my dad respected elvis and hated ali for their decisions to join/not join the military. yet when i ask him about today's administration, well, thats altogether different he says, throat clears, makes excuses.... <sigh>
Here's an interesting editorial from the Austin American-Statesman... Editorial A plan that would serve U.S., military well Editorial Board AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Sunday, May 23, 2004 Despite recent rumblings about Congress reviving conscription, the Vietnam War effectively destroyed the draft as an immediate option for maintaining a healthy military. A conscription bill filed in Congress last year was no more than an anti-war statement by Democratic representatives. Not only is the bill an empty shell, there is no fondness for the draft in Congress, the Pentagon or the public at large. Conscription is a toxic topic in the midst of a war that has divided the country. What should be of more concern to America's leaders is what the war in Iraq is doing to the National Guard and the Reserves. Fully 40 percent of the forces on the ground in Iraq are Guard and Reserve units, men and women taken away from families and careers for a long, dangerous tour in the desert. Some of those men and women have had their tours of duty extended and their retirements or terminations postponed because military leaders can't afford to lose them during a shooting war. That not only shatters morale, it may leave recruiters struggling to fill slots in active duty and reserve units. With recruitment in danger because of the war, the draft not an option and the Reserves and National Guard increasingly bearing an active duty burden, the Army could be in a serious bind. America's 1.4 million active duty troops are deployed around the world -- from Haiti to Korea; from Europe to Africa -- and soon there may not be enough men and women in uniform to do the job and provide for the national defense. There are ways to boost recruitment through cash bonuses, college tuition and other incentives. But that raises concerns about who is doing the fighting and dying. Buying service members leads to overwhelming numbers of poor and disadvantaged people using the uniform as a step up the ladder. It establishes a caste system like the one criticized during Vietnam, when college students were exempt and others were drafted. By every measure, the all-volunteer military begun under President Nixon 30 years ago has been exceptional. The Pentagon loves it. But it wasn't large enough for the war in Iraq, and the Reserves have had to fill the gaps. Post-Iraq, it might be a long time before the Reserves reach the 1.2 million mark again. Although conscription is not a realistic option now, national service should remain an ideal. Not the Vietnam-era military draft, but actual service to the country in all its forms. Under that ideal, the military would be only one option, along with teaching, health care, child care, homeland security, national parks, police and many other jobs that contribute to the strength of America. To maintain a healthy military, service could be shorter or better paid or with more benefits than other services. But every young person, male and female, would be expected to spend at least two years in service to America in some capacity. Conceivably, national service wouldn't need to be a legal requirement. If Congress mandated that colleges and employers grant preference to those with a service record, it wouldn't take many years for national service to become the norm. The military would benefit because it would draw from all classes of American society and no one would be forced into the military. Not only would America benefit from its wealth of talented young people pouring into the important service sectors, but the young Americans would, too. They would get training and exposure they could otherwise miss, find an America they might not know and gain a greater respect for our country by serving it. A country divided by the Iraq war cannot be expected to support a move toward even a broad-based national service plan. But America won't be in Iraq forever, and there will be a more propitious time to consider a proposal to strengthen the country and its military through national service. It will be an opportunity Congress shouldn't miss because national defense depends on a strong military. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/co...ns/sunday/editorial_04eabf24a4b6500b0032.html
This national service idea is total and complete garbage. The only thing the average citizen owes their country is to become self-sustaining and not be a leech upon their fellow man. The only way to solve the manpower is to get more troops or, better yet, withdraw all of our troops from Europe, including Kosovo and Bosnia. Why should we continue to waste our troops on a European problem? We don't need a draft or the negatives that go with it. As for this national service idea, it is so.....facist. Compelling people to "serve" their fellow man is not noble in the slightest and is in contravention of a free society. These are a few interesting quotes on the subject from Neal Boortz's website.
Well Colonel Hackworth sees a draft as the troop drop out of the all volunteer army. ************* By David H. Hackworth Top military managers insist that our all-volunteer Army isn’t stretched too thin from this country’s heavy and hazardous commitment to hot spots like Iraq and Afghanistan and cooler places in another 131 countries around Planet Earth. They spout positive numbers like carnival hucksters, hyping enlistment and re-enlistment rates they keep insisting are at an all-time high. “Loyalty, patriotism and seeing the results of successfully accomplishing their missions are the key factors in this success,” said Col. Elton Manske, an Army personnel chief in the Pentagon. Except that’s exactly 180 degrees out from what hundreds of soldiers have told me during the past few weeks. It also doesn't square with the fact that the Army is currently extending 44,000 soldiers under stop-loss provisions – which, like a form of the draft, arbitrarily keep a soldier in service beyond the agreed-upon term of enlistment. "Stop loss is not only a breach of contract, it’s a form of slavery,” railed a Special Forces (SF) senior noncommissioned officer. “There's a tidal wave of folks getting out. ... The number of senior SF NCOs leaving is amazing. Our battalion had three of five sergeant-majors retire, and our sister battalion had two of five. The number of master sergeants was well into double digits. I predict that the exodus will devastate the senior NCO corps at a time when experience and stability are most needed.” Despite all the accentuate-the-positive spin coming out of the Pentagon, the anecdotal reports I’ve received – especially from Reserve and National Guard folks – agree with the SF sergeant and point to a mass exodus that will reach the hemorrhage point by mid-2005. “Speaking off the record,” writes a military wife, “my husband was supposed to come home from Iraq this week but has just been extended another 120 days. His old unit, 3rd Infantry Division, is already seeing an exodus of junior officers. Since their return from Iraq, 35 captains have left the Army for greener pastures. Several more – read: another 15-20 – are due to leave, but who knows whether or not they’ll manage to do so before more stop losses and stop moves come down prior to their return to the desert. ... Between separation from family, no guarantee of tour lengths, no clear mission and consistent pay problems, folks are pretty fed up. If they can get out, which is no small feat, they seem to be doing so while the getting is good.” “Don't use my name,” writes a senior sergeant. “I believe we are going to have a massive attrition problem in the Reserve. I have 24 years in the Army Reserve, and this is my second time in the Gulf. They’re talking about reservists having to deploy once every five years. I doubt our civilian employers and families are going to buy into that. I've got to get out when I redeploy if I want to stay married.” “We're stretched too thin,” reports a sergeant. “Our CO (commanding officer) admitted this to us during our tour in Afghanistan. He also admitted that morale is down due to the extending of tours. Yet the Pentagon insists there’s no problem with morale. We lost over 75 percent of our unit when we got back. I know other units are having the same problems. If this trend continues, we won’t have enough people to defend this country when the need arises.” An Apache pilot in Korea says, “It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Army is going to be losing a lot of people as soon as they get the chance to vote with their feet.” I’m sure the brass have all the paperwork to back up their propaganda campaign. But as far as the old saw that “figures don't lie” goes, I’ve been around long enough to know that liars figure and soldiers know the truth. So I’ll go with the soldiers. Unless so-called Army short tours in the badlands of Iraq and Afghanistan become manageable based on the number of troops available – right now the Army is trying to do the work of 14 divisions with 10 under-strength, active-duty divisions – we’ll see a mass exodus from the Green Machine and the inevitable return of the draft.
