Soldier's letter: Army needs the draft

[babylonsister]

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=45814

Army needs the draft

I am a squad leader in an infantry platoon and one of the soldiers affected by the now-15-month deployments.

This was one of the worst decisions I have seen during my time in the military. The extension was to help an already-stretched-thin military, although I see another solution.

The military services need to drop the ideal of an all-volunteer force, since this is already a farce. How can it be called a volunteer force when so many soldiers are on stop loss or recruited with $20,000-and-up bonuses?

The Army has also lowered its standards when it comes to recruitment, taking soldiers it never would have taken several years ago. What the Army needs now is a draft. The ideal of 15 months deployed and 12 months at home is not reasonable for most soldiers. If I had known this would have been the case, I never would have joined the Army. I most certainly will not re-enlist if this current trend continues.

I have already been deployed twice to Iraq since the war began. Due to deployments and training time, I have spent a total of 14 months at home with my daughter, who will be 4 years old when I redeploy. Is that what our secretary of defense considers “fair, predictable and sustainable”?

When our higher leadership was looking at the war schedule and realizing that it wasn’t possible to keep up, it should have called for a draft. The only reason it hasn’t already is because, like this war itself, it is an unpopular decision for the civilians of the United States.

The standard of making Iraq a “stable and secure environment” on the backs of soldiers and their families will lead to a downward spiral of the military service.

Sgt. Evan Johnson
Forward Operating Base Callahan, Iraq

[WillyT]

1. This War Might Just Make A Draft Inevitable...

This adminisrtation is literally sucking the life out of the military. It is being damaged to a point where there may be no other choice.

:shrug:

[saigon68]

14. He should just get the F&^% out

My children will not fight in this war (NEVER) If they start a draft we will be in the streets again.

He should get out of the army quit being a whinney baby and get a life

and stop bitching

[TahitiNut]

23. "If they start a draft we will be in the streets again"?

I hear a lot of DUers saying things like this ... talking about what they'd do if the draft was activated. Some say they'd leave the country.

What puzzles me is the simultaneous claim that we're doing the most we can do to get out of Iraq. Well, it seems obvious that we can't be doing "the most" if there's something more we'd do if the draft were activated.

It puzzles me that folks claim that people wouldn't become MORE involved and active ... forcing our (s)elected representatives (the best that money can buy) to respect the democratic will of the people ... if the draft were activated. Yet, I hear the contradictory claim about what more people would do if the draft were activated.

Something's amiss, I think.

When I add into that mix the statements of some that they think the people already in the military and bearing the greatest burden of this occupation should do more! They should do more?? Mutiny? Refuse? Desert? Go to prison? I guess I just don't understand how we can expect the people already risking the most to risk more. Whose country is this, anyway??

[MikeNearMcChord]

2. Either we get out or there will be a draft

I think after some of these guys come home, I think some will desert. Another unpleasant option might be a mutiny.

[pnwmom]

3. The US needs to end the war, not start a draft.

All a draft would do is enable the neocons endlessly into the future.

[babylonsister]

5. I absolutely agree; this just shows one soldier's dissatisfaction

with what's going on. He probably has a lot stronger opinion he dare not put into writing.

[pnwmom]

24. And that soldier's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

They must be unimaginably frustrated now, and feeling -- with good reason -- that they're being abused.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. exactly.

A draft, if it is ever necessary, should be limited to times of true nation emergencies, not because some foreign adventure has gone sour.

[tularetom]

7. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive

In fact, serious talk about starting the draft would probably end the war before anybody actually got drafted. Especially if it were a fair draft proposal with universal eligibility.

[bigtree]

11. that's like draining the reservoir

to turn the bath water off

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. "fair" draft?

There will be conditions for deferral or ineligibility. Whether that's "fair" or not, that's how it would be.

A draft end a war? It didn't in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. I don't suppose it will now. Maybe a draft AND Kucinich for Prez.

[pnwmom]

25. No, it wouldn't end the war. It would just make people HATE Democrats.

I, for one, would never lift a finger or give another dime to the party if it were to push a draft.

[TahitiNut]

26. Then 'Democrats' aren't being 'democrats' (at least not liberal democrats) if that's the case.

It's not just "one man (person) one vote" ... it's about equitable sharing of the burdens and participation in our own governance. It is no more 'fair' nor 'just' for 10% to bear the burden and 90% to enjoy the privileges than it is for 90% to bear the burden and 10% to enjoy the privileges. When I hear the lament that the wealthy and powerful escape the draft - and then hear "I want mine, too!" - I hear envy, not a sense of justice and not a sense of equitable participation.

The socio-political contract of a democracy insists that we share in both the duties and the authority of self-governance - the "fruits" of governance being either sweet or sour. Like it or not, We The People (at least anyone not yet in Gitmo) have allowed our nation to engage in the invasion and occupation of two other countries. To insist that those who bought a bill of goods about military service, either out of some sense of allegiance to a nation or out of seeing few alternatives to economic deprivation, should also bear the burdens of either (1) dying or being maimed for life, or (2) deserting or engaging in mutiny, is (imho) the most anti-democratic posture I can imagine.

I was once nearly seduced into adopting that viewpoint. No longer. It's noxiously easy to adopt an attitude that's self-serving - conveniently 'safe' while throwing some unknown other to the wolves. When push came to shove, I didn't foresee being able to respect myself if someone else went to Viet Nam in my place ... and died. So, I didn't go 20 miles south and live in Canada. I submitted. It was a time of a far more inequitable draft than existed in 1971 ... but that's the way it goes. The hostility I (we) were met with on return was palpable. Lepers. Well, the promises of a Rose Garden evaporated. Nonetheless, I cannot look back in resentment and must adhere to the principles I would have others adhere to. I see very little hope for a democracy in this nation without universal and equitable national service. The time to do it will NEVER be convenient. Never.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. ..

:thumbsup:

[NNN0LHI]

4. Obviously this boy is showing signs of traumatic brain injury

Get him to Walter Reed pronto.

Don

[TahitiNut]

8. Dear Sgt. Johnson ...

Most Americans would rather put magnets on their cars than support a draft and risk their own family or themselves. Most Americans are willing to write letters and protest from the comforts of their own homes and neighborhoods as, each day, four people in our military are killed and forty sustain injuries that may last a lifetime shorter than most. America is no longer a nation where "we're in this together" - it's a nation of blame without correction, guilt without penalty, and war without end. As more and more of our children face a future without health care or the possibility of a higher education, we feel comfortable letting them 'volunteer' for the military. (To escape the bear, it's not necessary to be the fastest runner; it's merely necessary that someone wlse be slower.) Most Americans, recognizing that the draft was unfair and the children of the wealthy and powerful didn't serve, opted to share that 'privilege' among more and increase the burdens of service on fewer. After all, when the wealthy do the 'wrong thing' we're envious, not outraged. Lowering the standards is 'fairer' than working for a higher standard of justice.

[bigtree]

10. Army needs to tell their commanders to fuck off

we didn't ask for any standard of Iraq becoming secure and stable.

If their commanders pushed Bush to pull back on back these untenable and unsupported commitments we'd have more than enough soldiers to defend America.

[sarge43]

12. Yes, the draft worked so well during Nam n/t

[saigon68]

15. YES ask war criminal Dick "Five Deferments" Cheney

[sarge43]

16. There's that and Sgt Johnson might want to do some

in-depth research on Project 100,000. It's one of the things that happens when you involve the army in a protracted, ill conceived, ill managed war with no clearly defined mission.

It's called pounding sand down a rat hole, except we're not talking sand here. Among other things, you're left with a lot of broken bodies and broken minds around the landscape.

[saigon68]

20. I knew a few of those guys

Project 100,000 = McNamara's Morons

[sarge43]

21. We had a few in the AF.

Their records were flagged and they were treated like shit.

[TahitiNut]

22. The right-wing 'volunteer' military has far, far more P/100000 people.

How many times have they lowered the 'standards' in the last 6 years? In the last 25 years?

:eyes:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. It got a lot of people into the Army.

If that's the point, then yes, it worked during the Vietnam era.

It got me. Thanks, LBJ. :sarcasm:

[Akoto]

13. Ah, yes ...

Lets stop the fire by throwing more wood on it. Brilliant logic, Sergeant. Rather reminds me of the folks who think we'd retain any hope for the presidency after enacting the draft, or the ones who believe the current powers that be wouldn't abuse the hell out of it.

[MADem]

19. Geez, what a rocket scientist...not.

This guy is a Sgt. You'd think he'd have some, just a little, leadership knowledge and understanding of how to motivate subordinates at that stage of his career.

How does he, as a leader, expect to motivate a whole squad of "Hell, no, we won't go" peaceniks who do not want to be there, oppose the war, oppose the administration, and have learned how to use a Claymore--'Front Towards Enemy?'

Admittedly, that last reference is a bit antiquated, but the point remains--his ass can get fragged by people who don't want to play the supporting cast to that clown's John Wayne scenario...easily.

Why not look to the REAL problem? If this were a "just war" you'd see people falling over themselves to join up. As an example, while there was a draft in WW2, there were PLENTY of people who didn't wait to be called--they volunteered. That old patriotism kicked in.

That's not happening with this fiasco. This is a stupid war, with selfish goals, and that's why no one's lining up to participate. And forcing people to so do isn't going to make this war miraculously 'just' or 'necessary.'

[tabasco]

27. I support national service like they have in many European countries.

18 months of military or civil service. No college deferments.

I believe it reduces support for wars and reduces racism.

[MethuenProgressive]

28. Absolutely agree. Use Patriot Act to ID under 30 yo Bush voters and draft them

Then triple the taxrate on the top 15% of Republican income earners for the next decade to pay for Bush's Iraq War.