I overheard two men talking about how we need to invade Iran and Pakistan next, how Obama is an idiot for reducing the defense budget and decreasing troop levels, and other pro-Hawk complaints when I see the news scroll on Bloomberg and CNBC. 107 killed in Iraq... a few in Afghanistan... I keep hearing about Americans being war weary, but how sincere is that feeling? The areas under the War on Terror have become this nebulous place whose enormous causalities have made us desensitized after a decade; unlike WW2 and Vietnam, most Americans are disconnected from our military. This article from Mother Jones has ideas on how to fix that, even for those who don't want to fight: #1 #2 #3 "I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk. You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game." Gen. Stanley McChrystal "The sacrifices for this war are paid only by a small number of American families. The moral hazard in planning for war is too great—if we want responsible leadership, we must share the sacrifice." Rep. Charlie Rangel [Korean War veteran]
"I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk. You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game." Gen. Stanley McChrystal "The sacrifices for this war are paid only by a small number of American families. The moral hazard in planning for war is too great—if we want responsible leadership, we must share the sacrifice." Rep. Charlie Rangel [Korean War veteran] dmc Agreed. The chickenhawks would not be so tough or so keen to start new wars with other people's children. Similarly, there is great moral hazard in having "wars" or police actions that are just extended drone campaigns.
Except the Libertarians in #3 would still have to pay for it... Why not let people opt out of paying their federal taxes? Federales haven't done **** for me.
I'm totally ok with mandatory service. And no libertarians wouldn't get an opt-out. They'd serve like the rest of us.
Theoretically, I wouldn't have a problem with conscription, but in the current circumstances, no. An army is an army. It should be designed in a way that best optimizes its efficiency, and should never be used for social experiments. Never. And from a military perspective, conscription makes no sense at all. The army doesn't gain by having to train a bunch of people who don't want to be there and will try to get out as soon as they can, especially since there's no lack of volunteers (I can personally attest to that one)
Your federal tax dollars protect your Bill of Rights. If you've driven on the interstate at any point in your life, pay for that too please. There are many other things which you have indirectly derived benefit from being a US citizen and paying federal taxes, but I have to get back to work soon. Frankly speaking, the least you can do for being a small part of the global population yet being a major consumer is paying for the institutions and people who protect your lifestyle from the billions of other people who'd love to be on your shoes.
Eh, based on the quote, "those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him—no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees", I've no major qualms with the libertarians opting out. If someone who knows what other services the federal government does for the American citizen, please chime in. I'm sure there are many other things we can ban libertarians from using unless they don't help protect our country.
I hear you glynch. You have no idea how many war hawks I've met in the last ten years who have zero personal connection to the troops they send overseas. One man I remember was an obese neocon academic working at a think-tank in DC giving a presentation about how more troops were needed, giving the green light for multiple tours, yet at the same time denying additional money to VA for PTSD treatment or getting veterans new employment.
According to point #1, anyone who doesn't want to serve in a combat role can do the mundane tasks which are currently outsourced to contractors. Cooking meals, cleaning vehicles, filling paperwork, etc. There isn't much training involved for these tasks, and I doubt anyone does them with a passion. Moreover, the tax payer can save a lot of money. So why not conscripts? The roles you're talking about will still be done by the professional soldiers so I don't see what the problem is.
Rather than giving a mechanism to expand the military and force people to do things they don't want, how about we just shrink our military some? No?
Not this ****ing topic again. A draft is an incredibly bad idea. Glynch, like me, is old enough to remember when we had a draft. Ask him how he felt about it then. All a draft would do is lower the quality of our volunteer military and divide the country even more than it is already. And those saying how great it would be, how about just joining up? What's stopping you? What? You are busy going to college? What? You have a career and a family? Simply have too much going on to bother interrupting your fun posting on the Internet? Have kids that would be old enough to be subject to a draft? Yeah, I thought so. For those who have actually served, you have my gratitude. As for this "new" idea, it's nothing new. It's all been suggested before in one form or another. We have civilian service options available if people are interested. If Congress and the President want to add to those options, go ahead, but a draft? What a steaming pile of ****.
The alternative is your government seeking out your weakest and convincing them to go to war with dollars and an opportunity to act on their bigotry/racism/depression. It really sucks to know that people can vote for war mongerers and never have to risk their own life. This is one of the main reasons I do not support war of any kind - I would never pick up a weapon for a nation-state, so I find it hypocritical to support war with the blood of fellow citizens. While I would love to see the likes of some COWARD keyboard warriors having to deal with this, I think overall the result is bad. People are not soldiers by nature, it is easier to remind them of that than to threaten everyone. It is easier to oppose the recruitment of a volunteer army. More good people are lost in a draft. The opt-out option sure does make it a tempting proposition though. The best solution is still to improve diplomacy and reduce your economy's reliance on the proceeds of war and the sale of weapons. Why should you guys resort to a draft when the right government can fix the source problem?
This draft will only replace whatever contractors we have for menial work like cooking and cleaning. We can shrink the military AND substantially save money by putting civilians instead of contractors into non-combat roles. 18 months is not that long considering you get free college at the end. And we're not talking about a large number of people being drafted like WW2. I'm making this up, but if we currently have 100 units of professional and volunteer soldiers and 25 units of contractors doing anything but fighting, we can replace just 1/2 of those 25 units with civilians and save money. To please you, we can also shrink the 100 units of soldiers down to 66 units.
I just answered this in the previous post. Unnecessary? That's very debatable. I'd like to give a longer answer to why I think it's very necessary. Most of our troops are exhausted physically and mentally, and this country could save money if we replaced contractors with civilians and decrease the size of our military. Remember, this is mostly for non-combat roles. Besides, there is also the moral hazard argument of a bunch of internet warriors voting for people who send troops overseas without having any personal cost to them.
I can see you have strong feelings on this considering your past, however, this won't be like Vietnam or anything in our history. Call it what you like. Maybe draft has too much of a negative connotation; call it an expansion of civilian service options. Lower the quality of our military? It's non-combat roles. You don't need quality to mow a military housing lawn. That's currently contractor work, and it's costing us a lot of money. Divide the country? Have you any idea how disconnected upper middle class people are from what the troops do? What socioeconomic groups do you think constitute the grunts who currently fought in the last 10 years? Also, this won't be like Vietnam. Rich people and those with connections cannot avoid service, even if it's only for non-combat roles. This will be a relatively egalitarian program where Americans from all backgrounds will join. How are there such strong emotions to "teaching in low-income areas, cleaning parks, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, or aiding the elderly"? These are activities which can save us a lot of money, don't require you to fight, etc.
I know you are replying to someone else, but you want to punish children for being born into rich/wealthy households by mandating they join the military? You act like only rich/wealthy folk have ever had any disagreement with mandated military service. Might want to check yourself and stop painting with such a broad brush. What is the purpose of this plan: to make everyone want to go to war? And your idea of a non-combative military is contradictory to the existence of the military.
