According to some media sources, bills are now circulating in the House of Representatives and Senate that would bring back the draft for the first time in 30 years.  Under this new draft men and women between ages 18 and 26 would be required to serve involuntarly in the military.  Unlike the draft of the Vietnam era, moving to Canada or attending college will not be a way of avoiding service.  The draft could be reinstated as early as the spring of 2005.

Up until hearing this I was very much undecided on who I might vote for in the presidential election, but I am surely going to vote for Kerry.  This is a rather serious issue for me since I am 21 and am right in the age range the draft will target.  I know this is something being pushed by the Bush administration to send young people like me out to die in Iraq for reasons that are purely political and business-related that have nothing to do with my best interests.  I now pray that Bush doesn't win in November or I and many others will find ourselves in a desert getting shot at. Does this news motivate anyone else around my age to vote against Bush?

According to some media sources, bills are now circulating in the House of Representatives and Senate that would bring back the draft for the first time in 30 years.  Under this new draft men and women between ages 18 and 26 would be required to serve involuntarly in the military.  Unlike the draft of the Vietnam era, moving to Canada or attending college will not be a way of avoiding service.  The draft could be reinstated as early as the spring of 2005.

Up until hearing this I was very much undecided on who I might vote for in the presidential election, but I am surely going to vote for Kerry.  This is a rather serious issue for me since I am 21 and am right in the age range the draft will target.  I know this is something being pushed by the Bush administration to send young people like me out to die in Iraq for reasons that are purely political and business-related that have nothing to do with my best interests.  I now pray that Bush doesn't win in November or I and many others will find ourselves in a desert getting shot at. Does this news motivate anyone else around my age to vote against Bush?


Actually, this bill was written by someone trying to embarass the current administration (as if they don't do that well enough on their own).  It's not a serious bill, and if it was, I'm sure they'd write in some exemptions for the kids of the rich and the politicians.

The only way another draft will come about, is if casualties number in the tens of thousands.  A lot of what the military does now is so specialized, that it would take too long to train people to make them useful for the wars being fought now.

This thread probably ought to be moved over to the political board.

Anyway, if they want to pursue the neo-con song for America, they're gonna have to bring back the draft.  Right now 40% of the soldiers in Iraq are drawn from the National Guard and Reserve units more than a year after the cessation of hostilities was declared.  If we have to go to war again, where are we going to get the soldiers we need?  God forbid there is a major national emergency on American soil and we don't have enough Guard and Reserves because they're assigned to the occupation of Iraq.

I know a guy who did time in the Coast Guard and was stationed for 2 years in Italy.  For the life
of me I can't find where the coast of the USA meets up with the coast of Italy.  Can someone
help me with this?

I know a guy who did time in the Coast Guard and was stationed for 2 years in Italy. For the life
of me I can't find where the coast of the USA meets up with the coast of Italy. Can someone
help me with this?


Maybe they are counting all that land under the ocean? ;)

I always hated the draft....even my Dad who served 23 years in the Air Force (Ret. Major) doesn't like it....

According to some media sources, bills are now circulating in the House of Representatives and Senate that would bring back the draft for the first time in 30 years.  Under this new draft men and women between ages 18 and 26 would be required to serve involuntarly in the military.  Unlike the draft of the Vietnam era, moving to Canada or attending college will not be a way of avoiding service.  The draft could be reinstated as early as the spring of 2005.


Uhh... Exactly how will moving to Canada still require one to be drafted?  Are you saying that we will send agents into Canada to retrieve draft dodgers?  I imagine that the Canadians may have a problem with this.

And why should college be a reason to not be drafted anyway?  I'm no better than anyone else just because I go to college.

.

And why should college be a reason to not be drafted anyway?  I'm no better than anyone else just because I go to college.
I have a brother who took ROTC at Creighton University in 1970....it kept him out of the war. My oldest brother served two terms in the 60's (Navy)

According to some media sources, bills are now circulating in the House of Representatives and Senate that would bring back the draft for the first time in 30 years.  Under this new draft men and women between ages 18 and 26 would be required to serve involuntarly in the military.  Unlike the draft of the Vietnam era, moving to Canada or attending college will not be a way of avoiding service.  The draft could be reinstated as early as the spring of 2005.

Up until hearing this I was very much undecided on who I might vote for in the presidential election, but I am surely going to vote for Kerry.  This is a rather serious issue for me since I am 21 and am right in the age range the draft will target.  I know this is something being pushed by the Bush administration to send young people like me out to die in Iraq for reasons that are purely political and business-related that have nothing to do with my best interests.  I now pray that Bush doesn't win in November or I and many others will find ourselves in a desert getting shot at. Does this news motivate anyone else around my age to vote against Bush?


Rep. Charlie Rangel - NY, a democrat, is sponsoring the HR 163 bill in the house. His contention is that minorities are disproportionately represented in the military and that a draft would include more white middle class kids to take on the burden. Also it is a political ploy to raise fear and anxiety in an election year. The sponsor of the senate's version, S 89, is democrat Senator Ernest Hollings, SC.

Rep. Charlie Rangel - NY, a democrat, is sponsoring the HR 163 bill in the house. His contention is that minorities are disproportionately represented in the military and that a draft would include more white middle class kids to take on the burden. Also it is a political ploy to raise fear and anxiety in an election year. The sponsor of the senate's version, S 89, is democrat Senator Ernest Hollings, SC.



That's interesting.  I saw the statistics for Iraq last week.  So far, the racial breakout of our armed forces in iraq is almost identical to the population at large.  And as for the percentage of casualties by race, Whites and Hispanics are over-represented in the casualty figures, and Blacks are under-represented (howevere all figures were within +/- 1%, so the differences are probably just statistical "noise".

The people who are in the military today are there because they chose to.

What's next?  A forced basketball draft because there are too many blacks in the NBA?

And everyone knows that "Fritz" Hollings is the most racist man in Congress and that Representative Rangel is black. What's wrong with this picture? ::)


Rep. Charlie Rangel - NY, a democrat, is sponsoring the HR 163 bill in the house. His contention is that minorities are disproportionately represented in the military and that a draft would include more white middle class kids to take on the burden. Also it is a political ploy to raise fear and anxiety in an election year. The sponsor of the senate's version, S 89, is democrat Senator Ernest Hollings, SC.

I know what Rangel is trying to say in that sandpaper voice of his, but rich white boys always had an easier time getting out of the draft.  Back in 'Nam it was pretty easy to get a student deferment.  I've heard rumors that there will be no deferments if it comes back.  That's gonna be about as popular as beans on a bus trip.

Anyway,
I'd rather have a Miller Genuine Draft than a Military Draft!
:-\\

Rep. Charlie Rangel - NY, a democrat, is sponsoring the HR 163 bill in the house. His contention is that minorities are disproportionately represented in the military and that a draft would include more white middle class kids to take on the burden. Also it is a political ploy to raise fear and anxiety in an election year. The sponsor of the senate's version, S 89, is democrat Senator Ernest Hollings, SC.



This makes no sense anyway.  What we have today is a volunteer army.  If there are more minorities serving, that just means more minorities volunteered to serve. 

I know a guy who did time in the Coast Guard and was stationed for 2 years in Italy.  For the life
of me I can't find where the coast of the USA meets up with the coast of Italy.  Can someone
help me with this?


My Dad was in the Coast Guard during WWII, and was at the Normandy invasion.  They just never told him WHO'S coast he would be guarding.

That's interesting.  I saw the statistics for Iraq last week.  So far, the racial breakout of our armed forces in iraq is almost identical to the population at large.  And as for the percentage of casualties by race, Whites and Hispanics are over-represented in the casualty figures, and Blacks are under-represented (howevere all figures were within +/- 1%, so the differences are probably just statistical "noise".



So my companieros are dying at a higher rate than blacks?  Could that have to do with latinos becoming the majority of the US population? 

This makes no sense anyway.  What we have today is a volunteer army.  If there are more minorities serving, that just means more minorities volunteered to serve. 


It means that minorities had fewer options other than to serve,  To get a job, to get a college education
to get away.  You don't see upper middle and rich kids joining in to the fight. When/if  they do they have the education and/or family to assure them a commission.  They wouldn't want to have to take orders from someone in the lower classes would they?  Oh, am I bringing class into it?  Yes,  I am.

It means that minorities had fewer options other than to serve,  To get a job, to get a college education
to get away.  You don't see upper middle and rich kids joining in to the fight. When/if  they do they have the education and/or family to assure them a commission.  They wouldn't want to have to take orders from someone in the lower classes would they?  Oh, am I bringing class into it?   Yes,  I am.


So I guess that Pat Tillman is considered lower-class and poor?

Or two coworkers of mine, both college Engineering graduates, one who is a Ranger and the other who is infantry?  They are pulling down $70k per year and yet went to serve.

And the idea that Military Personnel (of any race) are representative of the "lower classes" is challenged by the fact that 96% of enlisted soldiers are high-school graduates, compared with only 75% of the comparable age group in the general population.

So I guess that Pat Tillman is considered lower-class and poor?

Or two coworkers of mine, both college Engineering graduates, one who is a Ranger and the other who is infantry?  They are pulling down $70k per year and yet went to serve.

And the idea that Military Personnel (of any race) are representative of the "lower classes" is challenged by the fact that 96% of enlisted soldiers are high-school graduates, compared with only 75% of the comparable age group in the general population.





You have to(or are supposed to) have a High School diploma to enlist.  If you do not have one they help you get your GED in order to enlist.

As usual, I think Doonata hit the nail on the head.  Both race and class have much to do with one's life chances.  She is also correct that one is required to have a high school diploma to enlist.  Certainly most "rich kids" have no interest in being put in harm's way. 

In Nam, lots of 2nd lts. got fragged becuase they were just middle class.

You have to(or are supposed to) have a High School diploma to enlist.  If you do not have one they help you get your GED in order to enlist.


Sounds like the Military is then helping them (the GED-getters) to improve themselves.

Sounds like the Military is then helping them (the GED-getters) to improve themselves.


No, they are passing them through to enlist them.

I support the military.  In lieu of more just and equitable civil institutions, the military has a great track record.  Service in the armed forces provides poor kids with great opportunities for vocational training, learning self discipline, and a sense of self worth.  I'm not saying it's a panacea, but it does help a great many people.
This doesn't mean I support crazy, heedless, unnecessary wars and Pentagon budgets bloated with defense contractor pork.

Right now, people in the military are there because they WANT to be there. What do you think will happen when you have a lot of people there who don't want to be there? Do you think this is GOOD? I don't. I have been in the military and yes, I have seen some people who thought they made a mistake by enlisting and couldn't wait to get out. So, they did almost anything they could to. (Well, I never saw anyone dress up like Klinger did but still). I think you have a stronger force by having people who WANT to be in, who are dedecated to the cause rather than someone who is just fullfilling an "obligation."




Cat

It is also true that a lot of people enter the military with a disneyfied view of there lives once they get in, that is why they try to recruit them so young.  A friends daughter wanted information about Mass Maritime a couple of years ago, she went to speak to a recruiter who guaranteed her admittance, and all kinds of other perks if she would just sign on the dotted line.  She decided to wait and talk it out with her parents who took a drive down to talk to the recruiter.  Well the story changed considerably.  Her father was actually very proud when she said she wanted into the military, but he was very unhappy with the tactics of the recruiter.  I can see where the military can be a good steppingstone for people, but it should not be limited to the military.  Americorps was a great idea, of course that has been almost completely dismantled, closing an option to those who want to serve their country in an alternative to the military.  That is not right.

Americorps was a great idea, of course that has been almost completely dismantled, closing an option to those who want to serve their country in an alternative to the military. 


Did these work in the community?  I know someone from Austria who managed to get on the community service option of national service when he finished university.  I think he ended up working in an old people's day centre or something.

Did these work in the community?  I know someone from Austria who managed to get on the community service option of national service when he finished university.  I think he ended up working in an old people's day centre or something.


Yes, it is a community service thing.  There is a senior corp for retirees who would like to do something for their community.  There is a stipend so it is a good way for seniors to make a couple of extra dollars to supplement their fixed income.  The funding has been seriously cut back.

I might be in the minority here, but IMO, community service of some sort should be a requirement for HS graduation for ALL students.  I don't think they should get paid, but they should be required to do something for their community in any way they can.  I think there are too many kids today who have it too easy and never learn the value of work.  If they had to spend some time actually "working" to help their community or those in need, they might get it ;)


It's already a requirement over here for both middle school and high school. And believe me, it's easy to fake your community service. Not that I know how or anything. *cough* *cough*

I might be in the minority here, but IMO, community service of some sort should be a requirement for HS graduation for ALL students.  I don't think they should get paid, but they should be required to do something for their community in any way they can.  I think there are too many kids today who have it too easy and never learn the value of work.  If they had to spend some time actually "working" to help their community or those in need, they might get it ;)



The local high school and the local college have manditory community service work. I too, think this is a good thing. Many of those who do help out in the community as part of a manditory requirement, go on to help out after that requirement was fullfilled.




Cat

The local high school and the local college have manditory community service work. I too, think this is a good thing. Many of those who do help out in the community as part of a manditory requirement, go on to help out after that requirement was fullfilled.




Cat


I agree that community service should be required for high school graduation, and that the military can be a good thing for some kids.  Too bad, though, that some see it as their only option.

This thread probably ought to be moved over to the political board.
Right now 40% of the soldiers in Iraq are drawn from the National Guard and Reserve units more than a year after the cessation of hostilities was declared.


We still have troops in Germany and Japan, almost 60 years after hostilities have ended.  We still have troops in South Korea, almost 50 years after hostilities have ended.

Our troops stay where they are needed, as long as they are needed.  If we pull out now, we are doing a great disservice to the people or Iraq.  Or do you really want to see a bloody civil-war break out between the various factions?

Rep. Charlie Rangel - NY, a democrat, is sponsoring the HR 163 bill in the house. His contention is that minorities are disproportionately represented in the military and that a draft would include more white middle class kids to take on the burden.


Interesting.  A voluntary service has to many minorities?  Last time I checked, it was VOLUNTARY!  People who want to join, join.  How can a voluntary system be raceist?

I know from my time in service a lot of people who joined from bad areas just to get OUT of those areas.  They saw the military as a way to get OUT of their situation, and make it on their own.  After all, how many jobs take you away from where you live, and make a new person out of you?

If anything is raceist, it is a draft.  Because the rich can get out of it and the poor can't.  I for one am against any form of draft.  I agree with the current registration system.  But short of World War III, I will remain against it.

This makes no sense anyway.  What we have today is a volunteer army.  If there are more minorities serving, that just means more minorities volunteered to serve. 


Exactly!

I remember the hot water that CBS got into when they tried to claim that the Navy Officer corps was raceist.

They showed how the percentage of black officers was far below the percentage of blacks in the general population.  According to them, that was raceist.

The Navy fired back, and showed how they had a very agressive recruiting system in place.  They could not control how many qualified applicants actually applied.  They then turned around and told CBS to look at the ENLISTED ranks.  For NCOs (E-4 and up) was at or above the national average.  And unlike Officers which meet high qualifications (including having a college degree), the NCO ranks only consist of people of high quality who entered to serve.

In my 10 years, probably ½ of the Staff NCO's I worked for (E6 and up) were minorities.  And as anybody who has served can tell you, these are the professionals that actually run the service.  This new threat of a draft has been around for over a year now, and is just so much hot air.  I hate when the military is used as a political football.

BTW, the Joint Chiefs have all said they do NOT want a draft, and almost every military expert has agreed that at this time, a draft is not needed.

Right now, people in the military are there because they WANT to be there. What do you think will happen when you have a lot of people there who don't want to be there? Do you think this is GOOD? I don't. I have been in the military and yes, I have seen some people who thought they made a mistake by enlisting and couldn't wait to get out. So, they did almost anything they could to. (Well, I never saw anyone dress up like Klinger did but still). I think you have a stronger force by having people who WANT to be in, who are dedecated to the cause rather than someone who is just fullfilling an "obligation."


I know exactly what you mean there.  And I have seen it myself.

In the early 1980's, I was stationed at a Naval Munitions Depot.  This was a rough job, that required 24-48 hour shifts, guarding live munitions and the occasional nuclear warhead.  The job sucked, and the hours were even worse.

This was during the interum "3 strikes" drug policy.  In other words, you had to be caught by a urinalisys test 3 different times before they could kick you out.  But because we were a higher security base, our limit was reduced to 2.  I know of over 10 people who used drugs, knowing that it would get them kicked out.

One big reason a draft would never work now is that we have a "1 strike" drug policy.  If we enacted a draft, you would see a LOT of kids use that just to get out.  And while that may not seem like a problem, imagine the number of people ineligable to work for the Federal Government or many other jobs, just because they wanted out of the service 10+ years before.

OK, now that I have spoken out against a draft, let me do an about-face.  :D

In many ways, I think a draft WILL help the country.

We have a big problem in the large cities with youth unemployment.  ANd I am sure we all know 19+ year old slackers, who will never do anything with their lives unless they are forced to.

I think a form of draft would be a good thing.  But it does not nessicarily have to be in the military.  I would like to see some sort of program, requireing everybody between 19 and 22 either be in school or working.  If they are not expanding their education or working, then they should be drafted.

There are a lot of public works projects that I think would help this country.  Inner-city cleanup, school maintenance, brush clearing in our forests to prefent wildfires, even highway cleanup.  Something to get the slackers off their butts, learning a skill, and earning a paycheck.

Americorps (once known as Vista) was the non-military, social service component that was an alternative to military service, but the funding was gutted. 

   There comes a point where I understand the idea of reinstating the draft. That we got into Iraq wrongly becomes irrelevant when one faces the question of how to actually protect the country (as opposed to merely saying you are) if our military ranks dwindle to dysfunction.

   In a country of 300,000,000, it seems more a herald of our decline, as we spend more and more on sharpening our blades and less and less on healing the wounds they bring.

   Of course, the "less and less" is merely an historical sarcasm of mine. Life could indeed surprise me in the form of running mandatory service that actually works toward a positive goal.

Lots of interesting points, but don't you think that the manditory extension of active duty a form of a draft?

Lots of interesting points, but don't you think that the manditory extension of active duty a form of a draft?


Not at all.

Everybody who joins actually joins for a period of 8 years.

When I first enlisted, it was for 4 years.  But if you read through the paperwork, it becomes obvious that it is really for 8 years.  The 4 is "Active Duty", and the next for are "Inactive Reserve".

In the "Inactive Reserve", you are on-call, but normally only in the event of a national emergency, or in the event that you are of a particularly vital skill (medical and translators for example).  If memory serves me, you could also opt to spent 2 years in the Active Reserve, and that would cover the 4 years of Inactive Reserve.

Of course, this was 20 years ago.  But I imagine it is largely the same.  And of course, in all of the contracts it also states discharge is in the "needs of the service".  When people are involuntarily held beyonf the end of their normal enlistment, there is actually a bonus/penalty that is paid to them.  It is something like an extra 50% of their base pay.  This can add up to quite a bit.

And since they enlisted, it is kinda hard to claim it is any kind of draft.

Not at all.

Everybody who joins actually joins for a period of 8 years.

When I first enlisted, it was for 4 years.  But if you read through the paperwork, it becomes obvious that it is really for 8 years.  The 4 is "Active Duty", and the next for are "Inactive Reserve".

In the "Inactive Reserve", you are on-call, but normally only in the event of a national emergency, or in the event that you are of a particularly vital skill (medical and translators for example).  If memory serves me, you could also opt to spent 2 years in the Active Reserve, and that would cover the 4 years of Inactive Reserve.

Of course, this was 20 years ago.  But I imagine it is largely the same.  And of course, in all of the contracts it also states discharge is in the "needs of the service".  When people are involuntarily held beyonf the end of their normal enlistment, there is actually a bonus/penalty that is paid to them.  It is something like an extra 50% of their base pay.  This can add up to quite a bit.

And since they enlisted, it is kinda hard to claim it is any kind of draft.


All this may be true, but several of the people forced to stay have suggested that they see it otherwise, and feel betrayed, at least according to news reports I have read.  Also, you seem to suggest a bit of deception in recruiting practices as well.   

The National Guard is calling it "backdoor draft."
;D

All this may be true, but several of the people forced to stay have suggested that they see it otherwise, and feel betrayed, at least according to news reports I have read.  Also, you seem to suggest a bit of deception in recruiting practices as well.   


Well, recruiters are basically salesmen.  While they do not "Lie", they will exagerate to make a "sale".

While "Maintenance Management" sounds like a kind of supervisor, in reality the people in this field are clerks.  "Fleet Security Specialist" sounds like a kind of SWAT position, not what it is, a Security Guard.  "Air-Naval Gunfire Liason" sounds like a job where you handle communications between aircraft and artillary.  That is exactly what it is, but they do not tell you that you are often 5-10 miles INSIDE enemy lines when you are doing it (in the old days, it was called "Forward Observer").  "Legal Affairs Specialist" sounds like a lawyer-in-training.  All it is is a clerk for the REAL lawyers, and most of the job is filling out forms and typing.

When I enlisted in 1982, it was for a position as a "Security Specialist".  I took it because it was far away from the career I wanted to get away from (computers), and that 95% of the posts are outside the United States.  And while I was aware that a requirement for the duty meant I would be in the Infantry first, I believed the recruiter that I could leave the Infantry at a later date.

My hopes were dashed when instead of being stationed in a remote area like Guam or Panama or the Philippines, I was stationed just outside of Long Beach, less then an hour from my home in Los Angeles.  ;D  But I do not blame this on the recruiter, because the Marines place you where you are needed, not where you want to go.  But the good side was that after I finished 4 years there, I *WAS* transfered to an Infantry unit, where I was finally able to travel and spend a considerable amount of time overseas.

And as for being able to transfer out of the Infantry, that again is true and not true.  As long as your field of specialty is "Over-manned" in your rank, you can transfer to another field.  But since Infantry is almost chronically short in the ranks of Private through Sergeant, I was not in long enough to raise to a rank where I could get out.  But there are other positions (like Armorer) where transfers out are easy because above Corporal, the filed is over-manned.