Maybe a war that requires a draft isn't a war worth fighting. I would, however, support a "war tax" so that some of the warmongers--who are so eager to send someone else to fight--have to make some sacrifice.

Just because a draft existed doesn't mean that it was necessary. It's an empirical question, and one for which I don't have the answer, but my impression of conscription during World War II is that it was mostly unnecessary due to the high levels of public support. I suspect that the United States would have been able to field a large enough military force without having to rely on the draft. What's I'm referring to are wars for which the level of public support is so low that the only way to recruit is through a draft.

Just because there was a draft, it doesn't mean that that draftees wouldn't have joined otherwise. How many of those 10 million draftees would have enlisted anyway?

We lost tens of thousands of soldiers in the several years AFTER the draft was put in place. There is no way we'd have lost 50,000 in that effort if we'd had to rely solely on volunteers.

are ignoring what we've learned through history. That a war is more, not less, likely if the military has an endless supply of cheap cannon fodder.

Good for you for refusing to go.

Just like with funding, if you give it to the military, they will pour it into their black hole of death machinery, give them access to cheap warm bodies and they'll find a way to expend them.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of this over half a century ago and we didn't heed his words.

be an equitable draft. Spend the time and energy and money working to stop the war rather than throwing more bodies into it.

A draft does not stop wars. "oh, but everyone will protest" has no bearing in the reality of the war machine. It doesn't care who protests.

As I posted below (somewhere way down there now):

17,725 draftees were killed in Vietnam (30.4 percent of all combat deaths).

I sympathize with the good antiwar intentions of those on the Left who support a draft, but their hopes that that would make a difference in preventing a war, or in quickly ending a war, is not supported by history.

it was the first time the government had been shown to lie repeatedly and with malice aforethought to the public. (To wit, McNamara knew as early as mid 1965 that the war could not be 'won,' yet continued to say in public that the war effort was proceeding even better than expected!)

But, that cherry popped, you can't unpop it. If Romney's brood faced the prospect of sucking chest wounds or PTSD, there's no way the 1% would be supporting these imperialist ventures. You really think we would have invaded Grenada or Panama if the Romney kids' asses were on the line?

The 1% is not about to fight and/or die for any war, but they'll gladly send everyone else. Their skin won't suffer, but mine will.

do is smirk about how they had 'other priorities'

IOW, I call for universal military conscription, no college exemptions for the scion of the economically privileged.

The 1% is not about to allow their precious snow-flakes get hurt/killed on a battle field. They would not be placed into a dangerous situation. A dangerous situation is for those other people... like me.

other priorities, don't you see?

They're all down with war, provided it's n***ers, s**cs, and poor white trash doing the fighting.

Screw that and screw them.

I guess the poster forgot that little fact.

RMoney supported a war he didn't want to fight in.

Typical rich pukes.

And they knew it. The privileged had their outs and there was no way they would ever have to put their lives in jeopardy. That's just the way it was--and we have GWB's "Air National Guard Service" as a prime example.

Thank God he was on the job to keep the VC Air Force from attacking Texas and Alabama!

could buy their way out of the Union draft by purchasing a 'substitute' for about $300, IIRC. I think the Confederates had something similar also.

That's why a return to universal military conscription would have to not include any college exemptions for the economically privileged. If you want to keep the system honest, by God, everyone needs to have skin in the game. You want a system that universally reviles the likes of an 'other priorities' Cheney and effectively shuns him.

One can always hope

parents will be far less likely to support imperialist ventures.

Having 'skin in the game' changes the incentive structure mightily and keeps the system honest, in ways our Praetorian Guard since the early 1970s has not for policy makers.

Can you really imagine Bush having gotten Congressional approval to invade Iraq on false pretenses if the kids of the rich stood a chance of getting their legs shot out, getting a sucking chest wound or suffering PTSD?

You go to college, you get your college degree, then your ass belongs to us for four years as an officer...

What, your grades dropped, to a 2.5 GPA? Guess what? You are in the army now.

Oh but you want to do medical school... (mind you they are already doing this partially), for every two years of college, you owe us one... as an officer in the medical corp, same for legal.

Those be my only "exceptions." And yes, for some going in as a butter bar will be a good deal, as long as uncle sam pays partially for their school. Those who chose to go in at 18... they get a full GI Bill out of it, the current deal.

republic, I think, with all due respect to Pinboy and PNWMom.

I cannot see any logic in your statement. Casualties and the draft have no statistical relevance. The draft was ended because powerful Republicans did not want their rich spoiled scions to 'waste" 2 years rubbing shoulders with the lower classes. The draft was a great democratizer. One of the battles lost by the middle and lower class in the class warfare perpetrated by the industrialists was the loss of universal conscription. The method of accessing numbers for inclusion into a military force has a great effect on the psyche of the national electorate and their appetite for military conflict.

"The draft was ended because powerful Republicans did not want their rich spoiled scions to 'waste' 2 years rubbing shoulders with the lower classes"????

That is a ridiculous assertion that you cannot possibly support.

It may be reasonably assumed that those students were from rich families. I also recall the controversy over George W Bush evading a Vietnam experience for some reason. I am sure some would take that as a matter of upper class exception and exclusion from war.

Not only were there exemptions and exclusions that benefitted the privileged, primarily, the rich had the resources to buy doctors who could justify a medical exemption for the most able-bodied varsity football player.

The notion that that the wealthy feared conscription of their offspring because they might "rub shoulders" with somebody different is ludicrous on its face.

Ed. to add: The sons of the privileged got off because it wasn't in their interest to die or be maimed for their country, despite all the patriotic blah-blah-blah that came out of their, and their parents', mouths, including their expressions of support for the war. They had 'more important' things to do, like pursuing their educations and careers.

Those of us who ended up in Vietnam, fighting that war, didn't have that chance. We returned to find ourselves far behind our peers who had finished college and moved onward and upward. They had decals on their cars proudly displaying thier universities.

In response, a Vietnam vet friend of mine designed a decal for us:

[center]University of South Vietnam
School of Warfare[/center]

to get a draft deferment. I believe that medical students had to do the same.

Something you might be able to appreciate, my friend.

University of South Vietnam
School of Warfare

He was an Air Foirce 'commando' in Vietnam, assigned to Operation Ranch Hand--which sprayed Agent Orange and other defoliants.

He handled the drums, often splashing that crap on himself. He had the worst case of chloracne--the skin condition associated with AO--that I've ever seen.

Both of his daughters were born with a slew of birth defects--some of which have been officially recognized as a genetic result of a parent's AO exposure.

My friend was a participant in the VA's original Ranch Hand study. They would take tissue samples from him, but every time, he was told his samples had been 'lost,' and he had to come in again...

Doncha know?

Is my cynicism showing?

I hope his grand kids don't suffer too much.

If Filner makes it to office, I might contact the Mayor and talk of this. He's been working with vets like forever...local friendly ear for vets.

My cousin as one example, who I used to pick blue berries with every summer came back and became a cop and when I asked him why he said "to get back at those who sent him over there". 2 friends committed suicide. I have quite a few friends that have PTSD and suffer the effects of exposure Agent Orange.

I've lost other firends that way, including my best friend, whom I'd met in a Vet Center group.

Shit, I think all my friends have PTSD--that's just par for the course. Like a lot of us, I just buried it all for a long time, never having a clue how I'd been affected.

It's a tragic thing to suffer those psychological effects--like being wounded again. But the positive side is that so many are eventually able to discover what happened to them, and to learn ways to manage their trauma effectively (more or less ).

I may still be fucked up, but today I still manage to be out there protesting with Occupy, giving antiwar speeches, and telling the truth to HS and college students about what that war was really like. And I'm not shy about expressing my views about our current wars.

Those of us who have those heavy-duty survival guilts wonder why we were spared. In my case, maybe this is why.

and can pass that knowledge on to the younger generation.

We'd all shared our contact info so we could stay in touch. But I learned my lesson quickly after I'd been medevac'd back to the States.

As soon as I was well enough, I wrote a letter back to my platoon. The reply told me of casualties since I left.

After that, I just didn't want to know. I didn't want to face the pain of bad news about those good, good men I was proud to serve with. And I never contacted anyone until my medic found me...20 years later.

It took a long time for me to open up, but when I did I began speaking in high schools and colleges and at peace conferences. I'm still doing that today. After a college visit recently, I got a note from the prof to pass on a report turned in by one student who wrote that I'm her "hero" for being antiwar and protesting with Occupy L.A.

It's not a BFD, but it's nice to know that the message is reaching some, at least.

positions in the heights above Fredericksburg (and be mowed down in waves by those same well entrenched Confederate soldiers with clear lines of fire), it is said that General Lee turned to General Longstreet and said, "It is well that war is so terrible -- else we should grow too fond of it."

There's a part of me that sees Lee as a cold-blooded sociopath for saying that, typical REMF glorification of death and destruction. Yeah, Lee makes the requisite nod to war being terrible and all, but still manages to let us know all about his bloodlust and how he gets his jollies. (In fairness to him, Lee may not have realized his words would be recorded for posterity.)

Now why did your post cause me to bring up the Civil War? Damned if I know. Maybe it's because you have become an Apostle of Truth, unlike the slaver Lee.

And you deserve both respect for your service, and you post deserves a good look. I would trust your judgment on this before I would someone else, PB3N.

be no universal military conscription (emphasis on the word 'universal').

When Cheney said he had 'other priorities,' I just about put a shoe through my TV screen. That son of a bitch, as if those who were drafted did not also have other priorities.

It was a way of saying, fuck you and your university degrees--this is what we were doing.

We were pissed off, and we did resent the fact that others--especially the privileged--escaped our fate. They got ahead while we were over there, and they didn't give a fuck. We cared not only for ourselves--we were painfully aware of those we'd lost.

Personally, I had a full tuition scholarship to USC that I passed up for that fucking war. After VN, and a couple of semesters at JC, I finally got there in '72 on a 'vocational rehabilitation' program for disabled vets.

But I don't think that decal belies my position. I don't like the draft because it takes kids from their families to die and be maimed in war--leaving their families alone with their grief.

A mandatory national service program is worth discussion--as long as the military is not the only option. I just hate the idea of kids being dragged off to die in a war which they do not support.

you detail and I fully respect your position and can't really say mine is any the stronger. I do think there would be far fewer wars if the rich had to worry that their kids might become casualties. But I don't want the kids of the rich to die or be maimed nor any kids for that matter.

Just now when I mentioned this thread to her, Alma reminded me that right now we actually have a 'poverty draft' in effect, as rural and inner-city kids often see their only pathway to the middle class as the military. I know that's not the same as conscription, technically speaking, but I think she has a point too. (Side note but I seem to recall Lyndie England saying she enlisted b/c the only job for her within 60 miles of where she lived in West Virginia was WalMart.)

(And be sure to give that lovely lady my love.)

You're right that there is a difference. A draft would drag off even those who wouldn't join the military out of poverty.

But I'm not so confident as you that a "fair" draft would threaten privileged families. As I mentioned before, their paid-off doctors can always find them medical exemptions. A fair draft might be fair for everyone else--but not for the privileged elite. That's why I don't believe it would be a deterrent to war.

Your heart's in the right place--but you may need to grow some more healthy cynicism on it, my friend.

My love to you both...

I wanted to find that one for you, but no luck. Google will give a lot of results, many biased one way or another. I'm sorry I couldn't find for you the one that gave a straightforward, balanced discussion of it.

Maybe Alma has it.

100% with his point here. Given that both houses of Congress (the branch that authorizes the draft) were controlled by the Democratic Party until Nixon's resignation, the assertion fails on its own terms and is, as Pinboy says, 'ridiculous.'

that allowed it to go on as long as it did, and to take as many U.S. lives. That's why so many of us fought to end the draft.

Vietnam could have gone on much longer, like Afghanistan (now 11 yrs).

The wealthy either got deferments or they got safe assignments far away from Vietnam. That war would have ended years earlier if it hadn't been for the draft, and its seemingly endless supply of draftees.

As it was, Vietnam went from the late 50's, with the advisers, to 1973. It was a much longer war because of the availability of draftees.

most US forces were out of the country by 1973 though, certainly by 1974 when Nixon resigned.

I think it was a much longer war because most Americans could not conceive that their government would willingly and with malice aforethought lie to them over and over again. We've been in Afghanistan 11 years already without a draft and will have been there 13 years by the time we get out, all without a draft.

that we suffered in Vietnam with an all-volunteer force. Few would be volunteering for that gig.

fatalities in Afghanistan to reach the weekly and monthly levels they did in 1966-68, I suspect we would be racing out of Afghanistan with our tails between our legs. The resistance in Afghanistan is more like the NLF than like the NVA, capable of harassing the Occupation and disrupting its supply lines but without the military might to inflict significant casualties or battlefield defeats upon it.

And I also think you are right that few would volunteer for military service were casualties in Afghanistan or, before it Iraq, to reach the levels reached in Vietnam 1966-68. IIRC, military recruiters were having a hard time meeting targets anyway (at least before the financial crisis of 2008 kicked the 'poverty draft' into high gear).

But I think they are as much bullshit as the "Roman Professional Army" as volunteers tripe. You are aware what happened there, aren't you? They took on a bunch of mercenaries, and made being a mercenary seem heroic.

Oh gee, no XE(Blackwater) corollaries there.

Then they couldn't control the mercenaries, and had to use regular people. Which is what usually happens in war, and it's the regular people that suffer, decide that the entire war is bullshit, and put a stop to it.

I have to wonder when someone disregards history and blows out a bunch of smoke.

it was consistently in place since FDR instituted the first peace time draft in 1940.

The U.S. ended voluntary enlistment at the beginning of WW II. You were not allowed to volunteer.

I've read dozen of books and articles about WWII and all include information about volunteers.

I wasn't aware of this - love learning new things. I'm copying your link into my post below.

readily available. I believe the assertion is incorrect but I do not have access right now to a decent bibliography to refute it.

beginning,' as you originally asserted) and explains somewhat my confusion.

I'm going to check into this further later today and will respond later.

that the citizenry might not be like sheep - following war criminals into a war that is unnecessary, if not illegal - if they or their relatives might have to fight. if the draft had been implemented prior to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, people might not have so willingly believed the lies told to get us into the wars in the first place.

we had more than 17,000 additional deaths.

By comparison, we've only had over 2,000 in the 11 year war in Afghanistan.

Giving the military access to draftees makes it a lot easier for them to conduct their wars than when they depend only on volunteers.

Even if in hindsight, it was for the greater good.

I will never believe in a draft, because there is no sob story greater than sending innocent people to their potential death against their will.

Note the _general_ talks about having "skin in the game"


You, a non veteran, a non service member, talk about a "tax". It's not ok because you are on the left. Sacrifice is actually doing something. Putting plans on hold. Stopping your life to go do the thing. Sacrifice.

Note, what General McChrystal is saying, is that the Powell Doctrine needs to be re-implemented. The model in which communities all feel the pain of war, is __exactly__ why and how the modern Reserve and Guard components were created. The Active duty _cannot_ sustain any genuine war effort without dipping into your community and pulling troops.

Sacrifice is giving up something meaningful. This is not necessarily the same for any two given people. Conservatives prize having their historically low taxes, so lets see them make a sacrifice in the name of something they supposedly believe in. If they believe a war is worth fighting, then they should believe a war is worth funding. The most bellicose warmongers are too old (or too rich) for military service anyway.

The Guard and Reserves weren't created so that communities could feel the pain, but so that there would be a strategic reserve that could be mobilized in the event of total war. The active duty was supposed to be a very small cadre of officers and NCOs that would serve as the nucleus of the mobilized military.

And I did my tours in Iraq, but I don't go around bragging about it. Ad hominem comments don't advance anyone's cause. Stay on topic.

My point is: if enough of the public doesn't feel that a war is worth enough to enlist, then it is probably a war that we shouldn't be fighting.

And that is the civil war model. Skin in the game is your body in the muck.

Out of the army and dares speak the unspeakable!

I've heard that he walks 10 miles every day and lives a very spartan lifestyle.

In the army this idea of a draft is verboten, and not to be discussed, since you know, them draftees lost the 'Nam conflict.


Off the record I've had Colonels tell me we needed one right after Sept 11, and they could have gotten it. On the record, this still goes against the official culture.

And no, draftees did not lose the Vietnam war.

Living the warrior code, means little in the political way of things, and given he was SpecOps, none would be surprised. Those types are the epitome of a modern-day warrior.

anyone's respect.

must be kind of frustrating for these guys... now that the "war" we're currently fighting is way more in the vein
of network warfare, and cyber warfare, where the guys running the IT department are more important than
guys who know how to shoot guns...