We Need a Limited Military Draft

For sure, I disagree with the premise...for now, but we could be approaching a breaking point.

We Need a Limited Military Draft

It's time to change how our country fills the ranks of our military.

Since 1775, our nation has used a combination of volunteers and draftees to meet our national defense personnel needs, especially in times of crisis.

Today, the military needs only about 160,000 youth from an eligible population of 30 million to meet its recruitment needs. But after two decades of war -- both of which ended unsuccessfully -- and low unemployment, many experts believe the all-volunteer force has reached a breaking point. And American confidence in its military is at a low.

The fastest and most effective way to resolve this recruiting crisis is to change how we recruit.

Instead of an "either an all-volunteer force or a fully conscripted force" model, I propose a both-and solution.

We should have our military recruiters sign up new troops for 11 months out of the year, and then have the Selective Service draft the delta between the military's needs and the total number recruited.

This model would alleviate the incredible pressure on our recruiters, lower the cost of finding new troops, and significantly reduce the much decried civilian-military gap by subjecting all of America's youth -- rich and poor -- to the possibility of military service via the draft.

Or...we could greatly reduce our military commitments to match the fighting force we can muster, but I have a feeling that would be less popular than a draft,

 

I suppose that would make more sense if we were at war where ground troops are needed to fight.

 

I think this is a direct result of trust in the government and our elite political establishment declining. No one wants to subordinate themselves to a corrupt system, and while our military itself has been largely resistant to such corruption, it is still ultimately directed by and beholden to the corrupt political establishment that almost no one trusts. I don't think people are hesitant to defend America, its just that too many people worry that's not what they'll actually be ordered to do...

 

Right now the government is promising to hand out citizenship to undocumented illegal aliens residing in the country if they serve in the military.

Apparently they find that cheaper and easier than increasing pay levels to draw more recruitment.

 

We're in the "hire foreign tribes to protect us" stage of civilizational decline.

 

This is completely not true.

In order to join the military, one has to be a citizen, or hold a green card.

Therefore, it is impossible for them to even attempt to recruit illegal aliens.

 

If we did that, how many people would we need?

 

I dunno, but we would be out of NATO for sure, but right now, with Russia hysteria on eleven, that's far less likely than a draft.

 

Pulling out of NATO would be a massive reduction of our capabilities, and weaken us to a point where would need to ramp up military spending big time (more or less triple the manpower), or give up and pull into our shell like a frightened turtle.

 

That was my point; leaving NATO would be less popular than a draft.

 

Leaving NATO would mean saying good bye to 3.5M allied troops, which we would need to replace with a draft, so one thing would lead to the other.

 

It's the other way around. We need a large military to make good on our commitments. At the end of the cold war, we had a decade long draw down of the US military. But...we didn't reduce any of our military commitments. In fact with the rise of China, we arguably have more of a commitment than we did in 1991. But the military? It never recovered from the drawdown despite the GWOT. We are already reducing our active duty military size simply because we can't meet recruiting goals and can't staff all of the positions we have.

I would prefer no draft and fewer military commitments, but as you've demonstrated, you have no intention of reducing any military commitments so if you have an alternative to a draft to increase the size of our military that might be interesting to read.

 

LOL. No. We are in NATO for us, not for them.

As I explained, divorcing us from 3.5 million allied troops and all their equipment would force us to replace that with something else, and that would mean massive spending and possibly a draft. China and Russia would LOVE to see us separated from our allies, and they would also love to see Europe and Canada stand by themselves. It would be a VERY costly mistake.

Besides, the whole idea that we need either a draft or leave NATO is absurd.

 

So your argument is that we didn't need the large military that we needed during the Cold War because of NATO, and now that we are restarting the cold war, because of NATO we can keep it small.

OK, that's a theory.

 

Don't invent arguments and then ask it that is my view. Its lame.

Allied troops with NATO = 3.9M
US Troops without NATO = 1.4M

Which is a better deterrence against Russia / China?

 

That's nonsensical. NATO won't be going to war with China, so any conflict with China will not invite them. And if we weren't in NATO now, we wouldn't even be thinking about Russia.

Your entire point is what? That we should keep or expand our military commitments because we can afford to have a smaller military? You say not to "invent arguments" for you but since you won't tell me you strategy, I'm having to fill in the gaps through inference. If you actually want to explain your point, please do.

 

We are in NATO because we were obsessed with Russia.

I explained the point several times already: If we were to leave NATO, we would have to spend much more in our own military.

 

I agree with that. I don’t really question the size of the Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard. But I do question the size of the Army, and I suspect that the Army could be smaller without sacrificing our national security.

 

I thought that was always a thing tho. I been hearing stories about immigrants serving to become citizens as far back as WW2.

 

That may be true, but if you're familiar with history, immigration to the U.S. was almost entirely shut down by a series of laws and presidential directives between 1924 and 1930.

(The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 also called Blease's Law, "At the beginning of the Great Depression in 1930, President Herbert Hoover issued instructions banning immigrants 'likely to become a public charge.'" )

And WW2 was a much bigger and "full out" war than any conflict happening now. The U.S. viewed it as an emergency and was mobilizing the entire country to fight. I don't see how you can compare that situation to anything now.

 

OK it's clear you can't deal with the topic. Too much cognitive dissonance.

 

Well the Army is going to have to be smaller because recruiting goals are not being met. But I doubt it could meet our current commitments. Could we still pull off the two war strategy?

 

Sorry kiddo, but I'm not the one who can't comprehend simple language. Go play with someone else.

 

Legal immigrants can serve, so that could be used as an incentive. Illegal immigrants, however, cannot serve.

Are you sure about that? That COULD be used as an incentive. That would make them earn it, but I think the application process should start in the home country.

 

Why would we be using more ground troops to defend?