Posted on 06/02/2008 7:53:38 AM PDT by Doctor13
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill, English economist & philosopher (1806-1873)
The War, a documentary directed and produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novich is the story of the Second World War through the personal accounts of a handful of men and women from four American towns. The war touched the lives of every family on every street in every town of America.
The scenes brought back the misery, the suffering, the cold, the mud, the rain, the sicknesses and the agony endured by our GIs. America faced an enemy that had attacked our country on 7 December 1941 plummeting us into a war that we did not want nor had we started; nor did we know when or how it was going to end. It was a war where every American felt there was a part for them to play - out of patriotism, and it was a war where the women of our country (exemplified by Rosie the Riveter) hung up their aprons and went to work in the factories making the much needed supplies for the war effort and where they waited for their loves one to safely return home.
Today, we have an all-volunteer military in which less than 1 percent of the population serve in the military. GIs have returned to the war zone, some as many as three, four and even five times and this is where I have the problem. I hear people say, "Well, after all, they volunteered!" Just because we have an all-volunteer military, does it mean that they are to be sent back into battle time and time again until they are either maimed or killed? Does it mean we should use our brightest and best as cannon fodder because they "volunteered" to serve their country? US suicide rates among US soldiers are heading for a record high, according to army data. According to other statistics, 120 War Vets commit suicide each week. It is just plain unfair. It should be the willing patriotic duty of every red blooded American to take up arms against an enemy, an enemy far more evil than we faced in World War II.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that I would agree with someone as politically liberal as Congressman Charlie Rangel, but I did when he said that if he were elected president he would bring back the draft. As they say, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." Rangel is right, the draft should be reinstated, but in a way that corrects the inequities, problems and manipulations of the old draft system. Names of all eligible draftees should be placed in a lottery. If your name is drawn - you go. If your name is not drawn - you don't. Although it's not quite that simple, this time, there should be no exemptions for college. Other exemptions, such as those for "critical personnel" should be rare and closely evaluated. There should also be consideration for families who already sacrificed one member defending our country. Lacking a draft, we have "A few good men" (and they are the best) are protecting the sorry behinds of those who do not wish to serve, many of whom heap insults, criticisms and yes, even lies, against those who do.
Just as America was attacked on 7 December 1941, America was also attacked on 11 September 2001 by an enemy more dangerous and evil than we could ever have anticipated, and still there are Americans who point their fingers and claim that it is we Americans who are to blame. "If only we understood them...," or, "If only we tried to reason with them..." just as Chamberlain had tried to reason with Adolph Hitler.
If we had fought World War II the way we are fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan today, our official language would be German. Instead of the kid-glove restrictions imposed on how we treat the Islamo-fascists who have vowed to kill the infidel (that's you and I, my friend, in case you haven't guessed), and the lawyer-imposed rules of engagement (ROEs) that are costing the lives of our warriors, the only concern, as one Marine put it, should be how to "facilitate their desire to go to Allah for a martyr's reward of being greeted by 72 virgins" but do it before they kill or injure an American GI or blow to pieces innocent civilian men, women and children?
As my Vietnam fighter-pilot husband once said, "If you're in a street fight and you fight by Marquis of Queensbury Rules and the other guy fights dirty, you're gonna lose!"
To put things into perspective:
As tragic as are the deaths of our GIs in the current war, approximately 5000 after almost five years of fighting, in less than the same length of time in World War Two, 400,000 were killed. Consider that The Battle of the Bulge lasted from December 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945 and was the largest battle of World War II in which the United States participated, 600,000 Americans (more than fought at Gettysburg ) fought for their lives. Although many dreamed of the day they could return to their families, too many of them did not make it home. At the conclusion of the battle there were 81,000 American casualties including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed.
The battle for Iwo Jima was another costly campaign. What started as a quick, violent attack on February 19, 1945, turned into 36 days of some of the fiercest and bloodiest fighting the Marines had encountered. The first day saw 2,400 American casualties. By the end of the campaign 71,245 Marines had been put ashore; of these, 5,931 were killed in action, and 17,372 wounded and, in all, Allied forces suffered 27,909 casualties, with 6,825 killed in action. Those are the brutal consequences of war.
What is the difference today? The answer is that we are a much different country from the America I grew up in during World War II. We expect war without casualties. Politicians subordinate the war effort and the lives of our military to their political ambitions. The media sensationalizes every enemy attack and questions every action of our military, causing many to question, is it worth it?
But then, the media was on our side in World War II. And, as one Marine is quoted as saying , "America is not at war. The Marines are at war; America is at the mall."
Yes. Draft the kid who lives up on the corner. He is halfway from being let out of prison and being put back in. Draft him, save him from himself.
Uh....real nice way to refer to our Vietnam vets.
I have the honor to work with some of these people. I don't think they'd appreciate your characterization one bit.
They want equal rights, equal pay, equal everything, then they get equal draft status.
So many easily forget, that almost 18,000 draftees gave their lives fighting in Vietnam.
In the American system, we already have "national service" -- the GET A JOB program.
The greatest of sacrifices in service our Nation.
Saying a draft isn't a good model to staff the US Military under the current circumstances should not be construed as a slight on the honor of anyone in the past who served this country as a draftee.
I second this.
Well folks, he might not be calling for reinstating the draft but according Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.:
“The U.S. Army today faces an imminent and menacing threat to our national security. Failure to resolve this problem could leave us vulnerable and our enemies victorious.
The threat? The lack of fully qualified young people to serve in the military.
Many young Americans are willing to serve, but too little is made of the declining number of young people who are qualified to serve. This is the real story and it’s a shocking one. Only 28 percent of the 17- to 24-year-old population qualifies to wear a military uniform. The other 72 percent fail to meet minimum standards on education, character and health. Of those eligible to serve, many choose not to for a variety of reasons.”
http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/647515.html
wow.......pretty interesting stuff...can you explain how the military continues to meet and/or exceed it’s recruitment quota’s?
“...can you explain...” He said it. Contact TRADOC’s PAO monr-tradocpao@conus.army.mil
BTW: Although the recruiting goals are being met, I would be curious to know how many don’t make it thru basic training and/or do not complete their first enlistment. That would be telling.
Heinlein had a better idea. Never any draft, but only veterans can vote.
Reasoning is that the most important virtue in a politician is that they put the benefit of the country ahead of their own personal benefit. Some one who has put their own life at risk to protect others is the clearest proof that they can do that.
The spirit of that sentiment is pointing in the right direction.
Private employment is how one serves in a CAPITALIST nation. If you prefer to live in a SOCIALIST nation, there ain’t no border guards stopping movement in that direction....
My brother and a number of friends served in Nam. Basic cold, hard fact of life in play here: there is no such thing in this world as a cause good enough to draft people for. We need a basic law on the books clearly stating under what circumstances draftees could ever be used in combat and to me at least the bare minimum is a full declaration of war.
Both I and my younger brother served full careers as volunteers, I in the AF and he in the Marines. I'm glad we've done away with the draft. The all-volunteer force is a much better arrangement.
The problem with people being sent back to Iraq several times is not from the lack of a draft, but from the deliberate decision not to expand the size of the Army. A deliberate tradeoff was made, to reduce the number of troops in order to pay for new equipment. I think it was a bad decision, and the strain on the troops is the price the Army is paying for that decision.
jane fonda, is that you? was your brother’s name john kerry? do you belong to code pink? get lost
Today's all-volunteer military severely damps down any enthusiasm for their A.N.S.W.E.R./Code Pike/MoveOn socialistic cause.
I believe our Vietnam vets deserve much better than being called "slaves." I can't imagine anyone other than an aging "flower child" referring to them that way.
What Nixon needed to do when he took over was to immediately end the use of draftees in Nam and hold a meeting with Pentagon brass and lay out the law which Reagan followed to them, i.e. that you play those kinds of games with petty cash and handsfull of professional soldiers and/or soldiers of fortune and not with draftees or vast sums of treasure, and then if they thought they could win the thing under those rules go for it, or otherwise it should have ended in early 69.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.