Bring back the draft? Will somebody please check my math?

[KoreaScouter]

The threatened return to the military draft is getting a lot of airplay, in my opinion from scaremongers. First, the bill was introduced by two Dems, Sen Hollings and Rep Rangel. It didn't make it very far, but still succeeded in stirring the pot. Here's why I don't think it'll fly -- all math; tell me if you think I'm wrong.

 

-Census Bureau estimates the 2003 US population is 290,809,000.

 

-Of that population, approximately 10,700,000 are males between 20-24 years old (draft-age population?).

 

-Take out those already in the military (5%), those in jail (2%), those disqualified (23%), those not high school graduates (41%), and those in college (15%), and you have about 14% of that 10,700,000, or about 1,500,000 prime draft candidates (US Army recruiting figures)

 

-Active-duty military is about 1,500,000.

 

-Each year, about 3% of first-termers re-enlist, and 20% are discharged, for a net loss of 17%, or about 255,000 people.

 

Think of this as a pipe through which people flow, rather than water. The pipe is only so big (255,000), and the people flow through only so fast (service periods).

 

So, we get to the main question. How do we get from 1,500,000 to 255,000? And, if you eliminate deferments for college students and high school dropouts, and consider some of the DQs as now qualified, the problem gets bigger. And oh by the way, my numbers are all for males only. Add women into the mix, and the problem gets bigger yet.

 

The answer? There are several that I can think of, and they all have unintended consequences. The first is to shorten service periods to whatever length of time will accomodate all 255,000 (push 'em through the pipe faster). Unworkable, in my opinion (and in my experience; when I lived in the Netherlands, they scrapped conscription after the service period had dropped to just 14 months and the military training establishment cried "uncle" because they couldn't sustain readiness with so short a service window). You can increase the size of the military (make the pipe bigger), and while you can pay conscripts less than volunteers, they still have to fed, housed, clothed, and equipped the same as volunteers -- there go your savings. Or, you can come up with an elaborate set of deferments that whittles that 1,500,000 down to 255,000. But, what will those deferments be, and how will they pass a "fairness meter"? And, won't we end up right where people like Rep Rangle say we are right now --that the burden of service is not proportionately shared? The last option I've heard is "alternative service" to take up the numbers slack (build a second pipe). But if it's something one could opt for, we again end up where we are right now.

 

My math here isn't figured to the 5th decimal place; it's back-of-the-envelope stuff. And it doesn't take the reserve component into account. My point is to make the case that a little critical thinking and 6th grade math can go a long ways toward putting one at ease.

 

I understand a lot of college students are really worried about this draft business. I'd tell them two things. One, don't worry, based on the numbers. Two, there's worse things than serving your country, especially right now. It's not a penance, it's a privilege...

 

KS

 

 

[Twocubdad]

For mostly political reasons the draft ain't going to happen. Does anyone believe Charles Rangol is really going to vote for it? (Fritz Hollings is enough of a coot that he just might.)

 

I had a coversation this summer with a day camp volunteer who is a reserve officer. He made much the same point you do. His point is that the issue is authorized troop strength -- essentially the number of soldiers Congress is willing to pay for. There are more that enough willing, quality volunteers to fill the current ranks of the military. There is a relatively long wait to get in, depending on the branch you join. Recruiters are able to be selective in the people they recruit.

 

His other point related to training. The WWII idea of infantry grunts going through basic in six weeks then put on a transport to the war is history. Training now takes more like 18 months. We don't have cannon fodder in our military. We have educated, highly trained professional soldiers.

 

Now if you want to talk about compulsory national service, that's another topic.

[LovetoCamp]

Why would a lot of college students be really worried about serving their country in the green suit? They've gotten to grow up in this great country, got a free elementary education, and went to one of our fine universities. Why would serving in the military worry them so much? Does this country not deserve something back from them or are they of the mindset that they are somehow entitled to a free ride?

 

I like the idea of the draft. Two years after high school would be just the ticket. Learn a skill or two, learn how to shave, learn how to clean the latrine, buff a hallway, shine their shoes, dig some holes, and a little discipline. A little smoke from a DI could be just what the doctor ordered.

 

Serving two years would be an admission ticket to those universities. I'll bet that 30% freshman dropout rate would come crashing down.

 

Of the 562 members of congress, there is only one child serving in the military. That is just wrong.

 

Just my $.02.

 

"I used to drive a Chevrolet, Now I'm marching every day."

[NJCubScouter]

I think there are 2 different things at work here; one is the current round of rumors that there will have to be a draft, and the other was the proposal by Rep. Rangel to reinstate the draft as a means of spreading the "burden of military service" to all of the economic classes. The latter was really an attempt to make a point against the War in Iraq, on the theory of, would the decision-makers in this country support the war if it were THEIR sons, nephews, etc. marching off to war rather than some nameless folks of the "working class" who joined the military for its educational and career opportunities? (I understand that this was an oversimplification, I'm just repeating the argument.)

 

Apparently, yesterday, the first phenomenon crashed into the second. The front page of my newspaper today reported that House Republican leaders, upset at the persistent pre-election draft rumors, called up Rep. Rangel's otherwise-moribund draft bill for a vote. The House then voted it down in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, something like 2 yes to 400 no. Rep. Rangel himself voted against his own bill and urged others to do so, saying that it was a Republican stunt to bring it up. (Which it was; of course, his introduction of the bill in the first place was also a stunt, though a stunt that I thought that had some merit. But that's politics, huh?)

 

So, political gyrations aside, do we need a draft? (I mean, to fulfill military requirements. TP is talking about something else: Compulsory service as a way to build a sense of discipline and community and sacrifice in a generation of young people that has been taught by the "political culture" (both parties) that this sort of thing is unnecessary. It might not be a bad idea, though the details are always the trick. But that's not what KS was talking about.)

 

I think that if you look just at the wars we are involved in now, the answer is pretty clearly no, we don't need a draft. However, how many wars are on the horizon? If the president is re-elected, and the line about attacking terrorists wherever they are was really true, and not just part of the web of excuses for invading a relatively weak Iraq, what's next? There are some countries in that region and elsewhere that represent (and have represented, going back before 9/11/01) a much greater source of terrorism than Iraq. Are we going to invade Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? North Korea? China? What's next? If the policy that led us into Iraq is to be followed consistently all over the world, won't we be at war constantly, in multiple places at a time? At that point, might we not need a draft?

 

Oh, and speaking of checking math: TP, where do you get 562 members of Congress? There are 535 (536 if you count the official non-voting House delegate from D.C., 538 if you also count the unofficial "honorary Senators" from D.C.) Or was that just a rough estimate?

[LovetoCamp]

535, yep, that's what I meant, must've been a typo. It's good having a lawyer keeping your facts straight....life is good.

 

I tend to think, Iraq is it. Once the Iraqis take over for themselves, our anti-terrorists people will be conducting raids wherever those butchers raise their collective heads. But, there are no other countries who spent 12 years violating the un resolutions and firing at our planes in the no-fly zone. Saddam put a target on his own forehead.

 

Sincerely,

 

Nameless son of the working class

[NJCubScouter]

TP says:

 

I tend to think, Iraq is it. Once the Iraqis take over for themselves, our anti-terrorists people will be conducting raids wherever those butchers raise their collective heads. But, there are no other countries who spent 12 years violating the un resolutions and firing at our planes in the no-fly zone. Saddam put a target on his own forehead.

 

It is really your second sentence I am responding to, but I wanted to leave it in context. I am pretty sure, but not positive, that by "wherever" you mean wherever in the world, not just wherever in Iraq. But that is my whole problem with believing the administration's justification for the war in the first place. There are governments in that region that have done, and are doing, much more to sponsor, assist and harbor terrorists -- and I mean terrorists aimed at us (U.S.) and at our allies in Israel -- than Saddam Hussein ever did. I am talking primarily about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. (Afghanistan would be first on the list, of course, but we took care of that government already.) Some might add Egypt, Lebanon and others to the list, but I think the primary problems are the 3 I mentioned. Our government knows this. So why did we choose Iraq first? (I won't give my answer at this point; I think I have already, in posts back when the war began. Bottom line is, I don't think the reasons were good reasons.)

 

I am not saying we should go to war anywhere else. I am however saying that the "logic" that compelled us into war with Iraq would lead us into several more wars as well. I am not confident that the policies of the current administration would not lead to the need for a draft at some point.

[LovetoCamp]

Tell that to the Israeli's in Haifa and Tel Aviv who were on the reciveing end of several dozen SCUD missles a couple years ago. I don't recall the Saudis, Syrians, or Iranians firing SCUDS at Israel? Is the sponsorship the Suadi government or is it fanatical Saudi citizens operating covertly? Firing SCUDs isn't covert. Thank God for Ratheon Corp, cause he fired a couple at me too. Maybe he didn't like my posts!!!!

 

The world's a better place today. Hey how's Col. Khadafi acting these days?

 

 

[tall buffalo guard]

im a college soph. i dont think the draft is ever going to happen, for political reasons and for common sense (a volunteer army, run correctly, is as effective as a drafted one considering the technology we possess that wins our wars.) but i also think pulling kids out of college after their second year is a bad idea. i know from the experiences of a lot of my friends who have dropped out after the first year with the intention of coming back, who will never be back. besides, in todays world, a college diploma, though not as respected as a tour of duty, still gets you a job.

[packsaddle]

The satellite's just not going to allow my message, oh well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutingagain]

While I may have concerns regarding the current administration's policies and where they might take us in the future, bringing back the draft is not one of them.

 

NJ, I agree, that if one were to follow the stated "logic" of the administrations's reasons for going to war, we could concievably justify attacks on the countries you've listed, most notably Syria and Iran. While, Syria hasn't fired SCUD missiles into Israel, it's government seems to have no problem allowing other organizations fire shorter range missils into Iraeli areas from it's territory.

 

There is one big difference between Iraq and all the other countries on your list NJ. Anyone care to take a guess? Just why would we go to war with a country that did not pose an immediate threat to us or our allies and had no links to Al Qaeda? Because they didn't like us and might someday develop WMD? Because this administration felt an overwelming need to free the Iraqi people as opposed to any other country living under a dictatorship? Why would we not allow other countries that had previous economic ties to Iraq to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq? Why are we building long term military bases in Iraq? Why was the military ordered to secure certain Iraqi government offices and not have the resources to secure ammunition and weapons depots?

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

As the late great screen acteress Bette Davis once said. "Buckle your seat belts, its gonna be a bumpy flight"

 

I dont know how many of you were able to watch any of the 9/11 commission hearings. I was able to see Rudy Giuliani give his testimony and it was riveting. His description and remembrances and insights as to what the events were and the thought processes that were followed were just astounding TV. That clip should run every 9/11. At the end, His Honor got up to leave and people in the back of the room shouted 3, 000 dead and you did nothing, you should have known, you should have done more. or words to that effect.

 

The intelligence systems of the world agreed Iraq had weapons of mass descructions. Sen Kerry has been shown in TV saying as much. The UN weapons inspectors hadnot been allowed to do the job they were supposed to do and 17 UN resolutions on the matter had been pased and Iraq would not yield. At this point the US had a choice, do or not do something. At that point in time there was no third option. So we invaded Iraq. Turns out that perhaps Saddam would have swept all the Poker Tournaments because he is the master bluffer. The problem is, the US wasnt alone in saying Iraq was dangerous.

 

So, lets suppose we didnt do anything. We went along with sanctions (altough the recent uncovering of the Food for Oil scandal kinda lessens the sanction impact). Then at this years first game of the world series an atomic bomb goes off that is traced to Al Quada and Iraq. How many more people would be screaming to the goverment, to the president, you knew and you did nothing. Has the invasion of Iraq saved more lives then it has taken? No one knows or will ever know. Its estimated that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved a million lives because the Jappanese homeland was not invaded and American and Jappanese lives were spared (except for the two cities of course). Today people argue if dropping the bombs were right. The war ended rather abruptly after and I know lives were spared. Then again, we have history on our side as we look back over the 1940's.

 

Of course, the problem is some other colassal terrorist attack is possible, most people agree it will happen again, all we can do is make it harder. We don't know if such an attack will be found to be backed by Syria, Iran, or even just a nameless faceless group and then after the fact all the clues will be obvious, just as the 9/11 clues are now. The problem is do we as a country favor action to inaction?

[scoutingagain]

"The problem is do we as a country favor action to inaction? "

 

No disrespect, OGE, but I don't think the issue is action or inaction.

 

I accept in this day and age, and the potential for terrorists to aquire WMD make the concept of pre-emptive war necessary. I agree that we cannot sit back and simply respond to attacks.

 

The question is though, what threshold must be met before we put those who volunteer to protect us in harms way? At what point are we willing to sacrafice our sons, daughters, husbands or wives, fathers & mothers, fellow citizens?

 

I've written and re-written lots of other thoughts but have decided to delete them for now. The question above I think still stands. In an age where we must consider pre-emptive war, what threshold must be met to take such action? And if a war is initiated based on information that turns out to be incorrect, who should be held accountable? Messengers, advisors or decision makers?

 

 

 

SA

[OldGreyEagle]

SA, I understand what you are saying as well as time goes on I develop a deeper understanding to the old Chinese curse, " May you live in interesting times"

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

TP says:

 

Tell that to the Israeli's in Haifa and Tel Aviv who were on the reciveing end of several dozen SCUD missles a couple years ago. I don't recall the Saudis, Syrians, or Iranians firing SCUDS at Israel?

 

Well, not Scuds, but I do seem to recall that Syria invaded Israel a few times. (I do realize the last time was 31 years ago, this month in fact, but if they had any hope of winning they would do it again in a minute.) As I recall, Israel has managed to keep both its military and civilian casualties in these wars fairly light, but the toll has still been greater than in Saddam's Scud attacks of 1990-91. And much more recently (and at a much greater cost in terms of civilian lives), Syria and Iran (the governments, not just the people) have sponsored, equipped, trained and "launched" terrorist groups whose "suicide bombings" and other attacks have killed far more Israelis (and visitors, including Americans) than Saddam's Scud missiles.

 

As for Saudi Arabia, I don't personally know the level of involvement of the government itself in sponsoring terrorism. I do know there is at least one book written in the past year that

details the connections of the government, not just "fanatical citizens," to terrorism. I have not read it. (And it's not Michael Moore's book that I'm talking about.) But I do think the facts show that Saudi Arabia (which I believe ALSO has funnelled money to Palestinian terrorist groups) is a bigger source of terrorism than Iraq ever was. I also have no doubt that if 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers had been citizens of Iraq (rather than citizens of Saudi Arabia), the U.S. bombers, missiles, troop transports and everything else we've got would have been in the air the next day, without a lot of detailed study of the precise relationship between those specific citizens and their government.

 

Look, I am not nominating Saddam Hussein for any peace prizes here. I'm glad he's gone, and his sons and his entire government with him. What I am talking about is a matter of priorities. (And this part is in response to OGE as well.) While we have been expending our resources on Iraq, due in part to a concern that he might someday develop nuclear weapons, has Iran acquired enough nuclear material and technology to develop nuclear weapons NOW? What about North Korea? I guess we'll find out. And is Saddam Hussein any more dangerous than Iran or North Korea? I don't see how. As for UN resolutions, I don't put much stock in the UN. (By the way, if you are wondering, if NJCubScouter believes all that, which of the two major presidential candidates does he agree with about Iraq? The answer to which would be, neither, exactly.)

 

And none of this explains why we are there NOW, involved in Iraq's civil war. If we are making Iraq "safe for democracy," then once again this means that to be consistent, we have to invade almost all of its neighbors, as well. None of them (excluding Israel) are democracies.

[LovetoCamp]

Let me throw in this, Saddam was a loose cannon, who had already invaded his neighbor and threatened the Saudi Oil Fields, which is a threat to our national interests.

 

I remember reading that when the older Soviet Generals witnessed our capabilites in 90-91, they all renewed their Orthodox faith, thanking God that they were not in the lead T-72 coming down the Fulda Gap.

 

Same goes for North Korea, Syria, and Iran....they saw what happened to one of the world's largest military forces. Iraq's went from sixth largest to seventy forth in 100 hours. They've been warned.

 

How about those election in Afghanistan? Isn't that great!!! For those of you serving today....Hooah!!!