Rangel Once Again Calls For Draft.....Now Includes Women.

This is the FIFTH time Rangel has introduced draft legislation. It's a "test"... It has failed every time. And it makes me FURIOUS that he continues to waste our tax dollars to make his point. It's a good point, but "using" our legislative bodies to make his point should be grounds for dismissal, and would be for any private sector job.

From 2011:

This marks the fourth time that Rangel, a proud Korean War vet, has submitted legislation that would require all Americans to sign up for the draft after turning 18. Each time the bill has failed. Rangel’s stated hope in pressing the issue is that it would discourage politicians from launching future wars.

Source

My personal opinion is that equal treatment means equal treatment. If men are drafted, then women should be, too. On the other hand, I don't support the draft at this time AT ALL.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That will probably change soon, one way or the other.
I'm surprised a stink hasn't been raised about it already.

It is impossible now for America to have a Draft.

All the military base closures over the last few decades....ain't no military bases left to house a Drafted military.

Ain't no military hardware left FOR a Drafted military to use. IT's alll gone.

Originally posted by MadhatterTheGreat
LOL. Sorry about the thread title, I was reading up on Hagel as I was posting the thread. Link should be fixed.

Damn it I thought we were onto a new conspiracy Charlie Rangel is Hagel?

As for the draft - the military would have to change the fundamentals of its leadership dogma to manage and deploy a draft force.

All of our leadership techniques are geared toward incentivizing good behavior and inspiring compliance in servicemen and women who are volunteers with positive rewards.

For instance in a volunteer military the penalty for poor performance and discipline problems in training is a discharge – this works because the people want to be there...they don't want to be kicked out.

The military can't use the same technique for draftees who in many cases don’t not want to be there anyway. All they’d have to do is perform poorly on purpose or be disrespectful/uncooperative so they can be discharged.

That would be in effect rewarding them for their negative behavior. In a draft Army there has to be a place that is worse than the general soldier population for poor performers and discipline problems - retraining battalions and disciplinary barracks etc.

Poor performance in a draft military used to result in corrective training and or a sort of confinement and relegation to mundane physical (hard labor) duties until what would be their normal discharge date anyway. The conditions would be even more restrictive than the life of normal service members so that people would not want to serve their tours in these conditions but turn toward compliance so they could have more privlegdes.

Modern military leadership is positive reinforcement and reward oriented rather than punitive – the whole tone and style of leadership would need to change to manage a draft quality force.

As a 24 year veteran – I’d rather have a unit of 20 men who wanted to be there than 100 who had to be there. You’d have to be constantly watching over your shoulder and pushing them to do what was right rather than counting on their professionalism. No career Officer I know wants a draft Army.

All that said, I don't think the career politicians really care what the professional military wants. They as in all things - think they know best.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


They won't listen. A single google search would reveal that Rangel has done this many times, because he is trying to make a point about the horrors, fraud and futility of "war."

It's more fun to ignore all that history and speculate about a draft that will never happen, apparently.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

They won't listen.

They never listen to me! But I keep talking anyway.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That will probably change soon, one way or the other.
I'm surprised a stink hasn't been raised about it already.

That was actually my biggest question when the DoD revised its "women in combat". That is fine and dandy but in all equality under the rule of law, a woman of the same age should also be under the threat of penalty to register for the Selective Service.

My true feelings on the above though should be that we dump the Selective Service. We have ample recruiting numbers even in the midst of a 11 year war that hasn't been too popular. It is safe to say that the volunteer path we have provides enough bodies to fill the ranks.

Seems like having a draft is something that the US will find necessary.

I remember reading that budget cuts are forcing the Army (just the Army, since they're the largest) to drop as much dead weight as possible. The article I read was about how they're starting with the people who are out of shape first by being stricter about passing the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test?).

Is the future a leaner experienced Army with a draft in place should the need for more troops arise?