The Draft

Posted By Blackfive

I am sick of this Draft Meme BS.

First, the Democrats want you to believe that we will have a draft just as soon as a bill can get passed through congress. I just got an email from Phil and Amit with the Draft legislation attached. It must be making the rounds through the email circuits again.

Why would they want that?

Isolationists and anti-military people would like to see the draft as a way to discourage voters from voting for Bush come election time. Have you noticed how many times Senator Edwards yells out that there will be no draft in a Kerry Administration? That's fear-mongering, plain and simple.

I absolutely mean no offense to all who served - millions of drafted Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coastguardsmen (and probably the Merchant Marine were drafted too) were heroes - however, no one in the military wants a draft.

Think about it.

If you volunteered to fight for your country, would you want to be sitting in a fightin position next to someone who didn't want to serve in the first place? Hell, no, you wouldn't. You'd want a lean, mean bad a$$ next to you ready to fight.

Our volunteer military works well. We don't need a draft unless World War breaks out, but then we will probably have Russia, China, and India on our side...

What do you think?

Update: Iowa Geek and PowerLine have a lot more information.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/1180168

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Draft:

» I'm Diving from fredschoeneman.com
Okay. Listen up. I'm busy. I feel like a Hamas terrorist with no arms, no legs, and no dick, trying to stone my wife to death for infidelity after the French-funded, German-built electric wheelchair I was cruising in broke down... [Read More]

Comments

[OiRogers]

It doesn't help to have MTV sending out mock draft cards.
http://www.rockthevote.com/draft/

Watch the clip that they encourage people to "Ask your school/community radio or TV station to play this PSA every day between now and November 2nd."

Turns my stomach.

[roach]

I don't think we need the draft now and there is no real push for it. A draft, however, does not mean the guy sitting next to you will be Abbie Hoffman. Some people are like, "I'm not signing up, but if they need me I'll serve" Some people find they thrive in the military, even though they otherwise would not have volunteered. Our draft militaries were full of motivated, capable fighters.

I do think the size of the military is a problem, though. It's too small. It means more deployments than we would otherwise have. It's silly to think the post-cold-war military can simultaneously handle Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and other U.S. security commitments.

[Blackfive]

Good points, roach.

Kerry wants to increase the size of the military through (mostly) increasing Special Operations Forces. I'm pretty sure that this will dilute the quality of the programs that produce those types of operators.

I think we need to activate a few more divisions, keep them light (think 101st or 10th Mountain), two more MP Brigades, a Civil Affairs Brigade (active, not reserve), another SF Group and a substantial increase in MI assets.

What happens if recruiting can't (and probably won't) meet those goals?

You have to increase benefits.

A draft might get us some, but not most, of those goals without increasing benefits.

Eventually, the accountants will get involved and it will boil down to numbers, plain and simple. Is a draft more or less cost effective than one of the biggest recruiting campaigns in decades?

[steve h]

It's kind of odd, the first generation in America that turned a drafted military into a bunch of "I don't want to fight this war" whiners was the generation of the Baby Boom.

The Revolutionary War wasn't exactly drafted, but if you wanted the Redcoats gone, you had to do what you could.

Civil War? It may not have been called "draft", but there were levies of soldiers raised.

World War I? Draftees by the boat-load, heading over the Atlantic.

World War II? From Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima, from Algiers to Normandy, a lot of the soldiers were draftees.
In fact, a bill to end the draft was on Roosevelt's desk during the mid-1930's, but he decided to keep the draft.

Korea? Draftees, also.

Vietnam...well, you know. Draftees. Baby Boomers.

By the mid-late 1970's, the military was full of disgruntled draftees. Drug use was rampant. There are stories of Generals who couldn't walk through the enlisted-men's area of the base without a personal body-guard.

And then the draft was iced, and the volunteer army was formed. A decade later, America's military was the most efficient fighting machine on the planet, with the best fighting tools.

Still are, even if things are a bit over-extended.

Like you said, we probably won't need to fight off China or Russia next year.

[Chris Mayhew]

Unless there's a specific policy that Kerry has in mind, I'm not sure why expanding SOF necessarily dilutes them. Delta, SEALs and SF have all been expanded since their inception (with SF expanded, contracted and expanded) and I don't think any of them are any poorer for it.

Obviously saying "you must make it this big by this date" would be horrible.

That said, I personally would much rather see pay and benefits going up.

This draft meme has to stop. People my age and younger are going to believe it. See Goldberg's many columns on the ignorance of the youth vote.

[Bill]

Kerry, as part of the plan for America, proposed MANDATORY service for high school students and 4 years of college tuition for 2 years of national service.

However, that page seems to have been nuanced off Kerry's web site.

[Curt]

On the radio two days ago, as the talk show host discussed the draft, I find it very interesting that the bill is being pushed by two democrats, Charles Rangel, D-NY is one and I can't recall the other, but if this is correct, one of the most outspoken anti-military democrats is the force behind calling for a draft, yet the K-E campaign is pointing a finger at GWB...sadly, it just fits that character of those who have sold the logical parts of their minds in return for a promise of federal favor or money in their pocket (hey, jokes on them, coz it comes from their own pockets...geeezzz!). If anyone can confirm the Dem push for the draft, that would be a nice "bullet" to show them the pointy end of in thse debates.

Secondly, back in 87 or 88, I believe it was a from the Kansas University Press, a book titled "America's First Battles" was published. It is an excellent read and takes us from the Revolution to Vietnam, with Guadalcanal and Kasserine Pass as Pacific and Atlantic theater "firsts" for WWII. The author worked thru the political climate, the type forces on each side (professional or conscripts) and then how the battle went. This book proves, when you can't afford to take your licks and then come back after losing the opening battle, you need professional forces. Worth the read, find it if you can!

[wg]

And here I thought we were going to invade Canada??? :-)

[Brett]

Invade Canada? How would they know we were there? We'd just be scarin' the caribou. Besides, do we really want Quebec?

F'n Dems. Wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground unless Bush said their ass was the hole in the ground.

[Toni]

I heard Dan Rather's Tues night broadcast on Laura Ingraham's show on the draft. Throughout the fear mongering of interviewing mothers of draft eligible aged young men the inference given was that it was the current administration advocating the re-instituting of the draft. It was never mentioned that the actual bill was sponsored and promoted by Democrats!! Rather or maybe it was the reporter did say in their typical nuanced way that the current administration denied that a draft was in the plans. So, my conclusion after listening to this is that neither CBS or Dan Rather have changed their stripes in any way, shape or form. They are still openly campaigning for John Kerry.

[Caleb]

If I am not mistaken, the other Dem pol that is pushing the draft in Congress is "Fritz" Hollings, Senator from South Carolina, that is retiring this year. Course when you are older than dirt like me, your mind sometimes comes and goes, so I could be wrong, but don't bet on it.

Expanding the SF folks is not an automatic bad thing. SECDEF Rummy wants to do it also. What makes it a good or bad thing is how it is done and the speed with which it has to be done.

Course it seems like the main mistake made by the flag ranks and so called experts is the tendency to want to fight the last war. That is why so many flag types and retired flag types have hopped on the anti-Bush and Rummy band wagon, but the troops seem to love both Bush AND Rummy. Seems that the Army flag good old boy and trade school ranks didn't and don't want to get lighter and faster and more mobile and with more snake eaters. That seems to be why Rummy had to go to the retired flag ranks and recruit a man with SF ties to be the Army Chief of Staff.

Course that is just one old fart's opinion.

[Teresa]

Ah the "Antiwar-Democrats" gotta love the logic and the MSM that makes this sleight of hand possible. So, they want power... how to get it? Scare the bejesus out of the young set (and their moms too - dads are of secondary importance here). Bring out the spectre of the draft... OOOOHHHH scary stuff. Just don't make it an overt point that it is the very Democrats preaching against the war (and if we recall - were totally against the Vietnam War draft too) who are sponsoring the bill. Whaaaa??? You hate the draft, hate the military, yet are sponsoring a bill to reinstate the draft...

Then when some wise-guy goes and points out this puzzling conundrum - they say - well, if the wealthy people had to send their kids to war - they'd be against it too!

Yeah, it always makes me laugh when I see this pop up. It's been popping up since before we went into Afghanistan. The MSM keeps it simmering in the background, rather like a subliminal message... If you vote for Bush - the draft will be coming back to haunt you! Remember Vietnam and how bad the draft was then? Run Away! Run Away!

We are so lucky this go-round that blogs have a say in what is happening - this time the MSM and the Democrats are being questioned about this garbage. It's not the cakewalk it would've been even 4 years ago. Yeah! Go Bloggers!

[Bullshark]

Sorry, Steve the bill on Roosevelts desk was to end voluntary enlistment. The draft was not re-instated until Nov 1940. Yes, an election year. FDR's opponent choose not to politize the draft issue and even joined FDR in calling for it. Back in the days when being a Patriotic American meant not blaming America first.

[Curt]

Here it is....Fritz Hollings D-SC and Chrales Wrangle D-NY

http://www.urbanrepublican.net/archives/2004/09/whos_draft_is_i.php

Found this on LGF....

[Doug Halsted]

Look for SR89 on www.senate.gov and HR163 on www.congress.gov to see the sponsors. Then go to the members list on each site to see the state and party of each. I'll save you the trouble (http://iowageek.blogspot.com/2004/09/rekha-blames-bush-for-military-draft.html), for HR 163; Mr. Rangel (D-New York), Mr. McDermott (D-Washington), Mr. Conyers (D-Michigan), Mr. Lewis (D-Georgia), Mr. Stark (D-California), and Mr. Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). In the Senate, SR89 is sponsored by Mr. Hollings (D - South Carolina).

[UNrecallvote]

They have already said they were calling up the draft board at least two times on the major networks. I'm still not sure if they were joking or really thought they were.

The only reason for a draft is a major problem with Bio-Sheild.

There is too much hardware, which is why they go after the man power. The US cannot lose a conventional war, unless the manpower is not available.

Kerry won't get into office becasue the troops coming home already have problems with the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and we really do't need a President playing GOD and judging everybody. That backfired and, yes, even the Maoists are on the move again.........John and Jane; old meetings?

[dick]

What I find really disturbing about this draft business is that one of the democrats (Rep Jim McDermott of Washington) pushing for it is also one of the ones who is blaming the draft business on Bush. It is really ironic that he sponsors the bill to re-instate the draft and then blames it on the Bush administration. Unfortunately his district is so democratic that he will probably be re-elected just as Rep Rangel will so we will be stuck yet again by this unethical POS for yet another couple of years.

Between that and the unethical "news story" (check out Ratherbiased.com for the story behind the news) that was broadcast by CBS in which they conveniently left out that the democrats were pushing the bills, the Bush administration was not, the Selective Service administration was not asking for more money and will not, the people interviewed are people who belong to strong anti-war groups and are not in fact independent voters scared for their families, and that the reporter who broadcast the story intentionally went out of his way not to show the links to the viewers, it is just more of the same for the Rather group at CBS news. The question is that they assume that no one will take them to court until after the election, if then, so they can do whatever they damned well please with this kind of stuff and get away with it. I agree that if too much whining is done, it will backfire on the administration, but I do wonder whether it might not be time to put a couple of public interest lawyers on the case to put some teeth into the commentary about just how biased and unethical the CBS news organization has become. Still unknown is if the DNC and the Kerry campaign are doing anything about it other than slickly trying to ride the wave and stick it to Bush.

[Major Kev]

Yeah, yeah, so what did you guys do about it? I did this:

Sent to 'evening@cbsnews.com'

"So, now, rather than using forged documents to bolster a failed case, you are resorting to using internet hoaxes?

The worst journalism in the United States, perpetuated.

Where in your “reinstituting the draft” story do you mention that the e-mails are false? An urban legend? Refuted by the Selective Service Administration? Or that the only legislation mentioning the draft is from Democrats, and already declared DOA by the Republicans?

Try Google, guys.

There is no plan to reinstitute the draft. Ms. Cocco is an activist (Oh, forgot to mention that, right?), and your piece last night is another biased attempt to influence the election.

I wonder why nobody is watching you any more?

(My name)
Retired Army
Still serving"

[Licorice]

Let's take Kerry, for the moment, at his word. He wants to raise the size of the U.S. military by 40,000 or so troops (or, less than its size in 1991), and concentrate their numbers in Special Forces.

First, this is counter-intuitive, and anyone who ever served in the military or studied it in 35 years (see Kerry) should realize that.

The regular ground divisions are the feeder systems for special operations troops. Take SF guys in the army. They are taken from the ranks of regular infantry, just as recon Marines come from FMF 03- units.

Increasing SOFs would, in fact, raid from the very divisions that still must be maintained. In sum, you would lose some of your best officers and NCOs from the regular side to send them to SF units.

Let's take a page from the Marines on this. A Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) becomes Special Operations Capable (SOC) before sea deployment. There is a rigorous training cycle, and the entire mission of the MEU is enhanced by the ongoing training.

A Recon team is added to the MEU, as are SEAL sailors, tailored to the deployment.

Moreover, every Marine battalion has a special, highly-trained sniper platoon, which not only helps shoot the bad guys, but can call in effective air, naval and artillery fire (as can every squad and team leader).

Rather than gin up some hairbrained scheme he recalled from his four months in Vietnam, Kerry should be saying, "Hey, why don't we increase the mission capabilities of all infantry units by making them more nimble, more aggressive, smarter, faster, leaner and greener, rather than diverting resources to re-invent the wheel."

But by doing that, he would be saying, "Let's do what Rummie wants to do!"

And that doesn't win elections. Scaring people into believing the draft is coming back, however, might do it.

[JarheadDad]

Well said Licorice! I can only add that a MEU can also assimilate a Reg Infantry BN with time in-country and assets already in place. 24MEU did this very thing and it worked out extremely well.

Also, decisions by squad level NCOs is also the norm in battle sitreps. Instant decisions without having to wait for authorization increases speed reaction and concentrates firepower.

I think if you look at the new Army training regimen you will see more Corps tactics being taught. I even heard "Every Marine is a Rifleman" used the other day in an Army context. Which brings us right back to Matt's point of not diluting the Reg Infantry to increase Recon/SF numbers. There is no need if our military is employed in a fast-strike/self-contained MEU fashion.

And the AF gives up those silly blue BDUs! But then, neither them or the Navy can deploy without a Taco Bell! ruh-roh! :-o

And we weren't drafted Matt. All us non-existent lowlife scumbag irregular not worth our salt cowardly Mariners were gently "persuaded" to not serve while serving. Even if you came under fire or were wounded you still didn't serve. I believe I was told that right here on your blog not too long ago. With the customary "Heh!" attached to Mariners by those that really served. Anyhoo, the AF sits in judgement of Merchant Mariners and refuses to allow Vet status even to those boys who lost their lives or to Mariners that had their ships blown the hell right out from under them. But I really don't have issues! ;-)

BTW, most MM ships have a detachment of Marines and mounted weapons in war zones now. I wonder if the AF considers those Jarheads as Vets? Hmmmm! Probably not! Ever figure out how the AF has jurisdiction over the MM status while the Navy has the deployment baliwick? Makes sense to me! At least if the Navy made the call I could understand it. I mean after all, they used to "give" us stuff like Cmdr epilets and the Reg Navy boys hated that seeing as we didn't graduate from Annapolis or nothin'! Especially when those Mariners are put in command of a Marine vessel. We just spent thousands of hours learning our trade starting with building calluses as a Deckhand or AB. Oh the humanity! Sea School is such a waste of time! Can you imagine an XO walking the deck, seeing a misplaced line, and (gasp!) actually using his very own hands to pick that line up and stow it away? The Blue Collar Non Serving Non Navy That Doesn't Exist Unless You're Hungry! But just run out of bullets and see who catches hell! he-he-he!

But all the Grunts I grew up with loved to see those RO/ROs steaming in. Not to mention the Helo ships. Amazing how the thought of munitions, spare parts, HMMVs, tanks, A/Cs, or maybe just a cold beer can perk up a Grunt that's been stuck in-country for months! ;-)

[Licorice]

"Every Marine is a Rifleman" -- I never believed that crap because I had the great misfortune as a LCpl squadleader of having to go out for several weeks and "train" pogues in field tactics. The assumption was that they would have to do their own patrols, man their own crew-served weapons, etc., in the event of an actual war.

Let me be as delicate as possible here: THEY BLEW GOAT IN EVERY POSSIBLE SENSE. They were lost (worse than a Lt with a compass), unused to tough humping, unable to fire their larger weapons effectively. They had no day or night discipline.

I know it's politically incorrect to say so, but they were always dragged down physically and emotionally by the "weakest man," in many cases a woman.

At first I thought this was an outlier. Then I went for SOF training in Oki with the army guys. SOF loved us. We were trained all trained squadleaders or snipers. But they brought down, from Camp Zama in Japan, a gaggle of MPs to work as "aggressors." We ended up having to save our "aggressors." At one point, we were hauling both the male AND one female MP on our backs to the SOF base camp.

In our latest excursion in Mesopotamia, the unit I was with had to provide recon and security during op pauses for pogue units (both army and Marine) on the way to Baghdad. Let's just say not much has improved on that front.

I know someone is going to bitch at me, but to my dying day I will insist that not every soldier or Marine is a rifleman. The rifleman is in an honored tribe of warriors. He must exhibit ruthless aggression, speed and intelligence. He must be inured to the hardships of the field, no matter the clime or place, and ready and willing to kill.

These skills are not born into men. They must be taught, and then honed, in long service within a cadre of fellow warriors.

I have very good friends who never were riflemen, and I value their dedicated service to my Corps and my country.

But they weren't riflemen.

[JarheadDad]

I've heard the same thing Licorice. From both sides. I've also heard, "They don't live the life". I'll let you figure out what that was about but it was mentioned in the same breath as having to carry a squad as "extra weight". I can only imagine (insert MM pogue reference here > ;-) having to carry that weight while under fire.

Back to the scenario of you are only as strong as your weakest member. Wasn't there a thread over at My War on the fact that someone was saying that Grunts always seek the "lowest common denominator"? That's one I vehemently disagreed with. That and someone that used the term "Jarhead" as a derogatory without being Marine Family. They both annoyed me!

The reference I made to "Every Marine is a Rifleman" was something I was talking about with an Army friend of mine that was discussing the whole Jessica Lynch story and how the Army is looking to not have a repeat of that type of ambush. The fact that those Marines that died in that ambush were never mentioned publically for their actions has always annoyed me too. Guess I'm just getting annoyed allot in my old age! ;-)

Oh well, party time soon. Da Grunt will be hitting Cherry Point very, very soon. I bet Jacksonville could use the boost in $$$ since so many have deployed so often lately. Anhauser Busch better go into overtime! :-)

[cas]

Do any of you know any Senior NCO or officer that wants to re-instate the draft? Since 1975 (and more so since the 80's) when someone who volunteers doesn't measure up to the minimum standards, they "showed 'em the gate," either kicking him/her out of the service administratively, or through use of the UCMJ.
What are they going to do with all those draftees who clearly don't want to serve? As Steve H said above, not all draftees hate the military, and many turn out to be just as courageous as any volunteer. BUT, none of the services are set up for draftees, and none of them want to spend the time or money to try to turn unwilling draftees in soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines. And none of them want to (further) dilute the standards they have worked so hard to build up over the past (almost) 30 years.

[Rex]

Where to start? So much to say on this topic and so little time. Condensed version: I was active duty Marine 1968-1979, one year enlisted, graduated from Parris Island, Sea School, and OCS. 17 years Reserves, retired in 1996 as a light colonel. Activated for Desert Storm. Joined in '68 to keep from getting drafted when I dropped out of college; found I liked it. Served and commanded draftees and lived through the transition period.

Desert Storm was the first true test of the all volunteer force (AVF). Wasn't sure how it would work out, but the AVF did fine. The biggest difference between the AVF and before was the civilian support--everyone had a friend or relative or son or daughter of a friend or relative who was on active duty as a volunteer and therefore impacted by Desert Storm. The support was tremendous. Big psychological boost, completely missing during Vietnam.

Other differences (both + and -): fewer troublemakers in AVF; not as many really smart people, but also not as many stupid ones; key billets that used to be held by smart guys transitioned over to being held by smart gals (you know, that one NCO in Supply who made things work for the whole unit); less turnover in the officer corps which made competition more acute which led to more officers avoiding making bad decisions by making no controversial decisions at all (except for a gifted few who always seemed to make the right decisions), although I suspect this was a result of McNamara's up or out policy rather than transitioning to the AVF; and extended training times because the average IQ of a unit decreased under the AVF. This last was impacted skilled MOS's more than non-skilled MOS's, but even the New York Times had articles on how the training time for Army tankers had to be extended to teach the AVF types their skills.

So whatever the pros and cons, I think that the civilian support aspect of the AVF tips the scale of the balanced positives and negatives between the two types of forces.

BTW, assuming the decision was made TODAY to reinstitute the draft, it would be one year before the first new draftees would be hitting the field units ready to fight. (It would be 2-3 months before the first draftees hit their recruit training depots.) Civilians just don't appreciate the training required.

[Licorice]

Not only that, Cas and JHD, but what, exactly, is the modern military supposed to do with people on a two-year hitch? I believe only a select few Army guys are brought in every year for a two-year contract. In the USMC, Navy, etc., it's four years minimum, which makes sense because the modern battlefield requires a long training period.

Why dilute the professionalism of the contemporary military by flooding it with guys that are just thinking, "729 and a wake up?"

[Licorice]

And one more thing about the "lowest common denominator" -- I served during the GHWB and Clinton adminstrations. I noticed a very great change in the quality of grunts arriving in the fleet from MCRD/MCT/ITBR-SOI beginning in the mid-90s, just as I was exiting active duty. Now, I'm not going to suggest that my six years are indicative of an across-the-board quality review, but I noticed the boots arriving were less physically adept, less inured to the field and less disciplined.

My friends from Saudi who were also six year losers -- and who were smart enough to get NCO gigs at SOI as instructors -- told me that the difference was in the hazing standards.

When I came through SOI/ITBR, it was common to thrash the living hell out of boots, to weed them out both physically and mentally. In my class, we lost close to 40 percent of the candidates from stress -- either mental stress or stress fractures, and they went home.

By the time we got to the fleet, we had undergone roughly seven months of recruit and combat arms training.

The first year in the fleet was no joy either, with constant hazing to make you tougher and bond with your squad and platoon.

Our first two years in the fleet -- marked by a deployment to Saudi (Taro, X-Ray), of course -- honed those skills. For those who excelled, schools were offered. I wasn't atypical: Squad Leader school, Scout Swimmer school, Jungle Warfare, Call for Fire/Indirect Fire training, and, later, Battalion NCO Academy.

Other companies were given slots for mountain warfare, survival training, rappel master, etc.

After the end of a battalion training cycle, you were not only SOC, but a cohesive, highly-capable unit for nearly any combat contingency.

It's common to say you're experience in the military was the best, but I believe this limited biography highlights the American infantry at its finest. The "Lowest common denominator" wasn't an issue when everyone was at the same rigorous minimum standard. The problem comes when the "weak links," or "that 10 percent" began to dribble in during the mid-90s.

Now, I was very pleased for find the last time around in Iraq that many units had corrected some of the mid-90s problems. I found FMF infantry units that were highly trained, highly motivated and brutally tough on the opponents.

Rather than create SOF units to duplicate this, I say simply increase the professionalism of the MEU-sized forces. Of course Recon, SF, SEALs, etc., have their place. Hell, I have lifelong friends in Recon.

But first you must have a good base, and the heart and soul of the U.S. Marines should be the infantry squad, just as the USAF should be the fighter/bomber pilot, and the USN the tar on deck.

[Brian]

Great thread here, all you guys make good contributions to this important debate. I don't see how this is even a debate at all, given the obvious practical advantages of the All Volunteer Force. These damn donkeys are just stirring up fear it makes me sick. Big suprise CBS is right in the middle of another DNC scheme to lie to America. I'm just so angry at these thoughtless, desperate, power hungry democrats. They should go down hard Nov.2. All of them. Over and out.

[jp]

If there are problems getting enough recruits, pay them more.

If there is a problem with unit IQ as one poster suggested, pay them more.

I'd be more than happy to pay more taxes to have higher paid, better trained AVF than not.

[Licorice]

I wanted to disagree also with the notion that the All Volunteer Force is somehow less intelligent than the draft military. Part of the all-volunteer reforms included requiring at least a high school diploma to even enter the service, scoring high marks on ASVAB exams for special MOS slots, and requiring regular drug screenings. Also, the practice of admitting volunteers facing jail time has ended because the military doesn't need the bodies, and officers must have a college degree to enter active service.

Not only that, but continuing education credits (mostly used by the non-combat arms NCO and officers) and graduate degrees for staff officers have meant a brighter leadership corps.

Every manpower survey by the major non-partisan research shops since the 1970s have found the all-volunteer force to have higher intelligence levels than the general public -- both officer and enlisted -- fewer substance abuse problems and nearly zero criminal convictions.

If any other American institution had a workforce as young, bright, educated and motivated as the typical service branch, they would be profiled in every business journal from here to Tokyo.

Maybe the military should toot its horn more often about this.

[JoeS]

I teach high school in Long Beach, CA.

1. It is actually difficult for less academic kids to get into the military. They need a diploma, a 31 on the ASVAB, and a clear police record.

The new military can't use the draft. Our military is performing like true professionals. We owe them our respect.

2. I hope Benedict Arnold Kerry never gets to betray our allies in Iraq the way he betrayed our allies in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. I teach in a school with a large Indochinese population. Our Cambodian kids have gut wrenching stories about the slaughter of their families. Our Hmong parents fought alongside our Special Forces. The Hmong have been slaughtered by Kerry's frieds.

[Rex]

"Part of the all-volunteer reforms included requiring at least a high school diploma to even enter the service, scoring high marks on ASVAB exams for special MOS slots, and requiring regular drug screenings. Also, the practice of admitting volunteers facing jail time has ended because the military doesn't need the bodies, and officers must have a college degree to enter active service."

I hate to burst your bubble, but these changes were in the works (requiring high school diplomas) or already in place (everything else) before the AVF came about. These were NOT AVF reforms.

Here's what happened with respect to IQ's. Let me give an example from my MOS, comm. Pre-AVF, my wiremen were 95-105 GCT, my radio operators 105-110 GCT (for comparison, the average schoolteacher had a GCT of 110), my comm center folks were 110-120 GCT, and my techs were 120-150 GCT. After AVF, my wiremen and radio operators were 100-105 GCT, my comm center folks were 105-110 GCT, and my techs were 110-120 GCT. This was countered by fewer disciplinary problems, so I viewed it as a wash, but it took longer to train everyone after we went to the AVF.

Note that I am not referring to any of the Project 100,000 that we were saddled with in the eraly 70's; few of them had the smarts to be in comm. What a lashup that was!

[open_channel_d]

I have been on active duty since June 1975. I was in Navy boot camp with convicted felons, biker gang rejects and pedophiles. Crank, smack, weed and speed were openly sold and consumed in boot camp. I went to Hospital Corps School in San Diego in 1975 and personally knew two people who were taken out of school to face murder charges in their home state. I can say without fear of contradiction that we will never return to this state of affairs because the military, by law, can't.
Drug screens, criminal background screens, mental health screens and a number of other indicators (min. education requirements, etc) will keep such a huge majority of potential candidates out of the military that the end result will be such an embarrassment to the liberal left that they'll never even really consider it. Think of this: using today's minimal standards for enlistment (education level, conduct, personal behavior history and absence of drug use) fewer that 30% of eligible high school seniors would EVEN QUALIFY to take the entrace exam into the military. WHO THINKS THIS MAKES A DRAFT VIABLE? NOBODY!
The draft is a big joke perpetuated by Rangel and his ilk, comfortable in the knowledge that there is no hope it will ever be instituted, but warmed by the fact that it will always serve as bellweather wake-up call to the diehard Democrats to "get out the vote."
I know this because my Mom, inveterate Dem that she is, called me tonight to warn me that Bush has planned a massive draft initiative for immediately after the election to get back at the Dems and make sure that even those that opposed the war pay their fair share.

And where did she get this info? Seems her local chapter of the DNC sponsored a "guest speaker" who was an "expert" in the SSA (Selective Service Administration) and who had "inside" info on the draft apparent.

What a crock of hooey.

[Licorice]

"I hate to burst your bubble, but these changes were in the works (requiring high school diplomas) or already in place (everything else) before the AVF came about. These were NOT AVF reforms."

I hate to burst your bubble, but what you said simply isn't true, and the reason is quite logical. Under the original selective service legislation, the universal pool of draftees was random by its very nature. You couldn't discriminate against a draftee because he (1) didn't have a HS diploma; (2) failed to disclose a criminal record; or (3) failed a drug screening.

In 1972, for example, urinalysis was not a universal requirement for military service, and constitutionally it would not have passed muster (then) had it been so. The law post RvW didn't allow for invasions of privacy for people compelled against their will to serve under arms. That changed (legally) with the AVF, which shifted the issue to contract rather than civil rights law.

Second, the draft didn't (and couldn't) discriminate against people without a HS diploma. There's a reason for this. As a public policy issue, the last thing this nation wanted to do is offer up failing to complete HS as a bar to conscription. You would've had significant numbers of HS seniors simply refusing to go to school, which would've hampered the entire economy. As a public policy, is was better to take everyone in the universal pool of draftees, whether they completed HS or not. In fact, one could defer service for college, seminary and graduate/professional school because domestic policy reasoned that the U.S. experienced a net gain from people who went to those areas of higher education.

So much for fairness, but that was the policy consideration.

As for criminal background checks, the computer infrastructure that led to on-demand records wasn't in place. Moreover, like the HS requirement, if a proper vetting of criminal history was a bar to conscription, then the unintended consequence would've been young men committing crimes simply to get out of Vietnam.

In a very real sense, policy makers had no choice but to turn a blind eye to those involved in the criminal justice system.

An AVF changed that, and the reforms most certainly were NOT in place before the end of conscription.

As for ASVAB scores, they have increased in the enlisted rates so much simply because you have removed nearly 40 percent of the previous pool of men who didn't have diplomas. It follows that those who passed four years of HS courses, on average, were brighter than those who dropped out.

A recent RAND study focused on the so-called outliers in the enlisted force and found a disproportionately high number of college graduates in the enlisted ranks, especially in the USMC, with many companies showing more college grads as NCOs and SNCOs than the total number of officers!

The USMC is a little different because enlistees are attracted to the branch for reasons other than job training, education and longterm employment stability (let's just say the Marines have a certain branding cachet), but similar studies have shown comparable results in other units (Army SOF, a prime example).

[Rex]

Licorice,

I think we have a disconnect here. I was not talking about draftees vs. the AVF; I was talking about pre- and post-AVF. Only a small percentage of the Corps comprised draftees. The dynamic involved was the threat of the draft, which caused a lot of people to enlist as soon as they received a low draft number (once that was instituted). By and large, draftees were far from a preferred source of "recruitment", but a lot of the more intelligent draftees became draftees and did not enlist as soon as their number was called for a simple reason: draftees served only two years, while enlistees served three (a limited option) or four years. And if a college graduate got drafted, those who wanted to spend only two years stayed enlisted, while others quickly joined as officer candidates. I served with both types.

Referring to 1972, in late '72 the urinalysis program was instituted which relied on random drug testing, but only for hard drugs since reliable tests for THP had not been invented. I don't know whether or not drug screening was part of the enlistment process, but it was certainly part of one's service. (I can't speak for other services; my service was strictly in the Corps.)

And as I recall, the Marines didn't need to use draftees after around 1970, because we were busy drawing down our forces. For example, with the exception of arty officers needed as FO's, not one TBS second lieutenant graduating from TBS in 1970 had orders to Vietnam. (The class graduating in January actually had WestPac orders, but except for the FO's, they were all changed while the 2/LT's were still in basic MOS training.) Of course, we didn't know that until March or April (we graduated in July), so our attention span in class was still encouraged by our belief that we would be going overseas shortly after we graduated. That cut both ways, though, as we were impatient with BS, saying, "What are you going to do to us? Make us Marine Second Lieutenants and send us to Vietnam?"

By mid-1972 there were no combat troops permanently stationed in SouthEast Asia. Note the word "permanently." Ground troops were already out, but we still had MAG-12 at Bien Hoa and MAG-15 at Danang (until June, when MAG-15 was moved to Nam Phong, Thailand, a/k/a The Rose Garden). But, you see, we were TAD, being permanently attached to the 1st Wing in Iwakuni, Japan. At any rate, the need to augment the Corps with draftees just wasn't needed for several years before the AVF began in 1974.

[night heron]

I dont know much about what been going on but if it comes to the draft i think a lot of those spoiled little brats in hollywood should be drafted it will make men out of them instaed of the rotten little privlaged little mugwhumps they are right now