What do you think of raising the recruitment age to 21 and reinstating the draft?

Question

What about making the maximum age 65 in good health and not giving waivers just because you are an elected official? If your number comes up, you serve and the Governor of your state replaces you with someone else, even if you are a sitting U.S. Congressman or Senator. If you're the President, you are replaced by the next person in the line of succession. Reckon that would get them thinking real hard in Washington the next time that they want to get this country involved in an armed conflict (war)?

Some Dude, I was where you're at mentally too once. As a young soldier in the army, I could not wait to go to war and kill Russians. Well if things keep going the way they are maybe you'll get the chance I never had. I was lucky enough to serve under a 70 year old Commander In Chief by that name of Ronald Reagan. He proved that a strong defence backed with an equally strong will to use it offensively combined with an excellent foreign diplomatic policy could win the peace without bloodshed. As you get older and your mind matures, hopefully you can free yourself from the indoctrination that is essential to have a strong military and see the big picture like Ronald Reagan did then and I finally do now. The spirit of the "Greatest Generation" still flourishes in our military that I am proud to have been a member of. Unfortunately I feel that it is almost dead in the heart of our nations capitol.

RTO Trainer, good questions. The first thing that I would do is make it a mandatory two years. It would be just like before, you f**ck up enough, you go to the stockade or the Federal Pen. Those that weren't fit mentally or physically would get rear echalon duty because, as you point out their are plenty of volunteers for the frontline and special ops. I would get rid of all these contractors that are draining the life blood out of our economy. And so now we get down to what to do with you seasoned cadre. Well the first thing I would do was knock off this $150,000 dollar a year B.S. that I've been hearing so much about lately. I would still offer reasonable incentives to enlist or reenlist, the key word here is reasonable. If you didn't like the offer you could always go ro a private firm or another country and ply your trade, although I doubt that there would be much need in this country because the military would be self sufficient once again. The way it should be now.

Answer 1

How about never ever puting someone in the Army that doesn't want to be there? If they aren't at least as committed to the service and the mission as I am, I don't want them anywhere near me.

While your'e dreaming though, you mind explaining where you'll put all teh new tropps you draft? Every post ahs massive building projects going on now just to house the troops we've got.

And are willing to go back to old school BCT, where the Drill Sergeants can hit recruits? There are some, who don't want to be there, and will only respond to that kind of treatment.

How you going to pay for this? Will you reduce my pay since you can now replace me without having to offer more money; just send someone a letter and make tehm be a Soldier? Will you pay draftees differnt rates than volunteers? How amny other double standards? Will you reduce other benefits?

What about doctrine? We have to rewrite all teh mauals, because now initiative and internal motivation cannot be relied on--more NCOs will be required for fewer troops. That means more and smaller teams, which become larger squads, platoons, companies.... That impacts not only doctrine, but transportation, logistics, procurement, budget....

You seem in such a rush to use military service as a political lever and wedge, which it is never supposed to be, that you're willing to destroy it in the process.

UPDATE: 2 years is too short. By the time you get through Basic and many AIT's you've got less than 9 months and you're out. That's a lot of money to spend for very little payback.

No idea why bring up the stockade or the pen, unless that's where you plan to house the extra troops.

The contractors are, in the long run, cheaper, becasue they dont' get all the extended benefits that we do, so you're just exchanging back short term costs for long term costs.

If you institute a draft you won't need to worry about what to do with seasonded cadre like me. I'll be voting with my feet, 2 years to retirement or not and sayonara.

$150,000 a year? For who?

Conscription will not make the military self sufficient. We can do that with volunteers.

Answer 2

I worked in personnel active and reserve, I served in Saudi during Desert Storm. Are you aware that under the current system if the draft were to be reinstated that the would not start with the 18 and 19 year old first. The would actually start I believe the age was 23 to 25. Are you also aware that officer can serve to the age of 65 or the mandatory retirement date which is 28 years and something after appointment as 2LT. and enlist can serve 30 years if the meet the requirements. So Rudy you see we have opportunities for the folks to stay in the problem is they can make more money on the outside. I see serious problems with your plan do you really want Cheney as President that much worse than Bush. Who picks the Governor the President then we would have all one political party running the country. That's not what the Constitution: It says For the people by the people I like like that

One last question! Have you served!!!!

Answer 3

As a US Soldier I can tell you the draft is a bad idea. I've worked with volunteers who didn't want to be there, and that's scary enough. I don't want to "share a foxhole" with someone who was legally ordered there. In modern war what you need is a highly trained professional Army, not just bodies. Even the Russians are fazing out conscription due to this fact. Let's drop the whole draft thing already.

I realize you're moreover trying to make a political statement against your congressmen and the war, but don't use the military as a propaganda tool - that's just stooping to the politicians level.

BTW - the war is a good thing.

Answer 4

Think the draft is a great idea but I would rather see 18 & 19 year olds be drafted, two years, never serve out of country unless of declared war, second year the different branches of the service recruit from this draft pool. Realizing the military is not for everyone lots of defirments and loop holes to get out. (not as binding an enlistment as the different branches of the military)

Answer 5

I don't like it at all.

The answer for your hypothetical situation should be, that in order to get those offices, you should have already served. Not to mention that in your idea, it could turn the government on its ear possible in a time of crisis.

But I think our system so far is a lot better from a military perspective. Its much better to work with volunteers that want to be here.

Answer 6

I don't want a draft, just for the simple fact if I am fighting, I want other people voluntarily there as well. I don't want someone who was forced to be there. As far as being 21 goes, no way. Youthful exhuberance is awesome, if it is contained and trained the correct way. the average age of the military would jump up dramatically.

Answer 7

i dont like that one bit.

insead, keep the entry requirements just like they are, keep it an all volunteer service, but legislate a law that when our government declares war the draft must be reinstated until the war is over. that way the government hacks will do more to ensure that if we go to war, it is BECAUSE WE HAVE TO. (make sure the reasons and intel is valid, all other options have been excersized first, ect. )

Answer 8

Absolutely not. I agree that the privileged ought not to be exempted from service.

But here's a far more important point: if or leaders cannot gain enough support for a conflict to get voluntary recruits, they should not be able to force people to fiht in support of a policy they do not endorse.

Will that create problems for leaders who undertake military adventures that the American people do not agree with? You bet it will--that's the point.

Answer 9

I was thinking along the same lines, but figured it would be impractical, but I did want to try to suggest something that would make such decisions less abstract.

I wonder if our leaders are really sincerly dedicated to the war or is all their rhetoric about freedom and terrorism simply ways to manipulate others. And would they still be comitted to sending our young men, (many of whom will face a crippling and torturous existence for ther rest of their lives as a result), if they had something meaningful to loose as well.

In other words, if our leaders are so adamantly convinced that this war is essential for our survival and well-being. If they are so willing to commit so many thousands of people to death, well then let them put their money where there mouth is.

If they are truly patriotic, they should be willing to give up at least half their wealth to the cause. It is a small price to pay for the monumental importance of their decision.

So how about any official who agrees to such a horrendous need to go to war, be committed enough to give up half their money. I wonder if that would change things. Do they really believe what they are saying. Maybe they would give it some more thought. Or maybe we would be more impressed with their motives.

Answer 10

The draft is a NO, not in this trumped up illegal war.
If it were a legitimate war, instead of this open ended occupation, I would say yes. And that includes all men, regardless of the position of influence. Some necessary exceptions apply of course, but not if daddy is a politician, or you are in college.

Raising the recruiting age to 21 is a YES. There are too many recruiters that glorify the military, and even lie and intimidate to get their quota... its appalling. And get this... schools are required to give the US Military access to these students names, addresses and can meet with them, without their parents consent. And I feel this is predatory.

Especially at a time when our kids are just emerging into adulthood, and some of those "Children left behind" see no other alternative due, in part, to the failures of our school system to try and teach these kids to pass a test.

The No Child Left Behind Policy is nothing more than a funnel for the US Military.