28 Nov 2007
Mark Ivey - View my profile
My viewing of how a military draft is done in Germany and Switzerland and several other European countries made me change my mind on having a new draft in the United States..

Iraq and Afghanistan are not going away, we will have a large troop commitment and it requires fresh boott.. Ive volunteered to be a part of the Selective Service System, so if they crank it up? I want to do my part to make the system as effective and "general sacrifice" orientated because we are talking about the security of the United States... Selah... :-)

19 Nov 2007
Robert Hanafin - View my profile
My above comment was made BEFORE reading your Blog and this plan Mark. That said, note I reserved any comments ‘critical’ of this idea UNTIL I READ AND UNDERSTOOD IT!

I gave your Blog a recommend to others vote, NOT because I totally agree or disagree with it, but the idea is articulated very well. I may not agree with all that is written, but it is said in a professional and sincere manner. I tend to lean a little bit too much on the Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity style of writing (the way I speak non-stop), but remember I was a long-term Republican, and I was also ADDICTED to the same Joseph Goebbels’s style of articulation practiced by those on talk radio. Put another way, I along with Limbaugh, Hannity, and a select few, ramble on endlessly as if we have Bi-Polar and either forgot to take our ‘legal’ drugs or are taking other illegal drugs that just don’t hack it. Now that I got my dry sense of humor out of the way, this is what I like and do not like about THIS IDEA. However, it is only my opinion, and WE know what is true about OPINIONS! First off, I like the over-all idea, because it does appear to come from the heart, and someone's genuine concern for our nation’s future. It is not littered with political slogans nor appear poliitcally motivated. Regardless appearances are as decieving as the manipulated Intelligence that sold Congress on giving President Bush "their War Powers." In fact, if anything successful comes from the Bush legacy it will be that HE DID temporarily destroy Congress' War Powers Act. Despite that or maybe due to it, THE FACT IS THAT OUR MILITARY WILL EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF QUALITY VOLUNTEERS. OK, I make it NO SECRET where I stand in OPPOSITION to the Iraq War and continued American occupation of "any nation" regardless the appearance of good intentions. Contrary to right-wing spin and myth, I consider myself among those who are for a Smart National Defense that is just that - Defensive in nature - and capability, NOT offensive. Any nation that throws around it's military might to the point of giving the Pentagon control over actions that belong in the State Department, that nation is eventually going to become offensive to THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. Secondly, THIS IDEA starts with the premise that Americans must have the desire to retain a mantle of global leadership. That is what got us into IRAQINAM in the first place. If our government does not ACT as a World Leader should, then such leadership is worthless. Why? Because to lead a nation by intimidation and FEAR sends up a warning flare to the rest of the world that America is not a global leader in any positive meaning of the word. The key word is LEADERSHIP Mark. That alone opens a Pandora’s Box, because it depends on how one defines American Leadership in the World (or Dominance.) Any Military Officer worth their college degree (or what have you) at least basically understands various aspects of leadership, even if they do not implement what they learn or know. The difference between right and wrong for example. At its very basic terms GOOD and DECENT LEADERSHIP (either individual, group, or global) is defined as Leadership based on MOTIVATION, influencing people (nations) in positive ways to perform and prosper: leadership by example, and so on. There are many positive ways to be a Leader. None of which have been exhibited by eihter Congress or President Bush. Folks may disagree with me on that, but does the words IS IT 2008 YET mean anything to YOU? That combined with both Congress and the White House having the lowest American public satisfaction record in history. Well Jefferson Davis may have had a lower popularity rating than Bush, but the President of the Confederacy hardly counts. Unfortunately, there has been, a recent trend (at least since 2000) by the Leadership our nation to not use the positive aspects of Leadership but mostly negative and counter-productive. Our government, beginning with the Administration, leads not by motivation but INTIMIDATION. It does not influence people (nations) weaker or with diverse culture and views that are not American 'instead' our leaders have bullied, scared, and attacked other nations using the arrogant, ethnocentric EXCUSE that we are invading and occupying (BLANK: fill in the nation) YOU for your own good. That IS NOT global leadership Mark, that is global dominance and conquest that goes beyond ARROGANCE. Don't be confused by the Pentagon controlled America Supports You propaganda and patriotic slogans, because a FACT OF LIFE is that some elitists in our nation covet the natural resources of the Middle East. If the area where we occupy and have an eye on DID NOT contain a natural resource any Industrialized Naiton needs to survive, WE would be sending Our Troops where those resources can be found given an adequate excuse to attack. Put another way, it is hard enough to get the American people motivated to volunteer to do what WE only one percent of our population is willing to do for whatever reason. Trying to implement any idea for ANY DRAFT under the best of circumstances is a disaster waiting to happen. Doing so with the current leadership we have in place in Washington would only lead to widespread social upheaval, plus the decline and fall of a few ultra elitists who wannabe the Roman Empire. Frankly, the faster and harder the NEOCONS fall the better from a global PEACE view. I already stated that as a Libertarian I am passionately not for ANY DRAFT, but instead see the rationale of not funding the Apparatus that implements that which the majority in the nation (regardless of other political views) DO NOT WANT TO DO - DEFEND THE NATION. Other people do that, not those who deem themselves Elistist, even though that too is an illusion for many that believe military service is below them. However, let me be Bush's (I mean Devil's) advocate for a moment in time and say we have NO CHOICE but to implement THE DRAFT or America would have more to lose than just its Leadership mantle. If the survival of our nation seriously depended on THE DRAFT, these are my views on THIS IDEA. I disagree with doing away with any conscription system that fails to have EQUITY FOR ALL, including the elite among us. I am a firm believer that America is a class society, but that does not mean I am into class warfare. Mark, that is exactly what THIS PLAN does not do - provide equity -when it targets National Service to an 'ever decreasing' pool of young people destined for college. The focus is totally on people going to college and not everyone in the nation aspires to or can afford to go to college. Risking one's life in a in return for an education right now is something most college students will take the Dick Cheney way out, especially if they have the money and connections. Demographics also plays a role in determining IF America ever has to resort to THE DRAFT again. Check any on-line data (Google American Birthrate and Social Security) POINT IS that less babies have been born to the generation following MY BABY BOOM generation. Why is solvency of Social Security such a concern? Because there will be a massive decrease in working age (draft age) youngsters to carry the fiscal burden of my generation that not only vastly outnumbers the Iraq War generation but we are living longer. With the pool of American-born young people dwindling, focusing any DRAFT plan on those who aspire to be the Elite is not only unfair but unrealistic to maintain. I can tolerate the Selective Service System as is IF the lottery is equitable across social class, had no loopholes, and similar to this plan did have alternatives for those youngster that are UNFIT for combat duty, Conscientious Objectors, or just cannot be trained or forced to fight against their will. Their should be NO GET OUT OF NATIONAL SERVICE FREE card allowing anyone to do as Dick Cheney and others have done. Had something better to do with their life than fight and die in a questionable war or ANY WAR. It would be, and still is, inequitable for ANYONE seeking and getting a loophole out of THE DRAFT, because they are from the Elite or just downright Shrewd. Having no alternative but to serve as this plan recommend would provide no loops holes. However, the options of National Service should be available also to those who choose not to go to college. Personal choice must be equitable across social class and contrary to popular MYTH – America is a class society. We just don’t like admitting it. That reality kind of takes the wind out of Patriotism. The alternatives to military service mentioned like AmeriCorps, etc. (working in hospitals-social services-social assistance) should not be exclusively made available to family members of politicians and other elites in our society but on equal terms across the class spectrum. In Homeland security assignments (guarding ports, power plants, etc) is a somewhat Para-military-police function that could border on potential combat under certain criteria. It would not be a realistic option for those who choose to not go into the military or combat. Those who chose the Military this plan says could serve as military police officers, truck drivers, or other non-combat specialists requiring only modest levels of training. Having experienced both being in combat and a REMF (combat support) in the Army and Air Force during the 20th Century. The concept of Combat Support in the 21st Century is unrealisticif viewed in 20th Century terms. Given the experience and lessons being learned (I hope and pray) in Iraqinam. Depending on scenario there has never been combat support or a REMF when it comes to getting killed in action or just killed. When a warrior is dead they are dead regardless how. Distinguishing how they died is degrading to their service. Regardless what the Army now offers in shorter tours to attract recruits, the sad fact is that two years simply is not enough time to be cost effective. I also do not concur with the assumption in this plan that “Military” Police Officers and other non-combat specialists DO NOT REQUIRE intensive levels of training. Let’s take Military Police, that MOS takes a lot more than “modest” training. The Security Police, Shore Patrol or whatever the Navy calls them now, and MPs of each service have not only had to go through extensive training for what they do. They have also gone through the equivalent of Advanced Infantry Training. One only needs compare Military Police to any civilian police officer in degree of combat training an MP experiences to take issue with the view in this plan. Not only that but I’ve seen with my own eyes Air Force Security Police being drained from stateside bases and duties to go into combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are even Navy and Air Force Police officers that are treated no different than Infantryman. I harp on the insignificant role in groound warfare being experienced by both the Air Force and Navy, but both those services Security Forces have played an essential role that the Army and Marines just could not handle alone. Don’t even get me on the extensive training that an Infantryman goes through today given the level of technology and baggage any Veteran from Iraq will tell you they carry on their back, front, behind, and elsewhere. Compare what a Marine or Soldier in Iraq decked out in full gear looks like compared to their counter-part during Vietnam, and I rest my case. Iraq is not a jungle warfare environment, but the sandbox does not add any additional comfort. Add to the unsavory environment, the requirement to carry so much weight, and our troops have got to be downright miserable. Good thing that misery enjoys company. Serving to protect those around you on the battlefield is about all that keeps our troops going back over and over and over for these exploitative deployments. Mark, this plan uses bad examples and may be unintentionally playing down the role today’s warriors play in combat during a military occupation and against an insurgency movement NOT a Nation. Our All Volunteer Force is more complex than the illusion of modest training they need suggests. Even if restricted to being deployed only as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions, serving for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations, just is not adequate tour lengths. As we are learning, well should have already known, being in the business of nation-building eventually will not attract the vast American public. If it did, the ground forces required and involved in the steps it takes to invade, dominate, occupy, the build a nation in our image takes a pool of warriors America just don’t have. I fully support this plans views on an enhanced GI-Bill but not only for education or as a carrot to serve. However, the precedence has been set and ethically providing Veterans benefits to those who choose to serve (or Uncle Sam demanded they serve) are rights not handouts or 'public assistance' that some within the Elite that refuse to serve would have us believe. The GI Bill of Rights is what it was called and in a great sense VETERANS HAVE EARNED THESE RIGHTS now more than ever, because WITHOUT THE DRAFT, Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran are doing something for our society that most people born here find distasteful or are UNFIT to perform. The Yellow Ribbons, and Support the Troop, Flag Waving seriously does not fool ANY TROOPS who are serving for either career ambitions, looking out for one another, or just coming home in one piece - alive. Frankly, given the dwindling pool of young people for future military service, the FULL PAYMENT of higher education based on college (or what have you) attendance, receipts and records should be granted to ALL who serve regardless how. Most important the level of this education benefit being equal to all, it must only differ during wartime in a bonus amount received. I do agree with the idea on modest stipends. Most would no doubt pick the less dangerous options is where the need for a lottery based on equity, fitness, and fairness comes in. It would be obvious to any authority in implementing this system that most Sports Professionals and related entertainers will seek a way out just by virtue of the loss in salaries. Our national survival should be and would be the only reason to even consider THE DRAFT. Some would certainly select the military—out of patriotism, a sense of adventure, or to test their mettle, so this plan says. Even if only 10 percent of the one-million young people who annually start at four-year colleges and universities were to choose the military option, the armed forces would receive 100,000 fresh recruits every year. (Demographics going into the out years, and that is what Pentagon planners look at Mark, do not support these assumptions about higher education. Colleges may be over-crowed, but it is not due to an increasing number of American born youth. The U.S. citizen population headed for college is dwindling, not increasing or stabilizing, and Mark what percentage of that million heading for college this plan mentions are foreign-born exchange students? A significant number! I do not question Mark that these would be motivated recruits, having chosen the military over other, less demanding forms of service. However, that is assuming what we no have in the All Volunteer Force lacks these qualities? Having “Been Volunteered” during the Vietnam War for then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara’s Project 100,000, I must passionately take issue with this plans premise of our “average volunteer recruit.” Project 100,000: Testimony and Report on the Study of Vietnam War Era Low Aptitude Military Recruits (google.com/search) It is a given that due to the decreasing demographic pool of volunteers for the All Volunteer Force, that the Pentagon has been forced to reinstitute a 21st Century version of Project 100,000 on their own by lowering standards and increasing moral infraction waivers. However, this decision by DOD (and I am not defending the Pentagon by far) really was one of NO CHOICE politically. It was either lower the quality of recruits in order to achieve quantity OR a few Generals and Admirals losing their promotions and maybe retirement by vaguely suggesting that “their” Commander-In-Chief much less Congress needs to implement THE DRAFT. Another misconception this plan has Mark is that just because so-called Volunteers under this plan would all be college-bound and college-grads, they would have—to a greater extent than “your average volunteer recruit,” the savvy and inclination to pick up foreign languages and other skills that are often the key to effective peacekeeping work. This sounds like a Military/Civil Affairs Officer’s dream come true Mark, but it is too naïve (and Elitist) to seriously think just because Military volunteers are college graduates they would be motivated to learn or use foreign languages. Youngsters in college today with any such motivation and no intent of joining the military are in high demand and very few in numbers. Those interested in military service are even fewer. Count me among those who went to college then served a career as a MI Officer. BUT, I count myself among those unique FEW that are not ethnocentric or just ignorant despite having a college degree. American Nationalism, a superiority complex, and even the comment in this plan about “Americans must have the desire to retain a mantle of global leadership,” all contribute to an EGOTISICAL view that the world has to do things America’s way or no way. If what this plan says were realistic Mark think on it, would we really be having an on-going national immigration debate with strong anti-immigrant overtones? I know from personal experience looking out from within the MI career field that just having a college education does not make a racists any less racist or one who mistakenly believes their culture is superior to others any less ethnocentric. I have met both in our Officers Corp. I have also known beaucoup enlisted men and women during my career, especially in Military intelligence, many with no college degree (or working on one) that had the same motivation this plan 'assumes' most military volunteers would have. The truth be told most officers in some services could care less about foreign language skills or the cultural/ethnic sensitivities of the people of the nation they occupy. With all honesty, and I have done the research for two years and lasted at the Pentagon for a year after that, the Army does the best job at preparing Foreign Area Officers (FAOs). In fact, most Army Military Attaches go through intensive FAO training to include “almost” going native (Immersion in the Foreign Culture). I tried to help build such a model within the Air Force, because I was responsible for all Air Force related foreign language training at Air Staff. When I suggested designing a program based on the Army FAO model, not only did inter-service rivalry kick in. It dawned on me that Air Force and Naval officers who aspire to the highest ranks “had no interest” in learning a foreign language when they were in college and saw very little value in it for promotion when I was at the Pentagon. When it came to a toss up between extra budgetary dollars to enhance Air Force and Navy capability to deal with foreign languages competing with big ticket weapon system procurement – guess which got priority from Fly Boy Generals that control the Air Force and Skippers that controlled the Navy. I admit that throwing in, “Oh BTW let us use the Army’s OUTSTANDING example and lesson learned as a model,” is it any wonder they did not want to throw money at enhancing their service’s capability to not be ethnocentric. I believed that the Army did the best job at it, because the Army had the most experience with civil affairs than my own branch of service. Which branch of service has traditionally been called upon to establish civil stability in any foreign country we have hostilities with when the invasion stops and occupation begins? That is right the Army and to a degree the Marines. I prefer to use the term community stability instead of nation building, because once we broke it, America tends to feel obligated to stabilize the conquered government in our own image. That clearly worked in World War 2, because of the nature of that WAR. It was a full scale WAR with a majority of American public support and most significantly lacking for Iraqinam is the same level of National commitment that President FDR demanded of the American people in our finest United We Stand moment. Neither President Bush nor Congress ever asked, let alone demanded, the same level of national commitment to IRAQINAM, and don’t intend to. Spinning propaganda FOR THE TROOPS that Iraq is to be as serious as WW2 belongs on late night comedy shows. It is now TOO LATE to demand the American people make sacrifices for Iraqinam much less ask them to. I do strongly agree that IF handled, monitored, and implemented equitably to include not singling out THE HAVES, because they have never pulled their fair share of our national burden in wartime, a 21st-century draft would create a cascading series of benefits for society. More than any other reason stated in this plan, it left out the fact that representation in Congress would more appropriately reflect our society with an increase in Representatives of THE PEOPLE that have had military service experience. Example: not guaranteed, but IF NOW over 55% of those serving in Congress had ever been sensitive to what combat is really like, Veterans would have had both the Flag Amendment AND Mandatory Funding of the VA system. As the Congressman from Harlem, NY believes, the vulnerability for amateurs to take the nation’s young into war on a whim or doctored intelligence would be drastically reduced, if the leaders of our government had intimate sensitivity to what war is, and having to maybe SEND THEIR OWN in harms way. WE THE PEOPLE pamper our politicians and leaders too much. They are our employees NOT our superiors, especially when we leave the Armed Forces. That has been the Achilles Heal to all Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) since the thought it was a National obligation to honor those that serve began. Leaders of VSOs tend to forget that members of Congress, despite how much money they can raise to get there, STILL work for the people who elect them or WE can and should find someone else who will do what those who elected them want! Unfortunately most VSOs have reacted and been designed the other way around. VSOs created a need to Lobby Congress when it should have always been the other way around. Congress should be lobbying VSOs for their support. Every budget cycle mainstream Veterans group leaders go to Congress hat in hand begging for decent funding with no consequences if members of Congress ignore them. Any threat made by organized Veterans groups cannot be taken seriously IF they continue taking a path of subservience. It would instill a new ethic of service in that sector of society, the college-bound, most likely to reap the fruits of American prosperity. [QUOTE] And it would do all this without requiring any American to carry a gun who did not choose to do so.[END QUOTE] Mark it sounds to me as if someone is trying to sell this idea only to college bound students or Conscientious Objectors. Not only is that an elitist approach, but it will get nowhere. I admire that this plan attempts to AVOID coercing people fit to serve (football players comes to mind) by white washing this as desirable voluntary servitude (service). That is what the All Volunteer Force has already become by nature of the Madison Avenue military recruitment techniques and waivers to lower standards – voluntary servitude. Even the rationale of this plan is commendable, and I buy it. However, I am an exception to the rule when it comes to the college-bound. “It would mobilize an army of young people for vital domestic missions, such as helping a growing population of seniors who want to avoid nursing homes (that is my favorite part), but need help with simple daily tasks like grocery shopping. However, the problem with any plan for National Service is that none of them can realistically AVOID MAKING AMERICAN CITIZENS SERVE IN THE MILITARY AGAINST THEIR WILL should the REAL need arise or they simply can loose their American citizenship as easily as our government GIVES IT AWAY. However, that is another Blog of my own. [QUOTE] If America wishes to retain its mantle of global leadership, it must develop a military force structure capable of persevering under these circumstances. Fortunately, we know how to build such a force. We have done it many times in the past. The question is: Do we have the will to do so again?[END QUOTE] This closing of THE PLAN is the most questionable part Mark. America’s mantle of global leadership is an illusion, and one that goes against any sensitivity to the need for more military members to learn foreign languages. However, as one who has learned a foreign language - Japanese (and profitable at that) while in the military, beginning at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) in Monterey, CA many years ago. There is much more involved in learning and having sensitivity to a foreign language. In fact, the way the Army does it, unlike any other branch of service, is with immersion. Immersion is placing military students into the foreign nation (if possible) of the language they are learning, so that they also gain sensitivity for the culture, religion, and other aspects of the foreign environment they are being trained for. We cannot have it both ways in the 21st Century Mark. Either we have total international sensitivity that does not include an urge to lead (dominate or influence all or most) nations weaker than us OR we maintain the NEOCON course. One cannot maintain the NEOCON course by caring about the sensitivities of those invaded, conquered, then occupied. Lastly, the U.S.A. just does not have the pool of people capable to lead the world by military force or intimidation even if the vast majority of people wanted to, and they DO NOT. Bobby Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired

19 Nov 2007
Robert Hanafin - View my profile
Mark,

I began to do a Blog responding to yours, but decided that since this idea for THE DRAFT was not your idea, but something you saw, I decided to repond in your comments. I also responded to your note in the comments section of the Blog I did last month called: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD BOTH PARTIES SAY, "WE DON'T NEED THE DRAFT?"Tuesday, 23 October 2007. Since this is not your idea, and even if it was, PLEASE dont take my long-winded commentary as criticizing YOU! OK! What I am doing is criticizing THIS IDEA of a NEW DRAFT. IF you made it through half of my article to come up with an idea for a new and improved DRAFT, I am more than appreciative of you even making and taking the time to READ between the LIONS. Seriously, if you've only gone past the Title and intro, then you may have missed MY POINTS, but that is MY FAULT for writing so long-winded. That said, let me be very clear about THE DRAFT. What attracted me to the Libertarian Party is that by definition that party DOES NOT SUPPORT MILITARY CONSCRIPTION - PERIOD. Like ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, including the Republican (I should know) consists of an ideological spectrum from RIGHT to MODERATE to LEFT. All things considered, I happen to consider myself in the left of center leaning MODERATE. Thus, I am within the moderate middle of the Libertarian Party. This being America, the MODERATE wing of ANY POLITICAL PARTY is abnormally the FATEST. Being somewhat a fiscal conservative when I was in the Republican Party, you see it IS NOT THE DRAFT in any form that I have an issue with. It is FUNDING the Selective Service System since 1980 that eventually has become a WASTE OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY. POINT; I will entertain your idea of ANY DRAFT, but I seriously want NO DRAFT only to STOP WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY, especially when the Tax Payers are YELLING - NO MORE TAXES or HIGHER TAXES. The fact is that those who really matter -Voters - have not caught onto this fact that OUR GOVERNMENT KEEPS WASTING TAX PAYER MONEY ON "THE DRAFT." (DAH) In closing, I will only endorse ANY NEW DRAFT IDEA IF it calls for cutting off funding for "the Apparatus" that implements YOUR NEW DRAFT IDEA. I will check out your Blog on the Draft and comment if I get the urge. Bobby Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired

19 Nov 2007
C. E. Robb - View my profile
In Februery 1972 my birthday was selected and I was the last draftee. I did my best not to serve and managed to delay my entrance to active duty. I served from August 1974 until August 1976 in the United States Marine Corps.

While I agree that non military service would have been much prefered The fact is that I served because I was poor. Selective service does not include the privledged. The draft does widen the socio-economic gap.