|
Please Don't Miss
Defensive
Misgivings and
Veterans as an
Ethnic Minority
|
|
It's not all
that complicated, folks. |
|
Sunday, 19 November 2006 |
|
To draft or not to draft...
Contributed by Bobbie (OWB) We are hearing loud noises once again about the need for a military draft. Congressman Rangel was today touting the need for it. His reasons just don't match the reality of today's military, so one can only imagine that they want a draft just because they want it, not because there is any particular need for it.
My first question for any who feel a need to institute a draft is: What would you have the draftees do during their time in military service? Then: How long must they remain in service to become productive members of the military after training?
Back in the days when a goodly number of soldiers were needed on the battle field as canon fodder, poorly trained personnel worked just fine to run out in front of the lines to be shot down. Today's military operation is technical and precise. Where is the need for large numbers of expendable soldiers? Just how many positions are there in today's military which require minimal training and few if any technical skills which can only be acquired with experience?
Now, if we come up with a few new missions for the military, such as patrolling our borders and doing customs inspections of incoming containers at our docks, then perhaps I would agree that we need a draft. Such tasks do not require extensive training or expertise. Even so, the draft would only be needed if significant increases in manning were not being filled by enlistments.
Until someone can show me some very good reasons why a draft is needed, supported with some real data, I will remain opposed to it. |
|
Contributed by Bobbie (OWB) on November 19, 2006 at 03:47 PM | Permalink Comments Posted by: ponsdorf I've posted about this issue before, IF and ONLY IF war is declared a draft is a valid approach to involving the populace. Draftees can be used, not as cannon fodder, but in support positions. I'll deal with this in the forum. And screw Rangel and his motives. Posted by: ponsdorf | Nov 19, 2006 5:06:38 PM Posted by: Papa Ray Your both right, border guards, support troops. Need some bean servers, draft some fast food workers, need some bean counters, draft some economics dropouts, need some drivers, draft some truckers. On and on. Kinda like the National Guard does in some units. Need some shooters, hell if they would let my group in, we're already trained. Maybe Rangel needs some almost free government workers to replace all the illegals he is planning on keeping out...Ha..Ha...Ha. Papa Ray Posted by: Papa Ray | Nov 19, 2006 9:57:43 PM Posted by: Decurion I've given my two cents on the idea of a draft before. But here's a point I havn't made. Let me throw some figures out from the 2007 pay tables. E-1 with less than 6 months in service: $1204 That's base pay, not counting the various tax-free allowances which add a couple hundred a month on top of that (especially if he's married) and the cost of housing and feeding--both of which are non-trivial propositions given the huge increase in quality of living standards since the last time we had a draftee Army. There are no huge bays with 80 troops in a single room outside of Basic Training. The various contributors to this blog know better than I what a private was paid in 1968. $100 a month? I don't know. Even if you figure for inflation, it's a great deal less than today. If you are going to balloon the Army up, you are either going to pay through the nose, cut pay rates across the board (discouraging long-service professionals) or pay draftees less than volunteers (which is going to be real popular when draftees are dying at a higher rate than professionals). The United States simply cannot afford a high quality military which also is triple(or more) the size of the current military. Posted by: Decurion | Nov 20, 2006 8:33:55 AM Posted by: tgp42rhr First, like I told my sister, I DO NOT want your skanky son in my military! Thats my view on a draft. However, most of these slugs could benifit from having to serve something other then thier worthless little egos, so some sort of obligatory service to the people of this nation needs to be happening. During the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, it was considred vital to the national good to have men who had served the state for a period of time. Maybe just a summer of basic training, minus weapons and without pay, before thay can get into a college or university? The original concept for this country was that ALL males from 16 to 60 were subject to call up in the event of a war, that was what the militia was, not like the National Guard which were more along the lines of State Troops On another subject...Is anyone else having trouble getting on the the Forum? or TGD site? I have not been able to access either since Vetrans Day. Posted by: tgp42rhr | Nov 20, 2006 11:53:21 AM Posted by: tgp42rhr Sh*t!!....VETERANS Day Posted by: tgp42rhr | Nov 20, 2006 8:26:08 PM Post a comment Comments accept simple HTML for formatting and linking. Comments are moderated and may not appear on the site immediately. Comments in violation of our comment policy will never appear on the site. TrackBacks TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e4ed69e200e5508364358834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference To draft or not to draft...:
"Rangel says he’ll introduce a bill to bring back the draft" from Bill's Bites Tracked on Nov 19, 2006 4:15:44 PM
"2007 Base Military Pay" from 2007 Base Military Pay Tracked on Dec 7, 2006 2:18:32 PM |
