# Former Afghanistan General Calls for Reinstating the Draft



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2012)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/11/ex-us-commander-mcchrystal-calls-for-reviving-draft/



> WASHINGTON  The former US commander in Afghanistan, Stanley  McChrystal, has urged that the draft be reinstated to spread the burden  of fighting and to instill a sense of shared civic duty among young  Americans.
> 
> 
> The countrys all-volunteer force has performed with great skill but  after more than a decade of war were running very, very hard and at a  certain point you cant expect it to go forever, McChrystal said at a  conference last month.
> ...



What are the chances that this would actually happen?  What do you think would happen if the draft WAS actually reinstated?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't see it happening.  The public would have a collective fit.  Though if it were instated, I doubt we'd be going into anymore wars of choice.  Politicians might think twice about war when thier families would be some of those in harm's way.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 11, 2012)

Charlie Rangel has floated this one for YEARS.
The military HATES the idea.


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2012)

Most politicians kids would not be in harms way, they would get exemptions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 12, 2012)

A military full of people forced to do it would never be as strong or effective as a military full of people that want to be there it seems like a bad idea to me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

You have to read the entire proposal.   He's not suggesting the draft be reinstated as it once was.

What he suggested was a draft that essentially requires a period of national service.  Two options for military, one for civilian.

In other words, at a certain age, all young men (and women in this scenario) would have to make a choice.  They would serve a short period in the military as essentially low-rank, low-pay non-combat troops, doing administrative work, manual labor, etc.  The kind of work that the military often outsources in today's military to contractors.  They would not even be part of the regular rank structure or have weapons training.  Or, if they didn't want to serve in the military, they could do the same kind of administrative/manual labor type work for the federal government in a variety of places.  For those who refused all compulsory service of any kind, they could opt out of all of it, but would forever lose all benefits such as medicare, etc.  They could be as 'individualist' and 'libertarian' and 'small government' as they wanted - by carrying all those burdens of providing the 'social security net' for themselves in the future.  In other words, if you don't do SOMETHING during your period of national service, that's fine, but you get nothing in return in the way of social benefits - ever.

For those who chose the military option, if they did their term and opted to remain, they could transition to the 'real' military and be trained in weapons, be assigned a rank, etc, and it would be considered a career option.  They could always leave at the end of an enlistment as any one can now, but they'd be considered to have made the career military choice.  This is not unlike many military groups in the world; it was not unusual for me to run across 50 year old Lance Corporals and Corporals, in the military of other nations, because the military was their career for ALL of them for the most part, not like ours where 90 to 95% do one tour and then out (I did two tours, but I also did not make it a career).  Those who chose the first and then the second military option would get big rewards, including college tuition paid for, etc.

This would work if, and only if, we continued to have a large drawdown in military forces and cuts in spending on defense contracting.  Personally, I do think it could work.  I'm not sure that it can get any kind of traction, so it may not be possible to get it done politically, but yes, I believe it could work and work well.

I get the idea.  A two-part military, combat and non-combat.  That really does kind of eliminate the "I won't fight for my country" objection - you don't have to.  You just have to serve.  And if uniforms are more than you can bear, there's a civilian option.  But everyone does a short period of national service.  And for those who can't even stomach the idea of doing anything for their country, they can go it alone; no problem.  Just no benefits down the road.

Works for me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 12, 2012)

We already have a 2 system military.  The Marine Corps and everyone else


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> We already have a 2 system military.  The Marine Corps and everyone else



LOL!  I can't deny that, brother.

But the other services get a mite tetchy when we tell them they're just our support system.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Self confident people don't have to keep reminding everyone around them that they are the best....like us Army Soldiers. 



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## mxav (Jul 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> A military full of people forced to do it would never be as strong or effective as a military full of people that want to be there it seems like a bad idea to me.



beat me to it, Volunteer over Conscripts any day


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

mxav said:


> beat me to it, Volunteer over Conscripts any day



Again, you're not reading the article.  The actual proposal is for a two-part military; armed combat troops and non-armed adminstrative/manual labor types.  The armed part would be purely voluntary.


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2012)

It isn't a good idea to get people used to seeing themselves as beholden to the government.  Remember, the government is supposed to be in service to us, not the other way around.  It would be great if more people wanted to help out, but mandating it creates the wrong mind set for a free people, even if there is a civilian component to the program.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 12, 2012)

ARMY= *A*int *R*eady to be a *M*arine *Y*et


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> It isn't a good idea to get people used to seeing themselves as beholden to the government.  Remember, the government is supposed to be in service to us, not the other way around.  It would be great if more people wanted to help out, but mandating it creates the wrong mind set for a free people, even if there is a civilian component to the program.



Well, that's not a bad argument, I like it.  But I would still rebut it.

First, we've had military conscription for a big part of our history, only ending it (to some extent) after the Vietnam War.

There *is* still a Selective Service, so it's on ice, not eliminated.  Technically, it can come back any time.  Every male must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 in the USA, no exceptions.  Failing to do so means (as of a couple years ago) that you get no federal student loans - ever.  Lots of older adults who are trying to go back to school now are finding that out to their chagrin.  If they did not register for the draft, they get bupkis, and that's for life, no appeal, and no you can't go register now.

Second, according to current US law, all 'able-bodied men' between the ages of 17 and 45 are already considered to be members of the unorganized militia, as most 2nd Amendment fans know already.  The federal conscription laws are not about turning civilians into military; they're about activating people who are already technically military (militia) and moving them into an active component.

And frankly, there was a time not that long ago, when I used to advocate that the right to vote should only be extended to those who had served our nation in the military or some civilian component such as the Peace Corps.  But I don't feel that way anymore - like you, I don't like the idea of a free citizenry owing a debt to the government, nor of restricting a civil liberty (hence my opposition to voter photo ID laws).  So I've changed my position on that 180 degrees.

In any case, I don't think I have a big problem with mandatory national service, but I do see your point of view on it.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

While my Veteran brain says ABSOLUTELY F'n A! To the idea..my American gut says that our founding fathers would have been dead set against a service for benefit style compulsory service.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2012)

2000 years ago Roman Generals would make promises of land and pillage in order to get men to fight for the Empire.  Now, we're going to offer social programs like social security, government health care, and federal student loans in order to get people to fight for the Empire.  This deal gets worse and worse every cycle!

Seriously, I wonder where this is going to go?  It sounds like the first step toward a Starship Troopers type society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> While my Veteran brain says ABSOLUTELY F'n A! To the idea..my American gut says that our founding fathers would have been dead set against a service for benefit style compulsory service.



Well, they didn't say that at all.  In fact, they set into law the notion that everyone was a member of the militia, liable to being called up for service in emergency.  Granted that at first it was for white, land-owning, males only, but that definition expanded with the times.  The idea was that all 'able-bodied' men were already part of the militia.  Really.  

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm

The founders were both for and against the idea of national service at different times in their lives.  Jefferson has many notable quotes against it, but later in life said that if a standing army could not be abolished, then a short period of mandatory national service was the only other solution.

We've had it most of our existence.  The youngest generation isn't familiar with it, but this is not new ground we're treading.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, they didn't say that at all.  In fact, they set into law the notion that everyone was a member of the militia, liable to being called up for service in emergency.  Granted that at first it was for white, land-owning, males only, but that definition expanded with the times.  The idea was that all 'able-bodied' men were already part of the militia.  Really.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm
> 
> ...



In times of war or national need sure..but I doubt that they would have gone for a "work for the fed or you dont get social security" plan.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> In times of war or national need sure..but I doubt that they would have gone for a "work for the fed or you dont get social security" plan.



It's not that extreme.  And there was no social security then - they'd probably be a lot more against that, now that you bring it up.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

I believe that militias were a state affair and that the feds didn't have the power to draft for quite a while. I think that it was attempted during the war of 1812 to quite an uproar and started riots in NYC during the Civil War.

Again..I'm not personally against it but I'm not sure the idea fits well with our founding documents/philosophy.

A call up to state militia duty vs federal service would probably fall closer in line with the militia concept.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> 2000 years ago Roman Generals would make promises of land and pillage in order to get men to fight for the Empire.  Now, we're going to offer social programs like social security, government health care, and federal student loans in order to get people to fight for the Empire.  This deal gets worse and worse every cycle!
> 
> Seriously, I wonder where this is going to go?  It sounds like the first step toward a Starship Troopers type society.



You're ignoring the civilian option under this proposal.  And in any case, it's not even a proposal being debated in Congress.  It was just an idea mooted about by a retired general.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I believe that militias were a state affair and that the feds didn't have the power to draft for quite a while. I think that it was attempted during the war of 1812 to quite an uproar and started riots in NYC during the Civil War.
> 
> Again..I'm not personally against it but I'm not sure the idea fits well with our founding documents/philosophy.
> 
> ...



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311



> 10 USC § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
> (a) *The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age* who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are&#8212;
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



It already exists - on the federal level.  And as I said, Selective Service never ended.  It's still around as well.

http://www.sss.gov/default.htm



> If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then *you must register with Selective Service*. It&#8217;s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26.



The draft never ended.  The unorganized militia already exists under federal law.  Sorry.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're ignoring the civilian option under this proposal.  And in any case, it's not even a proposal being debated in Congress.  It was just an idea mooted about by a retired general.



I don't think it will end being a separate option, especially when so many of the attacks in our current wars target supporting personal. The "civilian option" is a political term. 

And yeah it's not being debated by congress, but it's still worth discussing as a "what if" scenario.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure but its defined in federal law as being the National Guard...state units. I'm well aware of selective service....I registered years ago. I'm just saying that as it stands now, the draft is for calling up soldiers in time of war...the militia, historically was a State affair and is currently defined as the NG of the several states.

If you want to say that a draft is constitutional and we should use a draft to man military positions...id say that's clearly constitutional. If you are saying that everyone is part of a militia and subject to service I would say that would be under the authority of the individual States vs the Fed.

Either way...try enforcing it. I doubt it would work. Raising armies is historically an issue of fighting wars in this nation...not an Israeli style compulsory service affair. Id think there would be little public support.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't think it will end being a separate option, especially when so many of the attacks in our current wars target supporting personal. The "civilian option" is a political term.
> 
> And yeah it's not being debated by congress, but it's still worth discussing as a "what if" scenario.



Agreed...its an interesting issue to discuss. Who knows what the future holds?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 12, 2012)

Might be a way of helping young people out with jobs and job training, therefore kick starting the economy a bit too.  Roosevelt had a program in the 30's that was similiar.  I cannot remember what it was called.  However, young men would go around the country working on government projects, like clearing wilderness for roads, building national parks, bulding damns, etc.  My grandfather did this and said it was the only reason he didn't starve to death in the depression.  He also said it taught him a good work ethic and to appreciate a job that wasn't back breaking labor


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2012)

The CCC.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The CCC.



Civilian Conservation Corps if I remember correctly.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2012)

It is interesting to me that nobody has commented on the part of the proposal that it would give many people a shared sense of service to country.  There was a time when most men who walked in to a bar, or other gathering, had one thing in common: service in the military.  And there was a sense of something shared.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> It is interesting to me that nobody has commented on the part of the proposal that it would give many people a shared sense of service to country.  There was a time when most men who walked in to a bar, or other gathering, had one thing in common: service in the military.  And there was a sense of something shared.



I think some of that is lost in a "forced to do it" situation....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Sure but its defined in federal law as being the National Guard...state units.



Not true; that's the organized militia.  The unorganized militia is as the law describes it - federal troops.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I think some of that is lost in a "forced to do it" situation....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Again, the draft was a fact of life for much of our country's history, so no it wasn't lost.  Many WWII vets and Vietnam and Korean conflict vets were drafted; I go to lots of veteran events (I am official photographer for some of them) and let me tell you, a tighter band of brothers you never saw.  Draftee or not.

Again, the draft has only been shelved since the end of the Vietnam war.  That makes it seem to this generation like it never happened, but it was actually the normal way of bringing in troops prior to that.  It was dead common, normal, and few argued about it or saw it as an evil thing that they were 'forced' to do it.  That's an invention of this most recent generation.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, the draft was a fact of life for much of our country's history, so no it wasn't lost.  Many WWII vets and Vietnam and Korean conflict vets were drafted; I go to lots of veteran events (I am official photographer for some of them) and let me tell you, a tighter band of brothers you never saw.  Draftee or not.
> 
> Again, the draft has only been shelved since the end of the Vietnam war.  That makes it seem to this generation like it never happened, but it was actually the normal way of bringing in troops prior to that.  It was dead common, normal, and few argued about it or saw it as an evil thing that they were 'forced' to do it.  That's an invention of this most recent generation.



Sure...in a war, not washing clothes for the govt without military rank, training, or camaraderie so that you can collect your Social Security.

Of course this is all simply for discussion sake. I already earned my SS benefits and enjoyed doing it. I'm just not sold on forcing people into the military short of a necessities of a war situation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not true; that's the organized militia.  The unorganized militia is as the law describes it - federal troops.



Actually I believe all that means is the pool of males eligible for the draft.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2012)

Tgace, I have the original kindle, how do you like the fire?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Tgace, I have the original kindle, how do you like the fire?



I like it as an "I pad-lite", but I'm not a big fan of touch screen keyboards...I spend more time backspacing than I do typing at times Lol!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Actually I believe all that means is the pool of males eligible for the draft.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Umm... that section of the law has already been quoted in this thread, so you really don't have to believe one way or the other. Just read it. It is pretty straightforward. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

I heard a version of the draft I could get behind:

The decision to go to war becomes a popular vote instead of congressional. Then if it passes,  those who voted yes are the first to be picked in the draft. And the only people eligible to vote to go to war are those who fit the criteria to go to war (able-bodied men {and women?} between 17 and 45).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 14, 2012)

Well, one aspect of that version of the draft seems to exist already.  It is no mystery that we are fighting around the world and that that fighting is really dangerous.  Yet, at least in the recent past, I don't know what it is like currently, people have still been enlisting in the military where they currently have a chance of being seriously injured or killed.  So those who support the effort already seem to be enlisting and fighting, since if you don't support the effort, you don't have to enlist or go and fight.  The bad part of that plan is if the war really needs to be fought, but the opposition blocks it through a more effective but wrong propaganda campaign.  Remember in the 30's the communists worked very hard to keep the U.S. from interfering with the war in Europe, that is until Hitler invaded Russia, then they of course switched their tune.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> ARMY= *A*int *R*eady to be a *M*arine *Y*et



Muscles Are Required Intelligence Not Essential
My *** Really Is Navy Equipment


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I heard a version of the draft I could get behind:
> 
> The decision to go to war becomes a popular vote instead of congressional. Then if it passes, those who voted yes are the first to be picked in the draft. And the only people eligible to vote to go to war are those who fit the criteria to go to war (able-bodied men *{and women*?} between 17 and 45).
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



During the last war we had conscription for men and women into the armed forces.

It's being mooted here by our government that we have a return to some sort of conscription but that really wouldn't go down well at the moment as they are making a few thousand soldiers redundant though not until after the Olympics to which they've been drafted in to cover the security. The company tasked to do security has failed to do so this week so the troops are having to do it, some straight from Afghan having had to cancel family holidays. So conscription would go down like a lead balloon. 
The suspicion behind any attempt to resinstate conscription of any time would be that a government was trying to cut unemployment figures on the cheap or to bolster the armed forces on the cheap.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> During the last war we had conscription for men and women into the armed forces.
> 
> It's being mooted here by our government that we have a return to some sort of conscription but that really wouldn't go down well at the moment as they are making a few thousand soldiers redundant though not until after the Olympics to which they've been drafted in to cover the security. The company tasked to do security has failed to do so this week so the troops are having to do it, some straight from Afghan having had to cancel family holidays. So conscription would go down like a lead balloon.
> The suspicion behind any attempt to resinstate conscription of any time would be that a government was trying to cut unemployment figures on the cheap or to bolster the armed forces on the cheap.


:

There's always a trade off. In contrast, an all professional army, fighting in wars voted on by congress or even just the president... or in your country's case, the Parliament, means those who have much less a stake in war are voting on it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

billcihak said:


> This message is hidden because billcihak is on your ignore list.



Yep.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> :
> 
> There's always a trade off. In contrast, an all professional army, fighting in wars voted on by congress or even just the president... or in your country's case, the Parliament, means those who have much less a stake in war are voting on it.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



I know our military is very against any conscription of any type that involves them as they believe it would be damaging to their capabilities and make them unprofessional. Technically our monarch has to be the one who declares war which means they can also _not_ declare war, though it would cause a constitutional crisis if that happened.


----------



## billc (Jul 14, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *billcihak*
> 
> 
> This message is hidden because billcihak is on your ignore list.
> ...



This makes me feel sad.  Knowing that you won't know that I feel sad makes me feel sad again.  Knowing that I know you won't know I feel sad, and the fact that that doesn't make you feel sad...makes me feel sad.  Wow, I really feel sad after typing this post...which also makes me feel sad...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I know our military is very against any conscription of any type that involves them as they believe it would be damaging to their capabilities and make them unprofessional. Technically our monarch has to be the one who declares war which means they can also _not_ declare war, though it would cause a constitutional crisis if that happened.



Oh, I wasn't entirely sure what powers the throne had left.

Our military is of two minds on this. some want the draft, some don't.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 15, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Umm... that section of the law has already been quoted in this thread, so you really don't have to believe one way or the other. Just read it. It is pretty straightforward.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Ummm...maybe I'm misunderstanding the legal argument here but:

 4.26 It is the fact that the citizenry are considered militia, although unorganized, that gives the federal government the power to enact the draft of individuals into the armed forces.

A. No. Historically,there have been drafts into both the state militia and into the armed forces,although today when we think of the Draft,it is only thought of in connection with the armed forces. The Draft,into the Armed Forces,is done under the War Powers of Congress (see 1.12). The U.S. Supreme Court in the Selective Draft Law Cases of 1918 specifically found that power to Draft into the armed forces was based on the war powers of Congress saying:

"The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power ' to declare war ...to raise and support armies,but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years..to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces'" [245 U.S. 377] 

While that USC defines what an Unorganized Militia is, it does not spell out any specific federal authority to call up UM as a militia.

The fed's can draft into the active service via Congresses War Powers.

The fed can federalize state national guard units.

I see no statute giving the fed authority to do anything with the UM. Such as order the citizenry to serve for their SS benefits because they are the UM and the fed has the power to call them up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------

