If the Obama campaign doesn’t jump all over this, I am seriously going to doubt their competency to run a proper McCain.
Via Think Progress
QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
[Appaluse]
MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.
Please share widely!
we didn’t hear his whole response. unless you can provide a video of his full response, it is pointless to go further.
18 to 50, no exceptions — anyone in reasonable health. Gays? Absolutely. And no exceptions means no college deferment.
<
p>I think that would really broaden our foreign policy discussions, if we all had to go.
<
p>
While there is no discussion of events in Georgia and Europe currently on this listserv:
<
p>1. Russia has not withdrawn as of today.
<
p>2. Russia is taking Georgian POWs and parading them around.
<
p>3. Russia is seizing the military hard ware that the USA had loaned to Georgia for war games.
<
p>4. Russia is continuing to threaten Poland for daring to put in a missle defense system.
<
p>C’mon. What do we do if there is more conventional warfare erupting in Europe? Our volunteer army has been sucked dry, as has the National Guard.
<
p>So let me be the shin-kicker here – what would we do if Russian tanks roll across the Polish border?
<
p>Also, we have outsourced and scrapped our own ability to make steel and the basics of conventional warfare. Tell me I am wrong.
<
p>And that does NOT mean I “want war” or want McCain. But there had better be a solid plan in place given real events that are actually going on NOW.
There is still a steel industry here, but I think your point is a very good one. We’ve outsourced so much of our capacity – think we can outsource our troop need to Asia too?
But I don’t think Russia will invade Poland.
But they are very well positioned to do what they failed to do from 1945-1989, and that is isolate the United States from Western Europe. Indeed, our policy for the past six years has been to do this voluntarily.
<
p>This division, plus the American military weakness as a result of the toll of the Iraq war, opens up options for Russia in Europe beyond the Soviet’s wildest dreams. For the moment, this probably means that they will be able to re-consolidate their near-abroad. They will stay in Georgia, and there really isn’t a thing that we can do about it. Probably much of Central Asia as well.
<
p>I imagine that the pro-Western governments in Ukraine and Poland are now very nervous indeed.
<
p>Either Obama or McCain has one hell of a difficult job ahead.
Russia, ie Vladimir Putin is now on a roll and Putin is fully cognizant that USA is now a paper tiger. Of corse we have nukes, but no one in the world will use a nuke until the other guy does because it is counter productive—it’s doomsday and their is no winner. Conventional and economic
warfare on the other hand have clear winners.
<
p>years ago when Uncle ted et al clamored for the end of the “draft” I siad—-this will be the classic unintended consequence and we are now there. Our military is a shell.
<
p>During the early Clinton administration I was forced to retire from the military due to downsizing. The Clinton administration took a cleaver to DoD. No new gear, no parts, no training, no new warm bodies. And this is where we now sit.
<
p>Putin is like the cheschire cat feeding us the rope with which to hang ousselves. To be perfectly honest, I think USA has gone beyond the point of no return. I don’t think it is politically possible to resume a draft (compulsory militray service). On top of that, I would suggest that the youth of this nation are by and large unadaptable to military service. The women of this country have more spine than the males.
<
p>Bottom line is that UA had better get used to listenting very intently to Russia and China because from herin on out——they will be calling the shots. Russia and China both have self discipline, strength of purpose, a system of core values, the ability to suffer and excel when faced with adversity and deprivation and patriotism. USA is lacking on all counts.
<
p>
I was almost agreeing with you there for a moment, and then you went crazy.
<
p>The volunteer military is among the most significant reasons why our armed forces enjoy the dominance that they do. Professional soldiers are better than conscripted soldiers and always have been. Since Vietnam we have replaced most or all of the weapons systems with very, very high tech computer intensive systems that require far, far more education and training than did earlier systems. Thus the success of systems like the Aegis for the Navy and the M1-A1 for the Army. One or two Abrams with good crews provide an awful lot more firepower than an awful lot of M-48s or T-64s, as Saddam discovered to his great cost in 1992.
<
p>Conscription achieves getting a lot of warm bodies into uniform, which was a useful strategy until this transformation began happening post-Vietnam. It simply doesn’t make sense in the context of modern weapons systems.
<
p>Part of the design of the modern military is that it is not designed for a long grind. Instead, it is designed to smash the enemy quickly and decisively. That’s why it is OK that it takes longer to crank out F-22s than it once did B-17s.
<
p>That the military is a shell at present is not due to the all-volunteer military, but its protracted abuse by the civilian leadership during this Iraq conflict, which has prevented talented people from enlisting, and caused talented people to seek discharge if they can, which has caused the armed forces to admit volunteers that may or may not be able to be educated and trained as required, and which has shortchanged repair and maintenance of existing equipment for reasons that escape me.
<
p>You seem to long for the days of stacks and stacks of infantry divisions. While this might be nice for your ego, it wouldn’t help us fight the enemies that we face, and wouldn’t aid the achievement of any goal that we have.
for LGBTs who don’t want to be drafted. Since we have been forbidden first from serving, then from serving openly and honestly, a generation of LGBT citizens should be allowed to waive the “honor” of being drafted. Like hell I’d agree for LGBT people to be drafted now that cannon fodder is needed more than ever. You straight people can reap what you’ve sewn for a while to make it up to us.
No gays were involved in the development of U.S. foreign policy?
<
p>No gays were involved in the development of Don’t ask don’t tell? (No, I am not defending it.)
<
p>No exceptions.
You know full well that gays have never had majority influence in much of anything at any level of government, least of all federal. If we did, I sure wouldn’t be haunting these pages with “please don’t write us out of ANOTHER constitution”!
<
p>Just who are all these gay people who are responsible for foreign policy? C’mon, I want names. And I want evidence that they formed some sort of majority and that they were responsible for aiming us off the cliff.
<
p>And blaming gays for DADT is just ugly. Really stinking ugly.
You misunderstood me. I am not blaming gays for either thing, I am merely saying there are gays everywhere, at every level of government. And I am sure you would agree that gays are not monolithic — some are foreign policy hawks. I don’t know whose view carried the day, but you can’t tell me the Clinton administration had no gay advisers when they set that policy.
<
p>My point is, once we start carving out exceptions, we’re back to the “volunteer” army, and that frees too many of us from taking responsibility for U.S. military actions. We ought to share that responsibility, and it ought to affect how we vote and live.
<
p>Because we’d be a LOT more reluctant to get into global conflicts.
then we can all have an equal share in serving in the military. not before. sorry. have fun over there.
Hopefully it will take less than a generation.
<
p>Should I add that a lot of people don’t feel like they have full shares in citizenship? No, I probably shouldn’t add that.
<
p>I don’t suppose you’d reconsider the troll rating? I believe that is a first.
feel like they have less than a fair share. but we lgbt’s don’t even have the legal basics: equal protection of the laws. other groups can claim the same if they want, or not. their claims don’t change the lgbt situation. equality under the law isn’t a zero sum game.
sorry, i’m going to let it stand. that was a truly offensive comment.
If you were truly offended, I’m sorry.
<
p>My point was inclusiveness, not blame. A 100% game.
<
p>Equal rights, equal responsibility, for all.
Can you imagine any politician proposing to reinstate the draft, except if you’re gay?
<
p>First, the gays would object, because they’re not being treated equally.
<
p>Next, everyone else would object because they’re not being treated equally.
<
p>Then, anyone who didn’t want to serve would come out of the closet, and the government would spend a bazillion dollars on some sort of ‘gay test’.
<
p>So I’d score “excepting gays from any kind of draft as a matter of policy” about a 11 on the 1 to 10 when-Pigs-Fly O’meter.
Would you put a draft? Any draft.
i said gays could opt out. that is not the same thing as not being called to the drafted in the first place.
<
p>but who cares really, since this is all so far fetched. we’re not going to have a draft, but if we did it would happen under mccain, and he’ll never let the fags serve freely. unlikely he’d require women to register either. he’s that old fashioned, forced-birth type of heterosupremecist, by crackity.
Why on Earth would you ask or expect “We straight people” to help the LBGT community obtain full and equal rights?
<
p>Arguing to eliminate DADT from one side of one’s mouth and that the LBGT should be draft-exempt from the other side of one’s mouth makes for one very big mouth methinks.
i’m sick of having all the responsibilities of citizenship without all the bennies. it goes much deeper than dadt. surely you can see that. if you can’t stand to hear frustration now and then from people being held down without calling the big mouths, i wonder where your priorities really are.
I mind when the someone for whom I fight for equal rights now doesn’t want equal rights when it suits her.
<
p>With rights come responsibility. I believe that all Americans should have them. Just as folks of all sexuality should be allowed to serve, if any are required, all should be required.
<
p>How can you expect me to be supportive when you bust out a “you straight people” comment? It’s no different than you gay people or you black people or you women or you Catholics, and it’s all but guaranteed to be divisive, an “us vs. them” dichotomy.
<
p>
<
p>If you want straight people to be the allies of the LGBT community on gay issues, don’t turn around and be divisive. Then, you have the nerve to question my priorities, when you’re the one dropping straight bombs and working damn hard to alienate the majority that the GBLT community needs to obtain the equal rights that they deserve?
and stated heatedly. Hyperbole for emphasis and effect. Cut her some slack.
and if it was so, my bad. Of course, she could have pointed that out in her response instead of questioning my priorities instead…
I said UNTIL I have equal rights , I refuse equal responsibilities. So on the draft issue specifically, Uncle Sam can draft me, but until I am equal under ALL law, I insist on the right to serve or not serve, depending on what I as an LGBT individual want to do. Just changing DADT at a time when we’re really strapped for troops isn’t gonna cut it with me. A good start, but don’t stop there. Remember, you’re asking me to fight for a Constitution and legal system that too often explicitly excludes me. How whacked is that? So the straight people RESPONSIBLE for keeping that policy and other bigoted laws in place can pay the ultimate price for their brutality by not being allowed to refuse to serve, while I can. Even after all the laws are made and applied equally, I will require that a generation LGBTs have the continued right of refusal. Think of it as restitution.
<
p>I hope my thinking is more clear now.
… your point. However, I did think of something that I think is worth pointing out. Blacks that served in WWII and later were in a similar position. I’d be surprised, however, if a case could be made that the inexorable push toward civil rights was helped more by the blacks that didn’t serve than by the blacks that did.
<
p>Also a little technicality… a generation of LGBTs having a right of refusal while “laws are made and applied equally” is oxymoronic.
<
p>Personally, I think that when a country enacts the powers that it can which are dictatorial in nature, the manner in which it does so is a window into it’s values. Granted that the values the US would demonstrate in including LGBT’s in a draft are probably much more “we’re desperate” than “we’re for equality”. I suspect, however, that in 20 years when we will have had many LGBT’s serve openly, we’ll look back on a future history in which our culture assimilated more values for equality as a result of LGBT’s service, even if it’s first implementation was (will be) misguided in terms of the values demonstrated in its implementation.
Remember, blacks also served in WW1 and returned home to what was effectively unofficial slavery in the south. Their service did nothing to advance civil rights, because the power brokers in the country still despised them too much, and still found it more profitable to keep them as human donkeys. Certainly LGBTs are in a better position now than blacks were in the early 20th century. In fact, there is no comparison. However, I’m not convinced that we are in a strong enough position that mandatory service per se would necessarily advance our cause. What might advance our cause is just what is happening now: LGBT individuals freely choosing to serve, being open about it and keeping the spotlight on how unfairly they’re treated.
<
p>Also remember, just because there is mandatory service doesn’t mean DADT would be repealed, and so we would be a) forced to fight for other peoples freedom, and b) have to continue lying about ourselves. Everyone assumes that DADT is going to be repealed soon. Why this optimism when we have such a terribly timid presidential candidate and a Congress proven to be “enlightened” laggards? I’ll believe it when I see it. Teddy Roosevelt, who was the 1st president to curry the black vote, notoriously pardoned one of the worst of the post-“emancipation” slavers for his purchase, enslavement and brutally forcing labor from black citizens. Why do we believe Obama would be any more upright than TR? Like DADT, I’ll believe it when I see it, and I’ll be happy to eat my words of cynicism.
<
p>I disagree that my scheme is oxymoronic, unless you’re talking about only the time AFTER we have full legal equality. In that case, I’m happy to hear your suggestion for other forms of restitution.
… advanced equality is because bigotry is lessened by familiarity. The more one is exposed to other thinking, the more one becomes tolerant of other thinking. Young people routinely go off to college and come back home more tolerant of other ideas than when they left as a result of this exposure. This is one of the reasons conservatives are convinced universities are liberal institutions. For this reason I’d wager that the familiarity that service created by blacks that served covered some distance in advancing stamping out bigotry. More to the point I’d say that blacks that served in a segregated military created more familiarity than not having blacks serve at all, and that blacks serving in an integrated military created more familiarity than blacks serving in segregation.
<
p>I’m not saying anyone is wrong to be pissed off. After all, equality shouldn’t be something anyone has to ‘earn’, and any context that says they should is anti-equality by definition. I am saying that when it comes to progress against bigotry, the minorities that served did indeed advance the culture further down the right path, whatever the context.
that is part of why DADT must go. it is useless to serve invisibly if breaking down barriers is a goal. this is the evil genius of DATD. so just serving per se is worthless on this issue. or at least, until you’ve retired and can speak freely.
Take a look at the photos that I posted in the Russian/Georgian URL. US Army is not a whole lot different. I certainly would not want to be an individual who would cause much “agitation” when there are folks walking around with weapons, live rounds, and folks actively killing each other.
<
p>This is reality—-not nirvana.
you think american troops are so poorly trained and so animalistic that they’d just slaughter all the gays. i disagree. no doubt there will be some growing pains (after all, we’re giving waivers for felons to join the ranks these days). but this will be a case where the civil and military leadership gets to show the country that they can actually lead. are they up for the challenge, or are they pieces of worm shit? i think they’ll want to prove they’re worth all the investment we’ve made in them.
At least 90% of them. But I would not want to be someone who causes great controversy in a line company.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
<
p>http://www.newdemocracyworld.o…
<
p>http://www.eugenelinden.com/Fr…
<
p>The “enemy” is not always the guy wearing a different uniform. What you don’t and refuse to understand is the myriad and swirl of emotions generated by people who face imminent and sudden death and dismemberment.
<
p>People who would never bother another human being do some pretty strange things in combat. There are rules that govern conduct in war. The rules generally get thrown out once the lead and steel start flying. Quit blaming the messenger. This stuff happens.
<
p>And if you choose to demean the military, per se as the result,—-they are the thin green line that seperates you from say—-Shiite muslims, Nazis, fascists, and other despots that think that human rights are simply a joke.
<
p>
… go the way of segregation within the military. There isn’t a really good reason for it other than to institutionalized bigotry. As such, the policy itself is a distraction from the military’s bureaucratic mission to keep and maintain a ready military.
Political hacks maintain bureaocracy.
… in combat. That is a rarity. The mission for the other 90% of the time is to be ready to “kill the enemy and destroy his will to resist.” Being ready is an awesome bureaucratic job. There is a reason the pentagon is so huge and it isn’t about killing the enemy so much as maintaining the actual and human machinery of the military in order to maintain readiness. The US has learned from ancient times that this bureaucracy is of key importance if you want a dominant military. Ask the ancient Romans.
But it’s just plain silly.
<
p>Women should get to vote twice for about a hundred years, since other women weren’t allowed to vote at all for about a hundred, right?
<
p>Blacks should get to work for double pay for about a hundred years or so, since other blacks were forced to work for free for about a hundred, right?
<
p>Come to think of it, all those “Irish need not apply” help wanted signs probably mean the Irish are due for a few decades of double unemployment benefits.
<
p>Think of it as restitution.
<
p>
<
p>Which straight people would that be? Nearly all of the people, gay and straight, who are responsible for those policies or who have the authority to change them are either too old to serve or dead, including current state and federal legislators and executive branch leaders.
<
p>It’s certainly not my fault. It’s certainly not your fault. We both believe that GBLTs should have equal rights in the workforce, the voting booth, the home, at school, and get equal protection under the law. If we’re both physically fit and of the right age, why shouldn’t we both be asked to serve?
<
p>Asking for more than equality [like, say, restitution] is a sure way to piss in the well. Then again, continuing to set up this false straight vs. GBLT dichotomy is too, as is questioning someone else’s priorities when you do it. Go figure.
just say so. I know not everyone does. And I am under no illusions that there ever will be restitution. But sometimes demanding it is the only way to make people take stock of the magnitude of what they’ve stolen from you. It is that very magnitude that guarantees we’ll never get the restitution. I doubt we’ll ever even get an apology. But what we will get is a little understanding and humility in the people who never stopped to think of why it’s all such a big deal to those whiny queers. And don’t worry, I’m not going to be made the spokesperson for this effort. I’m sure someone will be chosen who doesn’t demand her listeners to have skins thicker than the finest of rice paper.
… the likelihood of “a little understanding” is greatly enhanced with familiarity. Bigotry can sometimes be described as a lack of empathy. Identifying someone as ‘other’ is so much easier when you don’t know them personally.
i agree, unless the usa or western europe is under substantial bombardment. then a draft will be reinstated.
On top of that —–it is already too late. USA is too vulnerable. Russia/China can do whatever they like. Europe and USA are essntially eunuchs. So it’s all a moot point, much ado about nothing.
<
p>If the balloon goes up. A million of our young folks in the military will be thrown into the breach—they will be killed and USA will will sue for peace. At the present, that is how the chess board is set up.
<
p>China & Russia have endured and are currently enduring degrees of privation, something that USA is unwilling and unable to do. That’s why the Russians and the Chinese will prevail.
Certainly not for this scenario. In a free country nobody should be forced to put their lives on the line unless the nation is under sustained threat of military attack. In case you’re wondering, WWII is the most recent conflict that meets my criteria for a justifiable draft. We have a supurb military which I hope could be redeployed in heartbeat to meet real threats. We should also increase incentives, but it should not be coercive.
How high do the incentives have to get, before you and I go?
<
p>I’m not trying to be righteous here, I never served. But I know that I am LUCKY not to have served. I protested the first Gulf War — was that enough? Should I have run for Congress or something as an antiwar candidate? Would that have been enough?
<
p>I think the volunteer army is largely — not entirely — a myth. Those of us who had other options took advantage of those options.
<
p>If you’re a liberal, you’re concerned about poverty, right? You believe in opportunity for all. Well, put up. (And please don’t come back and tell me you’re a “progressive” by way of answering.)
<
p>What did you hear during the early years of this war? “Americans are not being asked to sacrifice anything.” Well, that was true, and it was a problem, and it is one of the reasons the war happened.
<
p>
…but I’m not sure I quite understand your points.
<
p>As to incentives, it won’t work for me; I simply have no interest, though physical limitations would probably keep me out of combat anyway. You of course will have to answer this question for yourself.
<
p>I’m not sure what the question about being enough refers to.
<
p>How did poverty enter the equation? Certainly I’m all for expanding a variety of opportunities. When I refered to incentives, I was talking about pay and benefits for serving.
<
p>As for sacrifice, I’m not sure what there is to sacrifice. We’re not in a position like the World Wars when the only way our forces would have enough is if civilians gave something up. We have the greatest armed forces on the planet. We should have focused on cleaning up Afghanistan which attacked us in effect. I’m all for helping another country repel a blatant invasion if we have the resources, but it is not justification for a draft.
A guy I know not all that well once asked me if I cook. I was sort of fumbling for an answer, because I barely cook, and he said, “I just have no interest.” So then I realized that he has no interest because he doesn’t have to — his wife cooks. Then I had my answer: “I have no interest in cooking either, but I do have an interest in eating, so I try to help when I can.”
<
p>I think of this politically, in part. We’re a democratic society, paying through the nose for that awesome military. I happen to think we should cut defense spending, and every Democrat I ever voted for probably agrees. But yet, politically, the Democratic Party falls to its knees on every military budget vote, “support the troops,” etc. So what do we do? We turn to guys like Wesley Clark to fight our military battles, so to speak. And whenever it feels like it, the GOP waves the flag and we cave. We call Bush and Cheney chickenhawks, but WE never served, did we? So where does all this leave us?
<
p>It leaves us with literal bills to pay. So I say we need a rational discussion of the military and its use, absent the flag waving. One way to get there is universal service. It may not be the only way, it may not be the best way, but it’s a step.
<
p>
I’d be more inclined to support this concept if it were expanded to include a variety of volunteer opportunities and not just military service. I don’t think every person who supports military usage but didn’t serve is a chickenhawk. The thing with many in this administration is that they were of age during an active draft and they ducked.
<
p>I would use our military first to defend ourselves, second to defend others, third for humanitarian/peacekeeping action.
<
p>This isn’t about respect for or the necessity of a profession. I hope we have the best doctors, but I have no interest in medicine; I hope the fire department comes when I need it, but I don’t want to be a firefighter. If you’ll forgive the Biblical reference I very much adhere to Paul’s concept of one body, many parts in his Epistle to the Corinthians. His point is that every member of a church (or society) has something to contribute. We should neither be critical of ourselves or others for following our respective chosen paths.
Draft the doctors first. The firefighters have gone first, for too long.
Then do some research on the instant Iraqi incursion re logistics. USA has some very, serious problems regarding our ability to defend ourselves. We have painted ourselves into a corner. Our submarine deterrent is a doomsday option that is insurmountable. Only problem is that most or earth’s populations will not survive.
<
p>If I were Boris Putin I would begin to reassemple the Soviet Union. I would reinstate the Warsaw Pact. I would instigate a free for all between Israel/Syria/Iraq. I would then take full advantage of the world energy calamity and within five years Russia will be numero uno.
Can’t happen? Wait and see. I looked into Putin’s soul and saw Joeph Stalin.
nobody should be required to surrender their freedom to the military. When I was drafted in 1967, it sure looked to me like slavery. Do whatever I was told, 24 hours a day. A completely separate system of justice (UCMJ), with harsh penalties for infractions like exercising free speech. None of that Bill of Rights crap. Involuntary servitude, isn’t it?
<
p>When I got on the plane to Vietnam, I thought there was a real good chance it was a one-way trip. Fortunately, I made it back. Except I wasn’t the same person. Once, I might have thought about Bush ducking into a pretend ANG role, or Cheney having “other priorities” and just shrugged. The rich aren’t like us, after all. After I came back, those things make me angry. People like me had their freedom – and in too many instances, their lives – snatched away so that privileged drunks like Bush & Cheney wouldn’t have to risk anything for their fathers’ stupid policies. Watching those clowns ruin the lives of another generation of soldiers makes me hate them even more.
<
p>A lot of guys who were drafted said, “I had to do it. Everybody should have to do it.” I didn’t feel that way. To me it was wrong. Doing other people wrong wasn’t going to make me feel better, and it wasn’t going to make it right.
<
p>You want to have some kind of national service? I won’t support it unless your conscripts have all the rights of citizenship, and the right to not be cannon fodder. If everybody has to do two years of WPA-style work, or Peace Corps service, OK. When you start telling kids who don’t want to that they have to learn to kill people, you’ll get a big FUCK YOU from me.
conscription for any purpose, peaceful or otherwise, perhaps with the exception of a true national emergency, like Pearl Harbor.
<
p>Put another way, how can any national service program that is even remotely involuntary square with the 13th Amendment?
<
p>The 13th Amendment tack was tried by Vietnam era conscripts, without success, but might have more traction in the context of “service” programs, rather than military service.
It has always been that conscription is for the poor and politically powerless. It will always be. All kinds of doctors and politicians get paid off for the 4F designation. I remember that in the 1st few days of basic training the drill sergeant announced, “I know that your presence here kinda guarantees that you ain’t related to anybody important, but if somehow you got here and have an important relative, we have to know their name. So fill in this form if think you are related to someone worth something.”
<
p>Those who talk of “public service” are either lying (to be dropped in a compromise) or planning it for the “good ol’ boys” to get. Anyway, don’t we have enough civil servants?
<
p>What if we pulled the troops back from Europe, Asia and the countless other places where they aren’t needed? Would we need more troops then? How much would we save? Do we need and imperial America?
<
p>If we go back to the draft, it will only show how poorly “We The People” defended our liberties. Conquered by an “elite” rather than a foreign power.
<
p>
In the Civil War, draftees could hire someone to take their place (if they had the money). That was apparently too inconvenient, so later conscriptions came up with exemptions that the rich could obtain without directly sending someone to get shot at for them. Progress, eh?
<
p>BTW, John – you wouldn’t have an extra one of those checks you could spare, would you?
There is still the discriminatory practice of requiring young men to register with the selective service but not young women. An interesting summary of the history of this exclusion can be found here.
<
p>Which of the following persons under the age of 26 do NOT have to register with the selective service?
<
p>A. ROTC students
B. Members of the Armed Forces on active duty
C. Men rejected for enlistment
D. Illegal aliens
<
p>The answer may surprise you.
I’m not sure I’d want such a program to start under someone like McCain, and certainly not under the current incompetent CinC.
<
p>Also, the economy may already be in too much of a shambles to even fund any program that really required all young adults to serve 2 years in either the military or domestic public service.
<
p>Therein lies the dilemma.
If everyone is given the choice of military service or public service, I would assume that public service would be chosen more often. There must be some limit to the number of public servants we can have. When that limit is reached does military service no longer become an option for whoever is next in line?
bring up some pretty important questions. Like, what is “public service” and how in the world can it be univerally applied in draft-form for either high-school graduates or college graduates? The idea of a public service draft is appealing, and I’m monumentally in favor of the idea (we’ll see in a year or so if I feel the same way) but the logistics behind it are unfathomably complex.
Gates has just made some inroads with shaping the latest board sitting to name the new brigadier generals of the US Army and by extension the thought process and culture of the army ten years down the road.
<
p>A weapons system takes (now) ten-fifteen years from drawing board, appropriation, testing, and if successful getting it out into the field and getting the troops snapped in.
<
p>Wheteher we have a draft or not or perhaps compulsory military service is light years off.
<
p>Having a large percentage of the military being women is essentially unworkable ( I suggest that you read up on Israel’s instant problems) and the LGBT’s will likely never happen for a myriad of reasons(rightly or wrongly) —don’t fret Laurel—you’ll never have to stand inspection).
<
p>If there is a clear and present danger to USA—it’s too late. China has a 30 MILLION man army (exclusive of the navy and air forces).
<
p>When it becomes economically and politically feasible—Russia or China, or both will take their shot. Unlike USA—these two don’t believe in the “fairness doctrine” and don’t have the hindrance of having a government infused with “kindness cookies”.
Rumsfeld did his damnedest.
His damdest just wasn’t all that good.
http://www.time.com/time/magaz…
<
p>I remembered this article to this day, most likely because of how what happened shortly after this article was published will never be forgotten.
<
p>But yeah, for the first 8 months of the administration, Rumsfeld was doing his damnedest to change the military culture and ran into a brick wall.
I’m impressed by your subtle grasp and penetrating insight of the nuances of foreign policy and international relations with this quote:
<
p>
<
p>”take their shot”? What does that even mean? Seriously, you give no other insight in your quote about what either country’s shots will be. Please share more.
http://www.navoine.ru/life/270
<
p>No kids around when you peruse the Russian/Georgian pics
http://www.jamestown.org/chech…
I’m a hard-core Democrat, but this question wasn’t about the draft it was about the state of our VA and how we treat those who have served. I don’t really understand how you take from that 2 minutes about 2 seconds on the draft.
<
p>If you want to hammer McCain on that, go right ahead. But taking that 2 seconds to talk about the draft is absurd.
I am reminded of a story my mother told me when I joined the army back in the early 90’s. She asked me if I agreed with my country’s policies and was willing to give my life overseas for conflicts that have little effect on my life here in the states. Like most young inner city kids who wanted to go to college I said “I have no other choice”.
<
p>She then told me about her grand father who was conscripted in the Russian Army. She recalls her father saying that when young men turned 18 they were picked up by the army and sent abroad to fight other poor people. Her grandfather said “what is the difference between the army and slavery, I am forced in, and oppress people who share my beliefs”. I think the same logic applies with the draft.
<
p>We’re told this myth that we are free in America. If we are free how can you force someone to fight for something that doesn’t effect them or they don’t believe in. Our army is made up of poor kids looking for a better way fighting other poor kids forced into fighting. Its my understanding that freedom means that a person has a choice and if they don’t feel that the military is the answer, they don’t have to be part of it. Its kind of like that now where you can say no. Making them join more or less says that your opinion doesn’t matter and you do what we tell you. Am I wrong here to say that this is kind of like being a slave.
Operation Barbarosa would have been a stunning success and Russians would no longer be speaking Russian.
<
p>well that depends on your version of freedom, which you pretty much laid out as being able to do what you want without being told what to do by others.
<
p>
<
p>Sure, we’re free as far as it goes. But I think it’s far cry from slavery. We’re citizens living in a sovereign nation, and there is certainly a limited degree of freedom inherent in being part of a citizenry. But also, because of our citizenship, we enjoy certain rights many others take for granted. So, to sum up a feel-good, horrible cliche (freedom isn’t free) with another: we get some, we lose some.