Conscription

[DGhost]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
I agree. What I was disagreeing with was that math/science types would make better officers than those who had actually studied social sciences or humanities. The grad students who were the math teachers in my college were the saddest, most socially clueless people I knew there.. hardly had the ability even to communicate with others.

I like the idea of officer trainees having to go through super-rigorous boot camp like that portrayed in An Officer and a Gentleman. An Army in which officers and enlisted men have little respect for each other will be a pushover in any war.

to be honest neither course of study would help you in dealing with grunts. in some ways I would prefer the Math and science geeks, because at least they don't have a pretext about being able to relate and would have to learn it all from the beginning.

in the long run, boot camp is a method of seperating people who are capable of doing the job from those who are not. you come out of it learning a lot and knowing a whole lot less. a super-rigorous boot camp would get you the people who are dedicated to the job and capable of meeting your physical standards, but not good leaders.

almost every Infantry officer wears a Ranger tab. that doesn't mean they know any more or less about leadership. that doesn't mean a damn thing except they can sit through 2 months of physical and somewhat mental punishment and survive.

Social Studies/Philosophy/History majors make better generals, not better officers.

Leadership cannot be taught, only learned through experience. No degree that any college in the world could give you, no boot camp or school, *nothing* can make a good leader except for experience being led by others and experience having to do it yourself.

[Brian Ellis]

When I finished basic training, some idiot selected me as potential officer material and I was ordered to attend a WOSB (War Office Selection Board). On the due day, I marched in smartly, at the bequest of a sergeant-major, and saluted the brigadier and two colonels who were seated at a table at the other end of a long room. The brigadier cleared his throat, "Humph, you are Signalman Ellis?"

"Yes, sir"

"Why do you want to become an officer?"

"Sir, I never said I did; I was ordered to attend here. However, if I do become one, I would hope to do a better and more intelligent job than some of the present incumbents. .... Sir!"

"Sergeant-major, march Signalman Ellis out."

I therefore remained a mere Signalman for all my military career, which was financially very favourable, as I had a Class A2 technical qualification, which made me the highest-paid other-rank in our unit. If I had become an officer, I'd have got a little more as a second-lieutenant, but I would have had to have paid mess fees which would have more than taken away any difference. Anyway, I don't think I'd have made a good sprog-officer.

[Joel]

The Free Market vs. the Draft

by Michael Badnarik

Coerced military conscription – also known as the draft – is perhaps the single most anti-freedom action governments regularly take against their own citizens. The draft represses indiscriminately by directly stealing not only the "treasure" of our citizens, but also by taking years of their precious time and – in many cases – their lives. The draft has been justifiably resisted throughout American history because it is inherently unfair, unjustifiable, and un-republican.

If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors. The very fact that too few Americans are volunteering to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that too few Americans view the actions being taken by our government as integral to the preservation of our freedoms. This is simply the free market working.

Of course, some draft advocates would claim that the only reason America needs a draft is because we don't pay our military personnel adequately. Regardless of what the market rate would be in a "free market" for military personnel – probably closer to what the private security forces in Iraq are making than what America's military men and women are making – the draft would only lead to more military adventurism abroad. After all, the draft is nothing more than the government stealing services from its citizens because it does not want to pay a market rate for them.

Even more disturbing than the draft is the fact that some in Congress would like to expand the draft beyond military service to also include "national service." You see, for many of our leaders, bringing back the draft has less to do with providing needed soldiers for combat – America has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in peaceful nations from Japan to Germany – than it does expanding the size and power of government.

As Congressman Ron Paul has said, "To many politicians the American government is America and patriotism means working for the benefit of the state." Thus, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This, according to Congressman Paul, is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle: that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Joel

[capt. marvel]

I think that pretty much summed up what I was going to say...Its a form of socialism or comunism

[KvHagedorn]

We are each at once individuals and members of a society. Our devotion to either one of these sides of our being should not become too great at the expense of the other.

[TransformX]

I live in Israel, nuff said.

[Joel]

In the Senate, S89 (Senate Bill), sponsored by Ernest Hollings, (D-SC) reads (search): To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

The House of Representatives has a 'sister' bill, HR 163 (House Resolution), sponsored by Charlie Rangel, (D-NY) (search) which contains the same language. Both bills will make it mandatory for women to serve in the military as well as men; the age window for induction is 18-26.

What's interesting to see is how both of these bills were sponsored by the Democrats but yet Kerry is using this as one of his scare tactics with America's youth to get them to vote for him.

Now apparently he's decided to try horrifying the youth.

Kerry's latest angst-inducing tale is that a military draft is hovering right around the corner if voters re-elect President Bush.

Similar comments made by Kerry surrogates suggest that it's all part of a very scary Kerry strategy.

"America will reinstate the military draft [if Bush is re-elected]," yelled former one-term Sen. Max Cleland in a recent speech.

Howard Dean was heard muttering out loud, "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person who doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

I appeared on CNBC's "Dennis Miller" program recently as part of Miller's Varsity Panel, along with Yeardley Smith of "The Simpsons" and Rock the Vote official Jehmu Greene. Kerry's very scary draft conjecture made its way into the discussion.

Greene spent some of her airtime spreading the word that a military draft might be coming. This prompted me to remark that the only ones who seemed to be talking up the idea were the Dems.

Those in the know are aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as well as other Pentagon officials have consistently said they believe it is neither necessary nor desirable to impose a draft.

Facts don't seem to be stopping the allegedly nonpartisan Rock the Vote folks from trying to jolt the 18-to 24 crowd.

"A New Military Draft?" their Web site reads. "It's on everyone's lips. And it directly affects YOU," it warns. It then specifically invokes Bush in answering the question, "Why all of a sudden is there interest by politicians in the draft?"

Rock the Vote's answer is, coincidently, also a veiled critique of the Iraq War. It says, "These recent statements stem from a growing belief that the U.S. government's original plan to scale back our military presence in Iraq by this summer will be stalled by the continuing difficulties there. Despite the President's promised June 30th deadline to give back control of Iraq's government to the Iraqis under the United Nations, it's not clear under the current state of affairs when our military role there will begin to wind down even if we hand over power on time."

And don't say you didn't won't this to get political. The very article you posted a link to makes it political.

Joel

[Brian Ellis]

I opened this thread as an international one, not specific to US politics.

Now, I'm going to abstract from my thoughts the specifically US aspects of the article (otherwise, this would certainly become Temp forum material).

We are talking generalities here, not the conditions in a specific country, so please keep it free from US electioneering politics or I'll invite Sasq to move it away or delete the thread.

Thank you.

[Novdid]

Brian everything revolves around the great US of A, don't imagine anything else!

[Joel]

We are talking generalities here, not the conditions in a specific country

If that is the case then this best sums it all up.

The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Joel

[TransformX]

Originally posted by Joel
If that is the case then this best sums it all up.

The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Joel

I disagree. Having to pay exhorbitant taxes, having curropted politicians etc. etc. etc. would also be incompatible with a free society.

[rugger]

I wonder how long it will take now for this thread to be moved to the temp forum

[Umfriend]

Coming in late, I think I have to agree with Joel on this one. Rugger pointed out a number of issues with the rationale for it as well.
I note that much of this thread tends to focus on military service, wheras BE really stated it could be any kind of service and should not be limited to military (and him being a pacifist, I guess few would acutally go to military service in his mind). Point in fact is, military service is about the only kind where I can think of a sensible argument supporting draft: ensuring that the military rouhgly reflects opinions of the population. With other services, I don't see why that would be of any importance.

Greebe's thing about forcing people to finish an education is one that does have my sympathy. Living in a state with social welfare (and paying taxes for it), I would possibly support excluding drop-outs from benefitting (and ensuring education is easily available at the same time).

With respect to community values, I think there are better ways of doing that in less obligated manner; school (although that is mandatory), sporting/hobby clubs etc.

TX, I don;t understand your objection to Joel's statement. I agree there are other thigs as well that are incompatible, but how does this disgaree with Joel?

[TransformX]

Originally posted by Umfriend
TX, I don;t understand your objection to Joel's statement. I agree there are other thigs as well that are incompatible, but how does this disgaree with Joel?

I believe that even a so called 'free' society needs to have some laws and rules which contradict that 'freedom', even if for a limited time, in orded to keep and protect the foundations of that society.

[GT98]

Originally posted by TransformX
I believe that even a so called 'free' society needs to have some laws and rules which contradict that 'freedom', even if for a limited time, in orded to keep and protect the foundations of that society.

Just to appreate those freedoms. It kinda kills me that people think that they are from say the United States, that they don't have to do anything to support country, yet reap all of its benifits.