November 10th, 2017

Effects of the military draft

Commenter “Ymarsakar” writes:

The draft is a [Democrat] strategy. They kept trying to reinstate it after Nixon, because without it they cannot use fear to create anti war protests on demand.

I would say “yes, but only in recent years; the draft had a very different purpose prior to Vietnam.”

I wrote about a typical event during the “recent years” part of it in 2006. The proponents of a bill to reinstate the draft back then were very up-front about their purposes:

It seems to me that Representative Charles Rangel’s suggestion to reintroduce the draft should get some sort of prize for cynical ploys in Congress. Granted, he’s got a lot of competition, but this one is designed to offend almost everyone, including the vast majority of his fellow Democrats, and even Rangel doesn’t think for a moment that his proposal has a chance of passing…

What’s motivating Rangel, besides the desire for publicity? He says he thinks a draft would make future administrations more wary of going to war in the first place; no doubt he’s studied the Vietnam years and knows that the war protests were at least partly fueled by the understandable self-interest of the youth of America, who were reluctant to be drafted into a far-off war that seemed both unwinnable and strategically unnecessary. But Rangel also says he wants the army to be more socioeconomically even-handed; he believes it’s the poor who are exploited by the present system.

Of course, Rangel is ignoring the evidence that indicates the composition of today’s armed forces do not at all correspond to his vision [the original article had a link to an American Heritage post that is no longer at the URL]. Perception is all, after all. Not to mention the fact that the highly specialized nature of today’s military does not lend itself to a draft.

However, in the United States prior to the post-Vietnam era, the draft was most definitely not prompted by Democratic desire to ramp up antiwar protests. In fact, the drafts prior to 1940 were all wartime drafts, and their purpose was to man the military to fight those wars. The 1940 peacetime draft was the first peacetime conscription, and it was instituted with the knowledge that war was abroad and that we would probably have to fight in the not-too-distant future, and the majority of people seemed in favor of the draft:

By the summer of 1940, as Germany conquered France, Americans supported the return of conscription. One national survey found that 67% of respondents believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, and that 71% supported “the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men”. Similarly, a November 1942 survey of American high-school students found that 69% favored compulsory postwar military training.

There was some opposition, but it didn’t amount to all that much.

Vietnam was very a different situation. The massive antiwar protests against that particular war ended with the end of the draft (1973) (and the end of our direct involvement), not the end of the war itself, and therefore the draft was often seen as instrumental in having fueled those protests; it had made the far-off war a very personally threatening thing. Nixon was aware of this:

Nixon also saw ending the draft as an effective way to undermine the anti-Vietnam war movement, since he believed affluent youths would stop protesting the war once their own probability of having to fight in it was gone. There was opposition to the all-volunteer notion from both the Department of Defense and Congress, so Nixon took no immediate action…

Instead, the Gates Commission was formed, headed by Thomas S. Gates, Jr., a former Secretary of Defense in the Eisenhower administration. Gates initially opposed the all-volunteer army idea, but changed his mind during the course of the 15-member commission’s work. The Gates Commission issued its report in February 1970, describing how adequate military strength could be maintained without having conscription. The existing draft law was expiring at the end of June 1971, but the Department of Defense and Nixon administration decided the draft needed to continue for at least some time…

…Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began. With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952[66] and who reported for duty in June 1973…

Since then, although the Selective Service mechanism has remained largely in place in case a draft is needed once again, we’ve had no draft. For the most part, we’ve just had showboaters such as Rangel talking about reviving it as a scare tactic.

If a draft were to be reinstated, it would almost certainly meet with a very different attitude on the part of the population than during WWII. It would of course also depend on the nature of the conflict, but unless this country were to be directly and seriously threatened I think a draft would indeed meet with fervent opposition that would make the Vietnam era protests seem minor. The idea of risking one’s life for one’s country—or its allies—is now confined to a smaller segment of society.

However, the peacetime draft had some interesting side effects. One was that it forced people who lived in homogeneous enclaves (for example, urban vs. rural, Northern vs. Southern, Democrat vs. Republican) into close contact with each other and therefore forced them to learn about each other (and sometimes to stop demonizing each other, if that had been their previous tendency). Another effect was that people from all walks of life were forced to learn something factual about weapons and the waging of war, so that they were less likely to operate in a mental vacuum about those topics and less likely to fill in that vacuum with fantasy.

26 Responses to “Effects of the military draft”

  1. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    Neo:

    I’d suggest you edit your last paragraph by replacing “people” with “men.”

  2. Richard Saunders Says:

    As someone who served when the draft was ending and the all-volunteer Army was coming into being, I can tell you that eliminating the draft produced a better Army but a worse country.

  3. DNW Says:

    “However, the peacetime draft had some interesting side effects. One was that it forced people who lived in homogeneous enclaves (for example, urban vs. rural, Northern vs. Southern, Democrat vs. Republican) into close contact with each other and therefore forced them to learn about each other (and sometimes to stop demonizing each other, if that had been their previous tendency). “

    That was the bad part. The ‘forcing’ part of the part … anyway. Not fitting for a free people. It is also not so great when you are forced to spend time around people whose habits and persons only disgust you all the more the more you are forced to be around them. I mean … what were our fisticuffs in high school all about, if not in fair measure, just that? Keeping morons and perverts out of the military probably helps.

    Others, obviously, have dissimilar and more self-sacrificing views. I have numerous Vietnam era service cousins, especially two brothers, who have some number of times mentioned just the tolerance point you recount.

    And one of them was both an athlete and a combat squad leader who was a pretty effective man-slayer. So his attitude toward his drafted comrades in-arms was not just the result of some character weakness or pliability. ‘Course he has had issues for decades seeing the faces [which often looked young even if they were not especially] of the men he killed up close and personal, so that was certainly not too good. He’s on a new PTSD drug that seems to be working.

    ” Another effect was that people from all walks of life were forced to learn something factual about weapons and the waging of war, so that they were less likely to operate in a mental vacuum about those topics and to fill in that vacuum with fantasy.”

    That was the good part.

    But there is no “We” here any more. And maybe not even an agreed upon “Here”. And who really cares if the a politically antithetical sub population in Ca. is slaughtered by invading Canadian Transgenders? Just a rat fight, so to speak.

    But there ought to be some way though to defend the good ones. Oh yeah, it’s called having your own country.

  4. arfldgrs Says:

    The 1940 peacetime draft was the first peacetime conscription

    only if you dont care what words mean and the differences
    My family had been conscripted, it wasnt a draft

    Compulsory enrollment and induction into the military service. Conscription is commonly known as the draft, but the concepts are not exactly the same. Conscription is the compulsory induction of individuals into the Armed Services, whereas the draft is the procedure by which individuals are chosen for conscription.

    you may say that dont matter but here are two scenarioes

    the draft comes up, and a person who is 1 year too young gets a card, he can show why he doesnt have to serve

    conscription comes up, the truck rolls in, they are loaded into trucks, taken from their home, no way to contact the family, and thrust into the middle of a battle..

    they cant protest
    Conscription first came into use as a legal term in France in 1798. It derives from the Latin conscriptionem, which refers to the gathering of troops by written orders, and conscribere, which means “to put a name on a list or roll, especially a list of soldiers.” A person who becomes a member of the armed forces through the process of conscription is called a conscript.

    and conscripts are 2nd class soldiers…
    they are NOT considered as good as enlisted or drafted
    they cant go up ranks like draft can
    and often, given the way they are added to the roles
    they often cant be trusted..

    Some of the American colonies employed conscription. During the Revolutionary War, the American government used selective, temporary conscription to fill the ranks of its military.

    The United States used conscription again briefly during the Civil War. The Union Enrollment Act of 1863 drafted all able-bodied men between twenty and forty-five years of age. The act provoked a hostile public response because it excused from military service those who were able to pay a fee of three hundred dollars. The law incited violent public disturbances, called the Draft Riots, in New York City between July 13 and 16, 1863. One thousand people were injured in the riots.

    the black mans crystal nacht… was the same time and day… draft riots AND union purge of blak businesses and murdeinr blacks.. with one kid dragging a black man around manhatten by his penis

    that was the last technical conscroption
    In 1917, one month after the entry of the United States into World War I, Congress passed the Selective Draft Act (40 Stat. 76). The act created a government office to oversee conscription.

    but remember, those that are drafted are not called conscripts… so its almost like we have two variations of meaning for the same word

    Congress instituted the first peacetime use of conscription in 1940 when it passed the Selective Training and Service Act (54 Stat. 885). This act, which expired in 1947, enrolled those who served in U.S. armed forces during World War II.

    In 1948, Congress passed the Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C.A. app. § 451 et seq.), which was used to induct individuals for service in the Korean War

    [you forgot the forgotten war… (again)]

    the Vietnam War (1954–75).

    In 1976, the Selective Service System was placed on a standby status, and local offices of the agency were closed. President jimmy carter issued a proclamation in 1980 requiring all males who were born after January 1, 1960, and who had attained age eighteen to register with the Selective Service at their local post office or at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States (Presidential Proclamation No. 4771, 3 C.F.R. 82 [1981]). Those who fail to register are subject to prosecution by the federal government.

    and you would think that oppressors would send their oppressed into war.. women are oppressed.. but

    In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of requiring only men, and not women, to register with the Selective Service (rostker v. goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646, 69 L. Ed. 2d 478). The United States has never conscripted women into military service, nor has it ever instituted universal military service. It has conscripted only individuals meeting certain age, mental, and physical standards. Congress has allowed the deferral of conscription for certain individuals, including those who need to support dependents or are pursuing an education. Among those who have been declared exempt from service are sole surviving sons, conscientious objectors to war, and ministers of religion.

    thats why oppressors have to hold the door for the oppressed..
    and why the oppresors have to take off their hat, while the oppressed do not
    and why the oppressors have to stand when the oppressed enter the room and remain standing till they are seated
    and why the oppressors have to pull out the chair and seat the oppressed
    and why the oppressors menu has prices but the oppressd do not

    lastly
    did you ever ask if the things you believe above were real or were part of a disinformation campaign and your idea of using the draft for X was really from another location… which is the SAME history for the CIA killing kennedy (now revealed as a russian idea by the records released in the past couple of weeks), and the same history for aids in us biowarfare (to hide the escape of treaty busting war prepped anthrax from russia).. the who lit the reichstag fire (we believe the commiterm version not the german one)… and even the nazi pope… (which is from a german play)

    so tell me… you discuss this crap as if its real…
    do you care?

  5. arfldgrs Says:

    the most famous long lasting campaign is the priori of zion and the jewish conspiracy to take over the world, which russia still promotes today!!

    The EU Moves to Counter Russian Disinformation Campaign
    The links between anti-establishment voices and the Kremlin are far from clear, but many Europeans want the EU to be more aggressive against Russian spin.

    what do you think “Hate Hoaxers” are?
    what do you think a percentage of the sex accusers are?
    what do you thin the people doing agit prop in crowds to cause violence on the others?

    you have almost everything of the revoltuionary spirit but you allowed them to be mislabled… so you dont fear them or think they are what they are…

    a turd by anyother name would be playdo to a idiot who doesnt care about the stink

    The making of a Russian disinformation campaign: What it takes By Michael Weiss
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/opinions/the-making-of-a-russian-disinformation-campaign-opinion-weiss/index.html

    pay attention to the history that is repeating
    not just the draft party line, but hoaxes and protests too
    [edited for length by n-n]

  6. DNW Says:

    “If a draft were to be reinstated, it would almost certainly meet with a very different attitude on the part of the population than during WWII. It would of course also depend on the nature of the conflict, but unless this country were to be directly and seriously threatened I think a draft would indeed meet with fervent opposition that would make the Vietnam era protests seem minor. “

    I think you are undeniably right.

  7. DNW Says:

    ” so tell me… you discuss this crap as if its real…
    do you care? ”

    Geez, take a nap or go jogging or something.

  8. arfldgrs Says:

    here is what it was and as you can see, it was a lot further reaching…
    [hopefully our indonesian friend will find this interesting too]

    It would take a few more years, when defectors from the GDR stole across the Berlin Wall, for the true provenance of the “swastika graffiti operation” to become known.

    An operation is exactly what it was, too, cooked up by General Ivan Ivanovich Agayants, who headed Department D of the First Chief Directorate of the Soviet KGB. The “D” stood for Dezinformatsiya, or disinformation, and Agayants, an austere ethnic Armenian, was very good at his job. During his tenure, he oversaw the forgery of documents alleging that the CIA planned to assassinate Indonesian President Sukarno and eliminate Turkish military officials and political actors in the interest of the then-ruling center-right Justice Party.

    so not only was the antisemite from the right fake… (real neos but under the pay of soviets)
    by the same people who nearly got to overthrow indonesia (but china jumped the gun, and failed to murder one of the generals, who then took the military and CLEANED HOUSE).. today you can read the history and depending opn wheher a zin type wrote it or not… its all a mish mosh mixed

    but i am going to guess your going to say, but this is policy and stuff on the draft

    but at the time your saying these things was the peak of the 60s disnformation campaigns that you can look up… the idea that LBJ and the CIA would assinate kennedy was a russian campaing now confirmed… AGAIN BY THE RELEASE OF RECORDS

    here is some of the information that is now being known by the release of records
    and no, they wont be satisfuing to tin hats, but to people like me, analysis is excellent!!!

    Russian meddling in American politics is long-standing
    But is is the Left who are their tools
    [edited for length by n-n]

  9. neo-neocon Says:

    Cap’n Rusty:

    I see your point, but actually I disagree, at least somewhat. There was a filtering-down effect of such knowledge on all of society—not directly, or course, but indirectly.

  10. Sam L. Says:

    The NVN invaded SVN, and set up the Viet Cong as their proxy. Kennedy got us into the war; LBJ continued it. The Dems later became essentially pro-communist.

  11. The Other Chuck Says:

    Every totalitarian dictatorship of the 19th and 20th centuries employed the draft. Conscription is the hallmark of empire and the handmaiden of war. From the German trenches of Belgium to the Japs drafting of Koreans, it’s empowered old men in their dreams of conquest. Yeah, it has the benefit of egalitarianism. Everyone gets a chance to die.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    The Other Chuck:

    And so did many of the non-totalitarian governments, defending themselves against attack. See this, for example.

  13. OldTexan Says:

    What the draft was during and after WWII and what it would be now? I can only surmise based upon my own experience when I joined the Army for four years in June of 1966 to beat the draft. As an enlisted Regular Army soldier I chose four years to spend my time in the Army Security Agency instead of being drafted and taking my chances of being in the infantry or going to OCS and taking my chances as a 2nd lieutenant because they were highly expendable.

    Going through basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood that summer I was impressed with the lack of racial prejudice, we had great black officers and NCO’s and we had a lot of young black guys from somewhat disadvantaged situations like Detroit where all of the graduating Seniors on a football team enlisted for Airborne and they were together in our training company. The only color for the troops was green and we were all Americans.

    I watched the racial divide occur with the war protests and the civil rights movement and by 1968 saw it move overseas where I was. Newer black soldiers kept to themselves and they did not approve of us older guys getting along with each other.

    The myth about young black soldiers being used for cannon fodder was never true, blacks and whites died in Nam in the same ratio to their populations in the US. According to the well documented book Stolen Valor the only group to die in excess of their US demographics were Jewish soldiers, mostly because they were college grads and 2nd lts. more of them got killed percentage wise than any other group.

    Anyway, back to premise of the draft and how it would work today, I don’t think it would. I had a discussion with a 20 year old recently about what might happen with the draft and he could not comprehend that the draft would be an obligation, part of being a young US citizen in the age group and if he failed to report and perform as told he could be sent to prison. He told me that he might like to volunteer and join up but being forced would be slavery and that is against the law.

    The coercian factor is important in forming up a group of young able bodied men (I have no idea how it would work with women) and part of building soldiers out of civilians is pushing them so hard and fast that they fall in line.

    Learning how to march and drill, keeping step and singing stupid songs builds a group spirit and brotherhood. Learning how to live together, eat together and be miserable together through heat, cold, rain and all that does work when the option is going to jail predicated on starting out with sound bodies and minds, which might be tricky today too. Lots of noise, and being funny young men full of themselves helped bring all that together.

    How you do that with young men and women who get their feelings hurt easily I don’t know. Put the political angle of the various factions of our current parties into the mix and I think in the end a lot of money, we don’t have, would be spent ending up with a worse military mess that we currently have.

    Along that line we have already overextended our current Armed Forces men and women, we are losing them faster than we can replace them and that is shameful for our nation.

    Please have a thoughtful Veterans Day tomorrow.

  14. TommyJay Says:

    “If a draft were to be reinstated, it would almost certainly meet with a very different attitude on the part of the population than during WWII.”

    The attitude of people in the U.S. during WWII wasn’t one thing. My understanding was that it changed immensely from the very beginnings of the war, 1930 or 31, through the time of our entering it.

    There has always been a strong strain on non-interventionism dating at least to Pres. John Adam’s time when he decided to create a Navy.

    There were sizeable groups of pro-Nazis, and pro eugenicists (on the left of course) in the U.S. in those early days. But I guess it took Pearl Harbor and uncle Franklin’s fireside chats to change that.
    _______

    The concept of conscription is interesting, with the old British Navy routinely engaging in a form of legalized kidnapping. I don’t think they even had a list of names, before the fact.

    As the U.S built its Navy, many sailors signed on in U.S. ports and other nation’s ports. It became clear as time wore on, that many of these sailors were deserters from British “conscription.” The back and forth of conscripted sailors was one of the issues that helped drive us to the War of 1812.

  15. neo-neocon Says:

    TommyJay:

    You have the years of WWII wrong.

    I am talking about attitudes by the time of the draft.

  16. parker Says:

    In a legally declared war, the draft makes sense to me. Since WW2 there has been no legally declared war. Korea was ‘police action’ sanctioned by the UN. Vietnam made no sense to me, for reasons I won’t get into because I avoid making lenghty artfldgr style posts. Formal declamation of war should have been declared after 9/11 against all nation states that fund, aid, or offers sanctuary to jihadists.

    That is how we get a majority to support the effort…. perhaps. It might not be possible any more. Hatred of our founding as a republic seems to hold sway these days.

  17. expat Says:

    Tommy Jay,
    These conscripts were referred to as slaves in the National Anthem. But today’s BLM types who want to get rid of it don’t bother with history.

  18. The Other Chuck Says:

    Neo:

    At one time I could have written a book on conscription. I made a detailed study of it during the late 60s and early 70s. One of the finest arguments against it was an editorial that then Senator Mark Hatfield wrote for The Saturday Evening Post in July of 1967. Unfortunately it is unavailable because of copywrite.

    As Parker said above, I won’t waste everyone’s time with a dissertation. What it boils down to is that if a country is attacked it is unnecessary to have a draft. Long lines form and people volunteer. However, if it is an elective unpopular war, or police action, and the country hasn’t been attacked, then yes, a draft is the only way to force unwilling people into military service. Did we lack volunteers after 9/11?

    The arguments in favor of a draft that you present in your last paragraph were some of the same ones used by General Hershey in his testimony before congress during hearings to abolish it. There are very lengthy transcriptions of his testimony that can be summed up as “you have to force people to do the right thing.” With government it’s always force instead of persuasion.

    Bottom line: Conscription is morally wrong. It is involuntary servitude, no different than slavery.

  19. Gary D. G. Says:

    I and quite a few of my friends were proud to be given the opportunity to represent our Country, enlisting in/volunteering for service in the various branches; we didn’t wait to be drafted; we were proud to be given the chance to repay what this great country did for our parents and grandparents.
    The snowflakes of today were never taught in grade school or high school about the greatness of our Country and the selflessness of the men and women who comprise the members of the Armed Services.

  20. Oldflyer Says:

    While I believe that military experience is generally beneficial for many young men, and in the aggregate a possible benefit to society by developing the habit of subordinating personal desires to the needs of the group, in segments of the population that have no experience at this, I have reservations about a peace-time draft.
    For one thing, I believe that the military would suffer if, absent a clear national need and consensus, it were dominated by a conscript cadre. In the aggregate, the negative attitudes would out weigh the benefits. Secondly, as a small government, freedom loving citizen, I would find it objectionable for the government to impose a de facto tax on young men (women?) by usurping a a couple of years of their lives without a clear need.

    I have no objections to a draft when there is a demonstrable need for one.

  21. The Other Chuck Says:

    Neo:

    As a college kid in 1967 and during my flirtation with Randian Objectivism, I attended a conference on the draft in Washington, DC. It was sponsored by the Metropolitan Young Republican Club of Manhattan. You can read all about it here:

    https://mises.org/sites/default/files/persuasion_1967_vol4no7_2.pdf

    Side note and off topic: I was lucky enough to have a cocktail hour conversation (and a cocktail) with Russell Baker who was an attendee. We talked music, the basis of diatonic harmony as explained by Helmholtz, and why emotion in western music is tied in with language. Heady days for a kid.

  22. J.J. Says:

    The WWII draft was necessary and its continuation during the height of the Cold War was also necessary. We had well defined enemies who were a threat to us as a nation.

    The draft had a huge impact on my life. I would not have attended college. I went to college because some vets that I knew told me to go and then I could go in as an officer. Their descriptions of life as an enlisted man – KP duty, dive bombing cigarette butts on the parade grounds, low pay, crowded barracks, and more did not sound very appealing.

    Studying geology in college had introduced me to aerial photo interpretation, a handy skill for intelligence officers. The Navy offered a Naval Air Intelligence billet for officers and had a six month aerial photo interpretation school. That sounded like a way I could serve and gain some valuable experience in a aerial photo interpretation, a skill handy for oil exploration. I went to work for an oil company, but being single, knew I would probably soon get a draft notice. To avoid that I enlisted in the Navy.

    All was going well. I was half way through OCS when the Navy decided that all the members of our class of 750 who passed the physical would go to Pensacola for flight training. I remember the OC sitting next to me asking, “Can they do this to us?” I remember opining that when we enlisted we gave up our rights of refusal. At least that was what I believed.

    Anyway, I passed the physical and reported to Pensacola expecting to get washed out and then proceed to Air Intelligence School. Imagine my surprise when it turned out that I was well suited to flying for the Navy. So well suited that I stayed on active duty for 13 years.

    I spent 21 years in Naval aviation (13 active duty, 8 ready reserve) and 25 years flying for a major airline. A life that was totally unexpected and unplanned. All because of the draft.

    Being brought together with other men from all over the country was a grand experience. I learned much from them. Traveling all over the world also taught me a lot.

    Avoiding the draft by going to college and enlisting in Navy OCS had a major effect on my life.

    Could we have a draft today? Only if we had a well defined enemy and the threat to the nation was obvious. That is why Fourth Generation warfare is so dangerous to the country. It provides no well defined enemy and the threat is not obvious unless you make the effort to understand it. Technology keeps us strong, but our most effective weapon against Fourth Generation Warfare is our Spec Ops force. Thank God we have men who are willing to voluntarily undertake that duty. Without them we would be very vulnerable.

    I wish all my fellow vets a happy, healthy Veteran’s Day. We are a brotherhood. It was a privilege to serve this great nation with stout-hearted men

  23. Richard Aubrey Says:

    I suspect Rangel figured, and he was right, that a good many of the general public would believe the republicans wanted the draft because they were all meanie warmongers.
    My father, an educated man with an interest in the news, believed it until I explained it to him with cites.
    So Rangel’s move was good for the dems and bad for the reps, as he knew it would be.

  24. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Oh, yeah. The issue is discussed in Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”.
    Should the franchise be restricted to veterans? But no draft.

    Among other things, the arguments by those who accuse others of “chickenhawk” tend toward that end. Only veterans can vote or hold public office.

  25. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The draft would have been more useful for national pride and patriotism if there had been a real defensive war instead of the various foreign entanglements that FDr and Wilson promised they would avoid. Before they were done speaking, they had already broken those promises in their hearts.

    The significant difference vs Soviet Russia wasting most of their manpower (after the war, the ratio was something ridiculous like 1 man to 4 women or 1 man to 6 women), is that American braves (still had braves in the country of the brave back then) won WW1 and WW2 for their leaders.

    The ones in the Abraham Lincoln brigade though… got used up by Soviet commissars.

    There were two notable events or policies during WW2, where the US was not on the defensive but on the offensive, even though war had not yet been declared and in fact neutrality was the supposed policy instead. American volunteers fought in China, and the Lend Lease Act.

    These are basically private wars setup by the FDr admin, so he could wait for someone to hit his country, and then he can declare war. It’s the Ghandi strategy. Wait and take the hit, and then use that moral superiority to strike back.

    It’s what the Left said the US should have done about 9/11 and gun control. Wait, take the hit, then you can do something about it. No such thing as proactive profiling or preventative first strikes.

    Only veterans can vote or hold public office.

    McCain, Kerry, and a few others are doing real good there.

    I can tell you that eliminating the draft produced a better Army but a worse country.

    People voting DemonCrat made the country worse. The party for white eugenics and slavery, still the party for eugenics and slavery. Party of KKK lynch squads killing whites and blacks that go against the DemonCrat authority. Still the party of Anti Fa…. things.

    There’s nothing evil or the Left cannot take up and hijack. The US military institution is one of them. Whatever people think they can come up with in the draft, the Left will turn against them within six months of processing. It’s not something the orthodox usual methods of Dc politics can fix.

    Those relying on a draft to revitalize the country, are looking in the wrong area. Those relying on a draft to revitalize the military, are looking in even more the wrong area.

    Dealing with the traitors should have been their first priority… a little late now.

  26. Philip Says:

    Supposing we were to have a draft… it would have to be for some kind of pressing need, I suppose. Some conflict requiring our armed services to bulk up considerably at a high rate. In such a case, would it be practical, I wonder, to define the size of the draft contingent in a strictly limited scale? The reason being to limit the dilution of the existing esprit de corps, a risk to which Oldflyer alluded to above.

    I think it would be good to do that if time permitted, so that the incoming draftees could be socialized in the sense of adapting to the required norms (physical, emotional, disciplinary, etc.) of the military without the influence working too much in the other direction, i.e. weakening of morale by a too-quick infusion of civilian-derived attitudes and so on.

    Of course, if there is such a crisis in the works as obliged a draft in the first place, we probably wouldn’t have such time. Catch-22.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge