The Draft


This is a good time to crank up the lottery get all the wild 'n crazy young men off the streets put an end to gang bangers , a 2 year hitch can do wonders , the military however doesn't want them I can understand that but many young men need a sense of direction and with a little help can become productive . :idea:
I think it has it's place like during WW2 when the army needed say 7 million men.

Eh. Just in my opinion, not even then, because it is not easy to ask someone to give their life for his/her country. It is even harder to tell them to do it.
Better to see the lads as burden on taxpayers , drugs , gangbangers , incarceration cost between 35k and 45k a year and we get nothing for the money .
The draft or mandatory military service is not a bad thing. There are limitations what a country can do with an army of conscripts. If the purpose of the military is to defend the homeland, then it works pretty good. The good thing is all human resources of a country are going into the military, or at least 50% of the resources unless the females are doing it too. The conscripts cannot be deployed abroad unless they have really good reasons to do so.

The mandatory military is beneficial for small countries when a professional military is to small to defend the country, but again that also depends on where it is and if the country is threaten by its neighbors or not. Israel comes to my mind here. A small country and only 5 million people (more or less) They cannot rely on a professional military.
No I was a volunteer , was going to be sent there anyway so I asked to sent to the 1st Cav instead was sent to the 1st aviation Brigade , makes sense .
No I was a volunteer , was going to be sent there anyway so I asked to sent to the 1st Cav instead was sent to the 1st aviation Brigade , makes sense .

That's the Army for ya. They'll send you where ever they feel like sending ya.

On the flip side, one of the challenges with a draft is that when they get to basic. They have a bad attitude, hate the Army, hate the government, and don't want to be there. That's where the saying you'll be disciplined or you'll be the most physically fit soldier in the Army comes in.
I think it is a question of pragmatism. The US military has historically been successful with a conscript Army throughout history. The Rev war, 1812, Mex-Amer, Civil War, WWI, and WWII were all won with conscripted militaries. Korea and Vietnam were also fought with largely conscripted militaries which meant most people had skin in the fight.

I think that if the US decides we are to go to war, then some form of national service should be required so that everyone is involved in the war. That will help bridge the gap in the massive chasm that has formed between the military and the civilian population in this country. It will also help ensure we are going to war for the right reasons. The population would have never allowed a 13+ years war be fought continuously with a conscripted military. With an all volunteer has and it will because we are easily forgotten about or it is justified in the public's mind as "well they volunteered so they get what they get".

On the other hand, that should be the ONLY time conscription should be used. It is not the militaries job to discipline the youth of America. It is not the militaries job to give a sense of patriotism or appreciation for their country to the youth of America. It is the militaries job to fight and win Americas wars PERIOD.

Just my two cents...
In my day a 6 year military obligation was just part of the social contract we were born into.
The lottery came after 1969. I graduated HS in 1965 and the draft was run somewhat unfairly. Too many deferments for too many reasons.
The lottery smoothed that out.
Generally a draftee did 2 years if called and got whatever MOS and duty that was assigned to him. In the 50s, guys did a couple years, had some adventures in Germany and Japan and all were proud to do it.
VN took a lot more guys and of course bad things happened to some.
Overall, most guys have a positive attitude about having served and feel that it matured them. Some say different. Studies indicate that guys who had problems would likely have had them anyway.

I absolutely believe in mandatory service. We can see the damage being done to our society without it. Too many punks and freeloaders who feel they are owed something for nothing.
It will get worse, no doubt.
It is a chief source of the "thankyouforyourservice" BS. Somehow some people feel if they spew this, they are relieved from any personal responsibility of their own.
Ever notice on these boards how many serious enthusiasts have never served for 5 minutes?
A military has to be developed and maintained-not just some sporadic activity to meet the random necessity.
As brinktk pointed out, it is not the military's job to make respectable men and women out of the "punks" roaming the streets. That's someone else's job. The military teaches discipline and respect of course, but it is not out job to make functioning members of society.
One can easily see that the young men of today are going to be a burden on the taxpayer one way or the other by placing them in the Military it will do one of two things they will either take flight to Canada and be that Country's problem or Be taught respect and values by a good DI .
With discipline and respect come maturity and responsibility-inevitable part of the process.

I have know hundreds of vets over the years and discussed this subject a lot.
Most agree.

Fleeing to Canada during VN was against the law if you ignored your call.
Sadly, Jimmy Carter pardoned those criminals and rubbed our noses in it.

The draft has been gone so long that naturally youngsters cannot fathom the practice.

Overall the military had good experience with draftees-not all.
Many guys enlisted just ahead if the draft in order to get a better choice.
I was about next from my hometown in 1966.
This always gets left out.
Lucky for me there were lots of open Airborne Infantry slots.
Don't get me wrong, serving your country is great. But I just don't agree with the practice. Trying to teach someone drill, combat navigation, and other essential skills is like pulling g teeth when they don't want to learn.
I served in the U.S. Army at a time when the draft provided the majority of the personnel. The standards for everything were much lower than they are now with an all-volunteer force.
I used to subscribe to an Army professional publication on armored warfare. The tactics, techniques even the terminology today are so complex, I simply did not renew my subscription when it ran out. I didn't know what they were talking about. In the conscription days, everything had to be 'dumbed down" because there was no point in teaching a lot of complex methods to short service personnel and because the level of motivation was much lower. I don't like the idea of a military force manned by only a small percentage of the population, but it appears to be a necessary evil.
If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had been fought by conscripted soldiers, they would have ended long ago. The public would not have stood for combat of that duration. Therein lies the problem. The kind of actions being fought now will go on for decades because you are not fighting a state. There is no center-of-gravity to attack. So for protracted conflict, a professional force is needed.