Conscription
Posted by: Justin on 29 May 2004
Over here in the united states there is a sort of low-grade rumble concerning some form of compulsory military service for able bodied young people - a plan, btw, which would appear to include females and well as males (which is something new over here).
How is military service handled in the UK? Is it an all volunteer force, or is there some form of conscription? Is there any form of compulsory civic service?
Judd
How is military service handled in the UK? Is it an all volunteer force, or is there some form of conscription? Is there any form of compulsory civic service?
Judd
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by TomK
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
Conscription was scrapped in the early 1950s and has never been revived. The only compulsory community service is for people convicted of fairly petty crimes.
Davie
Davie,
I hate to be a nitpicker but I believe UK conscription carried on until 1960. I guess I'm showing my age by admitting that I remember Slim Jim missing the odd game because the army wouldn't release him. I stress I was very young and it's more my old man's frothing at the mouth I remember!
Tom.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Bhoyo
Tom:
I checked, and you're right about it being 1960. If the draft is reinstated in the U.S. (and I hope that never happens), I will put my 15-year-old son on the next plane out of here.
Davie
I checked, and you're right about it being 1960. If the draft is reinstated in the U.S. (and I hope that never happens), I will put my 15-year-old son on the next plane out of here.
Davie
Posted on: 31 May 2004 by ErikL
Judd,
I remain optimistic that we can a) be more creative in juggling troops worldwide; and b) patch up our traditional alliances. Bringing back the draft for 20,000 soldiers, for one disaster, seems very over the top to me. Who knows, maybe I'm alone on that one.
I remain optimistic that we can a) be more creative in juggling troops worldwide; and b) patch up our traditional alliances. Bringing back the draft for 20,000 soldiers, for one disaster, seems very over the top to me. Who knows, maybe I'm alone on that one.
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by Phil Barry
The US draft was unfair, but my Ivy League degree did not protect me. I was drafted in 1967. And although I joined the anti-war movement in late 1964 (very early), I showed up - I disagreed with my government, but since I was willing to accept the benefits of living in the US I needed to answer the call when the legally constituted authorities requested my attendance.
The draft was abolished by Nixon as a way to reduce the opposition to war among college students. He guessed rightly that much of the anti-war activitity was due to college students' fear for their own lives.
The current US armed forces is not a force committed to the the miltary 'profession'; rather, for most of the grunts, the armed forces is a job - there are no manufacturing jobs or family farms anymore, but there is the army (or navy, AF, marines).
The army has historically been a road to upward mobility in the US, taking in uneducated, unskilled kids and turning out men with widely varied skills - mechanics, office workers, etc. - who knew how to function in large organizations. After 20 years of service, they got decent pensions and jobs in large business and governmental organizations.
The US was pretty successful at building effective armies out of draftees in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Korea. And even in 'Nam, our draftee army was very successful when judged by the values of its leadership. After all, the US forces in Nam could move at will, one of the tests of military victory. Too bad the leadership hadn't read Mao or Giap.
In Iraq, our civilian leadership has ignored the advice of the military leadership who did argue that the aftermath of the war would be far different from what the Rice/Rumsfeld crowd thought.
Today, NPR reported thatthe brass admit that we may have enough soldiers, but perhaps we lack the requisite number of soldiers with the right skills.
We've stripped our cities of firemen and policemen by activating the National Guard units to which they belong. NG members' families are making tremendous economic scrifices - of necessity, since the benefits and pay are far less than they earned in civilian life. And people whose terms are close to complete are being involuntarily extended, while others have been convinced to re-up by high pressure and lies.
Meanwhile no child of a member of Congress is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our economic elites - led by the President, VP, cabinet members, Nat'l Security advisor, etc - virtually all of whom avoided service in 'Nam - have received tax cuts that are greater than the annual incomes of the soldiers they so thoughtlessly sent into battle.
Meanwhile, the administration is gutting programs for veterans while its reduce the number of veterans by sending in Hummers instead of something with decent armor like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
A new draft is not a short term fix, but it is a social necessity. Elites will be under-represented in a draftee army to be sure, but there will be enough elite presence among the grunts the keep the elites involved in any war we enter.
Now, the @#$%^&* chicken hawks sit on their asses and tell the AVF to fight. With a draftee army, some of these chicken hawk MFs will have to risk their own kids' lives in their adventures.
The US has much to be proud of and to be ashamed of. But it can't be denied that life in the US tends to be pretty comfortable for the vast majority of us. We're all involved in both the pride and the shame. We all need to be involved in defending it - we all need to be at risk of serving in the armed forces. And that means we need a draft.
Bhoyo, You refuse to let your son live in the US if there's a draft? I don't understand your position - unless you really mean you'll emigrate.
Regards.
Phil
The draft was abolished by Nixon as a way to reduce the opposition to war among college students. He guessed rightly that much of the anti-war activitity was due to college students' fear for their own lives.
The current US armed forces is not a force committed to the the miltary 'profession'; rather, for most of the grunts, the armed forces is a job - there are no manufacturing jobs or family farms anymore, but there is the army (or navy, AF, marines).
The army has historically been a road to upward mobility in the US, taking in uneducated, unskilled kids and turning out men with widely varied skills - mechanics, office workers, etc. - who knew how to function in large organizations. After 20 years of service, they got decent pensions and jobs in large business and governmental organizations.
The US was pretty successful at building effective armies out of draftees in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Korea. And even in 'Nam, our draftee army was very successful when judged by the values of its leadership. After all, the US forces in Nam could move at will, one of the tests of military victory. Too bad the leadership hadn't read Mao or Giap.
In Iraq, our civilian leadership has ignored the advice of the military leadership who did argue that the aftermath of the war would be far different from what the Rice/Rumsfeld crowd thought.
Today, NPR reported thatthe brass admit that we may have enough soldiers, but perhaps we lack the requisite number of soldiers with the right skills.
We've stripped our cities of firemen and policemen by activating the National Guard units to which they belong. NG members' families are making tremendous economic scrifices - of necessity, since the benefits and pay are far less than they earned in civilian life. And people whose terms are close to complete are being involuntarily extended, while others have been convinced to re-up by high pressure and lies.
Meanwhile no child of a member of Congress is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our economic elites - led by the President, VP, cabinet members, Nat'l Security advisor, etc - virtually all of whom avoided service in 'Nam - have received tax cuts that are greater than the annual incomes of the soldiers they so thoughtlessly sent into battle.
Meanwhile, the administration is gutting programs for veterans while its reduce the number of veterans by sending in Hummers instead of something with decent armor like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
A new draft is not a short term fix, but it is a social necessity. Elites will be under-represented in a draftee army to be sure, but there will be enough elite presence among the grunts the keep the elites involved in any war we enter.
Now, the @#$%^&* chicken hawks sit on their asses and tell the AVF to fight. With a draftee army, some of these chicken hawk MFs will have to risk their own kids' lives in their adventures.
The US has much to be proud of and to be ashamed of. But it can't be denied that life in the US tends to be pretty comfortable for the vast majority of us. We're all involved in both the pride and the shame. We all need to be involved in defending it - we all need to be at risk of serving in the armed forces. And that means we need a draft.
Bhoyo, You refuse to let your son live in the US if there's a draft? I don't understand your position - unless you really mean you'll emigrate.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
And although I joined the anti-war movement in late 1964 (very early), I showed up - I disagreed with my government, but since I was willing to accept the benefits of living in the US I needed to answer the call when the legally constituted authorities requested my attendance.
Regards.
Phil
I think that is about right.
Judd
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Roy T
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
What do the voting public think about this stance and will chicken hawk be punished during the next election?
Now I may be out of place expressing my views but with people like Spc. Pat Tillman and many others voluntarily honouring their contract with the state the actions of the chicking hawks and their associates start to look slightly shabby to me.
Roy T
quote:
Now, the @#$%^&* chicken hawks sit on their asses and tell the AVF to fight. With a draftee army, some of these chicken hawk MFs will have to risk their own kids' lives in their adventures.
What do the voting public think about this stance and will chicken hawk be punished during the next election?
Now I may be out of place expressing my views but with people like Spc. Pat Tillman and many others voluntarily honouring their contract with the state the actions of the chicking hawks and their associates start to look slightly shabby to me.
Roy T
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
Bhoyo, You refuse to let your son live in the US if there's a draft? I don't understand your position - unless you really mean you'll emigrate.
Phil:
With respect, I completely disagree with your apparent belief that the way to put the fear of God into our economic elites (or, as I would prefer to describe them, lying, corrupt, court-appointed, corporate draft-dodgers) is to draft everyone. That's never going to happen. You know it and I know it. If I believed for a single moment that the chicken hawks or their families would be put in harm's way, and that it might then give some of the bastards pause for thought, then I might be persuaded that some form of compulsory military service was in order.
I don't and I'm not.
If my son wants to enlist (or perform some other service to the country) when he's old enough, then that's his right - possibly even his duty. But I will not have our so-called "president" or anyone else telling me that he HAS to do what they themselves won't do.
Regards
Davie
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by ejl
The current "stop-loss" policy (reinstated by the Bush Administration) is a variant on forced military service that's happening now. This policy allows the Army to compel active duty and reserve forces to continue to serve for several months past the expiration of their enlistment. The soldiers have no option to get out and must serve, despite the fact that their original contractual obligation to the military is complete.
DOD Blurb
Apart from being seriously unfair to the soldiers, in my opinion, the fact that the stop-loss policy is now in heavy use exposes that the military is stretched very thin and that Rumsfeld's claims that there are sufficient volunteer forces are false. This is no longer an all-volunteer army.
EDIT: I just noticed Roy T mentioned something similar above. I'd add that it's not just reservists who are affected.
DOD Blurb
Apart from being seriously unfair to the soldiers, in my opinion, the fact that the stop-loss policy is now in heavy use exposes that the military is stretched very thin and that Rumsfeld's claims that there are sufficient volunteer forces are false. This is no longer an all-volunteer army.
EDIT: I just noticed Roy T mentioned something similar above. I'd add that it's not just reservists who are affected.
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Roy T
The part played by the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is major part and fallout from the latest stop-loss orders may well be felt far and wide.
Soldiers from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have been mobilized to support operations both in the United States for homeland security duties and for operations globally, including Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Joint Guardian and in the Sinai with the Multinational Force and Observers. As of 19 May 2004 roughly 148,442 soldiers from the Guard and Reserves were on active duty, an increase of roughly 2,000 soldiers since the previous week.
Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 6 are currently deployed with 2 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.
Where are the Legions? Global Deployments of US Forces
Roy T
Soldiers from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have been mobilized to support operations both in the United States for homeland security duties and for operations globally, including Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Joint Guardian and in the Sinai with the Multinational Force and Observers. As of 19 May 2004 roughly 148,442 soldiers from the Guard and Reserves were on active duty, an increase of roughly 2,000 soldiers since the previous week.
Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 6 are currently deployed with 2 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.
Where are the Legions? Global Deployments of US Forces
Roy T
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
If my son wants to enlist (or perform some other service to the country) when he's old enough, then that's his right - possibly even his duty. But I will not have our so-called "president" or anyone else telling me that he HAS to do what they themselves won't do.
Regards
Davie
So, your objection to compulsory military service is not grounded in your objection to the underlying conflict, but rather in the inequity of the draft itself? Yes? If a draft could be made equitable, then you would OR would not consider it your son's duty to register?
Please clarify your position.
Judd
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Bhoyo
Judd:
I have major objections to any proposed draft (as, indeed, does the military). I believe in a volunteer army. I believe there would be no shortage of volunteers (including myself, if they take old bastards) in a genuine national emergency. I do not consider there to be any justification whatsoever for a draft in the current (or any foreseeable) circumstances.
As to a draft being "made equitable," I do not believe that to be possible.
Most of all, I find it hard to believe we are even discussing a draft in relation to Iraq.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Regards,
Davie
I have major objections to any proposed draft (as, indeed, does the military). I believe in a volunteer army. I believe there would be no shortage of volunteers (including myself, if they take old bastards) in a genuine national emergency. I do not consider there to be any justification whatsoever for a draft in the current (or any foreseeable) circumstances.
As to a draft being "made equitable," I do not believe that to be possible.
Most of all, I find it hard to believe we are even discussing a draft in relation to Iraq.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
Judd:
I have major objections to any proposed draft (as, indeed, does the military). I believe in a volunteer army. I believe there would be no shortage of volunteers (including myself, if they take old bastards) in a genuine national emergency. I do not consider there to be any justification whatsoever for a draft in the current (or any foreseeable) circumstances.
Regards,
Davie
But Davie, WWII had a draft. And in fact my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) the US simply didn't have the stomach for that conflict until after Pearl Harbor even though American involvement before that time would have been fully justified. In any event, even though WWII was the last "patriotic" war (ie., generally supported among the masses) the US could not have supported two fronts without conscription.
There was also a draft for Korea. This is less persuasive if you don't support the basis of that conflict in the first place. But, if you do (and that may be a big IF), it represents a sort of counter-example to the notion that "just" wars will always produce enough willing soldiers. It might be said that most Americans were hardly sympathetic to the conflict in Korea (too remote, etc.) even IF US involvement was otherwise justified.
Even if we leave out Korea (of course we are leaving out Vietnam) "just" conflicts don't necessarily produce enough professional soldiers.
Judd
Posted on: 04 June 2004 by Phil Barry
A draft will not be perfectly fair. The AVF, however, looks far less like US society as a whole than the draftee army ever did.
And giving arms and training to those who slected themselves to receive arms and training seems like a long term losing proposition.
Bhoyo, if your oldest kid is 15, I doubt you remember much about the war in Vet Nam and the opposition to it on college campuses.
Children of the elite did, in fact, get drafted. Not everyone could get into the NG - there were more well-connected kids than slots, even if the well-connected got all the slots.
I was at Brown from '62-'66, as we changed from an open draft to the lottery, and I was at Michigan '68-'70. The fear of going to Nam was palpable in the late '60s among draft-eligible men.
Brown, of course, is a private school with tuition and fees probably in the 99th percentile of all colleges in the US. In the 60s, over 40% of Brown students came from private prep schools (read: costly).
Michigan is a state school, of course, but at least in the '60s, a large part of the student body were children of auto company execs who offered their kids percs (like cars) to go to Ann arbor instead of to the expensive eastern schools. Michigan plus a car cost less than Brown, Harvard, etc.
My point here is that the draft very definitely touched the children of the US elites. They protested. They started on drugs. They wrote their congressmen. They complained to their parents.
W avided the draft; Clinton avoided the draft...but you notice that Kerry avoided the draft by enlisting. The college-educated draftees recognized the bankruptcy of our VN policy, and they did not keep silent.
No, the draft wouldn't be perfectly fair, but it's a lot better than the AVF.
Regards.
Phil
And giving arms and training to those who slected themselves to receive arms and training seems like a long term losing proposition.
Bhoyo, if your oldest kid is 15, I doubt you remember much about the war in Vet Nam and the opposition to it on college campuses.
Children of the elite did, in fact, get drafted. Not everyone could get into the NG - there were more well-connected kids than slots, even if the well-connected got all the slots.
I was at Brown from '62-'66, as we changed from an open draft to the lottery, and I was at Michigan '68-'70. The fear of going to Nam was palpable in the late '60s among draft-eligible men.
Brown, of course, is a private school with tuition and fees probably in the 99th percentile of all colleges in the US. In the 60s, over 40% of Brown students came from private prep schools (read: costly).
Michigan is a state school, of course, but at least in the '60s, a large part of the student body were children of auto company execs who offered their kids percs (like cars) to go to Ann arbor instead of to the expensive eastern schools. Michigan plus a car cost less than Brown, Harvard, etc.
My point here is that the draft very definitely touched the children of the US elites. They protested. They started on drugs. They wrote their congressmen. They complained to their parents.
W avided the draft; Clinton avoided the draft...but you notice that Kerry avoided the draft by enlisting. The college-educated draftees recognized the bankruptcy of our VN policy, and they did not keep silent.
No, the draft wouldn't be perfectly fair, but it's a lot better than the AVF.
Regards.
Phil