As a Soldier, I have spent the best part of a decade constantly striving to be a better and more professional Soldier. I have, throughout this time been surrounded by those like myself.
For most of us, Soldiering is more than just a job where you get to play with automatic weapons in other countries now and then.
It is a way of life.
We take comfort, in when looking to our left and right, we see others with that same level of commitment. (the fakes weed themselves out)
That male or female is here just as I, because they walked into a recruiter's office and said "This is what I WANT to do." Even with the expressed and implied risks.
I'm sorry, but with deepest respect for the draftee armies that have served with distinction and nobility in the past, a draft would reduce my confidence in those around me.
I'm a professional, I want professionals around me.
For me it's less about the concept of a draft itself, and more a "no confidence" vote on the caliber of people we would end up putting in the ranks as a result.
To be fair, there are some great young people out there who would (and do) step up and make fine Soldiers......But there are a whole hell of a lot of spoiled, undiciplined, self centered youngsters who hold no authority higher than themselves, who would wind up in un...
For most of us, Soldiering is more than just a job where you get to play with automatic weapons in other countries now and then.
It is a way of life.
We take comfort, in when looking to our left and right, we see others with that same level of commitment. (the fakes weed themselves out)
That male or female is here just as I, because they walked into a recruiter's office and said "This is what I WANT to do." Even with the expressed and implied risks.
I'm sorry, but with deepest respect for the draftee armies that have served with distinction and nobility in the past, a draft would reduce my confidence in those around me.
I'm a professional, I want professionals around me.
For me it's less about the concept of a draft itself, and more a "no confidence" vote on the caliber of people we would end up putting in the ranks as a result.
To be fair, there are some great young people out there who would (and do) step up and make fine Soldiers......But there are a whole hell of a lot of spoiled, undiciplined, self centered youngsters who hold no authority higher than themselves, who would wind up in un...
As a Soldier, I have spent the best part of a decade constantly striving to be a better and more professional Soldier. I have, throughout this time been surrounded by those like myself.
For most of us, Soldiering is more than just a job where you get to play with automatic weapons in other countries now and then.
It is a way of life.
We take comfort, in when looking to our left and right, we see others with that same level of commitment. (the fakes weed themselves out)
That male or female is here just as I, because they walked into a recruiter's office and said "This is what I WANT to do." Even with the expressed and implied risks.
I'm sorry, but with deepest respect for the draftee armies that have served with distinction and nobility in the past, a draft would reduce my confidence in those around me.
I'm a professional, I want professionals around me.
For me it's less about the concept of a draft itself, and more a "no confidence" vote on the caliber of people we would end up putting in the ranks as a result.
To be fair, there are some great young people out there who would (and do) step up and make fine Soldiers......But there are a whole hell of a lot of spoiled, undiciplined, self centered youngsters who hold no authority higher than themselves, who would wind up in uniform. And the military IS the sort of place where "one bad apple" can have a VERY detrimental impact.
Hitler.......Hitler, or another like him is a fine reason to have a draft.
"Diversity" is not.
We are already about as diverse as it gets. We are people from ALL walks of life, religions, ethnicities, backgrounds, philosophies, and points of the compass.
So for every left handed Eskimo put into service for the sake of diversity that made a great Soldier, we would wind up with 20 who didn't want to be there.
And if they don't want to be here, then I don't want them here either.
-Doc J
"Steel Medic One"
Fires Sqadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment
(more)For most of us, Soldiering is more than just a job where you get to play with automatic weapons in other countries now and then.
It is a way of life.
We take comfort, in when looking to our left and right, we see others with that same level of commitment. (the fakes weed themselves out)
That male or female is here just as I, because they walked into a recruiter's office and said "This is what I WANT to do." Even with the expressed and implied risks.
I'm sorry, but with deepest respect for the draftee armies that have served with distinction and nobility in the past, a draft would reduce my confidence in those around me.
I'm a professional, I want professionals around me.
For me it's less about the concept of a draft itself, and more a "no confidence" vote on the caliber of people we would end up putting in the ranks as a result.
To be fair, there are some great young people out there who would (and do) step up and make fine Soldiers......But there are a whole hell of a lot of spoiled, undiciplined, self centered youngsters who hold no authority higher than themselves, who would wind up in uniform. And the military IS the sort of place where "one bad apple" can have a VERY detrimental impact.
Hitler.......Hitler, or another like him is a fine reason to have a draft.
"Diversity" is not.
We are already about as diverse as it gets. We are people from ALL walks of life, religions, ethnicities, backgrounds, philosophies, and points of the compass.
So for every left handed Eskimo put into service for the sake of diversity that made a great Soldier, we would wind up with 20 who didn't want to be there.
And if they don't want to be here, then I don't want them here either.
-Doc J
"Steel Medic One"
Fires Sqadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment
definition of murder: premeditated taking of a human life by another human life! and this war is taking many innocent lives, like kids and wives! if you don;t thin thats murder you got something a way screwy in your head!
Consider that a bare 50 years ago, if we wanted to destroy a factory, we ended up flattening an entire city in the process..
Innocent people ALWAYS die in wars.
That's just the way it is.
And while we have come incredible distances in or efforts to reduce the innocent casualties of war.....There is and never will be any such thing as a "zero defect war". People who had nothing to do with any part of the war will STILL die on some scale.
And while that is tragic, and horrid......That is the nature of war.
And as horrid as that is, it still isn't "murder".
Show me where you got your statistics.
Show me a reliable source that is OBJECTIVE.
And when you say "over there" you will need to be specific are you talking about Iraq or Afganistan?
AND I'm still waiting for the OBJECTIVE source of these "statistics" you have belched out.
Thank you so much for your service to Our Country!!!
I'm 42 and have only recently got my AA degree.
Here's the part you didn't know, most US Soldiers leave the Army with a degree if they didn't come in with one.
Compared to the rest of the planet, we are the most educated Army to ever be fielded.
So how were we idiots again?
Or do you simply assume that we are because we do a job that you find distastefull......kind of like how you assume we commit "murder".
You may want to crack open a legal or even a regular English dictionary, and read up on the definition of murder before you start hurling it around.
Your failure to do so.....is not detracting from MY character in any way shape or form.
Yours........
And sight unseen, you have decided that we are little more than automatons that will do anything we are told.
You have exposed yourself yet again.
DO go on.
That Libfraud has really a chip on his shoulder.
And yes, he likes to try and antagonize me.
No matter.
The Republicans CAN'T roll back DADT.
The White house, while in overall command of the military, does not dictate policy TO the military.
The current President wanted DADT overturned, but it was never made an order. The military, believe it or not came to the conclusion, following a muli-year study that gay people serving openly would not be detrimental to the well being of the force, or it's ability to perform it's function.
And so like segregation, it was cast aside.
I have served with gay Soldiers of both genders, and have no problem with them at all. If they can do the job, and are willing to meet the same standards, which they had been doing all along anyway, then to me it's a non issue.
That being said, I don't think your "no confidence" vote gives these people a fair shake. For one thing a major reason why many will not choose to enlist is they feel the ones out there are doing their jobs just fine, that is many are not eager, but they are more than willing. The self-centeredness, the self-entitlement, these are a lack of character traits that must be built, but it is not the total absence of said traits, simply a lack of cultivation. Then we KNOW they can be cult...
That being said, I don't think your "no confidence" vote gives these people a fair shake. For one thing a major reason why many will not choose to enlist is they feel the ones out there are doing their jobs just fine, that is many are not eager, but they are more than willing. The self-centeredness, the self-entitlement, these are a lack of character traits that must be built, but it is not the total absence of said traits, simply a lack of cultivation. Then we KNOW they can be cultivated because we know they must be cultivated. The corps you know was built largely to the numbers we have today from those who answered the draft, then re-enlisted when they got the chance and saw their children enlist of their own will. Not all know the call of duty until it is made out loud to them, and many military families trace the origins of their family traditions to the World Wars. There were naysayers then too, when kids from all parts of the society were taken and put to service. People were saying you couldn't turn those kids into soldiers, but our forefathers of that time did just that. Admittedly it would take longer to whip these people into shape, but it's by no means impossible. During the First World War it was still in people's memory, the time when all citizens were required to participate in their town's militia. Which seems to be what the man is proposing... Now remember this, in the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson gathered a force of armed civilians to defend New Orleans from what was then the most elite fighting force in the world, and the result was an unprecedented defeat of said elite force.
Now you'll notice I am not going to vote yes on that: Not just because I feel that a federally administered mandatory militia would not only serve the purpose poorly, but it would actually be a violation of the spirit of the Second Amendment. That is it is the responsibility of the people, not the federal government to administer a militia. And the Department of the Armed Forces is supposed to field the standing corps, the professional soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
That's up to mom, dad, and society at large.
And if you look at the National Guard, we kinda already have militia for pretty much each state.
You are right that it is not the military's responsibility, but what exists is inadequate for so many, someone, somewhere has to step up to the plate, before there are too few of us responsible enough to train enough warriors to defend ourselves. I would rather it be an initiative of the people, and the correct intentions do exist, but I don't see any movements bringing those intentions to the forefront.
However we have been fortunate that enough DO have some semblence of a sense of duty that we do have some pretty damn good people.
We are taught to be prepared, bu in my 20 years service, I never was in a direct confrontation with an enemy. But was indeed trained, and prepared to do what was needed to protect the USA, and tha Constitution.
But to one that has such dislike of the idea of Service to Country, it is a foreign idea.
You have to experience it to enjoy what comes from it.
Many volunteers now are turned down because they are obese. If Americans could learn to say no to the cheeseburgers and 36 oz soft drinks, we wouldn't need a draft.
can handle 'em all?
Ok, so we make it equitable and draft 'em all. Do we go with the current number of Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) and increase their staffing? Do we open new and start over - what's the bill for that real estate? How/ where do we train these hordes? What's your garrison staffing requirement just to support the training centers you just opened? Remember, garrison personnel don't have anything to do with actual training, they just keep the post running. How much of your career force do you tie up in the training base - 25%... 33%... 50%!?? Then they're no longer available in the field and you have to rotate them nearly as quickly as the folks you draft. How long are you going to require draftees to serve? "The duration plus 6" like WWII? Wouldn't recommend trying that without a formal declaration of war....
can handle 'em all?
Ok, so we make it equitable and draft 'em all. Do we go with the current number of Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) and increase their staffing? Do we open new and start over - what's the bill for that real estate? How/ where do we train these hordes? What's your garrison staffing requirement just to support the training centers you just opened? Remember, garrison personnel don't have anything to do with actual training, they just keep the post running. How much of your career force do you tie up in the training base - 25%... 33%... 50%!?? Then they're no longer available in the field and you have to rotate them nearly as quickly as the folks you draft. How long are you going to require draftees to serve? "The duration plus 6" like WWII? Wouldn't recommend trying that without a formal declaration of war. 2 years AD like the Vietnam Era? That's a turnover of what percentage of your force every 12 months? Oh, wait a minute, they spent 4 - 5 months in training, they've a statutory/regulatory right to 60 days' leave during that 2 years, so simple subtraction shows we actually have them available in a unit for 17 to 18 months. But that's only true if we don't give early releases to those returning to CONUS after a combat tour because they have less than 6 months remaining to ETS. It avoids disciplinary issues. And what about our technical schools that exceed two months in length? How many will actually serve in a combat zone? Contrary to popular belief, only 38% of Vietnam era draftees actually served in Vietnam. The return on investment just ain't there.
The draftees I served with in Vietnam were great soldiers and I'll damn anyone that says otherwise. Hell, I enlisted with my draft notice in hand. The advantages of a longer term of service contracted with a volunteer, a smaller personnel commitment to sustain the CONUS base, the knowledge and experience that isn't lost in a hemorrhage of 1/3rd of your personnel every year just outweighs any supposed advantage in returning to the draft.
Now that I'm older, I'm not so certain. Where do we draw the line that ensures the rights of the individual outweigh the requirements of the state? When does service devolve into enslavement? Everyone suggests absolutes to ensure equitability: no deferments, no exemptions, but our past performance doesn't offer a great deal of hope. Anyone here that isn't aware of Bill Clinton's manipulation of the system? How about Rush's famous (infamous?) cyst? Who makes the decision as to what the requirements of 'responsible citizenship' are going to be? Exactly how does conscription in any form reinforce or support our culture? When does the will of the majority become the oppression of the minority? What do we do with the Thoreaus of the world?
If there's been a shift in or loss of 'American values', that change began in the home when parents abdicated their responsibility to pass those values on to their children. Each of us that calls himself or herself an American has to determine what that personally mean...
Now that I'm older, I'm not so certain. Where do we draw the line that ensures the rights of the individual outweigh the requirements of the state? When does service devolve into enslavement? Everyone suggests absolutes to ensure equitability: no deferments, no exemptions, but our past performance doesn't offer a great deal of hope. Anyone here that isn't aware of Bill Clinton's manipulation of the system? How about Rush's famous (infamous?) cyst? Who makes the decision as to what the requirements of 'responsible citizenship' are going to be? Exactly how does conscription in any form reinforce or support our culture? When does the will of the majority become the oppression of the minority? What do we do with the Thoreaus of the world?
If there's been a shift in or loss of 'American values', that change began in the home when parents abdicated their responsibility to pass those values on to their children. Each of us that calls himself or herself an American has to determine what that personally means to us and make our decisions accordingly. Since 1862, my family's served in uniform - 22 to the Army, 6 to the Navy, 2 Air Force and one each to the Corps and the Coast Guard; some chose it as a profession, others as a duty in time of war. Two of my children served; my older grandchildren, high-schoolers, are already considering it. We served because it's an obligation we honestly felt and willingly accepted - not because someone else decreed we had to.