Is the draft worth considering?

Question

Quote from Lieutenant General Douglas Lute:
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20219330/

It's my opinion that draftees make lousy soldiers, are a drain on our military budget, are typically insubordinate, and are in too many ways to list here a great way to reduce our combat effectiveness in an awful hurry, the exact opposite of what we'd need in a crisis.

Also, to be fair to Lieutenant General Lute, he did not speak out in favor of the draft, and echoed the opinion that our volunteer military was doing a good job. He merely said that it was an option worth considering.

I tend to disagree with this. But, I see things from my own point of view. What do you think?

Due to the direction some of the questions have gone in, I just wanted to recap two things

-General Lute did NOT speak out in favor if the draft, and

-The question was whether, in an emergency situation, the draft should be considered

Thanks to everyone for their great responses, though, and it's good to see people on both sides of the fence speaking their minds.

Answer 1

Well, personally, I've always believed in a volunteer military. What's the point of forcing someone to serve for a cause they don't believe in/understand/support? I think if a draft were *needed*, it should show whomever supports said war and draft that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.

Answer 2

A draft?! How much more **** do we have to take from this government? I don't think the many wealthy repubs and dems with draft eligible-age offspring are too keen on any mandatory military service. Numerous people clamor for patriots to step up as long as it's not them or theirs.
Besides, Dubya, Rove, Cheney and their ilk managed to pull enough strings to avoid service in their youth.

Any argument that Americans won't fight out of 'need' is disingenuous. Americans don't wish to fight for a war based on lies and deception. A war brought to us by Halliburton and Dick Cheney. We're in Iraq on false pretenses. There's nothing honorable in that. Iraqis, US soldiers, and other countries' soldiers are dying for what? Iraq had WMD? Nope. Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11? Nope. Saddam was a bad guy? Yea, sure. So are the leaders of North Korea (they actually posses WMD), Iran, any number of African countries, Saudi Arabia is rather oppressive and they produced most of the 9/11 conspirators. Of course, we didn't invade these countries because... why? Money? McDonald's has a franchise there? Someone explain the difference to me.

Maybe war isn't the answer.

Answer 3

Unless the army can figure out a way to bolster the recruiting numbers, they may have no choice.

Petraus is going to ask for at least another year of the surge in his Sept. report. The army can only sustain the current numbers until approx. March '08.

So there is a disconnect of how they are going to accomplish that, other than stop-loss, extended deployment, and redeployment of the same units for the 5-6th time.

One thing for sure. This war would be over in a second, once the Republican parents of teenage children started getting draft notices in the mail and the Congressional Democrats (eg: Rangle) know that.

Answer 4

theres a big difference between now and say back in WWII. no military soldier wants to be under fire with someone who doesn't want to be there. Unfortunately too many people today do not have the patriotism and willingness to give to their country in a time of need as it was back in that time. It would be a terrible idea to re institute the draft

edit: even in an emergency situation all more people would do would be create more targets. In the days of line up and over power your advicary it was necessary to have overwhelming force but in todays era of technology and COIN smaller units better trained and more willing can be more effective

Answer 5

if the war on terror is to be fought along the lines of what the "decider in chief " has outlined then a draft will be an necessity
the strains on the present day military have been the topic of conversations within the ranks and from retired commanders for some time now and if the president and his cabinet are correct, we face enemies from all sides, then an increase of something like1 million men would be in order.
the all volunteer army is not meeting it's quotas now and the retention rate will not fill the gaps, so for the country to meet it's military obligations it will be forced to enact the draft or a new paradigm for the "the war on terror " must be brought into focus

Answer 6

I think the draft is inevitable. We're going to be in Iraq and the Middle East for a VERY long time, in one capacity or another. We cannot continue putting our military through 3 and 4 tours of duty. Because of the mess in Iraq, the rate of people signing up has dropped significantly. Who is going to replace those in the military who have already served way past their time? We can't keep them there on tour after tour forever. The draft is coming, the only two questions are when, and will women be included.

Answer 7

I think that if the draft is re-instated, republicans by the droves will finally speak against this war.

and to the commenter above me
the majority of soldiers serving in IRAQ are AGAINST this war NOW

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed
and below me

as far as Clinton cutting troops, thats not a good arguement, if the country was FOR this war, there would be NO PROBLEM getting new recruits, but WE ARE AGAINST BUSH's WAR

Answer 8

Everything is fair in love and war, as the quote goes. Yes, the draft has always been on the table, but has never been given any serious thought. At the same time, using nukes to wipe out the Middle East has been on the table too, but has also never been given any serious thought. The general was just being honest in say that it was an option.

Answer 9

Mark J, youre right. Were a draft instituted Id be out of the country in a secondor at least hiding-Im proud to say this.

Not because of an aversion to serving (I tried to join twice but was refused for medical reasons), but because the only time a draft should be instituted is for a defensive war on your own soil.

Ever heard of the Crimean War? Look it up if you havent. Robin Hood will become a local legend! We'll take to the woods if we have to!

Answer 10

I think an all volunteer military is still the answer. It makes for a much better, more professional military.

If we need more people then we need to increase the incentives for joining. This is one group of people who earn their pay and we should give it to them.

We should also take a hard look at our military commitments around the world. We have an awful lot of military personnel deployed in places we may no longer need them.