Bringing the draft back ???

[DUMBDOG]

I signed up for the draft, but that was the year that they drew the numbers but there were no draftees. Now I have an only son who insists upon being a marine. I have being talking like the dickens to get him to change his mind. Finally received a promise from him not to do anything about it for a year. I have worked real hard for the last thirty years so that he would not have the problems going to college that I did, working 40 to 56 hours per week and attending school full time. He has the money to go, just does not what he wants to do.

 

[Boondox]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Are they having problems getting people to join,or is it just because they become over extended so fast with the war going on ? )</font>

I think there was a major disconnect between the way the reserves were advertised and the way the experience of many who signed up. Remember the ads promoting the national guard as "One weekend a month and two weeks a year" along with all sorts of words about benefits and going to college..? And even in Gulf War I the reserves could count on doing one tour only pretty much. Under those "normal" conditions you get a lot of folks signing up intending to better themselves, especially if their socio-economic background makes iffy a college education. And in those "normal peacetime" conditions, as you mature it's only natural that you land a decent civilian job, get married, start a home with a mortgage and all the responsibilities that entails, and start a family.

Then off to war at one third the salary you earned in the world, leaving your wife and children behind to make ends meet, finding your tour extended, heck, in some cases finding your enlistment extended. And all this in the face of evidence suggesting our leaders were less than forthcoming about how we got into this mess..?

If I were a young man today I'd think long and hard before signing up! Pete

 

[OkeeDon]

I agree with everything you've said, and would just like to add that the first reports I heard about the Guard were that many of the existing members are not planning to reenlist due to the extended service. Along with reduced enlistments and a reduced standing army, there could be a shortage of bodies. I don't think it helped when there were reports of a possible reduction in the salaries of the guard and reduction of benefits such as medical coverage.

The loss of reenlistments would hurt the most, because these people are already trained and experienced. The draft would not help in that regard, although it would provide enough bodies.

I believe every one of these guard members who do not plan to reenlist would be willing to serve for years, and to make the ultimate sacrifice, if they were called upon to fight and die for a true national emergency. The comparison of this "war" with Vietnam is apt because once again, the problem is that we should not have been there in the first place.

Now that we are there, of course, almost everyone would agree that we have to support the troops. It's not their fault we are there. Along those lines, of the $87 Billion supplemental to the budget, approximately $18 Billion was to rebuild Iraq and almost $2 Billion was to aid Afghanistan. The remaining $67 Billion was to support the troops. I have yet to see an accounting of how this money is being used. I suspect that much of it might have been used to bribe our coalition members rather than to support our own troops.

 

[MikePA]

Please TBNers, let's not turn this thread into a discussion about the current conflicts the US is ionvolved in, OK? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[cowboydoc]

the problem is that we should not have been there in the first place.


Talking to the troops that just came back to our area that isn't the case. They said we do need to be there and what we did was a good thing. Our office manager went on over 100 missions there. She is a local hero here now. She said we needed to be there and we need to stay there and finish this. By the way her name is Monica Coussens and from what we are hearing about her from everyone that was there she was more of a soldier than alot of the men there. And that's coming from the men themselves. All I can say is God bless them all.

 

[lamarbur]

"The remaining $67 Billion was to support the troops. I have yet to see an accounting of how this money is being used. I suspect that much of it might have been used to bribe our coalition members rather than to support our own troops."
In the years 70 through 72 a Huey cost 1100-1300 per hour to maintain and operate. Today, that figure hasn't changed much because of better engine/transmissions/ composite blades and alternate metals that we didn't have. At least from what I saw at Westover AB last year, the choppers today aren't bubble gum and baling wire held together. So, a couple hundred choppers in the air at all times (Iraq) and it would take long to burn up a few hundred million. Add to this, manpower, Hummers, fule , food, tanks, etc, etc and the Navy who is off shore. Haven't a clue what a batleship or carrier would cost per hour, but it has to be substantial.. As far as why and another Vietnam.. I'm not so sure myself. What I do see and see it more and more, is the comparison for constant bickering on various TV stations, add to this people like Kerry running for President.. (I DO SEE) this
part of it, as dejavu.. This, is what started the downfall in the VN era, particularly with Johnson. It got so bad that obvious history shows we had no support at all, from our own congress and people a like.. I am deathly afraid that this bickering will lead to the same thing all over. Whether you agree or not, I certainly hope America as a whole, stands behind the troops and not create another quagmire like VN was.. Just my 2 cents worth..

 

[OkeeDon]

Mike, that's pretty hard to do, since the current conflicts are the only reason why the draft may be reinstated. I tried very hard, and edited my comments several times, to eliminate any reference to politics. The only opinion I ventured was that we should not have been there in the first place. I'm willing to agree with cowboydoc and others that what we have accomplished is a good thing, especially if we could afford to extend it to every region that needs it. But, there is little doubt that nation building is different than defending ourselves against an imminent threat.

 

[MikePA]

Don, my comments were not directed at you, but everyone in the thread. Frankly, I don't know why threads like this are started since it's obvious where they will head. Particularly, since there are plenty of other web sites specfically created for the discussion of politics. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Boondox]

Richard -- My problem with this war is not that we're there in the first place, but the manner in which we got there. I would have had more respect for this administration if the message had been, simply, "We will not allow another ******." Period. But in going over old newspapers it seemed like a childish litany of ever more strident "offenses" till I wasn't sure what to believe.

My other issue is we were taught to fight intelligently. To have plans and contingencies. To plan for victory and the peace that comes after. This post WWII thing of having all battles micromanaged from the Pentagon thousands of miles away blows my mind! All too often they send our men and women into battle with one hand tied behind their backs. Who better than the commander IN HARMS WAY to decide what to do and how to do it?

IMO the politicians should define the objectives of war and let the professionals fight the battles. Pete

 

[Boondox]

Mike -- I hear you, and prior experience tells us this thread may very well go that way...but so far it's been marked by the usual degree of TBN civility. I think we all want the job done and our troops home safely. Let's see how it progresses.

Pete