany--and not to Indochina. People who took Russian wound up stationed in Alaska, Turkey, possibly Washington state--and again, not Indochina. Of course it was still a gamble--with the military's well-known penchant for jamming round dowels into square holes.


So as Janie points out, it was very much a carrot and stick approach. It is misleading to characterize all the "enlistees" as volunteers--since without the draft the vast majority of these so-called "enlistees" would never have materialized.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:17 AM

After reading the article linked to below, I strongly fear a resumption of the draft is inevitable.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/candidates.military/index.html

I've made clear above why I think a military draft would be more socially just within our US society. I could talk until the cows come home about my moral opposition to our involvement in Iraq, and in a detached manner consider the draft as a strategy to generate greater public opposition to the Iraqi war. I could expound, though not nearly as well as many others, on why I think our whole paradigm of fighting terrorism with increased military action only serves to esculate terrorism and is likely to lead to more and more violence and worldwide division and hatred along ethnic lines that has the very real potential to result in decades or centuries of something that looks like the Irish 'troubles' on a global scale and on steroids.

What really matters to me, however - what really brings me to my knees - is the fear of my son being drafted and going into combat.

I am afraid for my son.   It is the same for every mother and father, I think.
.
Selfishly, I am more afraid for myself.

I don't know how I could possibly bear losing him. I can hardly bear imagining the risk. I would not even have the small, cold solace of believing that his death was an awful, but noble, worthy or necessary sacrifice for a higher cause or the greater good. I would not even have the reality of the randomness of accidents or fatal illness. I would simply have the knowledge that he was wrongfully,wantonly, deliberately and quite willfully coerced into the jaws of danger and death by leaders of governments and religious schools and people from assorted places around the globe, locked into paradigms that they each believe is "right" and "the truth that is worth dying for", driven by unconscious, atavistic and antiquated tribalism, drive for power, and fear of the "other."

I'd blame them all. I'd hate them all. I'd be driven back to my own atavistic family tribalism in my pain, my fury, and my powerlessness to keep him safe and me from grief-driven madness.

When I imagine, (which I generally try to avoid doing because it is so frightening it causes physical pain), I can glimpse within myself the potential for insane hatred and self-righteousness, driven by despair and existential need to reclaim some illusion of power, even if it is only the power to destroy, the potential to need to externalize my own annilating pain by visiting it upon others. I can see the potential for there to be created in myself a heart very similar to what the heart of a terrorist must be.

Not just a remote possibility. A real potential...even with a safe roof over my head, food enough in my belly, fire enough in my stove, and the knowledge that I can safely venture out to work without getting shot at.

Which is the strongest, and most rational argument I have to support my belief that fighting violent radicalism with violence can only serve to perpetuate radicalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:01 AM

((((((Janie))))))

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:06 PM

A return to the draft might end the war but not for the reason you think. It would make things here and abroad all the worse, not because of casualties but because of all the folks who were drafted because they couldn't get away having to be babysat by the troops who are serving because they want to! Please don't let them do that to us! We could use some willing people but for every draftee that doesn't want to be doing whatever he's doing there will need to be two people making sure he does!

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:56 PM

John Hardly's 14 Aug 07-03:31PM post just caught my eye. Especially those last two lines:

In reality, it's not a bad proposal. And my leftist friend (professor at Notre Dame) has convinced this righty that a draft is the most moral way to man a military.

Don't know that moral is quite the precise term I would choose, but it certainly is more equitable and socially just.

Of course, if you are naive enough to think that there is no need for a military at all, well, take that up with Rangel. He's your guy.

There is a part of me that clings to the notion that there ought not be a need for a military, but oughts and shoulds are not about what is, and only get in the way of accepting "what is."      By the same token, confusing "ought and should" with "what is" is the prime mistake in thinking that results in wars that really could have been avoided.

Remember "My Country, Right or Wrong?" and the counter "When Wrong, Make it Right?" I thought that counter statement oh so clever in my teens and twenties, and so on target. It was beyond me why "those dolts" didn't get it's righteousness. That was truly naive. Those others were dolts. But so was I.

So, what is the "right" thing to do? Work to support a draft in the cause of social justice, or fight it like hell because of equally valid self-interest?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:26 AM

How about fight it like hell because the military neither wants nor needs it?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 01:05 AM

Art,

I don't doubt the military doesn't want to deal with draftees. Mainstream media reports strongly imply voluntary military personnel are over-extended and overburdened by lengthy and repeated tours. Is there any objectivity to those reports, in your opinion?

From where might objectivity be gleaned?

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 02:46 PM

In my opinion, if the military needs to be larger (a questionable point), than it should be "grown" in a rational and organized manner, with recruitment, training and equipment procurement all coming together appropriately. None of the military services have any trouble meeting recruiting goals, and there is no reason to think that this would be significantly different if the goals were to be increased incrementally. The army really didn't need the masses of the untrained and unwilling that it had during the Vietnam Era, many of whom spent only eighteen months or less in uniform (and I served in Vietnam, surrounded by draftees), and today's military has even less need for them.

IMPO, if we had started the current stupidity with some kind of rational plan for ending it we wouldn't be in the fix we are in today, because we would have had an appropriate force structure and a rational force sustainment plan. Returning to a system of military manpower "planning" that was obsolete forty years ago is far more than a step backward.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:01 PM

Thanks Art. That's helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:10 PM

Janie, your posting of 117a is one of the most eloquent pieces I've ever read on this, esp. from the perspective of a mother of a son. I felt the same fear/anguish when my son was younger, though there was no war at the time.

If you read over some of the well-thought-out postings to this thread you may find some comfort as I did. I know it was written four years ago, but I think some of the reasoning is still relevant.

{{{{{HUGS}}}}

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:04 PM

"None of the military services have any trouble meeting recruiting goals..."

I challenged this statement when someone else put it forward in another one of these threads a while back, and was quickly contradicted. I was too busy and didn't take the opportunity to argue back at that time, but I'm not letting this misleading statement go by again without commenting:

That the services have not yet failed to meet an annual recruiting goal is, indeed, true in a purely technical sense, but they are meeting their goals only with ever-increasing difficulty. Specifically, the educational standards are lowered on a regular basis in order to meet quotas, and an ever-increasing proportion of high-school dropouts are being accepted each month as new recruits.

Well, I suppose it could be argued that the standards themselves are etched in stone and not "lowered," but an ever-increasing number of exceptions are being allowed.

I heard a lengthy report on NPR on this issue a while ago, featuring interviews with several Army officers, both in the Pentagon and out in the field in combat. The presence of more and more underqualified recruits is a problem, since many of these young men are at least as difficult to train and supervise as draftees ever were.

Interestingly, more than one of the officers interviewed volunteered the opinion that the most pressing problem with these dropout/recruits is not lack of intelligence or even lack of schooling, but lack of self-discipline and inability to respond appropriately to authority.

Whether or not recruiting goals are being met, it cannot be denied that the US military is drastically overextended these days. Unless the government changes direction and scales back combat operations while resuming our former policies of diplomacy, multilateralism, etc., I don't see how an effort to reinstate the draft could be avoided.

Of course, any such effort is bound to meet with serious grassroots opposition. I'd hate to have to go through that all over again, but I don't think I could stand idly by without trying my best to oppose it

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:23 AM

Yes, there are certainly more exceptions to the long-standing rule of, for example, high school graduate and no criminal record. However, I understand that most of the exceptions - and these are done on an individual basis rather than as a blanket change - are to allow GEDs and to waive teen-aged misdemeanors. And no, I don't have any statistics or the interest in looking them up - the data is on each services' recruiting command web site. And yes, the military is certainly overextended, but the draft is not the answer and nobody in the military would advocate, support or welcome it.

Subject: RE: BS: Avert The Draft
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:31 PM

"- and these are done on an individual basis rather than as a blanket change -"

Well, when the number of "individual" cases is continually on the increase, it's really just a matter of semantics to argue over whether or not we're seeeing a deliberate shift in policy (a "blanket" change") or just some temporary and accidental quirk.

Hundreds (or thousands) of individual recruiters are assigned quotas, all or most of them have trouble finding enough fully-qualified recruits, and most of the recruiters have to make exceptions in order to perform to expectations. It's pretty disingenuous to dismiss this phenomenon as an accidental series of random individual instances: the quotas are set as a matter of nationwide policy, and the increasing reluctance to volunteer during an unpopular and highly dangerous conflict is no accident, either.

I would also like to believe that reinstatement of the draft will never happen, and understand completely how and why military professionals are no more anxious than pacifists to see reluctant draftees enter the services. However, it's not the professional soldiers I'm worried about ~ it's the saber-rattling politicians who tend to start wars without considering whether they can be finished, and thereby create situations where manpower is stretched beyond any tolerable measure.

Right now, the best idea that the hawks in Washington can put forward to encourage retention is to keep a lid on veterans' benefits, so that soldiers are discouraged from mustering out and finding themselves at a severe disadvantage in a tough civilian economy, unable to afford education and without access to adequate medical care.