Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

[David S]

David S,

The United States was attacked by communist forces in the Gulf of Tonkin. The US was under no choice but to attack North Vietnam as a result.

States
I think you're a very patriotic American and for the most part that's a very commendable thing. But if that patriotism causes you to accept everything the government says, without question, then its not good. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually two incidents according to the government, one attack on Aug 2 by Vietnamese ships against a US ship and a second alleged attack on Aug 4. The Vietnamese admit they attacked the USS Maddox on Aug 2, but they claim it was in their territorial waters at the time. The US claims otherwise.   The second attack is highly questionable and probably never occurred at all. In any event the net damage from the Aug 2 incident was one bullet hole in the Maddox and no injuries. The Vietnamese ships were chased off by cannon fire from the Maddox and air strikes by planes from a carrier. Is that an event that justifies the carnage that resulted in the Vietnam war? Considering the minimal damage that occurred the incident was vastly blown out of proportion and used to justify much greater involvement in the war.

Not trusting politicians comes naturally to libertarians. For you maybe not, but it might help if you remember that Johnson was a Democrat.

[CPT MikeyMike]

I know I've said this before - we need QUALITY Soldiers and not QUANITY Soldiers. A draft will not help acheive QUALITY Soldiers because you'll get more Soldiers who don't give a damn and will give more headaches to the military with Article 15s and UCMJ actions. It is simply not worth it.

[Friz]

The draft is a bad idea, but is good for our foreign policy

All-volunteer armies have historically outperformed drafted ones.

For proof, see the armies of nations who make enlistment mandatory at age 18.

[StateBoiler]

I know I've said this before - we need QUALITY Soldiers and not QUANTITY Soldiers. A draft will not help acheive QUALITY Soldiers because you'll get more Soldiers who don't give a damn and will give more headaches to the military with Article 15s and UCMJ actions. It is simply not worth it.

I agree with this statement.

But what do you do when there are not enough volunteers? Well, you decrease the missions cause there is not enough manpower. Is the Republican Party honestly going to accept that?

I'm a military brat so I'm used to seeing people decide on a military career. When I became a junior in HS my dad came to me and said if you want to go to one of the service academies we need to know now cause we had to request Senator Edwards or Senator Helms to sign off for me to go. How many parents honestly do that in civilian homes? How many people on this forum ever even considered a military career or were asked about it (not a recruiter at your school)? When graduating high school and if you're not going to college, how many choose enlistment or just being a slacker living at home without a job or working for $6 an hour in fast food? (For the record to not appear as a snot, I considered becoming a Navy nuclear officer via OCS route but ultimately decided against it.)

You can kind of see this problem with the statement Romney made this week. "We have a volunteer army. My children are serving this country by getting me elected." Romney's first sentence is entirely correct, but does anyone think a soldier watching the news at Al-Assad appreciates that statement? That they risking their life, being separated from their family for six months by 5000 miles is equivalent to a guy running around Des Moines in an RV? There's such a large disconnect nowadays between civilian life and military life and civilians do not even realize it. My freshman roomie in college, intelligent guy, thought we could fight a "perfect war"- a war where no Americans would die, such was our technical superiority over everyone else. I argued in vain to him that that opinion was stupid and arrogant (this was early 2000, pre-9/11, pre-Afghanistan, pre-Iraq), but he refused to hear it, we could just drop a bomb from an airplane and "win the war".

I try to talk to people about it while being mindful I'm a civilian myself, fully knowing that those around me never considered the military, would only go if drafted, and most then would drive to Canada if that occurred, Republican and Democrat.

Anyway, that's my take on it. If our country wants to maintain its "#1 military" status, they need more quality people. But the quality people are not coming as much anymore. So how do you get them there other than a draft?

CPT MikeyMike, what's your take on what I've said? Agree or disagree?

[AkSaber]

Increasing the size of our nation's military - good.
Doing so by mass drafts of unwilling teenagers who are unlikely to be effective combatants, pissng off their parents and trampling everyone's civil liberties - bad.

Bingo!!!

[StateBoiler]

Per Lute's comment on the draft. I defer to a comment made by Jon Stewart in a serious interview with Bill Moyers. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/04/bill_moyers_jon.html When asked if Americans did not like the war, why weren't there protests like Vietnam, he stated "we're busy and rich". As long as other people that are faceless and we do not know them (again, the civilian-military disconnect) and those there volunteered for service were fighting the war, people's opposition or support was academic only, no different than an issue such as gun rights or abortion rights. If a draft were started, people are no longer "busy" and they devote their attention to the issue because I'm willing to bet most non-military connected parents, Republican or Democrat, would not want their sons drafted and would take steps to prevent it, or help their sons commit a federal crime.

The people that planned the war understood this fully. That's why a draft will never occur.

[StateBoiler]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html