Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

How would a reinstated draft affect the feminist push for women in frontline combat?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at April 22, 2004 12:16 AM

My guess is that if the draft were reinstated, then the situation would be so bad that either you wouldn't have anyone pushing to be on the front lines, or there'd be so many women effectively serving on the front lines that the debate becomes academic.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 22, 2004 03:57 AM

I already wrote my opinion here.

Posted by Phil Fraering at April 22, 2004 09:34 AM

I became a victim of the draft in 1967. It took me years to regain even tolerance of people with some sort of organizationally derived power.

The current advocates of reviving state sponsored slavery either haven't done their homework (likely) or are actively lying to advance some other goal.

I was an unusual conscript. Fortunately for me I'd already gotten my bachelor's in physics from Rutgers. Equally advantageous for me was the fact I obtained the highest score on the Army's IQ test of anyone at Fort Dix at the time. Those two facts probably saved my life.

The only part of my Army "career" that most veterans would even recognize at all was basic training. And they'd have difficulty with that part, given that I frequently called those who outranked me stupid to their faces.

After the idiocy of basic training I was assigned to do physics research with a group I will not name. Probably some bright boy at the Pentagon thought that if the draft boards were going to send them people like me, they'd make some use of us. In truth the most practical and patriotic thing that they could have done would have been to immediately discharge us.

In the first few months with this research group I figured out that I was being given tasks that were far beyond my learning at the time. I rebelled at being set up to fail by people I became convinced were incompetent. That last judgment was probably wrong. But I think it quite likely that the people in charge really didn't know what they were doing in that arena.

Before the end of my "career" I ran into some pacifists in San Francisco. In contrast to the Army types, they were friendly, understanding and supportive. They managed to convert me from a bright, rather green young man with some pacifist leanings into a pretty active pacifist anarchist for a short time. It was the best thing happened to me in the Army.

And, no, I don't want to bring back the draft to fuel protest again. I enjoyed my time in the antiVietnam movement and probably helped contribute some positive things to our country then. But times are different and so am I in some ways.

Enough for now. Feel free to ask me about that period in my life if ever we meet. I can guarantee some very funny stories that no other "veteran" has.

Posted by Chuck Divine at April 22, 2004 11:06 AM

My understanding from talking to service members (career and non) is that there isn't a need for a draft, that draftees would muck up the highly tuned machine the modern military has become.

Manpower needs are a concern, but I wonder. On the same day I saw AP reports that the Armed services were having difficulty reaching their recruiting goals, and re-enlistment rates were falling, I saw reports from units just returned from Iraq claiming they had surpassed their retention goals.

And the Marines have _never_ had a problem with manpower.

Posted by Brian at April 22, 2004 01:01 PM

Better pay will solve recruitment/retention problems much better than a draft.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 22, 2004 01:30 PM

The article makes some really good points.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that those that want to reinstate the draft have a desire to destroy America. Why? Because the military has a purpose and seems pretty damned effective at it. Any call to drastically change the composition of the military would likely change that effectiveness which pretty much has only one direction it could go... less effective. Any argument for the draft beyond that seems to me to be both B.S. and politically motivated.

The volunteers in the military aren't doing it for the money and if that were the reason people would join, why would you want them?

The problem is when politicians try to use the military as a police force... that's not the job of the military, except for short transitional periods as required before a dedicated police force can do the job.

A larger military is probably not going to change the current dynamics in Iraq, but it would allow for a better rotation. We are putting an awful lot of responsibility on a very dedicated few.

Perhaps what we need is not a draft of the military, but a draft into a new branch of service... MP's that take no part in actual military actions and only go into an area after the initial job is done? I'd even go further, surely anti-war doesn't mean anti-police right?... how about we only draft anti-war protesters into this new foreign police force??? Yeah, that's the ticket!

Posted by ken anthony at April 22, 2004 10:27 PM

Ken Anthony writes:

Ken, some of your prejudices are showing -- and they are not pretty.

Since the Vietnam era my respect for the military has rebounded. I can think of numerous reasons for this. The post Vietnam reforms figure largely. Getting to know some current military also has helped.

On the other hand, my opinion of the police might actually be worse than it was 30 years ago. There's too much incompetence and political power grabbing for my taste.

While I'm not an opponent (yet) (I am quite in favor of expanding democracy and freedom to everyone in the world) of the war in Iraq, I do know people who are. Their opinions of the police are not high.

One thing I think Iraq needs now are mature, experienced people (say aged 30 to 50) from existing democracies to step in and help. It would be best if these people were from those most strongly committed to building a free, democratic Iraq.

Ever considered joining the Peace Corps? At its best it's an organization conservatives and liberals can both support.

Posted by Chuck Divine at April 23, 2004 05:26 AM

It would seem the argument against the draft is that the draftees would not fight. I find this argument disingenuous. There are ways to make a person fight. Military’s have used these means throughout history.

The real question is why won’t they fight? Consider this: there have been several generations who have grown up in America believing in a free lunch. They go about their lives thinking they can look out for number one and leave someone else to pay for their freedom. Or worse: They believe their protest marches and sit-ins are the causes of and not the results of their freedoms.

Truth: Blood and blood alone has always been the price for freedom. America needs the draft to teach a new generation this universal truth. Only then can we say we have truly educated the youth of America.

By the by, you might want to check out this before you start giving out stereotypes about Vietnam veterans including the one that draftees don’t fight.

Sorry if I'm a little strident on this but as a former Marine the idea that someone like Pat Tillman gave his life so some war protester can have the freedom to call him a baby killer just gripes my cookies.

Posted by Jon Jackson at April 23, 2004 09:47 PM

Ken, what you're talking about is called a constabulary - lightly armed soldiers whose main job is to police or garrison and who _can_ function as light infantry in a pinch.

We've done that before - the Marines were in Haiti in the early part of the 20th century doing exactly that.

I don't know if drafting a constabulary is a real answer. You won't get very _good_ constabulary troops whose term of service is only two years.

Posted by Brian at April 23, 2004 11:19 PM

Jon Jackson:

1. Your link ... doesn't go anwhere. Can you repost?

2. I don't disagree that draftees will fight - anyone will given proper indoctrination and a solid core of NCOs. You and I are both Marines - we know that.

3. But the military doesn't need, and doesn't want, draftees. Would a form of national service be acceptable? Think CCC, think road-gangs, think infrastructure repairs and improvments ...

Posted by Brian at April 24, 2004 06:52 PM

Brian

1.The link is for the book "Stolen Valor" available at Newsmax and Amazon. I don't want to take the chance the link thingy might not work.:o)

2.Nuff said.

3.Consider the movie "The Fighting Seebees" with John Wayne. Aside from the fact that the movie portrays a group of men who wanted to fight, it shows a basic shortcoming of your line of thinking: You can't send unarmed men into a combat situation and expect them to do their jobs. In order for these other services to do their jobs in a hostile enviroment they first have to have the weapons and training to defend themselves. That means whatever you might want to call them they're still military. Rebuilding infrastructure is all well and good but the people sent to do the job must be prepared for combat. To do otherwise is to send nothing more than cannon fodder. Personally, I believe Haliburton should have stayed in the US and left the rebuilding to the Seebees or other such units. But since we don't have the necessary troops to man these units...

Posted by Jon Jackson at April 24, 2004 07:47 PM

Chuck, everybody has their prejudices. I think an intelligent anti-war movement is fine (do you know of any?)

"You won't get very _good_ constabulary troops whose term of service is only two years." No doubt, Brian, I wouldn't expect you would. I'm not suggesting I have any solutions. But I do think our best are making the most sacrifice and I'd like to see the dynamic of that changed somehow. I also believe some people have crossed the line, their perfidious speech gives aid and comfort to the enemy. We are at war.

Posted by ken anthony at April 24, 2004 10:26 PM

Jon,

wrt to point 3. and drafting people to national service.

I wasn't thinking about sending unarmed construction workers to combat. What I had in mind .. as an alternate to drafting bodies that the military doesn't need and can't use is to use them here at home. The CCC did some marvelous infrastructure work, and 'draftees' could be pay back their service debt doing hospice work, low-risk 'community police' work, building 'stuff' and generally sprucing up the country a bit. Not theirs, ours.

Ken, I'd like to see the dynamic change as well - but I can't stand the notion of drafting soldiers. This kind of thing _can't _ be legislated (well) - it has to be social and moral pressure to Do the Right Thing.

Posted by Brian at April 25, 2004 12:03 AM

Brian and Jon,

First, Jon, I doubt most people belive in a "free" lunch. Instead I think we have a grimmer situation. Namely, modern life is a game where the players believe they can cheat each other before time runs out.A variant on musical chairs if you will, where the people who aren't sitting down end up the "dupes". Society and government plays a prime in this mess. Let's be honest. Urban society (more than half of the US population IMHO) won't look out for you because that's the way the game is rigged.

Further, while they might not conciously realize it, most of the current generations are sacrificing their fertility for society. Something that those previous generations never had to do. You might die, but there'd usually be someone to carry the family name.

Brian, I disagree with mandatory national service for a really good reason. It's a huge waste of time and human resources. Not on the scale of the US K-12 public education system, but we don't waste of this magnitude. Second, I think the real problem is that we show more respect for con artists than we do for the people who make the sacrifices. Who gets more status? A lawyer at a top firm, a politician with a lot of media exposure, or a purple heart? That's the problem.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 25, 2004 07:08 PM

Unh, if my posts above seem to indicate that I think mandatory national service is a Good Idea .. that's not what I believe.

Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by Brian at April 25, 2004 07:54 PM

Sorry Chuck, I call BS on your post that you did "physics research" as a draftee Private. I also call BS on your claim that you told those superior to you in rank that they were "stupid". At least you must have had your face stuffed in the dirt for that.

By the way, I enlisted in the Army and it was one of the best things that I ever did.

Posted by Mike at April 26, 2004 09:40 AM

"Further, while they might not conciously realize it, most of the current generations are sacrificing their fertility for society. Something that those previous generations never had to do. You might die, but there'd usually be someone to carry the family name."

I read this paragraph several times, and can't figure out what you mean. If you are talking about people having fewer (or no) children, that's hardly "sacrifice" - they choose not to have children because in a modern ecomony children are a money pit. In fact people who ARE having children are in effect making a sacrifice for the society - a significant financial investment which in the end will pay back to parents and non-parents alike. As for "carrying family name", it has far less significance today than in the past (when "family name" was an important asset in life). Either way, what does it have to do with philosphy of cheating each other? Aside from the "child-free" who will end up collecting Social Security paid for by the children of "child bearers"?

Posted by Ilya at April 26, 2004 09:45 AM

Ken Anthony writes:

Chuck, everybody has their prejudices. I think an intelligent anti-war movement is fine (do you know of any?)

Ken, might I suggest you're in a hole and you should stop digging? Proclaiming your side in a controversy as the "intelligent" one seems to be a current American fad. Consider, for example, Al Gore's proclamation in 2000 that he was the "intelligent" choice for President. He did so much stupid stuff in that campaign that I was known to joke that Mensa should file a class action defamation of character suit if he kept up with that intelligent line.

Finding intelligent opposition and criticism of the war in Iraq is extremely easy. Hell, Instapundit provides links to such people as Jerry Pournelle, Jim Henley and Patrick Nielsen Hayden. You can find quite a bit in the larger world as well.

Posted by Chuck Divine at April 26, 2004 09:54 AM

Somebody named Mike very foolishly wrote:

Mike, I'm going to be damned rude. You just called me a liar. You are writing like an ignorant fool.

First, when and where were you in the military?

Now -- two stories from me. Yes, some draft boards did draft people with physics degrees. I was one of them. The place where I was initially assigned was identified as the United States Army Corps of Engineers Nuclear Cratering Group. The group was quite tiny. My "research" activities included radiation safety. I put the "research" into quotes because the project was pretty badly screwed up and my contribution to human welfare those two years was keeping my ass alive in a civilian environment so I could eventually do something useful with my talents.

When you were in the military did you ever observe the interactions between a draftee with a physics degree and an IQ of 155 and NCOs who were only high school graduates? I strongly doubt that you did. There weren't many of us in 1967. There have been none in something like 30 years.

I will tell you a story from basic training. That way you will have some common experience to compare it to.

First, I will describe the environment briefly. I gather our basic training platoon was led by a sergeant and at least one corporal. The sergeant also had an assistant -- a 19 year old private who was held over while awaiting transfer to his advanced training assignment.

One evening this private told me to do something I regarded as stupid. I told him to "Go fuck yourself." Oddly enough, I don't remember the initial order. Go figure.

Said private stalked off. He returned quickly and told me to come with him. Since this was remotely reasonable, I complied.

I was ushered into a room where the sergeant was seated and the corporal was standing next to the sergeant. The corporal had a smirk on his face. The private was visibly steamed.

Our conversation went like this:

Sergeant: Did you tell private (name not remembered) to "Go fuck himself"?

Me (with slight irritation): Yes...

Sergeant to corporal: Well at least he admits it.

Sergeant to me: Why did you tell private ? to go fuck himself?

Me (more irritated): Because he told me to do something stupid.

Sergeant (raising voice): When private ? is speaking, he is speaking for ME!

At this point I am genuinely angry. Oh, another point about me: when in high school and for a bit in college I was on the debate team. I know how to use words very well. One way to strongly emphasize a point is to lower your voice an octave or two. This is what I did.

Me: Then you make damned sure your stupid pet soldier doesn't tell people to do stupid things.

Shocked silence ensued. The corporal stopped smiling. After a while the sergeant let me go. None of the people I attacked ever challenged me again.

This kind of thing occurred many more times in basic training. Not once was I physically attacked by my opponents as you suggest must have happened.

Mike, the interpersonal dynamics between people with Triple Nine IQs (top 1 in 1000) and fairly normal people do deviate considerably from the norm in some significant ways. It's especially true for Triple Nines with physics degrees.

Be very careful whom you call a liar. Especially if that person might have experiences outside of your realm of competence.

Posted by Chuck Divine at April 26, 2004 10:42 AM

"United States Army Corps of Engineers Nuclear Cratering Group"

That very name fills me with an odd sense of delight. I'm sure the reality was very prosaic.

Chuck, Mike, I don't know that I've seen a soldier with that IQ tangle with an NCO, but I have seen some 'near genius' level Marines (and yah, I'm aware of the contradition there) get into it with NCOs. Always fun to watch - as long as I was out of the direct line of fire.

Posted by Brian at April 26, 2004 01:29 PM

Brian, the reality was extremely prosaic. Mostly we sat around an office didling with computer models and thinking.

Let me tell another basic training story.

The only time in my life I ever handled a real rifle was in the Army. I have nothing against people who are interested in things like hunting and guns. It's just not something that interests me.

Anyway, we were at the rifle range. I presume I did something stupid. This second lieutenant walks up to me and starts criticizing me. I don't know what his first few sentences were. I had earplugs in and couldn't hear him. I finally got an earplug out. This is the way the conversation went:

Lieutenant: By any chance you wouldn't be on the college op plan, would you?

Me, since I didn't know what the college op plan was: What's that?

Lieutenant: That's a plan where the Army sends deserving, capable soldiers off to college for four years!

The lieutenant was quite condescending in his speech. I, meanwhile, was thinking "He doesn't know who I am" and "Straight line!"

I ended the conversation with "Oh. I doubt that I would be eligible. You see, I received a degree in physics from Rutgers University last May."

The lieutenant turned very red. Everybody but the lieutenant and me (even the career NCOs) was laughing out loud.

Mike, do you now understand the kind of power I had?

Posted by Chuck Divine at April 27, 2004 06:02 AM

Post a comment