I'm not sure what perspective Harry is trying to highlight with his numbers. Also, I've read Dunigan some but not extensively so I'll accept those numbers.

If the point is to be made that our govt' didn't rely on the draft during Vietnam, just add those numbers to our current ranks.

Whatever the ground force (infantry) number is in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, mulitply that by 1.35, this gives a rough estimate of what a Vietnam draft would do for us today.

The number would not only wipe out any deficits, but would enable the government considerable freedom in other theatres as well. What it would also do, is blunt the expediency required for improving the existing infrastructure; that would be bad.

I am rather neutral on the draft in general and opposed to it for these small political wars. I agree that the socioeconomic implication of an all volunteer military does place an extraordinary burden on the people closer to the bottom of the strata. It is also true that a draft will do somewhat the same thing because the privileged will get out of it as they generally do. When it comes to the military, equity is not the operative word for the enlisted membership, though the officer corps does have a higher percentage of casualties and they are generally from the middle to upper portion of the strata.

The draft for infantry during the Civil War was 0.4 percent for the Union (I do not know for the South who did it first) because the people felt it was a just cause. The current war does not have popular support to a scale that would permit a draft and probably never will.

Our government should have authorized an increase in the size of the regular military right after September 11, 2001. They would have gotten more volunteers than they could handle. We have lost the steam and the engine is slowing down.

My main impetus for being against the draft is two fold.

Number one, our country was founded in such a way to preclude a permanent draft as it was common practice in many of the places our founders were coming from. Albeit press gangs didn't operate like our Selective Service, the idea of forced service, in peace and war, was / is synonymous with tyrrany.

Number two, whether one is reading Sun Tzu, Guderian, B.H.L. Hart, Romel, Patton, Krulak, whomever, a streamlined fighting force based on the concepts of maneuverability is always a superior force and always better for the troop on the front line, even when he's not on the front line.

Conscription allows a sloppy military, with their gold plated weapons platforms, big on price and techno-gee whiz factors but low on reliability and rarely what the troop really needs. Not to mention the bureaucratic morass that plagues the daily lives of our troops.

This is a couple of weeks old but I just stumbled across it on Google.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democrat from Hawaii, said, "For the first time in many years the Army and Marine Corps are not meeting their recruiting targets. There are some who are already discussing the draft."

Rumsfeld leaned closer to the microphone and said, "I think the only people who could conceivably be talking about a draft are people who are speaking from pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance."

He added, "The last thing we need is a draft. We just don't."

“Pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance.” I like that, very sharp but not too wordy.

I’ve pointed out many times already that only the Democrats are talking about the draft and given their previous positions on the military in general, their motives are obviously political and have nothing to do with national defense or troop welfare. As for Rumsfeld, this man is obviously not on a power grab as his actions are the opposite of what could be expected of an LBJ or Westmoreland, simply out to expand their power arbitrarily.

He also refuted comments made in 2003 by Gen. Eric Shinseki, then-Army Chief of Staff, who said he believed several hundred thousand soldiers might be required in Iraq following major combat -- a figure far lower than the actual number of soldiers there.

"The fact of the matter is that the military experts on the ground from the beginning have said what they thought the number ought to be," Rumsfeld said.

"The more troops you have, the more targets you have, and the more people you might get killed. The more troops you have, the more of an occupying power you are, the heavier footprint, the more force protection you need, the more logistics you need and the more intrusive you are on the people of that country."

Anyone who has educated themselves to the two main doctrines of warfighting; maneuver and attrition, know that Rumsfeld’s remarks are nearly textbook maneuver warfare and therefore pro-troop welfare. And they would also see that Shinseki is old school attrition warfare, “hey diddle diddle run ‘em up the middle.” This doctrine works in situations where we’re fighting a conventional force and can rely upon our superior industrial might and numbers to overwhelm. But, as Vietnam showed, inflicting huge body counts upon the enemy is not always enough, particularly so in non-conventional warfare. Also, attrition warfare is always costly to both sides as its signature move is throw as many troops as possible into the teeth of the enemy in order to wear them down; that they attrite.

Just an interesting little story on those young men serving in the Marine Corps who the pro-draft, class warfare types say aren't serving.

Stars & Stripes

Well, Airwinger, even though you've been forced to admit that we need a draft and that it's damn near inevitable, you are still blowing a lot of smoke about how bad and un-American it is and how it will be bad for our military.

That's ok, since those opinions ride with you and people that think like you. However, any attempt to defend the spinmeister Rumsfeld must be countered.

Rummy has always had a way with words and has mastered the soundbite which the Truebelievers can laminate and frame. "Pinnacles of near perfect ignorance". I like that one too. Rummy has aluded to, and you have stated outright, that the draft is a democratic plot to make the war unpopular and unseat the current administration. I won't attempt to speak for you but Rumsfeld has got to know better. The draft is non partisan.

Did you know that the first draft legislation after 9/11 was sponsored by republicans? You didn't? Well, back to school for you.

"Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001", H.R. 3598, was introduced in the House by Republicans Nick Smith (MI) and Curt Weldon (PA) and co-sponsored by Roscoe Bartlett. It was introduced in late December, 2001 (after 9/11). Rangel's bill (H.R. 183)and its Senate counterpart (S. 89) were introduced on January 7, 2003. All three bills were referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

The bill had few deferments save for high school students to get a diploma, students of the military acadamies and legitimate conscientious objectors. Service would be at least 6 months with the potential for extensions as needed. And it was universal. That's the best kind of draft.

It was even in the Marine corps Times. Don't see how you could have missed it.

2001 was when the draft should have been reinstated. Of course at that time, the nation was unified and our CIC probably could have just issued a call to arms and most of our manning problems would have been solved. This admin has let so many windows of opportunity slam shut that the air inside is getting stale.

And yes, republicans are discussing the draft. DOD is discussing the draft. Rumsfeld cannot admit this obvious reality because it would mean that he has made a gross miscalculation and such an admission would mean that Truebelievers might actually have to dispense with the propaganda and evaluate reality for a change.

Thud,
Go and find where I've admitted that we need a draft.

What I did was acknowledge that I don't trust anyone in Washington and said that we'll always be in danger of a draft as it gives the government a blank check.

It is proving impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Actually, you proved that some time ago but i know other people are reading so I post on. Public service kind of thing.

Bottom line is, the draft has always been "un-American" inasmuch that our Founding Fathers shunned it and we, as a country, have shunned it for most of our history.

Those are the facts. That you sum up these historical facts to me blowing smoke, that you've been caught lying about everything from your own motivations on wanting a permanent draft, to that stupid Fallujah topic to my own "admitting" we need a draft, renders you incapable of a rational, honest conversation.

And for the draft being introduced: the idea of a draft post 9/11 was already off of the table by 2003. The only reason Rangel introduced his (check the date sport) was an attempt to tar and feather the President. The Senate bill's authors didn't even vote for their own bill, it was such transparent political ploy.

Dig a littel deeper, Google-quote scholars are always too easy to spot.

Rational? Maybe you're upset because my discourse with you has been all too rational. If you still think we don't need a draft, then why have you "predicted" that a draft is on the horizon? I think it is a rather feeble attempt to seem the visionary when your argument has proven to be so wrong. You still have not provided an answer to that famous question that does not employ a draft have you? You do remember the question don't you?

As far as you not trusting anyone in Washington, you can't prove it by your arguments since you seem to feel that Rumsfeld's word is gospel.

More on Rumsfeld.

He goes out of his way to counter Shinseki's estimate of needed force level. Let's explore that.

I do not consider Shinseki to be a visionary. In many ways he was the old guard equating combat power with mass but he did manage to estimate this correctly. He and others seemed to realize that there is a difference between invasion dynamics and occupation dynamics. Two different animals. The dynamics of occupation are greatly affected by what you did during the invasion. There was nothing radical about the invasion. Patton would have felt right at home. But I can't see Patton standing around with his finger up his 4th point during those crucial and critical few days after we had reached the capitol city. Where were the CA and psyops troops? Where were the MP's? Where was the organization? Where was the plan?

What about security?

The Brits laid the groundwork for counterinsurgency during the Malayan Emergency which lasted 12 years. The following article is a good read and can illustrate some of the problems we are having in Iraq relating to security.

Force Levels


The British had a force ratio of 20/1, or twenty troops for every 1000 population. In Iraq we have been forced to do the op with a ratio of 5/1. The hope for disengagement of U.S. forces revolves around the shakey proposition of bringing the Iraqi forces on line to increase this ratio. Most of our problems in Iraq stem from this inability to provide the first building block - security.

Shinseki get's the last laugh - except it isn't remotely funny.

The military experts Rumsfeld crows about battled for higher numbers but he didn't listen did he?

Now this statement has reached the level of "duckspeak": "The more troops you have, the more targets you have, and the more people you might get killed. The more troops you have, the more of an occupying power you are, the heavier footprint, the more force protection you need, the more logistics you need and the more intrusive you are on the people of that country." To follow the logic of this statement, we would be better off with just a rifle company than a division. This is the deranged logic of a man who has painted himself into the proverbial corner and would rather starve to death than get paint on his shoes.

Another fairly recent developement I find most troubling - we are starting to use body counts again. The body count is a measure born of the desperation to show some positive results when those results are obscured. In Nam, according to body counts, we killed every Vietnamese in country at least twice.

Body counts are meaningless, unless they correspond with a measurable decrease in the enemies capability to conduct meaningful combat ops. So far, this is highly debateable. The enemy doesn't seem to be limited as to where he can be but we do not enjoy that advantage. Read this to mean that there are presently no areas in Iraq that can be declared consistently secure. There are areas that are relatively secure when we occupy that area but that same area can be rendered insecure when we are forced to vacate that area in order to mount another op in a different location.

There are Soldiers and Marines who survived the first and second assualt on the same real estate - but they didn't survive the third. This reality shoots a big hole in Rummy's rationale.

Without the ability to provide security we handicap ourselves by limiting the intel we get from the citizens of a given location. This intel is the lifeblood of SPECOPS, so their ability to mount surgical strikes is limited if not eliminated entireley.

As far as being a google-quote scholar, google might have served you in your ridiculous argument about the posture of the 82nd in the Fallujah handoff. I suggest you take your own advice - dig a little deeper and avoid the smack downs I am forced to deliver.

It remains a fact that the republicans introduced the first draft bill. Your spin on Rangel and his supposed motives are immaterial to this reality.

If you want to influence readers then come with some facts instead of sound bites from a man who has every reason to spin.

So get with it highspeed. You're letting your fans down.

As fun as it may seem to sit here and argue about God knows what, I really don't care to.

The salient points are these: Should there be a draft? No.

Why not? Because a draft is the forced conscription of otherwise free men into a service where they might lose their life.

What about defending our country? Conscription is allowable by our country's normal practice, but only in times of national emergency.

Our country's normal practice? Sure, history shows that our Founding Fathers, fleeing tyrrany and arbitrary power, shunned the draft, particularly a permanent draft as was the practice of most major crowns during their day. And throughout the rest of American history, the draft has been the exception, not the norm. When it has been used, only once was it used according to these standards. The other times, a draft afforded the government the ability to enter in and fight wars that would have otherwise been untenable.

So what would qualify as a national emergency now? Well, that is of course a matter of opinion.

Keep in mind this however, an all-volunteer-military keeps the governnment immediately accountable for their actions. Literally on a month to month basis. As soon as the people start to lose confidence in their actions, recruiting efforts will show this.

How would that show of confidence affect our force readiness? It forces our government to fight a more efficient war. A draft is a blank check to the government as it takes years for the immediate affects of accountability to be felt i.e. Korea and Vietnam.

Currently, the administration must weight their actions carefully, and even very recently have enacted measures to push through Congress some of the needed resources for our troops that would have otherwise taken a year or more to implement. (See Rapid Acquisition Authority.)

So some people would draw the line at different places where a draft would be feasible, legal even. But such a measure should only be taken only when all other measures available are taken first.

Like what? Streamlining our forces to lower combat/support troop ratios, officer/enlisted ratios etc. Calling up the reserves, the Guard and the IRR (that is the very reason for their existence - not tuition assistance) Calling up prior service personnel who are out of their IRR window.

Have these things been done yet? Partially, but not compeletely for sure. The streamlining has been a halting exercise for everyone except the Marines and the non-IRR prior service has yet to be utilized.

What about the belief that a universal, permanent draft would only be fair to everyone and more evenly divide our nation's defense among all social strata? That is a political question. Notice that it does not directly ask the question of what is best for our actual defense or what is best for the actual boot on the ground. It is focused on a very narrow idea of what is "fair," a very subjective and formless idea that can be interpreted differently on an individual basis.

And, it completely ignores the historical treatment of the draft in America and sidesteps the even more logical point of, "how can anything be more "fair" than 100% volunteerism?"

And the other things Thud is talking about? God only knows. He lost this argument weeks ago and has been diving off into marginally related areas of conversation ever since.

He's been caught lying on a number of side issues; Fallujah and the Marine/Army involvement, my own posts and what they've actually said, while creating other diversions about Colin Powell and his supposed affect on the AVM since even before Powell was in uniform.

So will we have a draft Who knows. The draft is a blank check for the government and even seemingly reasonable people in Washington are susceptible to the urge to grab that blank check. If it happens, it probably won't happen until after the mid-term elections in 06. Which would be 07 in effect.

Well, it's obvious that you don't want to address any of the points I have made and are more than willing to throw in the towel.

You have accused me of lying but you can't document any of the points I have lied upon. The points you have reiterated mostly rest upon your opinion and an undocumented historical map which has no bearing on the present situ. You could also rephrase it to say that we have never resorted to the draft except in case of wartime.

At the same time you have admitted that the draft is the only long term solution to a shrinking AVM which allows you to predict that we will be forced to reinstate a draft while at the same time you cling to the obsolete notion that a draft is not needed.

I have already illustrated that even if all of the realignment could be completed tomorrow that still will not solve the ultimate problem of the shrinking AVM. You have not been able to produce a rational argument to the contrary and have brooked no feasable solution other than to stress the current combat capacity to the absolute limit before a remedy is made available.

This is senseless and serves only to protect your ideology (Libertarian?) at the expense of our combat elements. Yet you claim that the draft will not serve our military or our national interests.

You seem to be deeply confused, bro. That's often the case when an ideologue tries to conform reality to the ideology.

Perhaps you could buy into the fact that bad decisions beget drastic solutions.

Thus we find the current state of the nation.

As it stands, I have offered solutions and have even pointed you to other possible solutions that you have chosen to ignore.

My debate strategy is to answer and engage around the points you have raised. Your debate strategy is to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

Clever. Clever indeed.

Wake up and smell the coffee Airwinger. You may come to realize that that twinkie you think you're munching on is actually your foot.

Getting boring ,guys.. take it outside to the parking lot..

will there be a draft?.. probably.. Why? Dubya may have no choice 'cause he needs the bodies in camo to do the job.. but it could likely be a lousy shoddy job because the ' volunteer' isn't forthcoming.. recruiting is off target.. AWOL's are up and not being tracked or 'caught' except, maybe, by the Marines.. More and more ' deserters' and ' evaders' are taking the scenic route to my back yard and..when , and if, the draft comes in...reluctant, disruptive, unco-operative ' burdens' will be inducted that will do everything deliberately or otherwise to undermine the effectivness of the military effort negating the ' advantage' of the draft other than to get a bigger pool for cannon fodder..
Do you want to send reluctant and, possibly, anti-war types to Iraq where they will refuse orders, neglect duties and otherwise screw up US policy and undertakings because they don't want to be there or are against the official line?

What is the purpose of a draft in increasing numbers if all the time is spent in court martials and underperforming or abortive operations that prevent the government from achieving their goals..

Better to accept a certain ' drop off ' in recruiting, adapt for smaller more effective troop utilization and work with ' volunteers' than otherwise..

hey, all academic anyway,..since the government is closing 33 bases and reducing others there will be plenty of fresh troops out of desk jobs available for Afghanistan and Iraq...

Academic you say? Well ok. We've covered just about every point that could be covered I guess.

Go with the AVM? Guess our plans for world domination will have to be put on hold. George and Condi will be highly pissed.

Gimme that shovel and I'll bury my half of this dead horse.

Thud,
You lied dude. About Fallujah. It's there for anyone caring enough to backtrack.

I don't think you meant to but it does illustrate your tendency to go completely off of emotions.

Other than that, every post I've made here in the last two weeks has been a reiteration in an attempt to either make you see the inconsistencies of your own argument or just keep in any newbies from being deceived.

My last post before this one is probably the most concise listing of the pertinent points and why your argument doesn't stand in the face of logic and history.

So I'll bury this half by referring everyone back to that post.

Just The Facts Ma'am

About Fallujah: I said you were the first to mention it. You correctly pointed out that I was the first to mention it. I acknowledged, apologized and drove on.

Seems that is all you've got to hang your little hat on.

Regardless of how you may continue to bloviate about the evils of the draft we are left with the same two choices I pointed out much earler in the thread: either select missions that reflect the actual capabilities of our reduced force levels - or increase the size of the force which means draft. We will have some sort of draft in the future regardless of which side of the aisle finally gets the guts to make it happen.

It's not about history or what you like or I like. It's about reality, a concept you seem to have a hard time grappling with.

Im writing a thesis paper on the draft, im against the fact, anyone got an idea on three causes i should write about for a good paper?