us national service/ draft

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by quiller, Jun 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4752


    i've just spotted this which is due to be debated by the house tomorrow, it hasn't been mentioned in any of the news programs. is it something that everyone knows about and is happy with? a possible american national service or is it a draft through the back door, as they say?







    109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
    H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006
    Introduced: Feb 14, 2006
    Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
    Status: Introduced (By Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY])


    To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United
    States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform
    a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance
    of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


    SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

    4 (a) OBLIGATION SERVICE.--It is the obligation
    FOR

    5 of every citizen of the United States, and every other per-
    6 son residing in the United States, who is between the ages
    7 of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as
    8 prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provi-
    9 sions of this Act.
    10 (b) FORM NATIONAL SERVICE.--National service
    OF

    11 under this Act shall be performed either--
    12 (1) as a member of an active or reserve compo-
    13 nent of the uniformed services; or
    14 (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by
    15 the President, promotes the national defense, includ-
    16 ing national or community service and homeland se-
    17 curity.
     
  2. Rangel believes that more of America's elite (top 10%) should fight in america's wars. The bill is just a symbolic one. It won't go anywhere.
     
  3. Charles Rangel is something of an embarrassment here in NYC. The Draft act will not pass, practically speaking it will not help in the slightest. "If" it were passed today, it would still take at least a year to implement calling up. Add to that, no one in the Military wants them. Realistically speaking, do You want someone "Press-ganged" covering your 6 or a Volunteer?
     
  4. The Draft Act sponsored by Rangel was voted down in 2004. Its a political stunt like his last bill was. No one feels a draft is necessary, except the anti-war crowd who keep trying to recreate Vietnam.
     
  5. True its a stunt as far as can be seen, but, how will the US sort out the recruitment problems as the Iraq thing drags on and fewer and fewer people want to join up, no matter how appealing the GI Bill is, there comes a point where its hard to sustain numbers.
    Same thing is happening in the UK, no matter how the MOD tries to spin it, the numbers walking in to join up are lower each year, made up for by an influx in Fijians and Zimbabweans joining up.
    Of course you can spin it a million ways, but how are you going to keep the numbers up in the armed forces when the US and UK now have a lot more deserters/ AWOL and fewer wanting to join up?
     
  6. The problems in shortfalls in recruiting are mainly in the Army National Guard and Reserve, and except for a problem in a couple of quarters not the active-duty. They have special issues in that the soldiers involved have civilian lives and careers which are getting interrupted by call-ups for Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt a draft would be implemented over something like this.
     
  7. Easy: The Almighty God of Cash.

    Just like the private sector, if you want to attract more people, pay them more and give them more benefits. Everyone has a price, and the Army is giving cash away like it's free. Except to me, since I was already in when this whole deal started.

    NTM
     
  8. Don't forget to mention the 50,000 or so that have served their time and have been "stop-lossed" (i.e. prevented from leaving the service for those unfamiliar with the idea.) http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0131/dailyUpdate.html
     
  9. That last point was one of the reasons a vets on 'Band of Brothers' gave for joining a all-volunteer unit like the 101st.

    Let me put forth the other side of the argument, less political than Rangel's position. There's some things to be said in favor of a draft I think. It used to be that all men had a common set of experiences with military service whether they were Democrats or Republicans, left or right wing. People from all walks of life were put in situations where they had to work and live with those from all over the country. Frankly I'd like to see a few of those frat-boy types living off daddy's money do a couple of years as a private in a line unit. Good for 'em, builds character as the old guys say. Citizenship has it's rights and priviledges, it should also have it's responsibilities. And let's face it, a draft military makes the stakes of implementing them higher; it forces more political consensus and rallying of the population on deployments--which can have its good and bad points--but it's a military in service to a democracy and thems the breaks.

    Good training and team building goes a long way to resolve the 'press-ganged' mentality, of course I agree you won't get the same soldier as the volunteer army. But WWII was won by draftees, they did well in Korea when training was retooled and in Vietnam where the loss was from political will.

    Don't get me wrong, I like how things are now. I think the military is a more professional organization because of it, but there are some decent arguments for a draft outside of Rangel's political posturing.
     
  10. Ah, good point, Stop Loss, ie you are not allowed to leave or retire and can get extended periods to your over seas deployments... not very good for the little man who gets told he can't leave, great for the head shed who makes sure they have enough troops.