Congress takes its first step toward killing the military draft

[jpak]

Source: Military Times

The military draft may be headed for the scrap heap.

The House Armed Services Committee will include instructions to examine the Selective Service program's viability and possible “alternatives” as part of its review of the annual defense authorization bill next week, staffers confirmed on Friday.

The move comes following months of hand-wringing over whether women will be forced to register for the draft as part of the military's plans to open combat jobs to all troops regardless of gender.

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers — several of whom sit on the committee — has already offered legislation to abolish the Selective Service System, calling it an outdated vestige of military history.

<more>

Read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/24/ndaa-hasc-selective-service-draft/83400482/

[Silver_Witch]

1. That would be wonderful!

No draft potential would warm this old woman's heart!

[nichomachus]

77. No it wouldn't

We need a universal draft -- no exemptions, no deferments.

That would shut down the war machine in an afternoon. When Biff and Buffy are facing combat service, there will be no more appetite for war.

If there is a chance that Chelsea Clinton will be slogging along in Syria -- you just watch warmonger Hillary find another way to solve conflicts.

[TeddyR]

78. I'd like to see mandatory military service

For a 3 year period starting around age 18 or when you graduate college.

[happyslug]

90. We do NOT need that many troops at the present time.

I would prefer military training in High School. People graduating from High School should know how to do basic first aid and land navigation. They should know how to move as a group in formation. They should know how to dig a trench, and the importance of building it correctly (right down to having a grenade sump). They should learn how to do "Combat engineering" including filling sand bags. They should learned about fire and movement, even if never firing a weapon. They should see a tank and a mechanized combat vehicle in action and learn about their strengths and weaknesses (i.e a tank is design to protect infantry, but the infantry accompanying the tank are to protect the tank). They should be given the chance to actually fire a Cannon and/or Mortar, as while as learn how to operate and clean a M-16, and any other weapon used at the company level (Machine Guns, Pistols, anti-tank weapons etc). I would want them to fire an M-16 and the other weapons, but that is of the least importance to me.

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers mentioned having three forms of Military, regular forces, an volunteer militia and the regular militia. He would train the regular forces all the time when not in actual combat, the Volunteer militia would be like the National Guard today, training every month ready for service but otherwise holding civilian jobs, and the regular Militia, which still the classification for all makes between the Age of 18 and 45 NOT in the regular forces or National Guard (These forces are called the "Reserved Militia today by Federal Law).

Mao tse Tung wrote about a similar three way classification of troops, the Regular forces, the Provincial militia and the Local Militia, roughly the same as the US Regular Forces, National Guard (including the US Army Reserves), and the "Reserve Militia". Mao wanted the local militia to be called up as needed, mostly when the Regular Forces and Provincial Militia (US National Guard) were out of the area do other activities. That is also how Alexander Hamilton saw the three types of forces working together.

Today, we do NOT need everyone in the Military today, on the other hand we should have people with enough training to organize themselves to face a disaster if and when such a disaster, including a military invasion, occurs. Thus I advocate Military training in High School and more about working together then actually fighting. Thus my concentration on First Aid Training, doing field work with simple tools (i.e. digging a trench with a small entrenching tool) and doing other similar combat engineering activities (including moving people as a large group which is more difficult then many people think). Such training should include getting people thinking about HOW to feed people working as a group, how to treat water for a group and other field activities that is done in combat and disaster situations.

A one to two hour class during the School Day, could teach these activities. One to two weeks over the summer vacation can see the students putting their training into some sort of use. Upon Graduation the students then could decide to join the Military or get on with their lives. Out of the training they should be issued little things, like a entrenching tool and web gear. Armor is to expensive, so are weapons and should only be issued when needed. On the other hand First Aid Kits, should be issued to each high school students after being taught how to use it in an emergency.

I would be tempted to issue a knife to each student, but the knife I liked the best is the AK-47 Bayonet. The American M-7 Bayonet (Vietnam War issue) is just a knife, not a wire cutter that AK-47 Bayonet is capable of doing. The American bayonet of today, the M-9 is just to big, it was an effort to undo the Russians and their AK-47 Bayonet but someone saw to many Rambo movies and you ended up with something to big for general use in the field. The US Navy Seals use a variation of the AK-47 bayonet (less the wire cutting capacity) for it is just the right size for most uses (Smaller knives are just to small for heavy work, and larger knives, while capable of heavy work, are just to large for any delicate work). Given a variation of the AK-47 bayonet is NOT issued to the US Forces, and the M-9 is to expensive and to large, you better off NOT giving any to these students (They should be shown the different bayonets and also shown how they can be used, not only in combat but general use, the later being more important then combat use).

The whole purpose of such training is to expose people of the life of an Infantryman in combat AND to working as a team when facing disaster. Thus one day the students are cooking food, the next day disposing of the waste from such food. One day they should being digging a trench, the next day filling it in. In disasters you end up doing a lot of that. They should learn how to work around fallen electrical lines and now to mark them as "Live" to keep people away AND to direct other to repair them. They should do some fire control training and some riot control training, to see what should be done in both situations.

Operating a tank or other mechanized weapon is unimportant, that can be left up to people to join the regular forces or the National Guard. The same for heavy weapons, including machine guns and mortars. They should see them in operation but that is all (and work with them at least one day during their four years of High School, it is quite impressive to see a column of tanks move around you in combat). They should see an actual artillery barrage, which is a straight line of fire, not the blasts all over the landscape you see in movies. Some of these things will require movement of inner city youths to the countryside for such training, but one to two weeks is enough to get them acquitted with such equipment (through no where near the training to actual work with them).

The whole purpose of such training is to prepare the students to work as a team with limited equipment to solve any disaster they may face, as individuals or as a team. Combat should be the main disaster planned for, more do to it being something that encompasses most of the problems you will see in other types of disasters then the prospects of actual Combat. That is the training the "Reserve Militia" needs today, not actual training in the US military for actual combat.

[olddad56]

94. how about some sort of government service right out of high school...

and college tuition or trade school upon successful completion. There are plenty of government jobs that reduced by a program such as this. makes too much sense, never mind.

[TeddyR]

100. Yeah

That would be awesome. Really just any sort of civil service.

[Silver_Witch]

109. The rich will never serve...

...never that is for the poor and the "others".

[notadmblnd]

101. I sat on the local draft board for several years and I'll tell you what their plan

will be. Make it mandatory for every young person to serve in the military as they do in other countries. See- no draft.

[Silver_Witch]

108. I hope you are wrong...

....sadly though I think you are probably right.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Odd, that when Republicans face the idea that women should be considered equal in all things,

they decide that they might abolish the selective service act.

LOL

[kentauros]

42. That was my take from it, too.

Not that the draft may be abolished, but the reason they want to do that.

"Omygod! Women might be fighting, and showering, and using the head, and using guns, with the men! We can't allow that!"

[Bodych]

3. LACK of a draft has always been an advantage...

...to those benefiting from endless wars.

And they know it.

[PFunk1]

5. I was about to say that.

The lack of a draft (for some strange reason) makes endless wars MORE likely, not less. Plus we already have a "economic" military draft right now as money in these trying economic times (especially in ethnic neighborhoods) are the reason why many join up. And this is the reason why I'm not exactly happy about the draft's end which normally I would be.

[ewagner]

6. I agree

It's only when ALL have to serve that the necessity of war is questioned.

The "all-volutneer" force relieves the general public from the horrors that having husbands, sons, (and now daughters) in harm's way that makes us more introspective about who and when and where we commit "boots on the ground".

Not sure I like this...

[iandhr]

11. That's Charlie Rangel's argument.

He says if there was a draft politicians might be more careful about wars.

In terms of demographics though the entice breakdown of the armed forces is pretty similar to
the US as a whole.

[still_one]

18. It didn't help during the Viet Nam War. Those who had influence still were able to get out, while

others were not

[iandhr]

21. Back then a much higher percentage of the population served.

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The public is very quick to support war. It might be different if person fighting could be there own kid


The fact there was a draft was one of the factors ended Vietnam.

[still_one]

25. Somewhat, but the fact that they actually televised the war without blinking, and reported the

casualty figures every week as part of the news without fail, was a much bigger reason. Also, reporting was not sanitized as they did subsequently in the Iraq wars. Seeing the body bags brought the war home.

Sure, those who lost their own kids were much more affected, but it was the coverage that affected everyone else, especially after the Tet offensive, which I believe was the turning point of the war, and changed the sentiment. It brought the brutality, and horror of that war to every home. The Life magazine pictures said it all

[iandhr]

35. Good point.

There were multiple factors will edit my post to reflect.

[still_one]

39. We are just having a discussion, but I agree, multiple factor involved

[iandhr]

40. Indeed.

These types of things are always complex.

[lastlib]

36. We had real journalists then.....

Cronkite, Rather, Brinkley, Helen Thomas

Today, we have Toad and the other paid flunkies for the 1%.

[still_one]

41. ++++++++++++++++++++

[atreides1]

54. The system is different, now!

Much different then it was during Vietnam!

Exemptions are done differently, and the boards are more diverse...made up of people from different walks of life! White collar, blue collar, in some cases no collar!

I was on a local board in Tucson, and I've been selected to serve on a local board, in the area where I currently reside!

[still_one]

55. That may be, and even though registration is required, technically there is no draft. However,

I have no doubt that if ever they would re institute it, the privileged would still get their special exemptions

[happyslug]

73. But during Vietnam, the majority of Americans supported the war till mid 1968.

That was the key to the success of the draft till 1968, the majority of Americans supported the war in Vietnam. Once that supported ended in mid 1968, the quality of US forces in Vietnam went down hill rapidly. A similar situation occurred between the Second Punic War and the Third Punic war when it came to the Roman Republic. The Majority of Romans clearly supported the First and Second Wars against Carthage, but opposed the third. The reason was in the First and Second Punic Wars, the Roman People saw Carthage as a force ATTACKING Rome and its allies. In the Third Punic War, it was clearly a war against Carthage as opposed to a defensive war against Carthage. The Roman troops were difficult to raise for the Third Punic War, and when they fought it was without the will that their Grandfathers had present against Hannibal.

The same lost of will occurred in the US Army after 1968, will most American opposing the War, so did the enlisted ranks in the Army. In the Army you had to be careful for opposition against the War could be viewed as violating the Rules of Discipline, so you had enlisted ranks saying they supported the war, but in their actions you saw they did not. This lead to the US agreeing to the Peace Treaty of 1972, for the US Army was in rapid decline by 1972, thus Kissinger had to agree to the terms the North Vietnamese had been demanding since 1968. Nixon would claim the Christmas Bombing of 1972 forced the Vietnamese to give in to US demands, but those demands had been agreed to since 1968.

The same thing occurred in Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Communist nations of Eastern Europe could not rely on their enlisted ranks in the Army to suppress the movement of the people to end those governments. Thus all, but Romania, saw a peaceful end to their Communist Rulers. Romania was the exception, the Government of Romania tried to use their Police Force to maintain power, but the Army moved against them for the enlisted ranks wanted to. Thus the Romania Army ended the Communist rule in Romania.

Under Communist dogma, a universal service army was to be an army of the people and thus preferred to any "Volunteer Army" which always responded to their pay masters not the people. Thus the Army always had to be one with the people for the enlisted ranks in the Army were the same as the people.

The US moved to a "Volunteer Army" in 1972, for the US wanted an army responsive to the Government NOT the people. A "Volunteer Army" does that for most people Volunteer for they have few other options, and thus loyal to their pay. This is what the US wanted in 1972 and Rome wanted after the Third Punic War (Thus the Roman Army slowly converted to a mercenary army with complete conversion occurring about 109 BC). That Mercenary Army lead to replacement of the Roman Republic by the Roman Empire starting in 80 BC when Sulla used his Domestic Tercentenary Troops to take over Rome, something followed in 45 BC by Julius Caesar and then his nephew Augustus Caesar. Dictators have always liked Mercenary Armies, for they are loyal to their pay masters as opposed to being loyal to the people or even their own Country.

Yes, people with connections often get out of actually serving in the Army, but that is true of Volunteer armies as while as Draftee Armies. With Draftee Armies, that exemption can be discovered and exploited to political purposes later on. Thus in WWI and WWII you saw very little of that type of favoritism going on (It did occur, but most people with connection served in some capacity). You did see it in the days of Vietnam, but it was discovered and reported and Congress did make efforts to end it. One of the reasons you saw the elite enlisting in WWI and WWII was their Grandfathers told them of the hardship they occurred AFTER the war, but NOT serving in the Civil War. Their told their Grandchildren to expect the same unless they serve, and thus most children of the elite served in both conflicts. This tradition continued till Vietnam, and only seems to have died out as opposition to the war increased.

No system of raising troops is perfect, some people will get out of service, when other will have to serve. The best way to end such favoritism is to report it as it occurred, which is what happened from 1941 till 1972. It succeeded in many ways, and failed in many ways, but today with out "Volunteer Army" the elite are NOT servicing except in position which they can later use to their advantage (.i.e. Officers positions).

[bluestateguy]

26. Rangel is a fool. No they won't.

It was a stupid political stunt of his 12 years ago, and everybody could see right through it.

The well to do, would still find ways to game the system, avoid service or at least avoid the war zone.

All a draft does is enlarge the military establishment and provide more warm bodies for the warmakers to use.

[Odin2005]

37. IMO a draft is necessary for a free republic.

The switch from conscript army to a professional one is one of the things that brought down the Roman Republic.

[ButterflyBlood]

53. There's A LOT of countries at risk then

None of the blue countries currently have conscription.



I think Canada, Australia and almost all of Europe are doing better in being free than Putin's Russia.

[snot]

7. Yup.

[blackspade]

9. +1

[NYC Liberal]

56. Nope. The draft just enables the poor to be used up as cannon fodder

The rich and powerful will ALWAYS have exemptions. Always.

The draft is awful and should have been done away with a long time ago. M

[RoccoR5955]

68. Like the poor are not being used as cannon fodder now?

Please give me a break. Someone living in a poor area, with no hope for a job will ALWAYS volunteer for the military.
They do now.

[DURHAM D]

4. Oh great...

I see that once again women will be used as a wedge issue.

[blackspade]

8. This further separates the realities and consequences...

Of military adventurism from the consciousness of the public.
The whole concept of a 'volunteer' military undermines the sense of collective sacrifice and responsibility during times of conflict.

[OregonBlue]

10. This is a bad thing. We don't want a professional military. It's very, very, dangerous.

[former9thward]

24. We do want a professional military.

Maybe you want some bumbling inefficient military organization but most want the opposite.

[OregonBlue]

45. That was not what I meant. I do not want a military that is made up of hired soldiers.

Citizen militaries, that are made up of people from all walks of life from all over the country, would seem to be much more responsive to the nation they serve than those that join for the sole purpose of making a career of war. They become nothing more than soldiers of fortune. Given the current "Christian Soldier" fervor in the Air Force for example, this can be very dangerous.

[EX500rider]

75. But the only way to have a professional force is one that volunteered and wants to be there.

Drafting somebody who doesn't want to be there doesn't result in a highly trained professional force. Instead you have a bunch of guys who just want out and don't give a crap.

[FuzzyRabbit]

80. Not necessarily

Soldiers drafted during WW2 did a tremendous job. There will always be a few screwups when you are talking about 18 and 19 year old kids, but for the most part they do a good job.

Even during the Vietnam war our draftees performed really well. Our nation's leadership failed them, by putting them in an unwinnable situation, like in Vietnam and Iraq.

[EX500rider]

82. Neither force was any where near the professionalism our current troops show.

[happyslug]

91. Actually, the Army that went into Vietnam was probably the best army the US ever fielded.

From 1964 to 1968 the US army did a tremendous job in Vietnam. You did not have the Air Cargo Capacity you have today, you did not even have the port facilities you have today (and what port existed in Vietnam were all poor till 1968). Thus in the first years of Vietnam the US ended up using infantry, for we could send SOME tanks and Armored Vehicles, but no where near want we can today. The 101st Airborne, a Helicopter unit in Vietnam, took six to nine months to move to Vietnam when ordered to do so in 1965. The limits was NOT the soldiers but getting the parts for the Helicopters into Vietnam.

AS any Universal Service Army does, when the people from where they are called from come to oppose a war, so do the enlisted ranks. Thus from 1968 onward, the US Army deteriorated rapidly as support for the war in the US declined. With that support for the war went the support for the war of the enlisted ranks. Thus the US Army after 1968 had a poor reputation in Vietnam (the North Vietnamese after 1968 even issued orders to their troops NOT to engage US forces unless the US forces attack first. The reason for this is many US forces, after 1968 when ordered into the field, went and then sacked out till it was time to return to their base. Some units stayed aggressive, but as a whole the US army was in rapid decline from 1968 onward.

On the other hand, the pre 1968 US Army in Vietnam, the Army that the Viet Cong attacked during the Tet Offensive, was the best army the US has ever fielded. Most Armies taking what the Viet Cong did in February 1968, would have broke. The US has NEVER faced such a massive attack since Tet. The US has launched massive attacks, but not faced any. In many ways an army is best judge what it does when things are against it, not when things are for it, i.e. best judge by what it does on the defensive as oppose to the offensive. No US army has faced what the Viet Cong did to the US Army doing the Tet Offensive. That the US army decline afterwards does not belittle what it did in Tet.

Even today, most US soldiers only serve one term of enlistment, the same as what draftees did during Vietnam. The reenlistment rate for volunteers and draftees during Vietnam was about the same (yes a lot of Draftees reenlisted after the end of their draftee service). You still had a large number of WWII and Korean Wars Vets in the Senior positions in Vietnam, that included not only officers but senior enlisted ranks such a First Sergeants and Sergeant Majors. The level of training was high by Vietnam, and given the draft a higher number of people that scored higher on the Army Battery test were in the ranks (thus less training was needed for the troops tend to be easier to learn what they needed to learn).

Equipment wise, today's army is better. Technology has advanced so that we are seeing less deaths in combat. Our forces today do NOT march into combat (Something the troops in Vietnam had to do, given the limitation on the importation of equipment do to the poor port facilities in South Vietnam prior to 1968). On the other hand, the troops in Vietnam tended to be smarter then the troops today (as determined by the Army battery tests) and given the limitation of the equipment, as well if not better trained then the Army of today.

Please note, all armies decline in effectiveness as their enter combat. Combat tends to reduce training time. The decision made during Vietnam, to continue the practice started during WWII, to ship replacements into existing units as oppose to whole units was continued, and like in WWII and Korea quickly shown how bad a decision that was (Such replacements on the line looked good on paper, Units were kept up to unit strengths by sending in replacements, but such replacements had no time to integrate with the rest of the unit, to act as a member of a trained team and for those reasons such units ability to work as a unit, as oppose to a collections of individuals, decline once a unit was in Vietnam. This became worse after 1968, as opposition to the war increased in the enlisted ranks).

You saw a similar decline in US Units in Iraq and Afghanistan, but by the 1990s the US Army no longer was engaged in replacements on the line, the decision had been made to replace whole units not individuals. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan was neither war ever had the support of more then 50% of the American People (unlike Vietnam where the majority of American did support till mid 1968). Thus turning to the draft was seen as unacceptable to Congress, thus the level of Troops permitted to enlist declined after 2002 for that was the only way to keep enlistments numbers up. Efforts were made to hide and work around that drop in the quality of enlistees (one work around was to get people to have local DAs drop charges against someone who wanted to enlist, something that did NOT happen during Vietnam or prior to about 2002). Since the withdraw from Iraq, quality of US enlistees have return to what they were in 2002 and most of the lower quality enlistees have left the service, mostly do to the end of their enlistment period. Unlike 1964 to 1968, where the quality of US Troops stayed about the same (and then went into a steep decline), from 2002 to 2008 you saw a steady decline in the average enlistee. To keep up the quality more and more foreign born people were permitted to enlist (and homosexuals were kept in even after saying they were gay). All of this was to increase the overall quality of US enlisted ranks, as that quality declined.

if there had been more support for both wars among the American People (something close to 50%), Congress would have adopted the draft, but Congress, given the lack of support for either war among the American People, saw such an adoption as political suicide for it would have lead to them losing office come the next election. Thus the Draft was talked about but never passed and as in Vietnam, as it appears the Army was going into even further decline, the decision was made to pull out of Iraq but remain in Afghanistan, for that war had greater support among the American people (and the War in Afghanistan was treated as a sideshow, a refusal to increase actual Combat Troops, for fears that sending such troops would lead to further decline in the US Army). Bombing and drones were approved for Afghanistan but also a slow draw down of troops to give the US Army time to return its troops to the quality those troops had in 2002.

Sorry, we had problems with the US Army during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, do to the concept of replacement on the line. On the other hand, the troops in those units were some of the best trained the US ever fielded as while as the best educated and highest intelligence then any other US Army. The troops today tended to NOT score as high on the Army Battery tests, but are trained as a member of a unit, a unit that will stay together if ever sent into actual combat. Thus the troops today can better act as a term then the units in Vietnam (mostly because they have been trained as team as opposed to trained as individuals and then sent to units as replacements as was the practice in Vietnam). The later change makes the troops today better troops when taken as a whole then the troops that fought Vietnam, but NOT better troops then the troops that made up the Army units that entered Vietnam before such units had seen to may replacements. The later was the best troops the US ever had. They started to decline by 1966, as all units in combat decline. It became worse in 1967 as more and more units had seen 100% replacement of personnel do to replacement in line. And went into rapid decline in 1968 as the people back home came to oppose the war.

Thus a simple statement that the Army of Today is the best trained army, is not quite true. That should be reserved to the Army that went to Vietnam (but NOT the Army that stayed and then left Vietnam).

[notadmblnd]

103. this kind of professionalism?

or this?

http://warisacrime.org/node/10502

[EX500rider]

104. Please, they made necklaces out of ears and ash trays out of skulls in earlier wars.

[notadmblnd]

105. well, I guess that makes the torture that occurred at Abu Grahab by todays professional soldiers ok.

Do you really think I showed you the worst of what occurred? Go to the link. I'm certain today's professional soldiers have their souvenirs.

I can't believe that you're ok with this. WTF?

[EX500rider]

106. I didn't say I was OK with anything.

But the fact remains US troops are more deadly in combat then they have ever been and have been trained up to what was commando training during earlier wars.

[notadmblnd]

107. You certainly minimized it and dismised it with your comment.

[OregonBlue]

98. No. I want a competant military. I want troops who are well trained and well supported

and especially well commanded. I don't want them to be professional soldiers. That makes them nothing more than mercenaries who will go anywhere and kill anyone. Once we have crossed that line, there is the danger that they might also be willing to fight against us.

[former9thward]

99. Draftees are not well trained and never will be.

Draftees leave after their term and take any skills and knowledge learned with them. They dona't want to be there and resist learning or becoming "professional".

[RoccoR5955]

12. Bring it back, and REQUIRE ALL 18 year olds to serve.

That would put an end to all these wars!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. It didn't work fifty years ago; it won't work now.

Our two most-likely candidates would not hesitate to go to war.

[RoccoR5955]

17. Oh?

50 years ago, the war was stopped because people were getting drafted.
If they decide to go to war, and there IS a mandatory draft, than there will be an outcry from the public like never before seen. Such was the case during the era of the Viet Nam war.

[former9thward]

27. Re-writing history.

When the draft shifted to a lottery in December, 1969 the number of people being drafted got much smaller. War protests also got smaller and fewer. By the time the war ended no draftees were being sent to Vietnam. The war did not end because of the draft. The war ended because the American people and Congress lost their patience with it and the support vanished.

[RoccoR5955]

29. Things take time

Especially in DC, which is why it took time for the war to end. The draft had a large factor in the demonstrations. I was there, okay?
Please don't try to rewrite history, I lived it!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. Many of us lived that history.

This bozo was drafted May '66. The war still continued for some years after that. I don't see how the draft ended the war. It would have been nice if that were so.

[RoccoR5955]

31. Like I said, things take time, especially in DC.

It took time for those protests against the draft, and the war to get to the legislators.
Sheesh!

[former9thward]

58. So did I.

[tabasco]

33. Your intentional misstatements on this board have become tiresome.

1. War protests did not decrease after the start of the lottery system.

As anti-Vietnam War protests increased remarkably in the United States during the late 1960s, the draft apparently became a target of many criticism. In 1964, many students burnt their draft cards. In the early 1970s, draft resistance reached its peak. In 1972, the number of induction-refusal legal cases tremendously increased to 200,600.

http://thevietnamwar.info/vietnam-war-draft/

1969 - The whole year major campus protests take place across the country.
January 19–20. Protests against Richard Nixon's inauguration.
April 5–6. Antiwar demonstrations and parades in several cities, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and others.
March 29. Conspiracy charges against eight suspected organizers of the Chicago Convention protests.
June. At the Brown University commencement, two-thirds of the graduating class turned their backs when Henry Kissinger stood up to address them.[6]
June 8. The Old Main building at SIU burns to the ground. Units of firefighters from all over the area tried to salvage the building but could not put out the fire before everything was destroyed.[23]
June. Chicago. SDS national convention. The SDS disintegrates into SDS-WSA and SDS. The Worker Student Alliance of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) has the majority of delegates (900) on its side. The smaller Revolutionary Youth Movement fraction (500) divide into RYM-I/Weatherman, who retained control of the SDS National Office, and maoist RYM-II. This fraction will further divide into the various groups of New Communist Movement.
July 4–5. Cleveland: national antiwar conference established National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam.
October 8–11. Weatherman's disastrous Days of Rage in Chicago. Only 300 militants show up, not the expected 10,000. 287 will be arrested.
October 15. National Moratorium against the War demonstrations. Huge crowds in Washington and in Boston (100,000). Anti-war Senator George McGovern gave a speech to the large crowd in Boston.[24]
November 15. The Mobe's Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam mobilizes 500,000. March against Death, Washington, D.C. .
November 15. San Francisco.[clarification needed]
November 26. Draft-lottery bill signed.
December 1. The Selective Service System of the United States conducted two lotteries

1970
February, March. Wave of bombings across the USA.
March. Antidraft protests across the USA.
March 14. Two American merchant marine sailors named Clyde McKay and Alvin Glatkowski seized the SS Columbia Eagle and forced the master to sail in to Cambodia as opposed to Thailand, where it was on its way to deliver napalm bombs to be used by the US Air Force in Vietnam.[25]
April. New Mobe, Moratorium and SMC protests across the country.
April 4. A right-wing Victory March. organized by Reverend Carl McIntire calls for victory in the Vietnam War. 50,000 attend.
April 19: Moratorium announces disbanding.
May 2: violent anti-war rallies at many universities.
Kent State University, Ohio, May 4: Kent State Shootings: U.S. National Guard kill four young people during a demonstration. As a result, four million students go on strike at more than 450 universities and colleges.
May 8, New York. Hard Hat Riot: after a student anti-war demonstration, workers attack them and riot for two hours.
May 8. Jim Cairns, a member of the Australian parliament, led over 100,000 people in a demonstration in Melbourne.[24]
May 9. Mobe sponsored Kent State/Cambodia Incursion Protest, Washington, D.C. 75 to 100,000 demonstrators converged on Washington, D.C. to protest the Kent State shootings and the Nixon administration's incursion into Cambodia. Even though the demonstration was quickly put together, protesters were still able to bring out thousands to march in the Capital. It was an almost spontaneous response to the events of the previous week. Police ringed the White House with buses to block the demonstrators from getting too close to the executive mansion. Early in the morning before the march, Nixon met with protesters briefly at the Lincoln Memorial.
May 14, Jackson State College. Jackson State killings: Two dead and twelve injured during violent protests.
May 20, New York. An estimated 60,000 to 150,000 are at a pro-war demonstration on Wall Street.
June. At commencement for the University of Massachusetts, students stenciled red fists of protests, white peace symbols, and blue doves onto their black gowns.[6]
University of Wisconsin-Madison, August 24. Sterling Hall bombing: aimed at the Army Math Research Center on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors of the building, in missing its target, a Ford van packed with explosives hit the physics laboratory on the first floor and killed young researcher Robert Fassnacht and seriously injured another person.
August 29, Chicano Moratorium. 20-30,000 Mexican-Americans participated in the largest antiwar demonstration in Los Angeles. Police are attacked with clubs and guns and kill three people, including Rubén Salazar, a TV news director and LA Times reporter.[26]
1971
March 1. Weatherman plants a bomb in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing $300,000 in damage, but no casualties.[citation needed]
April. The Vancouver Indo-Chinese Women's Conference (VICWC), a six-day protest, gathers close to a thousand women
April 19–23. Vietnam Veterans against the War (VVAW) stages operation Dewey Canyon III. 1,000 camping on the National Mall.[27]
April 22–28. Veterans Against the War (and John Kerry) testify before various congressional panels.[citation needed]
April 24. Peaceful Vietnam War Out Now rally on the National Mall, Washington, D.C., with 200,000 calling for an end to the Vietnam War, 156,000 participate in the largest demonstration so far on the West Coast, in San Francisco.[27]
April 26. More militant attempts in Washington, D. C. to shut down the government are futile against 5,000 police and 12,000 troops.[citation needed]
May 3–5, May Day Protests. Planned by Rennie Davis and Jerry Coffin of the War Resisters League, later joined by Michael Lerner; militant mass-action tries to shut down the government in Washington, D.C. 12,614 arrested, a record in American history.[citation needed]
August. A group of nuns, priests, and laypeople raid a draft board in Camden, New Jersey. They came to be known as the Camden 28.[citation needed]
December. VVAW protests across the USA.[citation needed]
1972
April 15–20. May. New waves of protests across the country.[citation needed]
April 17. Militant anti-ROTC demonstration at the University of Maryland. 800 National Guardsmen are ordered onto the campus.[citation needed]
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, May 11. Headquarters of the V Corps at the IG Farben Building: The Commando Petra Schelm of the Rote Armee Fraktion killed U.S. Officer Paul Bloomquist and wounded thirteen in a bombing-attack.[citation needed]
May 21. Emergency March on Washington, D.C., organized by the National Peace Action Coalition and the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. 8 to 15,000 protest in Washington, D.C. against the increased bombing of North Vietnam and the mining of its harbors.[citation needed]
June 22. Ring around Congress demonstration, Washington, D.C.[citation needed]
In July. Jane Fonda visits North Vietnam and speaks on Hanoi Radio, earning herself the nickname "Hanoi Jane".[citation needed]
August 22. 3,000 protest against the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami Beach. Ron Kovic, a wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran, led fellow veterans into the Convention Hall, wheeled down the aisles, and as Nixon began his acceptance speech shouted, "Stop the bombing! Stop the war!"[6]
November 7. Nixon defeats George McGovern in a landslide election victory.[citation needed]
December. Protests against Hanoi and Haiphong bombings.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Vietnam_War

2. "By the time the war ended no draftees were being sent to Vietnam." I just have to laugh at this statement of the obvious. As units were being redeployed from Southeast Asia back to the states, there was no need for new units or personnel in Vietnam.

[former9thward]

57. Your intentional misstatements on this board have become tiresome.

As a West Coast organizer for SDS during most of those years I know the very last national anti-Vietnam War demonstration took place in November,1969 by the Mobilization. After that demonstrations were much smaller, sporadic and disorganized. The National Student strike in May, 1970 was not organized in any respect and only took place in response to the killings on one campus -- Kent State -- not Vietnam as such. Nice try at re-writing history for those DUers who may not have been alive.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

62. Working from memory....

I apologize for not having tabasco's Wikipedia page for "American history from 1970 to 1972" at hand.

In fact I can't get Wikipedia to open up at all right now. Anyway....

The protests in May 1970 were a reaction to the shootings at Kent State. Those weren't the only shootings around that time. Weren't students shot at Jackson State at the same time?

Wikipedia's back for me. Never mind; that was a few days later: Jackson State killings. Also, they seem not to have been related to the draft or the war, at least not primarily.

(Or maybe they were: Jackson State, May 1970.)

I was included in the second draft lottery. I had a low enough number that I was going to be drafted. I lost my student deferment in June 1972 and enlisted, though not in the Army, by the end of the month. IIRC, Uncle Sam stopped sending draftees into the Army to Vietnam in July 1972.

(When I say "Uncle Sam," that's an example of metonymy.)

I was not a happy camper. Not many draft-induced enlistees were, but I think I set a particularly low standard. I was fortunate enough to end up with a group of bright people. What I learned from them, I put to use. I went back to school on the GI Bill and took the courses that I have should have been taking all along.

If I had not been in the military, I would not have a job today. In the long run, it did work out for me. I see where Charles Rangel is coming from. He makes a valid point.

[former9thward]

72. The are certainly benefits to military service.

But that begs the point. The main purpose of a military is not to provide jobs or benefits to those who leave after serving. It is to provide defense of the country. That is why a volunteer service is best. People want to be there and many of them stay retaining the skills they have learned.

[hack89]

60. We can't afford a military that large

the US military has been steadily downsizing for 20 years - you have to go back to the pre-WWII mobilization to find a military this small.

Subtract all the volunteer enlistees and there are not many jobs for draftees.

[RoccoR5955]

63. We could afford it if we didn't contract out

services that were once carried out by the military. For example food services, laundry and the like are now contracted out for a huge amount more than it would cost if the military did it.

[hack89]

64. So we are going to draft people to cook and wash clothes?

while the volunteers actually fight?

[RoccoR5955]

65. No, draft EVERYONE

and train the cooks and washers to shoot as well. LIKE IT USED TO BE!
No need for volunteers if EVERYONE has to serve at least 2 years, and there would be less profits for the likes of companies like KBR who charge $100 to wash a bag of clothing, and $20 for a bottle of coke.

[hack89]

66. So how big a military shall we have? 5 million? 10 million?

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

remember that not only is our population bigger but we will be drafting women as well. And it has to be fair so no deferments. How much will it cost to arm everyone? Tanks, ships, airplanes, artillery - pretty damned expensive.

How does a massively huge military make us as a country less likely to use it? Wouldn't the smart thing to do is keep the military as small as possible?

But people will volunteer - there will always be career military. Where do you think the Officers and NCOs/Petty Officers that lead all those draftees come from.

[RoccoR5955]

67. You just don't see the history.

Do you want corporations making their wealth by profiteering on our military, so that we can spend less?
We could use a branch of the military to build roads, bridges and needed infrastructure. People could learn medicine while in the military. They could maintain National Parks, trails and the like. People could learn these trades in the military, like they once did, so that they could take their trades to the private sector on their way out of the military.
We could have a peace force that is dedicated to NOT fighting, like the Peace Corps, which could be a substitute for
You just have to learn to think outside of the box.
The military was not always fighting. It used to be about service to the Country, and EVERYONE had to contribute in some way for a couple of years.
So maybe not military service, but EVERYONE should have to do some kind of service to the country for at least two years.
That could be the draft as well.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

69. "We could use a branch of the military to build roads, bridges and needed infrastructure."

That's not the function of the military. Doing those things is a form of national service, but it is not form of military service.

The military was not always fighting. It used to be about service to the Country, and EVERYONE had to contribute in some way for a couple of years.

This is long before my memory.

[RoccoR5955]

70. Well than why not return to it

if it is long before your memory.
My father's military service during WWII was not to fight overseas, but to clean up the forest around West Point. He had very poor eyesight. Heck the CCC, which was a form of service to the country, planted more than 3 million trees.

Think outside the box. Draft people for projects that we need in the Commons. They can probably do it better and for less money than corporations.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

71. "... the CCC, which was a form of service to the country...."

The CCC was the Civilian Conservation Corps. Civilian, not military. I'm not opposed to a current-day CCC - in fact, I'm greatly in favor it - but it shouldn't be a branch of the military. I am not against national service, but serving in the military should be distinct from serving in some civilian fashion.

I don't think we're that far apart.

During the war, mobilization involved such a huge portion of the (male) population. The upper age limit was 35, maybe? I know I can look that up. They took everyone they could. Some otherwise disqualifying physical conditions were overlooked if the person could be put to use doing something remote from the front lines. Your father might not have made an outstanding sniper, but he could still do something.

[RoccoR5955]

86. But still, there should be a draft

for some form of service to the country. Be it military or otherwise. We could save a lot of money that way.

[Xolodno]

93. No Draft. Period.

Many people I looked up to, served in prison for being conscientious objectors...that means, they won't kill someone for nationalism. To get classified as a CO during a draft in war time is damn near impossible.

Those that do get the classification, do perform a national service (i.e. work in civilian hospitals, such as my father did during Vietnam, public lands conservation, etc.).

Drafts have yet to prove they stop wars. You get the right propaganda machine behind it, you can sell ice to Eskimos. And don't give me the "it takes time" argument, what ended the Vietnam War was the Tet offensive, what ended the Korean war was the north receiving "Chinese volunteers" as troops and "Russian volunteers" as pilots and pushing what seemed near victory to stalemate.

It was the perception and realization, that we lost the war and nothing was going to change that.

Plus whats to stop the Military from weeding out the drafts from low income areas vs. the affluent? You can bet your ass they will find a way as they want to make sure any future politician of someone of influence on politicians will have their ear.

Now if you say "National Service" and have people choose between Military vs. Civilian work, you may have something, but even then, no draft. Make it universally mandatory.

[RoccoR5955]

96. So, I guess you want more wars.

When more people are affected, more people speak out against wars. Drafts can help to prevent wars.

[Xolodno]

97. Show me the data where drafts prevent wars...

...oh that's right. There isn't any. And in fact, the data show's the opposite.

It's a simple economics theorem; More troops = More Resources = More wars.

Less Troops = Less Resources = Less Wars.

Your logic is tragically flawed.

If we had a draft, we would have more troops (not to mention even more money being spent on the military vs. infrastructure) and you can bet the farm the brass at the Pentagon would use them. There would be no Iran Deal, instead war in Iran. There would be no North Korean "containment", instead war in North Korea.

The "more people affected" argument hasn't worked and will not work for jack shit. If anything, its you who is advocating for more war and a bigger bloated military budget. And where do you think that money is going to come from? From the social programs that help the poor, so you force even more of them into joining the military.

[marble falls]

14. If one of the alternatives is private armies, contractors, mercinaries who all seem to come with ...

immunity for any misdeeds or mayhem, I'd rather have a draft that would be as surely to put into uniform a Cheney or a Bush or Limpbaugh as it would a Joe or Jane Doe.

[Equinox Moon]

15. I would opt for 1-year military or 1-year social service for all 18-19 year olds.

This would keep the military less bombastic and we would have more youth in social service activities for the USA.

[EX500rider]

76. You can't have a highly trained professional with 1 year terms...

....not enough time to be come expert at what you do, especially if you are unmotivated. (like draftees)

[ToxMarz]

16. So I guess this is the first step to having Halliburton and Blackwater etc

hired for National Security. Should be very lucrative for them

[Igel]

20. How so?

We haven't had a draft since what, the early '70s, at the latest?

Abolishing the draft will change nothing that's currently true, except that when you turn 18 while male you won't have to submit a card that's very quickly out of date.

In the event of an actual need for a draft, it's highly likely that the absence of registration 5 years before will make any difference. If there aren't enough volunteers for the military, it's unlikely private companies would find enough staff with the right citizenship qualifications to handle the need. Even with the registration, the State Department and military contractors don't get automatic Marine guards.

[BlueCollar]

19. slippery slope towards privatization here...n/t

[SoapBox]

23. There ya go...

And the constant threat that the spawn of the rich and powerful being drafted...

It is a deterrent.

[icecreamfan]

22. I hope this fails

It really looks like sexism and political cowardice are behind this effort. There's no doubt the draft would be started up very quickly if it were ever actually needed. Having everyone sign up for selective service is a deterrent against reckless military actions.

[turbinetree]

28. How.....................quaint..............................

During the Vietnam conflict we couldn't vote but we sure could get drafted (up to 1969, 1970, when the voter laws were changed-----------oh boy).

And if you had the means and the ability to claim, lets say, have foot fungus, or S***t in your pants as a an excuse, like some guy on the NRA board, or better, yet, you were in college, and later figuring out how to out a CIA operative, and got some other kind of deferments, or in some cases just breaking the law to get out, you then sent the other smuck to do the job of dying.

Well guess what, in some countries they make it mandatory that you serve at least two years, no if's, and's or but's about it, they draft you and they make serving compulsory for a reason.

So when they decide to send the same, people oh, I don't know like in Iraq, on five or six combat tours, this new piece of hypocrisy, is just hypocrisy, which they are now trying to now consigned the military to be privatize system, without any transparency, and only the same people being sent, so the price goes up for this new kind of mercenary under the disguise of the name "For America", and then we the taxpayers get hit with and have the associated costs, of these "contractors, having I don't know more Blackwaters, bilking the taxpayers, or building showers and people getting electrocuted, something is really wrong with this picture.

With this committee, there was always some kind of transparency ------------------ is wrong...................."if you want to make pain", then "everyone should feel the pain".

"A bipartisan group of House lawmakers — several of whom sit on the committee — has already offered legislation to abolish the Selective Service System, calling it an outdated vestige of military history."

There has been some form of a "draft" since the founding of this country--------------for a reason, it was to keep the privateers out

And now a glimpse of the member:

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.php?cmteid=H04&cmte=HARM&congno=114


So in closing can anyone name how many of the above members have served in the armed forces on this committee-----------------just for giggles, where they drafted, did they volunteer at anytime to serve, and how many of them do it for love of countryand not money, not many, in my opinion?

At least one of them was Brig. General in the Army

I am not a war monger in any sense------------but to perform a defacto privatization, something is really wrong

[Hoyt]

32. In 68 and 69 where I lived, they took just about anyone. I remember some kid in the big line of

potential draftees complaining about his bad knee. Some military doctor (rank of Sadist, I think) came over and stuck his knee for leverage against side of the kid's knee and damn near broke his leg. The kid was screaming, but doc said he was qualified.

Cracked me up to see all the kids standing naked in line trying to make their feet look flat when docs were walking by checking for flat feet.

Anyway, the joke was if they looked up your asshole and didn't see any light, you were good to go.

This short little Captain doc was checking for hernias, he pushed his finger in my groin and did something, I could barely sit up straight for weeks. When I went back I told that little pissant I was going to bust him in the face if he wasn't more careful.

On the other hand, there was another guy begging to join up, but he obviously had some serious mental issues. They wouldn't touch him.

I think the draft should be reserved for national emergencies. Nowadays, lots of troops on the ground are not how wars are fought. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson on that for awhile.

[ButterflyBlood]

51. This doesn't "privatize" things any more than it is now

There is no draft. Just an agency that could in theory be activated to help carry out one....but it won't be. Waste of money and nothing more.

[whereisjustice]

34. Bring back the draft without the exemptions for money and power and peace will break out

[Odin2005]

38. This is how you kill a free republic.

The next step is replacing the volunteer force with mercenaries, which then become warlords fighting over control of the state.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. Canada hasnt had any tyoe of draft since WWII

They seem to be doing fine.

[Xolodno]

95. Russia has mandatory military service....

they must be a utopia! Oh wait....

[mwooldri]

43. Kill it!

Selective Service System is sexist and ageist. I found out to my cost that "the draft" still exists in the USA. It is a waste of money in its present form.

Some other government initiative to foster and encourage civilian service for everyone at all ages would however be welcome.

[secondwind]

44. I believe in the draft. Because the children of the rich and the powerful rarely find themselves

in harm's way, while the poor and those without any choice go off to fight .....

[MillennialDem]

92. Fuck it, send the rich and powerful. Not their kids.

[Hotler]

46. The draft should be reinstated with no deferments except for disabilities and...

there needs to be a war tax on all income and capital gains and inheritance. Let the whining begin.

[zwyziec]

47. And lead to a mercenary, under no control, paramilitary force that will work for the highest bidder.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. Is that what dominates Canada now?

They've had no draft since WWII. The Republic of Ireland never has since independence.

Hell the US doesn't even have a draft now either. Just a pointless money wasting agency that won't ever be activated.

[hack89]

61. No - you have a volunteer military like we have had for 40 years. nt

[nichomachus]

79. We have a volunteer military in name only

What we have is an economic draft. Many people join the military because they have no other options to make money. The obligation to serve disproportionately falls on the economically less well off.

[hack89]

81. That actually is not true

as the military has been downsizing it has become hard to get in. High school drop outs, people with drug offenses, even people with too many tattoos need not apply.

The demographics of the military is solidly middle class high school graduates.

[happyslug]

84. Only if you define Middle Class to include the Working Class.

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

When the option of Working Class is among the list of class options, about half of the people who call themselves "Middle Class" when "Working Class" is not an option opt for "Working Class". Thus about 10% of the population call themselves "poor", about 10% call themselves "Rich" with the remaining 80% divided between "Working Class" and "Middle Class" (about 40% each).

Most recruits come from people who will call themselves "Working Class" when that is an option. Most people who are "Working Class" have been high school graduates since before WWII, thus having a "High School" Diploma is almost universal nowadays.

As to the actual term "Middle Class" I have had people in my office who called themselves "Middle Class" while on welfare, that is how BAD that term has become since the end of WWII. The term "Middle Class" is almost worthless unless "Working Class" is given as an option. The Military, except for Officers, tend to be "Working Class" not "Middle Class" for the later often have better options for employment then going into the Military.

[hack89]

87. All I have to go on is 20 years of personal experience as Naval officer

Your experience may have been different.

[happyslug]

89. I and my family were enlisted ranks, and at that level it is mostly working class

One observer once made a comment that class in the USA is one of the most rigid class systems in the world. The chief reason for that rigidly is a refusal of most Americans to even accept that class divisons even exists in the USA. All Officers, just by their income are members of the upper middle class. That is NOT true of the enlisted ranks. Most enlisted personal do not have the education to even seek an Officer rank, and those that on paper do, finds out the lack the correct education prevents them

For example most high schools that cater to working class youths, end up depending on multiple choice tests or true false tests as oppose to written tests. The main reason is their teachers have to many students to grade written tests. Officers tend to be from schools were written tests are more common, thus they are prepared to do written reports while most enlistees, when they enlist, are not. By the time an enlisted rank has learned to do written reports, he or she is generally to old to obtain a commission.

I bring up thst difference for it is one of the difference caused by class. Upper middle class people tend to send their children to schools which are known to have better quality education, while most working-class children end up in larger class where the push is to pass whatever is the standard test in favor in that school. The enlisted ranks are NOT dumb, and the education they obtain tends to make able to function while in society. As I pointed out above most have a high school education, but the nature of that education is different then most people from the upper middle class. It is just the difference in schools and that is often the result of who they parents are.

This difference in grade school and high school education is the leading cause of the difference in class between working class people and middle class people (often referred to as "upper middle class&quot . It exists but is ignored.

Please note I ignored the poor and the rich, for in most cases they tend to be politically irrelevant. Neither group has the population to elect anyone, through the rich can provide the money for the middle class and working class to fight with. The poor can not even do that, but can be purchased to put down any working class revolt (a situation even Marx acknowledged as he dismissed the poor as politically irrelevant but dangerous to any revolution for they can be bought cheaply).

It is the middle 80% that fight over who will rule a country. In most times they work well together, it is only as both are squeezed by the rich getting rich that any fight between them occurs ( as Marx observed, it is when the "petit bourgeois" are forced into the working class that revolutions occur, I.e. When the split of the middle 80% is no longer 50-50, but more 70-30 is when you have a revolution).

You always have exceptions to any rule, but today most officers tend to Republicans while more enlisted tend to be Democratic another sign of the class division between the two groups.

[gladium et scutum]

85. That has the way it has been since

the ancient world. Casca Longinus did not join a Roman Legion because he was bored with the life of being idle rich. He joined because the Emperor would put a gladius in one hand and money in the other The Hessians didn't serve in George III's army for lack of anything else to do, they were paid to. In our countries history, probably the only time there were large numbers of men willing to serve without economic motivation was the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI and WWII. The rest of the time, they served because the were paid to. To earn a living is a necessity. People don't go into those ready made tombs in West Virginia because they have time on there hands and nothing else to do. They risk their lives because they receive a pay check. Men don't log in Oregon or Washington because they want to, they get paid to do so, in all kinds of weather and under very dangerous conditions. You will never see a Trump, a Clinton, a Soros, or a Koch toting a rifle, swinging a pick or setting chokers. They don't have to, the rest of use have to do what is necessary to provide for our families

[happyslug]

83. It took Rome 40 years to end its "Draft" and become a Dictartorship.

Rome went to the Mercenary army in 107 BC, Sulla used that Army to become the first Dictator for life of the Roman Republic in 80 BC. After ten years of rule, Sulla had to give up power, but then Julius Caesar did the same thing in 45 BC. Mercenary helps dictators take power during times of crisis, not during periods of peace. Thus no widespread domestic problems, no takeover of the Government. The problem occurs when the will of the people is opposed by the will of the Ruling Elite. It is in such disputes that the Mercenary Army supports its pay masters as oppose to the people. We have NOT had the problem since the end of the Draft in 1972, but as the rich gets rich and the poor gets poorer we are heading that way (so is Canada). The issue is when the crisis hits, when does the will of the people comes in open conflict with the ruling elite? When that happens with a Universal Service Army, the Ruling Elite ends of losing power (This can be seen in the fall of the Soviet Union and the other Members of the Former Warsaw Pact). On the other hand when it comes to a Mercenary Army, the elite holds on to power. This is what happened at the end of the Roman Republic.

The Western Roman Empire collapsed about 450 AD, do to the refusal of the Roman People to fight for the Roman Elite. This also happened to Prussia after its defeat by Napoleon in 1806. In the case of the Roman Empire, that part of the Empire that had the LEAST land controlled by the Roman Elite, stayed part of the Empire till 1453 (After about 1000 AD, The Eastern Empire ran across increase in farmability of what is now Turkey and an increase in control of wealth by its elite, so it started a slow collapse starting about 1000 AD). Prussia saw its problems after 1806 and started what we would call universal Education to get the people of Prussia to support Prussia over France. Prussia after 1806 could NOT afford to rely on just volunteers, it needed the people and knew it could only get the people behind them if they protected the people's rights, which included increase educational opportunities.

In many ways the collapse of the Austrian Empire after the Napoleonic Wars was its refusal to do what the Prussians had done. By the time Austrian had started on that road, it was long past its prime and lost its war with France and Italy over Italian unification in the late 1850s and early 1860s.

The Czars of Russia was able to stay in power do to massive support for WWI, but once that support disappeared by 1917, the Czar was removed and after his removal was never a factor in the subsequent Civil War. That is another example of a Universal Service Army going with the people over what the ruling elite wanted.

Compared that to the Mexican Civil War of 1910-1920, the Army agreed to overthrow Diaz, but refused to overthrow the rest of the ruling elite. The most radical revolutionaries of that War, Villa and Zapata ended up being killed by the Army. The terms agreed to, to end the Civil War in 1920, were the terms set forth in the Constitution of Mexico since 1867 when the French were drive out BUT the wealth of the ruling elite were NOT touched (unlike what happened in Russia in 1917 and France in 1789). The Mercenaries went with the people paying them in Mexico. In France in 1789, the French Army was already on its way to being an Universal Service Army, as was the Russian Army of 1917, thus both Armies were poor at doing what the Ruling Elite wanted done, as oppose to what the people wanted).

You can see the same in the other revolutions in Latin America where the Mercenary Army was the power. If such army was defeated, as what happened in Cuba and Nicaragua, it was replaced by a Universal Service Army and you saw radical change kicking it. Where that Mercenary Army was able to hold off defeat, as what happened in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala (All with massive US aid), the ruling elite stayed in power and the people saw their life go downhill.

In most of Latin American, the US has preferred Volunteer Armies, or armies filled in by draftees but otherwise made up of volunteers. Such Armies tend to be loyal to their paymasters NOT the people of those nations. Given the purpose of such armies is to keep the people from overthrowing the ruling elite, such mercenary armies are preferred. Elsewhere in the world, where fear of an attack from a foreign country is a huge factor in the formation of the Army, the Universal Service Army is preferred, but at the cost of maintaining social peace (Thus Europe during the Cold War, had Universal Military Service along with increase in the Welfare state, since the end of the Cold War, you have seen increased attacks on the Welfare State as even Germany converts to a Volunteer army, yes there is a strong connection between Universal Service AND increase Social Welfare program, please note increase in the Social Welfare program in the US started AFTER the US had embraced a Volunteer Army).

My point is simple, is is during a time of crisis that the difference between a Universal Service (draftee) and Volunteer (Mercenary) comes into play. In the absence of such a crisis, no problem, stability is always the preferred option until the situation gets out of hand. It is during times of Crisis that the difference between the types of Armies comes into play not before.

[ButterflyBlood]

49. Hey the Republican Congress doing something useful

There's a shocker.

[Califonz]

52. Keep youth unemployment and underemployment chronically high

and a military draft is unnecessary.

[moondust]

59. ^^^That's how it works.^^^

And keep the cost of education sky high to ensure a steady supply of smart kids who weren't born into wealthy families will continue to join the military for the GI benefits and/or to defer payment of their massive outstanding school loans until they can save up some money while on active duty.

Ending draft registration altogether would seem to guarantee that the children of congresspersons and other one percenters will always be free to serve themselves without ever having to serve their country. Maybe some one percenters have complained that they don't want the SSS even having the names and contact information of their children in the their files.

[happyslug]

74. With Modern data mining techniques, there is no need to maintain a separate data base.

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

If Congress wanted to reinstate the draft it can do so in three months, using data of who is between 18 and 27 it can collect from data bases including Driver's License Records, School Records, Birth Records. Medical Records, Social Security Records (from where the Government can collect names of young people on SSI, and thus unfit for Military duty, AND get list of Children receiving Survivor Benefits and thus eligible to be drafted) and other records now on line.

Sorry, you no longer need a data base on people who register for the draft to have a complete list of who to draft. Sorry technology has made registration obsolete. Please note that increase in Technology also means the Draft can be put back into service any time Congress agrees to a draft.

[ButterflyBlood]

88. Yep, that's also true

Selective Service is a totally archaic and dated and now pointless agency, even ignoring issues about the morality or practicality of the draft.

[ozone_man]

102. No congressman's son need worry!

This means a continuation of war without end.