Drafting and War
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2017, 08:07 AM
RE: Drafting and War
(09-08-2017 05:02 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(09-08-2017 03:55 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  OK. I still don't see how this does anything at all to make war less likely.

If you have a bigassed hammer in your toolbox, every problem looks like a nail.

If a President has a large standing army, (s)he is likely to think of using that army each time as problem crops up.

If (s)he had to go through all the contortions of drafting conscripts for his/her army, (s)he is very likely to look to other non-military options first.

A Commander in Chief should always be forced to consider public opinion, and the political fallout of using force.

GWB circumvented this by running a war with credit card funding, and by forcing the volunteers to stay past their commitments ( stop- loss). Absolutely unfair to those volunteers.

If the fucker had been forced to raise taxes to pay for the war and draft an army ( as per the Constitution) the middle East incursion would have been much shorter, or not even happened at all.

I'm still not following your logic. Why do people enlist in the armed forces? (1) They are "willing warriors" -- it's what they want to do. These people are going to enlist whether or not there is a draft. (2) They need a job and military service is the only job they can get. This depends entirely on the economy, and has nothing to do with a draft. (3) They get drafted.

If a larger army makes war more likely, then a draft makes war more likely -- because that's the only way you're going to get the larger army. The other two groups are going to be there either way.

And why would Bush have had to raise taxes to draft an army? He spent billions of dollars on that war as it was -- without raising taxes (talk about voodoo economics!). Anyway, he somehow managed to fight the war with the army he had. If we had a draft, he would have had an additional source of soldiers, and therefore a bigger army. I don't see how that would have made the war less likely.

The bottom line is that the relative percentages of "willing warriors" and "reluctant warriors" isn't going to be changed by the presence or absence of a draft. The draft just allows you to get the second group into the army.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 08:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  If a larger army makes war more likely, then a draft makes war more likely -- because that's the only way you're going to get the larger army. The other two groups are going to be there either way.

Large doesn't cut it in this day and age. They need to be properly eqipped and trained. And they have to deal with public opinion, which is always on the side of peace, especially if their or their loved ones lives are at risk.

Public opinion is a secondary concern if there's a professional army. The ones that go, go voluntarilly. Even if it is to escape poverty. So the home in a box outrage won't reach the heights it reached during the Vietnam war. Sadly, that's the one and only lesson the USA took from the Vietnam war.

Even in dictatorships public opinion plays a role in going to war. The Falkland war broke the neck of the Argentinian Junta back in '82.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 08:44 AM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 08:16 AM)abaris Wrote:  Public opinion is a secondary concern if there's a professional army. The ones that go, go voluntarilly. Even if it is to escape poverty. So the home in a box outrage won't reach the heights it reached during the Vietnam war. Sadly, that's the one and only lesson the USA took from the Vietnam war.

A weird aspect of that is that the Reserves were never called up. Probably because of just that, the reserves was made up of a large slice of "regular" middle class America and no politician wanted to get the blowback from the reserves coming home in bags. Once it was clear the reserves weren't going, then the race was on to get into them so you could still have "honorably" served (Bush) with zero risk. Throw in liberal use of student deferrments to appease the upper classes. So anti-war protests could potentially have started a lot earlier and maybe the war ended a lot earlier.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 02:23 PM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 08:44 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 08:16 AM)abaris Wrote:  Public opinion is a secondary concern if there's a professional army. The ones that go, go voluntarilly. Even if it is to escape poverty. So the home in a box outrage won't reach the heights it reached during the Vietnam war. Sadly, that's the one and only lesson the USA took from the Vietnam war.

A weird aspect of that is that the Reserves were never called up. Probably because of just that, the reserves was made up of a large slice of "regular" middle class America and no politician wanted to get the blowback from the reserves coming home in bags. Once it was clear the reserves weren't going, then the race was on to get into them so you could still have "honorably" served (Bush) with zero risk. Throw in liberal use of student deferrments to appease the upper classes. So anti-war protests could potentially have started a lot earlier and maybe the war ended a lot earlier.

Yeah, but that sure changed in the Gulf....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: Drafting and War
(09-08-2017 07:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Contrary to what some here seem to believe ---

A draft makes a war LESS likely.

That's an interesting premise.
Got any hard data to support it?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: Drafting and War
(09-08-2017 02:33 PM)epronovost Wrote:  1) Keeping an maintaining a permanent military force is a big expense that cannot be modulated easily depending on circomstances.
That seems an excellent reason to put a lot of effort and resources into cooperation, diplomacy, and negotiation, to avoid the necessity of having to maintain such an expensive system.

Doesn't seem like much of a reason to reduce the freedom of your populace, though.

Quote:2) A military draft democratise the army.
Only if it's universal, which it never has been, anywhere. There are too many religious, moral, philosophical, and economic objections to truly democratizing the process; it will never happen.

Quote:Furthermore, it reinforce the link between the civil authorities in a democracy and the military authority
You see this as a good thing?

One of the problems that drives people north from South and Central America is that in a lot of those countries the army is also the police. This presents a conflict of interest on a massive scale and nearly always results in corruption. In fact, the US has laws against that sort of thing, although in recent years they've been chipped away at.

Indeed, one of the proximate causes that has been proposed for the recent trigger-happiness of American police has been the militarization of our police.

Quote:thus reinforcing the ties of loyalty between the armed forces and the governement it serves.
And further alienating both from the actual communities that make up the country/

Quote:3) Mandatory military services can offer a good an excellent equal opportunity to learn or develop skills in addition to be a good ''first job experience''. All member of the community thus gain at least one job experience to put on their C.V in addition to gain the opportunity to practice their academic skills in a work setting.
Yes, that's been working out great here. You have no idea how many employers had trouble finding enough job applicants who could make IEDs, or who had extended interrogation skills, before the army trained up a batch during our little adventure in Iraq. And local positions for tank operators and snipers are coming onto the job market daily.

Quote:4) Military personnel have a tendency to travel a lot in peace time be it to assist foreign nations after natural catastrophies for example or to simply participate in joint exercise with allied nations.
Lol. That could have come from an old recruiting poster: "Join the Navy, and see the world." My cousin took them up on it, and he did indeed get to see the world -- at least that part of it between, New Jersey and Groton, Connecticut.

Quote:5) Any war or foreign country occupation like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be met with much more resistence from the civil society in a country where the military is composed of drafted personnel. While the occupation of Iraq was extremely unpopular, it was far from being met with the same resistence than the Vietnam war.
Maybe. The US had been carrying out military activities in Vietnam for close to two decades before opposition by the US population to the war reached a point where it began to have an impact on policy. At that point the Vietnam draft had been effectively going on for 8 years.

BTW, there was a draft in effect during the Korean War (1950-1953, 1.5 million men) but public protests in the US of that war were negligible.

Quote:6) While a mandatory military draft can present a certain threat in the specter of wodesprayed militarism within one's culture, it can also present a massive boon by transmitting strong values of civic duties and solidarity. A military experience, even one that isn't desired, can help forge a sense of pride and create solid friendship.
<shrug> I think the same thing could be done by requiring a period of community service. Instead of banding together into a jolly fraternity for killing people, how about banding together to feed the hungry; house the homeless; educate the uneducated; protect abused and neglected children; bring medical services to those who need, but don't have them; build and maintain infrastructure; etc.?

Quote:7) A mandatory military service could improve national health. Maintaining a population combat ready implies that your population must have a good level of physical fitness on average. Military discipline and training can provide a very good psychological and physical environment to live in and teach good habits.
OK, I'll give you that one. Mandatory military service might be one way of slimming down the fat asses of at least part of the American population.

But really, you know, they could also be maintaining trails and campsites in parks; clearing away storm damage; picking up trash along the highways; and any number of other useful things that would get them out and moving around.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
10-08-2017, 05:04 PM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 08:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  (2) They need a job and military service is the only job they can get. This depends entirely on the economy, and has nothing to do with a draft.
Pretty much the top reason.

Recruiting is great in poor communities.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2017, 08:29 PM
RE: Drafting and War
Sorry been busy.

(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Sorry, but in my opinion this is an overly-idealistic, pseudo-philosophical, and basically naive view of the real world, and in particular of a militarised world.
You're welcome to your opinion but considering you failed provided any justification or support for that position and I did support mine, both historically and philosophically from multiple sources, you haven't given me anything of sustenance I can comment on in that sentence. It's basically an assertion, and while I'm fine with you expressing your opinion it's not an argument.

(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Nobody in Australia has ever been forced "at the barrel of a gun" to serve in our military.
And you are calling me nieve.
In 1909 the AU government instituted a program of conscription for boys dealing with home defence. In 1911 compulsory military training for boys as young as 12 was introduced, and by 1915 over 34,000 prosecutions and 7,000 detentions had occurred due to the wide spread opposition to boyhood conscription.
These were not enforced with polite suggestions and a liberal application of tickles.

In October of 1916 during WW1 Prime Minister Hughes attempted full conscription for overseas duty, despite it being opposed by 2/3 of his own party, but failed when a plebiscite voted it down. The government responded to this by .... throwing anti-conscription advocates in prison including newspaper and magazine editors like Tom Barker (who was arrested for a political poster and then deported in 1918), members of opposition political parties, and government censors seizing anti-conscription publications in police raids.
These were not enforced with polite suggestions and a liberal application of tickles.


(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  One could register formally as a conscientious objector, and take his case to court for determination of its legitimacy—which is exactly what hundreds of young blokes did during the Vietnam era.
Well first off I just showed that conscription didn't in any way begin with Vietnam. The AU government didn't just use force, or the threat of force, when it came to military service in the past they have a history of using that force to destroy free speech, target members of other political parties, attack the press, jail members of the press, and seize peoples property just for voicing an opinion contrary to the governments.

Conscription has always been tied to the use of force by government and to assert otherwise goes beyond being nieve and into willful ignorance of history.

Secondly, this where we just have a radically different world view because I find the notion that I, as a supposed free individual, have to ask the governments permission to not be sent off to kill or be killed in a war I don't agree with against a people that have done me no wrong to be utterly repugnant.
That I must provide justification, to the people who are supposed to represent me, that I am entitled to my own life and not the other way around is sickening and perverse.


(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  If one refused to register for conscription, and didn't claim conscientious objection, then the mandatory alternative was two years imprisonment—although this usually ended up as around six months after good behaviour discounts.
These prison sentences were they enforced with requests or armed men? Don't mistake my usage of "at the barrel of a gun" as some idea that only applies to a Commissar shooting a man for retreating in the cold streets of Stalingrad. It doesn't.


(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  —And your claim that conscription is ethically equal to slavery is absurd. Period.
Well, I'm sorry but I've already provided references to show that that was the prevailing thought in large sections of the civilized world and didn't change until after wide spread propaganda campaigns and the silencing of critics. You're gonna need a bit more than an unsupported and undefended assertion because from where I stand there is little in the way of substantive argument that makes forcing a man to kill and die against his will magically not a form of slavery.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-08-2017, 08:58 AM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 08:29 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(05-08-2017 03:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Sorry, but in my opinion this is an overly-idealistic, pseudo-philosophical, and basically naive view of the real world, and in particular of a militarised world.
You're welcome to your opinion but considering you failed provided any justification or support for that position and I did support mine, both historically and philosophically from multiple sources, you haven't given me anything of sustenance I can comment on in that sentence...

There's so much factually wrong with your comments I don't have the time to refute them. Sorry.

And you've willfully misrepresented other things—such as young school cadets being forced at "the barrel of a gun" to undertake compulsory military training.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: Drafting and War
(10-08-2017 12:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(09-08-2017 06:18 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Over 400,000 American men learned to read after being drafted in WWII. Just a side benefit for society as a whole.

Well jeez, there's your education, health, poverty and all sorts of other social problems solved in one go. Survival of the fittest, Vietnam style.

Are you constantly over the top?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: