Is reinstatement of the draft at hand?

Various | Aug 4, 2002 | The Duke

[arm958]

Women have to be drafted also? Says who?

They don't have to register and we would not need to draft them.

Agreed, women should not be drafted. However, if men start dying in large numbers, all this talk about "glass ceilings" will fall on deaf ears. It will throw the womens' equality movement back 40 years, and that's a good thing. Men support families and women raise children. That's the way it's supposed to be. Every woman that has a high paying job means one less man that can properly support his family. No wonder our families are disintigrating. Call me a dinasaur; I really don't care. Our forefathers, who built our great nation, would be shocked at how we have devalued men.

[JavaTheHutt]

The rich and leadership never send their sons off to war.

Tell that to the family of Teddy Roosevelt Jr. Next time you happen to be in the area around Normandy, France, stop by the U.S. cemetary and tell him and all of the rest of the men that are buried there "Thank you."

[JavaTheHutt]

And from what I understand, reenlistments are very high. Does anyone have any numbers on that?/

No complete numbers, but I can tell you that I just finished a drill weekend with my National Guard unit, and we had one person leaving, 4 re-enlistments, and 3 new soldiers join the unit. That was just this weekend.

My unit is currently at %110 strength.

[arm958]

The rich and leadership never send their sons off to war.

Tell that to the family of Teddy Roosevelt Jr.

If gunnedah was speaking in the present tense, then he is absolutely correct. Much has changed in the last century. Have you ever read Edmund Morris' two-part (so far) biography of Theodore Roosevelt? Roosevelt would be considered a rabid nazi today. The overwhelming majority of Americans have no historical perspective; consequently, they cannot see how disgracefully far we have fallen.

[Gritty]

We've got millions of young men and women who have honed their mental and visual reflexes for years playing ever more complicated video games.

True, and it will be a help. But, as I'm sure you know, there is a lot more to being successful in the military sense than mastering video games. One also needs the development of teamwork, dedication of self to the mission, courage, thorough military training and personal stamina - among a long list of other requirements.

Add to that their insensitivity to death and destruction which the games instill and I'd say that we've got potentially the most vicious and relentless warrior class in history.

"Vicious" and "relentless" do not a successful warrior class make, although these can be plusses when controlled in a disciplined way. Besides, while insensitivity may make one vicious and destructive, it fails to follow it will make one either relentless or a warrior in a military sense. A coward or bully may also be "vicious" and "relentless" and these people are not generally successful soldiers when the chips are down. Why? Because they are always looking out for #1 and not what needs to be done!

In a high-tech shooting war, our teenagers would reek total annihilation against any distant enemy.

Again, this may be true when everything is going their way. But, when the technology and battle is not going their way it will take other qualities to turn it around and prevail.

[american spirit]

Well you could've fooled me. With all the media spewed propaganda we've heard over the last 10-20 yrs. I thought our country had developed a new super-race of women capable of anything. I'm sure a lot of these super-fems would crap in their pants if they ever received a draft notice.

[gunnedah]

Teddy is dead and was an exception to the rule but so were others in years past. I am speaking of my generation not our founding fathers and through WW2 but I doubt it applied during WW2.If those people could come back you speak of they would not believe what the leaders in this
country have done and are doing now.

[gunnedah]

Well said and oh so true.They like Congress and DC will cover for themselves and the hell with everyone else.In crunch time birds of a feather!

[Gritty]

Women have to be drafted also? Says who?

They don't have to register and we would not need to draft them.

At the present time, they are not drafted and you're right - we don't need them as a part of the draft.

That has nothing to do with my statement.

Common sense went out the window long ago when Political Correctness and the Feminist Movement came in and took over the boat. These nostrums are firmly and deeply entrenched in the culture as well as federal law. Just look around you and see how the culture has changed in the past 30 years since there was a draft.

Sure, women are not in the draft now. But, given a return to the draft, just how long do you think the legal challenges will take before women are added to the draft? Not long, based on current court precedents! It only awaits the time of implementation and has nothing to do with military requirements or common sense. It will be considered a "civil right" despite the fact many women don't want that right! Liberals will make sure of it, because not requiring it will destroy their case on a multitude of other fronts.

[RISU]

Before he died, my Dad thought the draft was good. He used to say that the benefit of haviung the baker's boy and the bankers boy meeting each other on the common ground of our National defense was good for the country.

I think he was right. (He was a WW II vet, and I am a VietNam vet)

However, if the "elite" exmpt themselves, then the purpose of the "melting pot" would be obviated, and I would disapprove.

A fair draft is a good way to manage the services needs.

[fogarty]

But it's very much a fact that 'chock full up to authorized strength' is not sufficient for the tasks at hand. The bottom line is the military was decimated during the Clinton era. We have maybe 1/2 the combat divisions, air wings, and surface combatants since 1992.

We may be full T/O strength, but it T/O strength is not sufficient to handle all the current ops we have plus a major regional conflict. And until Bush and Rummy start the tens of thousands of troops from their peace-keeping missions, the military will be severely strained.

[DAnconia55]

Because the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one.

Anything else is totalitarian socialist drivel.

[metesky]

I think perhaps your coming at this from the wrong angle. Let me explain.

From the United States Code

CITE 10USC Sec 311
EXPCITE TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
HEAD Sec. 311. Militia: composition and class>/i>

STATUTE (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Since all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are already members of the Unorganized Militia, the draft serves merely to call a needed number of them to active duty, hence the designation Selective Service. Remember this law has been part of the Federal Code since the 1790s and has nothing to do with socialism, but concerns the duties of citizens in a free Republic.