SeanRenaud's tags:
SeanRenaud reads (4):
I've constantly heard people claiming we should bring back the draft, I strongly disagree but I'm going to try present this in a fair and balanced way just stating the pros and cons of it.
 
On the pros side
1. We would (in theory) have more prominant members of society serving in our military.  If more Congressmens sons and daughters were serving in the military they would be less likely to send our troops to war.
 
2.  Instead of a military made up exclusively of people who couldn't get into college and get a good job we'd have an even mixture of society.
 
3.  The military money spent on recruiting could be spent in other ways.
 
4.  We would also be less likely to find ourselves short of soldiers.
 
On the Con side.
 
1.  We would have lower morale just as a given.  People who WANT to be someplace are happier by definition than those who are told to be some place.
 
2.  Lower Quality soldiers.  We might not be getting the best of the best in our military but there are various tests and standards that need to be met (until we start talking waivers) we aren't just throwing our hands into a hat and pulling out names.
 
3.  Congress would have family in the war.  I've always felt that leadership needs to be divorced from its military to an extent that they think of soldiers as tools to accomplish missions not as human beings.  I don't think that I could send my father, daughter close friend or even the vast majority of associates off to die but that is what happens in war. 
 
Now that we are in retrospect we have the ability to think about the individuals that were involved with World War 2, and Normandy beach.  They deserve it.  At the time the people making the decisions needed to look down say we lost X but we gained Z and move on.
 
In short I think that they might make the wrong decisions to protect loved ones.
 
What do you think?


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Jun 08, 2007....
    will return to this once i've thought it over a bit more.

    ed
  • bloc said on Jun 08, 2007....
    so many points I'd like to make on this topic. I'll try to limit it to the most important, or maybe the most fun ;)

    First, you failed to mention that biggest down side of a draft. It is not compatible with real freedom. If we are a free society then we are free to not join the military.

    Second:
    "1.  We would have lower morale just as a given.  People who WANT to be someplace are happier by definition than those who are told to be some place."

    Isn't this also an argument for not forcing soldiers to deploy that are already in the military ;)

    "2.  Lower Quality soldiers. "

    I don't buy this. We have lower the standards BECAUSE we don't have a draft. They can't get enough people so they keep dropping the standard. We could have kept the standard higher if we'd had a draft.

    "2.  Instead of a military made up exclusively of people who couldn't get into college and get a good job we'd have an even mixture of society."

    you forgot the most important one. People who couldn't afford to go to college but were plenty smart.

    Now the most important point.
    "I've always felt that leadership needs to be divorced from its military to an extent that they think of soldiers as tools to accomplish missions not as human beings.  I don't think that I could send my father, daughter close friend or even the vast majority of associates off to die but that is what happens in war. "

    I believe the opposite. You would send, or be able to accept, your loved ones going to war if the war were just and urgent! Iraq is a debacle and never would have happened if they had to send their loved ones. However, I fully believe that we still would have gone into WWII after pearl harbor EVEN IF they had to send their loved ones.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jun 08, 2007....
    I'll just hit on your last point for now.
     
    I don't think that I could send my brother to the beaches of Normandy.   Or to Iwo Jima.  Those were both necessary but the casualties and the expected casualties were very high.  That's worthy of another blog so let me go post that and then get back on some of your other points.
  • TinSoldier said on Jun 08, 2007....
    1. We would (in theory) have more prominant members of society serving in our military.  If more Congressmens sons and daughters were serving in the military they would be less likely to send our troops to war.

    No we wouldn't. Those in power have always had ways of avoiding this. It would have to be a matter of public shame not to serve to make it stick -- and that's not the case now. Even if we had a draft.

    "2.  Lower Quality soldiers. "

    I don't buy this. We have lower the standards BECAUSE we don't have a draft. They can't get enough people so they keep dropping the standard. We could have kept the standard higher if we'd had a draft.

    I have to agree with Sean on this one. Even when services lower standards to meet quotas, the standards are still much higher than they were during the times when this country had a draft.

    I disagree with a draft unless the very survival of the country was on the line.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jun 09, 2007....
    The fact is that it is hard to prove it either way.  Today's soldiers are generally smarter (test higher on the ASVAB) than at any time before.  But we are almost without a doubt less physically capable.  Thing is that we don't have an objective way of measuring it.  So unless we can find some way of measuring it this is unfortunately a dead end argument.
     
    To your other question bloc, yes it would also logically extend to only deploying soldiers to places they wanted to go.  That currently isn't the way the system works and it sucks on both ends.  People who want to go end up staying stateside and people who want to stay end up going.  It would be interesting to see if we could fix or atleast better that part of the system.
  • silverwhisper said on Jun 10, 2007....
    sean, i don't know that ASVAB results--or results on any other tests--are necessarily a good metric because the manner in which tests are designed and evaluated inevitably changes, too. in some areas, soldiers now are getting better educations in the public school system; in others, perhaps not.

    i marginally oppose a draft mainly because there's no clear understanding of how many soldiers are needed and/or for how long. i also don't know that the costs associated with this would be greater or lesser than increasing financial incentives for already-active soldiers or the costs for increasing quality of housing/VA for servicemen and women.

    does anyone know where such figures could be obtained?

    ed
  • SeanRenaud said on Jun 11, 2007....
    As for your first point I tried to make that point though not as well as you.  It is very difficult if not impossible to compare todays military to the military of yesteryear on any basis.
     
    Honestly I doubt that such figures your asking for even exist.  You could probably formulate them if we could get the basics of how much is actually spent per soldier in terms of total everything.  Pay, medication, housing etc etc and then try to figure how much we would have to pay to get people to do it.

Comment on "Bring back the Draft!"

draft war (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

will be known...
...next generation. My son goes to Iraq in six days.......
Teacher hitting on me and my boyfriend blaming me for it....
I am a 23 year old war veteran, I don't mean like i went to iraq and sit on a base. I was an airborne infantrymen in the 82nd airborne and we kicked ass in plenty of places. I got a purple heart for a gunshot wound and one for getting hit with an IED. I...
It is interesting that people "say" they want peace on earth but see it as a far away thing that they have not much, if anything , to do with. Peace begins with me is an age old saying and is infact a song that is sang all over the world at every gat...