Re-instate the military draft or activate more reserve troops?

Question

I am a soldier in the Active Army and I have been in for about 8 years now and I heard congress considering re-instating the military draft. In my opinion, I think it should stay as a volunteer army. I want to know what you stand for, draft or volunteer, and why?

Keyword is "considered" not "actually" but thank you for your opinions because I am a open-minded soldier.

Answer 1

Unless we encounter a situation where many more troops are drastically needed, I think a volunteer army is the way to go. I think the call for a return to the draft is more of a criticism of hypocrisy than anything else. After all, it's much easier to support a war when you know that you or no one you care about will be put in danger. It's easy to blame Bush and the neoconservatives for the failures in Iraq now, but this war would have never happened without the support of a solid majority of the American people. But if a draft had been enabled from the beginning of this war I think that there would have been alot of people who would have had very different opinions about how necessary invading Iraq was (including myself).

But just because drafting kids into the army isn't a good idea doesn't mean that having some required civil service isn't either. Why shouldn't young people serve the country in some way? Give them peaceful options (like re-building the Gulf Coast) but If they choose the military, that's great. It might actually remind people that everyone has a duty to their country, not just the soldiers.

Answer 2

The level of skill in the all volunteer Army is ever increasing. This is a tremendous plus to the all volunteer Army of today in the USA. Thier are advantages to a draft along the lines of the Isrealy style Army. Everyone becomes part of the Military for a set period of time (2-3 years). After that , effectively everyone is part of a nation wide reserve force which can be called upon if needed. I woudl support the concept of a draft IF it were done in a manner where EVERYONE served 2-3 years between the ages of 18-27 with no exceptions. The moment you enter exceptions into the fray, it does not work. I would also stress that it would be irreguardless of sex --- Both men and women would have to serve. It would be a very big change for the people of America to undergo, but I think it would be a good change in the long run. Many in America do not understand the Military way of doing things. This would change all of that. Everyone would be in the Military equally. Some would choose to stay in the military, many would choose to enter civilian life after their years of service were complete. Either way, their would be an understanding which is lacking in the American Society of Military life. This is just my opinion.

Answer 3

I am a retired Air Force and Air Force Reserve officer who served in the Air National Guard as an enlisted man. Back when I first enlisted, in 1960, the draft was a huge motivation factor for people joining the reserve and guard.

I was commissioned in 1965, served ten years active duty and went on to serve many more years as a reservist. I had a tour in Vietnam.

I agree with you that the military services should remain voluntary, but I do favor a form of the draft which I will justify in a moment.

I think all young people should have to serve in some way to become invested in this nation. That service could be social work, reserve duty, active military service, volunteer firefighter or similar work. Too many people have no idea how the military or this nation works. They should not be forced to serve in the military services.

One reason I don't favor a return to a 1960s style draft is because of the quality of the forces. We were forced to lower standards during the draft, and to accept people who didn't want to be there and who would cause numerous problems just to spite the system.

When we did away with the draft the quality of the force went up significantly.

But I still think all Americans should serve in some way--give them more choices than we had in 1960.

Answer 4

My husband is an officer in the active army and the rumors of a draft being considered in Congress is only that- rumors. There was one senator who discussed the concept of reinstating, but everyone else agrees with you and thought it was a ridiculous idea. He got no support and the discussion died on Capital Hill. Unfortunately, it has remained alive in circles of people who don't follow politics and listen to their friends. The draft isn't needed and reserve troops are capable of filling in the gaps. At this current state, since the congressional turnover, there will surely be NO further discussion of this. It is not a threat or a viable option. The democrats in power hate this president and they hate this war. They want a withdrawal as a party-line, and they are not going to do anything to commit more troops. The last election was a public referendum on the public's opinion of the president and the war, and the democrats know that doing anything that can be seen by the public of digging us deeper into Iraq will cost them their electoral seats. I expect to begin seeing a draw-down within the next year. Whether you support the war and the president or not, the politics involved are a fact.

Answer 5

They are not going to re instate the draft.
Congressman Rangel is trying to make a point.
And the point is that the government would be less likely to instigate a war based on faulty intel from a criminal like Chalabi.
There would be all sorts of problems with a draft.
The public would freak out if they thought that THEIR kids were going to have to go to a place like Iraq and spend three tours out there.
I could go on and on and on.

I left a post on http://www.military.com about the draft.
I was wondering how they would adjust the pay scales.
I was in military when draft was still on and I was getting 64 bucks a week. That was E-2 pay. When they started shifting to all volunteer force we got 100% pay raise....and more after that.

Would they pay conscripts as much as they pay volunteers?
Would the conscripts be given less opportunities than the volunteers?
All sorts of bugs to iron out.

I took a while to establish the volunteer force and it would take a while to get the draft going.

I turned 18 in 1969..on my birthday I went and registered for the draft.
Not too long after that I went and took physical at AFEES and got classified 1A....which means available immediately at the governments whim.

I don't see the government reinstating the draft to fight the war in Iraq.

Answer 6

I'm for getting the hell out of Dodge. However, if it comes to outfitting an army I would prefer a volonteer one. The draft should only be used in case of dire circumstance. The conflict in Iraq could be solved using diplomacy. We'd take it in the shorts, but I'm not sure we can convince the world that two wrongs can make a right. This has definately been a bad situation for all involved. The initial freedom that was won for the Iraqi poeple has been squandered by inadequate inital troop levels required to keep the peace and to rebuild promptly. Our troops have done what was asked, but doing it on the cheap has made a military solution unrealistic without instituting a draft.

Answer 7

Actually, Congress has no intention of reinstating the draft. What you heard were commnts made by congressman Charlie Rangel (D- NY).

These aren't new comments: he's been saying it for years, but the medai has only recently decided to report it (slow news day).

Charlie's position is that if we reinstated the draft without exemptions for college students, then the rich and midddle classes would be less inclined to support the use of troops or military actions because it would be their kids who would be on the battle field rather than minorities and the poor.

-Charlie's district is Harlem in NYC, and his position is that the current system takes advantage of minorities and the poor.


The truth is, there is little need for either the draft or activating more reservists: all military branches have been meeting their recruiting goals over the past year.

Answer 8

I stand for volunteer, because if you draft people during the occupation phase of a campaign it would just help to raise the debts , due to the fact that you lost a percentage of the work force and had to supply them as well. Also, It cannot just be neither as someone before me said, because if you did just start to train the Iraqis(which we are doing) and did not give them any support they would just never show. We need a presence there and we need to slowly shift the responsibility to them. In Vietnam our strategy was to send advisors and then when that didn't work we sent troops and then more and more until we eventually reached a point where the public was totally against it. You need a good first-strike, which we did and if you don't need draftees for that, then you don't need them anywhere else.

Answer 9

Well, first of all, there won't be a draft. Because it would be political suicide for whatever lawmaker supported the draft. And with how self-serving our politicians are today, none of them would dare to make a decision that would automatically lose them the next election... Second of all, the military is much more powerful and effective when it's full of people who choose to join, rather than being forced to join. And the government realizes this. If they reinstated the draft, it would probably make our armed forces much larger, but it may also make them weaker. Because when you have a military force full of people who are against what the military does it hurts morale and you get thousands of careless workers within the military work force. I'm in the Navy. And I don't agree with your opinion on what the military is and why wars are fought. But I am against a draft for a few reasons. One reason is that I don't want to be working next to a person like you. Not that you're a bad person or anything, but most of the people in the military, including myself, do honestly believe in what we try to do. And having to work next to a person with opinions like yours would drag the military spirit down. Another reason is that a draft represents everything that our country isn't meant to stand for. When the government forces you to do something against your free will, as long as you're not harming anyone else and their rights, that is fascism. If I was in your position, not wanting to serve in the military, I would arm myself and I would dare any government agent to even attempt to drag me away to do something that I don't want to do... Which leads to my next reason why I oppose a draft... Our Constitution gives us the right and freedom to bear arms. And within around 52 million American households (roughly 45% of total American households) possess roughly 260 million firearms (that number is very close to the total US population). And if America were to ever be invaded, there is no way those gun owners would just turn their weapons in to the enemy and surrender. They would probably fight with just as much effect as the US Army and Marines would be able to provide on the ground at that point of time. We don't need a draft because the American civilians, together, form a very solid militia that is able to defend the nation... One of the main reasons why the Japanese didn't attempt to invade the US after the Pearl Harbor bombing was because so many American civilians were armed... So the Japanese had the guts to bomb a major US military base, but they were too afraid to even attempt to fight America on its home turf because of its armed civilians. We don't need a draft, nor will I ever support one.

Answer 10

The rumor of another draft has been going around quite often. Yes there is one person that has introduced it quite a few times in the past few years to no avail. A draft has its pro's and con's
In todays "GIVE ME" society, a draft would not be popular. It is great we still have enough people willing to volunteer.
I was drafted. Served my time. What can I say