Are you a female between the ages of 18 and 26?
February 2, 2016 10:48 AM Subscribe
Army and Marine Corps chiefs: It’s time for women to register for the draft The top officers in the Army and Marine Corps testified on Tuesday that they believe it is time for women to register for future military drafts, following the Pentagon’s recent decision to open all jobs in combat units to female service members.
I disagree. Nobody should have to register for it.
/thread
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [120 favorites]
/thread
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [120 favorites]
If we're going to keep having men register for the draft, women should have to register too.
I have a better idea.
posted by Foosnark at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
I have a better idea.
posted by Foosnark at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
Screw that, it's long past time to abolish the draft.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is the better idea mandatory two years military service for all so that everyone of every social level is potentially effected by military decisions and, thus, is more more likely to think twice about sending kids to war?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [100 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [100 favorites]
Is the better idea mandatory two years military service for all so that everyone of every social level is potentially effected by military decisions and, thus, is more more likely to think twice about sending kids to war?
I appreciate the idea behind this, but realistically, the rich would just wind up exploiting assorted loopholes to get their kids out of military service (or at least far away from combat) anyway.
posted by Itaxpica at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [53 favorites]
I appreciate the idea behind this, but realistically, the rich would just wind up exploiting assorted loopholes to get their kids out of military service (or at least far away from combat) anyway.
posted by Itaxpica at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [53 favorites]
I just missed being drafted for Vietnam and my draft card was an ugly piece of work. I think it should have unicorns, butterflies and rainbows all over it. And the women should have something nice too...
posted by jim in austin at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Volunteer militaries have their own problems. What about compulsory service for all with a conscientious objection alternate option?
Counties with mandatory service include: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland... On the other hand, Germany and Sweden both ended their mandatory service in 2010 and France and the Nethelands in the mid 90s.
I don't know, both sides have the pluses and minuses.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Counties with mandatory service include: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland... On the other hand, Germany and Sweden both ended their mandatory service in 2010 and France and the Nethelands in the mid 90s.
I don't know, both sides have the pluses and minuses.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
To the question: Should men be required to register for the draft, but not women? No.
To the question: Should men or women be required to register? No.
These are *not* contradictory positions.
Screw that, it's long past time to abolish the draft.
Actually, we did. The question becomes "what happens if they reinstate it?" Even if the eliminated the Selective Service Agency, a future congress/president could reimplement it whole cloth. The fact that we're doing a little paperwork beforehand is really trivial. Heck, it probably doesn't need to be done!
posted by eriko at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [31 favorites]
To the question: Should men or women be required to register? No.
These are *not* contradictory positions.
Screw that, it's long past time to abolish the draft.
Actually, we did. The question becomes "what happens if they reinstate it?" Even if the eliminated the Selective Service Agency, a future congress/president could reimplement it whole cloth. The fact that we're doing a little paperwork beforehand is really trivial. Heck, it probably doesn't need to be done!
posted by eriko at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [31 favorites]
I dunno. Maybe free college for everybody, with mandatory military summers, doing whatever you're majored in.
Yeah, you don't end up with a lot of soldiers that way, but I bet you build a hell of a society.
posted by Mooski at 11:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
Yeah, you don't end up with a lot of soldiers that way, but I bet you build a hell of a society.
posted by Mooski at 11:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
I just missed being drafted for Vietnam and my draft card was an ugly piece of work. I think it should have unicorns, butterflies and rainbows all over it. And the women should have something nice too...
General, it's time to bring out the most powerful weapon the American Military has in its arsenal: Lisa Frank.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 11:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [52 favorites]
The fact that we're doing a little paperwork beforehand is really trivial. Heck, it probably doesn't need to be done!
According to the 2012 the Selective Service System cost taxpayers 24 million dollars that year. So I think this is a great idea. Especially given all the criticisms it gets with how inaccurate it's data is to begin with.
Is the better idea mandatory two years military service for all so that everyone of every social level is potentially effected by military decisions and, thus, is more more likely to think twice about sending kids to war?
No.
posted by mayonnaises at 11:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
According to the 2012 the Selective Service System cost taxpayers 24 million dollars that year. So I think this is a great idea. Especially given all the criticisms it gets with how inaccurate it's data is to begin with.
Is the better idea mandatory two years military service for all so that everyone of every social level is potentially effected by military decisions and, thus, is more more likely to think twice about sending kids to war?
No.
posted by mayonnaises at 11:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mandatory service will never fly in the United States. You think the anti-taxation gun-toting folks out West are a problem now? Imagine what would happen if you actually tried to abridge their personal liberties in this way.
posted by JDHarper at 11:09 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by JDHarper at 11:09 AM on February 2, 2016
Right, they just want to SUPPORT the troops, not actually BE the troops.
posted by briank at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [78 favorites]
posted by briank at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [78 favorites]
The level of distance between the average US citizen (such as myself) and the horrors of our ongoing decades of warfare is enabling the political and commercial class to continue waging and profiteering from such brutality. The draft is bad, and so is selective service, but you can't deny that an effective way to get the American public to protest such reckless military action is to force them to participate in it.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm unsettled how much my reaction to this is like marriage equality; nobody should have to do it but if the problematic institution exists, give to everybody!
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [38 favorites]
I came very close to joining the U.S. Navy in 1989. I'm glad I didn't join, but I still have a teeny pang of regret. I agree that if anyone needs to register, everyone needs to register and I'm all for stopping our constant need to land on/bomb other people's soil and tell/show them how to do stuff.
posted by Sophie1 at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sophie1 at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's time that they add a checkbox for conscientious objectors.
posted by larrybob at 11:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by larrybob at 11:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
If women aren't required to sign up for the draft, does that leave an entire gender vulnerable someday to a lawsuit over a woman getting a federal job over a man, when the man sues pointing out that it's unfair he's held to the extra requirement of having to have signed up prior to application? Probably not.
posted by Atreides at 11:13 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Atreides at 11:13 AM on February 2, 2016
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What about compulsory service for all with a conscientious objection alternate option?
Sounds good. The conscientious objection option could be the Peace Corps, or some new WPA-type agency for domestic improvement. Small-scale infrastructure stuff gets done, kids get exposure to the country's different people and places... Basically a break year between high school and college, except, you know, constructive.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
Sounds good. The conscientious objection option could be the Peace Corps, or some new WPA-type agency for domestic improvement. Small-scale infrastructure stuff gets done, kids get exposure to the country's different people and places... Basically a break year between high school and college, except, you know, constructive.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
When I registered for the draft, the Selective Service Committee sent me a free Mach 3 razor. So, good news women, you're getting a Venus!
posted by Ragged Richard at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Ragged Richard at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't think the draft helps significantly to keep the US out of war. After all, there was a draft during the Vietnam war and that was the longest US conventional combat forces' participation in a major war in history.
posted by Triplanetary at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Triplanetary at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The draft is bad, and so is selective service, but you can't deny that an effective way to get the American public to protest such reckless military action is to force them to participate in it.
I don't think that's true at all though. You're talking about a small slice of the population, much like all of the anti-war sentiment that came out of the Vietnam conflict.
The rest of the population spent two years in a pro-military, fraternal* organization for two very impressionable years of their lives during peace. Learning skills relating to war and how war solves problem. An organization that teaches hierarchy and loyalty above all else. So when the next conflict comes around and the Generals say "This is the war that is worth it.", well, you know, this is the war that is worth it.
Overall I think you'd see a shift in public opinion to being more militaristic. Would it perhaps fix these endless engagements we send our poor off to now? Maybe. But I think it'd just lead to more imperialism than anything.
*sorry, I couldn't think of a gender-neutral term.
posted by mayonnaises at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [19 favorites]
I don't think that's true at all though. You're talking about a small slice of the population, much like all of the anti-war sentiment that came out of the Vietnam conflict.
The rest of the population spent two years in a pro-military, fraternal* organization for two very impressionable years of their lives during peace. Learning skills relating to war and how war solves problem. An organization that teaches hierarchy and loyalty above all else. So when the next conflict comes around and the Generals say "This is the war that is worth it.", well, you know, this is the war that is worth it.
Overall I think you'd see a shift in public opinion to being more militaristic. Would it perhaps fix these endless engagements we send our poor off to now? Maybe. But I think it'd just lead to more imperialism than anything.
*sorry, I couldn't think of a gender-neutral term.
posted by mayonnaises at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [19 favorites]
According to the 2012 the Selective Service System cost taxpayers 24 million dollars that year. So I think this is a great idea. Especially given all the criticisms it gets with how inaccurate it's data is to begin with.
Relevant anecdote: someone, somewhere, mistyped my birthday into a computer, and the Selective Service ended up with a database entry in which I was ten years older than I actually am. Which is how it came to be that military recruiters started calling the house on my eighth birthday. My father, a career Naval officer of some terrifying rank, thought it was hilarious the first time it happened, and agreed to put me on the phone when the recruiter asked him to. (History does not record the ensuing conversation, but I assume Dad told me to talk about my hobbies, since the nice man might want to hear about all the exciting things I was doing outside of school hours). When the phone calls did not stop after the first time the error was gently corrected, Dad donned his dress whites for the first time I could remember, and paid the recruitment office a visit in person.
Dad and I don't see eye-to-eye on much politically, but I would give anything to have been a fly on the wall in that room when the poor enlisted schmuck in that office realized what was about to happen to him.
posted by Mayor West at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [74 favorites]
Relevant anecdote: someone, somewhere, mistyped my birthday into a computer, and the Selective Service ended up with a database entry in which I was ten years older than I actually am. Which is how it came to be that military recruiters started calling the house on my eighth birthday. My father, a career Naval officer of some terrifying rank, thought it was hilarious the first time it happened, and agreed to put me on the phone when the recruiter asked him to. (History does not record the ensuing conversation, but I assume Dad told me to talk about my hobbies, since the nice man might want to hear about all the exciting things I was doing outside of school hours). When the phone calls did not stop after the first time the error was gently corrected, Dad donned his dress whites for the first time I could remember, and paid the recruitment office a visit in person.
Dad and I don't see eye-to-eye on much politically, but I would give anything to have been a fly on the wall in that room when the poor enlisted schmuck in that office realized what was about to happen to him.
posted by Mayor West at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [74 favorites]
When I registered for the draft, the Selective Service Committee sent me a free Mach 3 razor
Really? I didn't get shit.
posted by jonmc at 11:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really? I didn't get shit.
posted by jonmc at 11:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
My idea:
1. Mandatory civil or military service obligation; 4 years pure for the former, minimum 2&2 (Active for 2, then choice of Active, Reserve, or Guard for last 2) for the latter. Must report within 6 months of the sooner of (a) High School graduation or (b) age 20, or barring that, the later of (c) drop-out date or (d) age 18.
2. Conscientious objectors to military service end up in the former, as do anyone deemed unsuitable for service, unless disability deems service a no-go entirely.
3. Deferments are actually qualified *deferments*, not get-out-of-obligation-forever cards; deferments cannot extend past age 26, at which point #1 applies.
4. Conscientious objectors to the entire system become U.S. Nationals, and full citizenship is revoked.
5. Completing service obligation voluntarily automatically upgrades a U.S. National to a U.S. Citizen.
posted by mystyk at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
1. Mandatory civil or military service obligation; 4 years pure for the former, minimum 2&2 (Active for 2, then choice of Active, Reserve, or Guard for last 2) for the latter. Must report within 6 months of the sooner of (a) High School graduation or (b) age 20, or barring that, the later of (c) drop-out date or (d) age 18.
2. Conscientious objectors to military service end up in the former, as do anyone deemed unsuitable for service, unless disability deems service a no-go entirely.
3. Deferments are actually qualified *deferments*, not get-out-of-obligation-forever cards; deferments cannot extend past age 26, at which point #1 applies.
4. Conscientious objectors to the entire system become U.S. Nationals, and full citizenship is revoked.
5. Completing service obligation voluntarily automatically upgrades a U.S. National to a U.S. Citizen.
posted by mystyk at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
So you're talking about Starship Troopers?
posted by Atreides at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [82 favorites]
posted by Atreides at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [82 favorites]
i love how this is used as a gotcha by anti-feminists, even though it has been feminist organizations fighting against the draft whole cloth, or if that couldn't happen fighting for women's inclusion, for decades, always running up against the majority male run government institutions that upheld the male only selective service.
posted by nadawi at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [29 favorites]
All I remember is that once I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18, I got nonstop recruiter calls trying to get me to sign up for the military outright. Even after multiple explanations to the recruiters about how I'd be an awful pacifist soldier who wouldn't be willing to hurt anyone if directed to and furthermore, I didn't really care to be given orders with no better explanation as to why than "because I said so" so this whole thing is a waste of your time and mine. But the calls kept up for a few months anyway. I don't wish that on anyone.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
My husband, at the time a large and gallumphing youth, got the recruiters to leave him alone by telling them he wanted to major in modern dance. Homophobia for the win, I guess.
posted by emjaybee at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Itaxpica, while you are probably right that many wealthy and connected people would be able to dodge the draft, the current situation where pretty much the only people who join the military are poor people being promised a better life doesn't seem any better from a class perspective.
Triplanetary, Vietnam is why the draft was ended, right? That's got to mean something. I agree with Existential Dread: not having the draft has distanced America from the wars we wage. The average degrees of Kevin Bacon from citizens to members of the military must have gone up dramatically.
posted by macrael at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Triplanetary, Vietnam is why the draft was ended, right? That's got to mean something. I agree with Existential Dread: not having the draft has distanced America from the wars we wage. The average degrees of Kevin Bacon from citizens to members of the military must have gone up dramatically.
posted by macrael at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Man, it's a good thing we solved the problem of rampant sexual assault of female service members within the US military! If we hadn't, then suggesting that we make it mandatory for women would make us seem fucking monstrous.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [98 favorites]
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [98 favorites]
So you're talking about Starship Troopers?
My thought exactly. I don't think we should have more mechanisms for abuse by removing someone's citizenship status.
All I remember is that once I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18, I got nonstop recruiter calls trying to get me to sign up for the military outright.
Weirdly, I didn't get a single recruiter call. Not sure why.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
My thought exactly. I don't think we should have more mechanisms for abuse by removing someone's citizenship status.
All I remember is that once I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18, I got nonstop recruiter calls trying to get me to sign up for the military outright.
Weirdly, I didn't get a single recruiter call. Not sure why.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
4. Conscientious objectors to the entire system become U.S. Nationals, and full citizenship is revoked.
Yeah, but those smug hippies are going to be eating crow when Klendathu shoots a rock that destroys Buenos Aires, and all they qualify for is mobile infantry.
(on preview: damn, not quick enough on the draw)
posted by Mayor West at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, but those smug hippies are going to be eating crow when Klendathu shoots a rock that destroys Buenos Aires, and all they qualify for is mobile infantry.
(on preview: damn, not quick enough on the draw)
posted by Mayor West at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
as a woman i got recruited hard after the asvab. i was a big anti-war hippie though so that didn't go anywhere.
posted by nadawi at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is fascinating. I would have thought that most people here would be against expanding the military industrial complex, but what I'm seeing is "no, no, we should force everyone to participate in it!"
posted by JDHarper at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by JDHarper at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
If you don't believe in the draft, the answer should not "make women register so now it's fair." And most women should not be held to the standard of the small percentage of us who voluntarily chose military service and wanted combat positions.
posted by corb at 11:28 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 11:28 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would have thought that most people here would be against expanding the military industrial complex, but what I'm seeing is "no, no, we should force everyone to participate in it!"
i don't know if i agree but the argument doesn't seem to be "expand the military industrial complex" as much as "if we're going to do this, then everyone should have to participate instead of concentrating our armed forces enlistments in communities with few other options for outward mobility."
posted by nadawi at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
i don't know if i agree but the argument doesn't seem to be "expand the military industrial complex" as much as "if we're going to do this, then everyone should have to participate instead of concentrating our armed forces enlistments in communities with few other options for outward mobility."
posted by nadawi at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Weirdly, I didn't get a single recruiter call. Not sure why.
I'm guessing you didn't take the ASVAB. I basically aced it and the recruiting fervor turned me off the whole idea of enlisting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing you didn't take the ASVAB. I basically aced it and the recruiting fervor turned me off the whole idea of enlisting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
i am anti-draft, but i fall in line with NOW's postion from the 80s - selective service should go away, but if not, it shouldn't be gender segregated. benevolent sexism is still sexism, and in some ways more damaging than outright saying women are worse than men.
posted by nadawi at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [27 favorites]
You can't draft anyone until you can at least keep them safe from their own government when they get hurt. You can't draft anyone if you can't keep them safe from their own coworkers.
posted by bleep at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by bleep at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is fascinating. I would have thought that most people here would be against expanding the military industrial complex, but what I'm seeing is "no, no, we should force everyone to participate in it!"
I think of it more as 'I can see this thing is going to happen, and if we let those bozos decide how it happens, we're all screwed. Let's see if we can grease the skids on something marginally better.'
posted by Mooski at 11:32 AM on February 2, 2016
I think of it more as 'I can see this thing is going to happen, and if we let those bozos decide how it happens, we're all screwed. Let's see if we can grease the skids on something marginally better.'
posted by Mooski at 11:32 AM on February 2, 2016
Who are these generals that think any draft at all is a good idea? Everyone I have ever known in the military said they were 100% certain they did not want any draftees anywhere near their own unit.
posted by bukvich at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
You can't draft anyone until you can at least keep them safe from their own government when they get hurt. You can't draft anyone if you can't keep them safe from their own coworkers.
You can't draft anyone and then provide them with terrible medical care if they should make it home.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
You can't draft anyone and then provide them with terrible medical care if they should make it home.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Selective service really confuses me. If they know who military age men are (when they send them the selective service cards), why do they need them to fill out a card?
Yes, the draft was abolished, but the selective service process is obviously present as a measure to start up the draft the moment we decide we need it again.
I agree with the generals though; women should not be shielded from engaging in war crimes that men participate in just because of their gender.
posted by el io at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016
Yes, the draft was abolished, but the selective service process is obviously present as a measure to start up the draft the moment we decide we need it again.
I agree with the generals though; women should not be shielded from engaging in war crimes that men participate in just because of their gender.
posted by el io at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016
The selective service system seems like a waste of money this day in age. Given the state of military record keeping; I doubt the registrations are actually usable should the need arise.
posted by humanfont at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by humanfont at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2016
You can't draft anyone and then provide them with terrible medical care if they should make it home.
*bitter laugh echoes*
posted by corb at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
*bitter laugh echoes*
posted by corb at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
And most women should not be held to the standard of the small percentage of us who voluntarily chose military service and wanted combat positions.
There's a lot of work that's not "combat positions." And there's "combat positions" in more than the Army.
Warheads on foreheads!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
There's a lot of work that's not "combat positions." And there's "combat positions" in more than the Army.
Warheads on foreheads!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
I'm a woman and I didn't take the ASVAB, and I still got a call from a recruiter. To my cellphone, no less, which in retrospect, where did they get that number? I was in a car and had bad reception so I didn't do much other than say "not interested, headed to Berkeley in the fall!" before hanging up.
But yeah, I agree that there shouldn't be selective service, but if there is, it should apply to all genders. I do think a lot of the populace at large is too removed from the military/military service, to our detriment. When my family moved from Orange County to a town in Riverside County that was 40 minutes from Camp Pendelton, I got something of a jolt upon actually, frequently encountering active service members.
posted by yasaman at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
But yeah, I agree that there shouldn't be selective service, but if there is, it should apply to all genders. I do think a lot of the populace at large is too removed from the military/military service, to our detriment. When my family moved from Orange County to a town in Riverside County that was 40 minutes from Camp Pendelton, I got something of a jolt upon actually, frequently encountering active service members.
posted by yasaman at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
If they know who military age men are (when they send them the selective service cards), why do they need them to fill out a card?
I was in college several states away when I registered.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
I was in college several states away when I registered.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
How about, if we're fighting a war, everyone is subject to the draft, but the military can leave you in your civilian occupation and get your income instead (less the stipend soldiers live on)? Garnishments instead of national debt.
I like to think this would leave us fighting survival wars or none, but probably we'd try tactical nukes or something equally unconscionable instead.
posted by clew at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I like to think this would leave us fighting survival wars or none, but probably we'd try tactical nukes or something equally unconscionable instead.
posted by clew at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
No I am really not on board with this "Let it be gender neutral if at all" They still have no idea what to do with the women who actually want to be there. I can't imagine the nightmare of being a drafted woman. At least if you're a drafted man they're expecting you and know something about how your body works.
posted by bleep at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bleep at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
The only way I'm cool with this is if everyone gets drafted into NASA, JPL, or SpaceX.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I spent a summer between school and uni, and was called for national service in Denmark (despite not having lived there since I was five). I left the country for university, because fuck that noise - having not benefited from any social services in the country for pretty much my entire life, what with not actually living there, why did I owe them a year of my life? Having since transitioned, I wonder if I would still technically be liable for service if I moved there now...
posted by Dysk at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Dysk at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2016
And most women should not be held to the standard of the small percentage of us who voluntarily chose military service and wanted combat positions.
Everyone registers for the draft, those that cannot meet the required standards, are discharged. I imagine that more drafted women will be discharged for that reason than drafted men would be.
But this one is a pretty easy issue. Get rid of the draft if you can, failing that, there is no reason it should discriminate based on gender.
posted by VTX at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016
Everyone registers for the draft, those that cannot meet the required standards, are discharged. I imagine that more drafted women will be discharged for that reason than drafted men would be.
But this one is a pretty easy issue. Get rid of the draft if you can, failing that, there is no reason it should discriminate based on gender.
posted by VTX at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016
Speaking as someone who fell into the happy gap between Proclamation 4360 and Proclamation 4771, I vote that no one be required to register.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
How about, if we're fighting a war...
Wait, I thought we were fighting a war right now; or don't you count bombing of civilians in countless countries around the world via remote control? It seems we're currently at war in between 5 and 134 countries.
posted by el io at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, I thought we were fighting a war right now; or don't you count bombing of civilians in countless countries around the world via remote control? It seems we're currently at war in between 5 and 134 countries.
posted by el io at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do conscientous objectors still have to participate in bioweapon experiments?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about, if we're fighting a war, everyone is subject to the draft, but the military can leave you in your civilian occupation and get your income instead (less the stipend soldiers live on)? Garnishments instead of national debt.
Despite my earlier comment, I think accelerationism is probably a lot more likely to enable massive military and contractor abuses. Surely this.... and all that.
Anyway, traumatic brain injuries for some, miniature American flags for others!
posted by Existential Dread at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
Despite my earlier comment, I think accelerationism is probably a lot more likely to enable massive military and contractor abuses. Surely this.... and all that.
Anyway, traumatic brain injuries for some, miniature American flags for others!
posted by Existential Dread at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe free college for everybody, with mandatory military summers, doing whatever you're majored in.
I might've dug the USO.
(Where's there's war there's Hope. And where there's Hope, there's usually a golf tournament.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I might've dug the USO.
(Where's there's war there's Hope. And where there's Hope, there's usually a golf tournament.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
if we're asking for amazing stuff that'll never happen like abolishing selective service, i would also love if the things the military could do without a formal declaration of war would be severely curtailed.
posted by nadawi at 11:53 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:53 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Is the better idea mandatory two years military service for all
In the UK, the last National Service troops were demobbed in 1963 and we instantly got The Beatles and The Stones instead.
posted by colie at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
In the UK, the last National Service troops were demobbed in 1963 and we instantly got The Beatles and The Stones instead.
posted by colie at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it’s good that we’re trying to treat men and women in the same way.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016
“The Price of Professionalization,” John Q. Bolton [No Relation], Small Wars Journal, 25 December 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe free college for everybody, with mandatory military summers, doing whatever you're majored in.
The army needs beer drinkers?
posted by jonmc at 11:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
The army needs beer drinkers?
posted by jonmc at 11:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
Imagine your job, if half the people there didn't want to be there and couldn't leave. Not like "Oh, I need to keep my health insurance", but like "I could go to prison". Neither of these Generals want women to be drafted, because they don't want anyone to be drafted, because draftees suck for commanders.
For them, "Should women have to register for Selective Service?" is half philosophical and half "If you're gonna make me take them, then I'm gonna poke back wherever I can."
posted by Etrigan at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
For them, "Should women have to register for Selective Service?" is half philosophical and half "If you're gonna make me take them, then I'm gonna poke back wherever I can."
posted by Etrigan at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
as a woman i got recruited hard after the asvab.
I got calls, too. I didn't know why, until my friend Elliot, who was in JROTC, told me that his sergeant opened up his yearbook and asked him to point out his friends. Subtle.
/son and grandson of veterans. has no beef whatsoever with professional military folk
posted by jonmc at 12:01 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I got calls, too. I didn't know why, until my friend Elliot, who was in JROTC, told me that his sergeant opened up his yearbook and asked him to point out his friends. Subtle.
/son and grandson of veterans. has no beef whatsoever with professional military folk
posted by jonmc at 12:01 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who are these generals that think any draft at all is a good idea?
Generals and majors always seem so unhappy unless they got a war. Generals and majors, uh-huh, like never before, are tired of being actionless.
posted by The Tensor at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Generals and majors always seem so unhappy unless they got a war. Generals and majors, uh-huh, like never before, are tired of being actionless.
posted by The Tensor at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
The army needs beer drinkers?
Well, yeah, but only like the top .5% of applicants will qualify. The rest get to serve beer.
posted by Mooski at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, yeah, but only like the top .5% of applicants will qualify. The rest get to serve beer.
posted by Mooski at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
i had also wondered if my familial history of military service moved me up. they specifically mentioned my asvab scores when they called/wrote/visited me at school though.
posted by nadawi at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by nadawi at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2016
Surprised not to see this mentioned yet, but wasn't "ZOMG but then women will have to register for the draft" one of the main bullshit arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the day (the other one being "ZOMG we'll have to abolish gendered restrooms")? Now we've made significant strides toward both of those things (though admittedly not enough toward the restrooms) and still no Equal Rights Amendment. Siiiigh.
posted by sunset in snow country at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by sunset in snow country at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
"I joined the army 'cause my father and my brother were in the army. I thought I'd better join before I got drafted."
"Son, there ain't no draft no more."
"There was one?"
posted by tallthinone at 12:04 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Son, there ain't no draft no more."
"There was one?"
posted by tallthinone at 12:04 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
as a woman i got recruited hard after the asvab.
likewise. they called for a couple of months and were pretty aggressive.
posted by palomar at 12:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
likewise. they called for a couple of months and were pretty aggressive.
posted by palomar at 12:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mooski: Yeah, you don't end up with a lot of soldiers that way, but I bet you build a hell of a society.
That reminds me of Thomas Barnett's TED Talk from 2005.
Drawing on his book "The Pentagon's New Map," he proposed a "sysadmin force" to complement existing military forces, which would help improve the societies that have been left behind by globalization, thereby bringing them more fully into the new world economy and reducing their incentives for violence and war. (I think it said that, anyway; I read it some years ago.) Here is a (long) excerpt published in G.Q. in 2007.
I am not sure what Barnett is doing now; the book is showing its age a bit, but he continues to share a presentation all over the damn place (as listed on his blog). I think I will go see what he's up to...
posted by wenestvedt at 12:10 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
That reminds me of Thomas Barnett's TED Talk from 2005.
Drawing on his book "The Pentagon's New Map," he proposed a "sysadmin force" to complement existing military forces, which would help improve the societies that have been left behind by globalization, thereby bringing them more fully into the new world economy and reducing their incentives for violence and war. (I think it said that, anyway; I read it some years ago.) Here is a (long) excerpt published in G.Q. in 2007.
I am not sure what Barnett is doing now; the book is showing its age a bit, but he continues to share a presentation all over the damn place (as listed on his blog). I think I will go see what he's up to...
posted by wenestvedt at 12:10 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
War never misses a generation. As a result, as long as there are wars, there will be either mandatory service, or drafts. Just a fact.
posted by prepmonkey at 12:12 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by prepmonkey at 12:12 PM on February 2, 2016
If I'm going to have my feminist druthers about the military, I'd rather they tackle their frankly appalling issues with rape and assault. Drafting more people into that sounds frankly horrifying. Maybe it'd be a step towards safety in numbers, but I find that rather dubious.
I don't think there's any political reality to a draft being reinstated, though, and the change they're arguing for is comparatively minor and would take up basically zero resources versus actually having to get up and restructure to make some basic provisions for assault survivors, sooo. *shrug* I am unimpressed.
posted by sciatrix at 12:13 PM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
I don't think there's any political reality to a draft being reinstated, though, and the change they're arguing for is comparatively minor and would take up basically zero resources versus actually having to get up and restructure to make some basic provisions for assault survivors, sooo. *shrug* I am unimpressed.
posted by sciatrix at 12:13 PM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
In 1990 I turned 18 and registered. With my ASVAB score, I got calls; I told them that I just finished four years of Army JROTC so I sure knew how to march and stuff but I had been the XO so I was pretty useless. Also I had considered the USMA (Ihad the forms and an "in" for an appointment and everything) but I decided I didn't want to wear a uniform at all, even as an officer, and also I was headed for a pinko East Coast liberal arts English program in September. *shrug*
Not even willing to be a 2LT? They stopped calling.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not even willing to be a 2LT? They stopped calling.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Slave armies are immoral.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Confess, Fletch at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
As a result, as long as there are wars, there will be either mandatory service, or drafts.
You realize that the U.S. ended conscription 43 years ago, right? Before the wars in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, etc. etc.?
posted by Etrigan at 12:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
You realize that the U.S. ended conscription 43 years ago, right? Before the wars in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, etc. etc.?
posted by Etrigan at 12:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm on board with mandatory public service for a year or so. For my son, the military was an excellent choice, and he survived his time in combat; not all do. Yes, if young men must register, so must young women, and in 1972, I'd have been at the Post Office, not just demonstrating, but burning my draft card. We are still at war in Afghanistan, we are still sending 'advisers' to Iraq, and we are pretty much engaged in the war against ISIS. Women are getting leadership opportunities in the military that they don't get elsewhere, and they'll bring those skills back to civilian life. Meanwhile, I'll go back to Quaker peace-promoting mode.
posted by theora55 at 12:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 12:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hmm, I think with the huge population of the US, the way the world is for the foreseeable future, and the increasing use of the military for disaster and humanitarian response, it's just as (if not more) likely the draft would be used to respond to a global catastrophe (mass pandemic, really big tsunami, etc.).
posted by FJT at 12:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 12:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about, if we're fighting a war, everyone is subject to the draft, but the military can leave you in your civilian occupation and get your income instead (less the stipend soldiers live on)? Garnishments instead of national debt.
Or, and this is a really crazy thought, we could raise taxes (you know, that system we already have of income garnishment to pay for shared resources) during a war so you'd stay in your civilian occupation, but the soldiers could get paid more and we'd pay for the cost of the war.
posted by zachlipton at 12:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or, and this is a really crazy thought, we could raise taxes (you know, that system we already have of income garnishment to pay for shared resources) during a war so you'd stay in your civilian occupation, but the soldiers could get paid more and we'd pay for the cost of the war.
posted by zachlipton at 12:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Everyone I have ever known in the military said they were 100% certain they did not want any draftees anywhere near their own unit.
And yet, to the extent that a world war can be won, WWII was won by conscripts.
I remember arriving in California from Canada and seeing the selective service flyers all over the post office. My first thought was, "fuckin' savages."
posted by klanawa at 12:38 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yet, to the extent that a world war can be won, WWII was won by conscripts.
I remember arriving in California from Canada and seeing the selective service flyers all over the post office. My first thought was, "fuckin' savages."
posted by klanawa at 12:38 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
the draft doesn't seem to be subject to this constitutional clause, but any plan for mandatory public service would seem to be prevented by this
at least, that's what a lot of people's pocket constitutions are going to tell them
posted by pyramid termite at 12:44 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
the draft doesn't seem to be subject to this constitutional clause, but any plan for mandatory public service would seem to be prevented by this
at least, that's what a lot of people's pocket constitutions are going to tell them
posted by pyramid termite at 12:44 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yet, to the extent that a world war can be won, WWII was won by conscripts.
Back then, the peacetime U.S. military was set up to take conscripts in the case of a major war. The U.S. Army was smaller than Portugal's before World War II, and the officer and sergeants knew that their task would be to train and lead a huge number of conscripts -- as their predecessors had done in WWI and the Civil War.
And back then, training a person to become a soldier (or sailor, or Marine) didn't take as long as it does today, because every aspect of it was simpler -- not easier, mind you, just that the equipment was more basic. There are vast swaths of the military -- from sysadmins to the entire U.S. Air Force -- that did not exist back then.
Nowadays, we have a military that's staffed, trained, and equipped to fight wars without a draft, barring an existential threat to the United States on the level of a world war. Comparing conscription in the 1940s to possible conscription in the 2010s is... well, it's like comparing pretty much anything in the 1940s to the 2010s: useful to a point, but not very.
posted by Etrigan at 12:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Back then, the peacetime U.S. military was set up to take conscripts in the case of a major war. The U.S. Army was smaller than Portugal's before World War II, and the officer and sergeants knew that their task would be to train and lead a huge number of conscripts -- as their predecessors had done in WWI and the Civil War.
And back then, training a person to become a soldier (or sailor, or Marine) didn't take as long as it does today, because every aspect of it was simpler -- not easier, mind you, just that the equipment was more basic. There are vast swaths of the military -- from sysadmins to the entire U.S. Air Force -- that did not exist back then.
Nowadays, we have a military that's staffed, trained, and equipped to fight wars without a draft, barring an existential threat to the United States on the level of a world war. Comparing conscription in the 1940s to possible conscription in the 2010s is... well, it's like comparing pretty much anything in the 1940s to the 2010s: useful to a point, but not very.
posted by Etrigan at 12:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
The 13th Amendment does not prohibit the draft. The Supreme Court settled that during World War I.
The draft power is nigh absolute. For example, the exception for conscientious objectors is a product of statute; it is not required by the Constitution. Indeed, if Congress wished, the draft could be extended to children.
posted by jedicus at 1:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The draft power is nigh absolute. For example, the exception for conscientious objectors is a product of statute; it is not required by the Constitution. Indeed, if Congress wished, the draft could be extended to children.
posted by jedicus at 1:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we're up against an existential threat, we'll need all-hands-on-deck in a hurry. Women fighting at the front lines had a huge impact on the Eastern Front - if we suddenly require an army a few million strong, we'll need everyone available to fight it registered and ready for the call.
That said using conscripts in Vietnam was a terrible idea on top of another terrible idea. Let's not use forced mobilization of the population again unless we're at war with two genocidal hegemonic empires at once or freeing millions of enslaved Americans.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said using conscripts in Vietnam was a terrible idea on top of another terrible idea. Let's not use forced mobilization of the population again unless we're at war with two genocidal hegemonic empires at once or freeing millions of enslaved Americans.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is a serious silent problem with rape of men in the military too.
The draft should be abolished in my view. If enough Americans won't sign up to defend their country when it truly becomes necessary, well that's a form of Democracy too.
OTOH, what do the alt-historians think about the Civil War? Would the Union have won without a draft?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
The draft should be abolished in my view. If enough Americans won't sign up to defend their country when it truly becomes necessary, well that's a form of Democracy too.
OTOH, what do the alt-historians think about the Civil War? Would the Union have won without a draft?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
My first name is often a man's name, so it's not uncommon for me to get mail addressed to Mr rmd1023. When I was 18, I got a letter from the selective service saying "why haven't you registered for the draft?" and I checked off the "I am female" box and sent it back. And then they sent another one saying "seriously, dude, why haven't you registered for the draft?" My folks sending them a copy of my birth certificate assuaged the selective service, so I didn't have to go down to the post office and flash anyone.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 1:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
As a woman, I'm absolutely in favor of this. It's long overdue. I don't really think we should have a selective service, but I especially don't think we should have a selective service that promotes sexism.
The issue of rape in the military is horrifying, yes, but keeping the draft male-only isn't doing anything to help stop it. I hope the prospect of hypothetical mandatory military service for women brings the issue closer to home for some people who haven't cared until this point what happens to the women currently there. Maybe it'll get some men to think about how they'd feel if their daughters or sisters went through what many women in the military do.
Especially since the odds of a draft are very low, I'm in favor of the statement this sends.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
The issue of rape in the military is horrifying, yes, but keeping the draft male-only isn't doing anything to help stop it. I hope the prospect of hypothetical mandatory military service for women brings the issue closer to home for some people who haven't cared until this point what happens to the women currently there. Maybe it'll get some men to think about how they'd feel if their daughters or sisters went through what many women in the military do.
Especially since the odds of a draft are very low, I'm in favor of the statement this sends.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm flabbergasted to learn that American men still have to register for the draft. I guess it's easy for us outsiders to forget how militarized your society is.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 1:50 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 1:50 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess it's easy for us outsiders to forget how militarized your society is.
Like the militarized societies of Bermuda, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Mexico, Norway, or the other 19 countries that actually require service and not just registration?
posted by Etrigan at 2:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Like the militarized societies of Bermuda, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Mexico, Norway, or the other 19 countries that actually require service and not just registration?
posted by Etrigan at 2:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm flabbergasted to learn that American men still have to register for the draft. I guess it's easy for us outsiders to forget how militarized your society is.
Why is that so surprising? Plenty of countries have mandatory service. Even a peaceful country like Norway has mandatory military service for young people (though a minority of those people actually serve). Women have been included in their mandatory service since 2014.
oops, you beat me to it!
posted by R a c h e l at 2:11 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is that so surprising? Plenty of countries have mandatory service. Even a peaceful country like Norway has mandatory military service for young people (though a minority of those people actually serve). Women have been included in their mandatory service since 2014.
oops, you beat me to it!
posted by R a c h e l at 2:11 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure. And in very few of those countries do you see the rampant glorification of the military that you see in the USA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
This doesn't seem controversial. Everyone should register or nobody should. Preferably nobody but until that happens...
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
And in very few of those countries do you see the rampant glorification of the military that you see in the USA.
Fine, but tying the one to the other is somewhat spurious. No one puts a "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS NO MATTER WHAT" bumper sticker on their car because they filled out the Selective Service form when they were 18.
posted by Etrigan at 2:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Fine, but tying the one to the other is somewhat spurious. No one puts a "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS NO MATTER WHAT" bumper sticker on their car because they filled out the Selective Service form when they were 18.
posted by Etrigan at 2:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure. And in very few of those countries do you see the rampant glorification of the military that you see in the USA.
Ther's glorification and then there's simple respect for service. Where the borderline is, I don't really know. Many veterans I've met feel similarly.
posted by jonmc at 2:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ther's glorification and then there's simple respect for service. Where the borderline is, I don't really know. Many veterans I've met feel similarly.
posted by jonmc at 2:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't speak to countries with mandatory service. I'm just struck by how different the US and Canada are on this. When I go to the US, I am struck by the degree to which the military is part of the background ambience -- Support Our Troops billboards, special discounts for active service members, ceremonies to honor military personnel at professional sports games, paunchy middle-aged neighbors who turn out to have been fighter pilots in Vietnam. You run into that kind of thing occasionally here in Canada, but it's far less prevalent. (The Harper government tried to promote a cultural shift in that direction; it was noticeable and weird.) And of course part of what's going on is that the US military and defence industry are simply way bigger than in Canada.
So on reflection it makes sense to me that selective service registration is taken for granted, because the military itself is just more present in everyday life. But I'm still taken aback by it, because if someone had said I had to register for the draft here in Canada when I turned 18, even as a pretty meaningless piece of paperwork, my response would have been "Are you fucking kidding? Not happening."
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
So on reflection it makes sense to me that selective service registration is taken for granted, because the military itself is just more present in everyday life. But I'm still taken aback by it, because if someone had said I had to register for the draft here in Canada when I turned 18, even as a pretty meaningless piece of paperwork, my response would have been "Are you fucking kidding? Not happening."
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think, in a democratic society, not having a draft rather neatly enforces a lot of the democracy.
You want a war? Better be able to convince enough people to fight it. Can't convince enough people to join up? Guess the referendum on your war came back negative, find a peaceful solution.
I also agree with the people who suggest that drafting everyone when they're impressionable and subjecting them to years of pro-military propaganda by putting them in the military sounds terrible given the already ridiculously high levels of pro-military attitude in America.
Worshiping the military, while naturally refusing to pay for veteran's benefits, is already a huge part of American culture. Let's not expand that any more than we have to.
posted by sotonohito at 2:27 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
You want a war? Better be able to convince enough people to fight it. Can't convince enough people to join up? Guess the referendum on your war came back negative, find a peaceful solution.
I also agree with the people who suggest that drafting everyone when they're impressionable and subjecting them to years of pro-military propaganda by putting them in the military sounds terrible given the already ridiculously high levels of pro-military attitude in America.
Worshiping the military, while naturally refusing to pay for veteran's benefits, is already a huge part of American culture. Let's not expand that any more than we have to.
posted by sotonohito at 2:27 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
paunchy middle-aged neighbors who turn out to have been fighter pilots in Vietnam
There you go. In the US, men of a certain age have probably served. And whatever my politics, surviving Iwo Jima, Khe Sanh or even our latest war, is tougher than anything I've ever had to face, which earns respect from me.
posted by jonmc at 2:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
There you go. In the US, men of a certain age have probably served. And whatever my politics, surviving Iwo Jima, Khe Sanh or even our latest war, is tougher than anything I've ever had to face, which earns respect from me.
posted by jonmc at 2:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hope the prospect of hypothetical mandatory military service for women brings the issue closer to home for some people who haven't cared until this point what happens to the women currently there
I care a lot about what happens to women everywhere -- but even if I didn't care about women in the military, I don't think that threatening me with being raped myself would be an ethical way to get me to care.
I'd make a similar objection to people who think a draft would motivate people to care more about the responsible use of the military. The person who's at risk of getting blown up has little to no control over the circumstances that brought them there; they're not individually responsible for the war, but they were threatened with individual suffering.
(Not to mention that it would backfire, since being in the military tends to turn people more hawkish.)
It's like docking the secretary's pay when the CEO fucks up. Maybe the secretary participated in a toxic work culture that encouraged reckless decision making, but the secretary's really not the problem.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I care a lot about what happens to women everywhere -- but even if I didn't care about women in the military, I don't think that threatening me with being raped myself would be an ethical way to get me to care.
I'd make a similar objection to people who think a draft would motivate people to care more about the responsible use of the military. The person who's at risk of getting blown up has little to no control over the circumstances that brought them there; they're not individually responsible for the war, but they were threatened with individual suffering.
(Not to mention that it would backfire, since being in the military tends to turn people more hawkish.)
It's like docking the secretary's pay when the CEO fucks up. Maybe the secretary participated in a toxic work culture that encouraged reckless decision making, but the secretary's really not the problem.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Everything I've read about the modern military has the brass on down opposed to using draftees, as it's no longer the 19th or even 20th century, and cannon fodder is not seen as useful. One officer-type I hung out with in the 90s though put it this way: if the US volunteer armed forces are reduced to below the capability to wage war, via whatever means (existential threat, biowarfare, nuclear war, nanotech, stupid political wars), the draft is all we would have left. That said, as he put it, if things are that bad, and not enough people volunteer to keep a war going, perhaps we deserve to lose.
Alternatively, if we've lost our high tech war machines, and the soldiers trained to use them, and end up rolling back to WWII or earlier technology to wage war, with the kind of weapons that can be produced fast and cheap but take lots of troops to man them, then we may need cannon fodder again. Heck, if things get that bad, they may be turning away volunteers primarily interested in returning to a life featuring regular meals if they're needed for war material production. In that kind of case, the draft boards will be judging who's fit to serve and who's required in the factories and offices. If all the cities are nuked, or biowarfare kills a large percentage of the population, women will probably be exempted again as being needed to breed up the next generation of cannon fodder.
But, right now, there is no perceived need for a draft, and should such an eventuality come about, it seems likely that the current computerized system would be one of the first casualties, and a new system running on paper and brains would have to be invented. Get rid of it, or if that's not politically feasible, then add women to it; not only is it more fair, but it seems likely to invoke a mass reaction against even having a draft registry in this day and age.
posted by Blackanvil at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2016
Alternatively, if we've lost our high tech war machines, and the soldiers trained to use them, and end up rolling back to WWII or earlier technology to wage war, with the kind of weapons that can be produced fast and cheap but take lots of troops to man them, then we may need cannon fodder again. Heck, if things get that bad, they may be turning away volunteers primarily interested in returning to a life featuring regular meals if they're needed for war material production. In that kind of case, the draft boards will be judging who's fit to serve and who's required in the factories and offices. If all the cities are nuked, or biowarfare kills a large percentage of the population, women will probably be exempted again as being needed to breed up the next generation of cannon fodder.
But, right now, there is no perceived need for a draft, and should such an eventuality come about, it seems likely that the current computerized system would be one of the first casualties, and a new system running on paper and brains would have to be invented. Get rid of it, or if that's not politically feasible, then add women to it; not only is it more fair, but it seems likely to invoke a mass reaction against even having a draft registry in this day and age.
posted by Blackanvil at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2016
Mandatory service will never fly in the United States. You think the anti-taxation gun-toting folks out West are a problem now? Imagine what would happen if you actually tried to abridge their personal liberties in this way.
And the'd be absolutely right if they thought a draft was an unacceptable infringement of their personal liberties.
I don't think those folks would feel that way. Patriotic military authoritarianism beats personal liberties every time from what I've seen in people like this.
It's more baffling to me how many on the left feel the government should (well, kinda literally) own you in this fashion. Because of, it seems, equality... or something.
If you think the government must have that power over my actual life, you've already lost the argument about government keeping its hands off your body, or out of your emails, etc.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the'd be absolutely right if they thought a draft was an unacceptable infringement of their personal liberties.
I don't think those folks would feel that way. Patriotic military authoritarianism beats personal liberties every time from what I've seen in people like this.
It's more baffling to me how many on the left feel the government should (well, kinda literally) own you in this fashion. Because of, it seems, equality... or something.
If you think the government must have that power over my actual life, you've already lost the argument about government keeping its hands off your body, or out of your emails, etc.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the US, men of a certain age have probably served.
There has never been a time in American history when any given man of any age probably served. At its height in WWII, the U.S. military was 16 million strong -- about 12 percent of the population of 135 million. It was nearly all men, so that's less than a quarter of American men serving in the largest mobilization in U.S. history. In the Civil War, it was around 10 percent.
posted by Etrigan at 2:43 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
There has never been a time in American history when any given man of any age probably served. At its height in WWII, the U.S. military was 16 million strong -- about 12 percent of the population of 135 million. It was nearly all men, so that's less than a quarter of American men serving in the largest mobilization in U.S. history. In the Civil War, it was around 10 percent.
posted by Etrigan at 2:43 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
U.S. military was 16 million strong -- about 12 percent of the population of 135 million
But what percentage of draft age males was that? Anyway, my male relatives and most of my friends male relatives served, and that was during Vietnam, and the same goes for WWII and grandfathers. None of which diminishes that respect for veterans does not automatically equal "glorification of the military."
posted by jonmc at 2:47 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But what percentage of draft age males was that? Anyway, my male relatives and most of my friends male relatives served, and that was during Vietnam, and the same goes for WWII and grandfathers. None of which diminishes that respect for veterans does not automatically equal "glorification of the military."
posted by jonmc at 2:47 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the US, men of a certain age and social class have probably served.
I'm a middle class-ish southerner. Most baby boomer men I know served during Vietnam and most of the men of the generation before them served in WWII. I also know a number of men and women who are veterans of more recent conflicts. People who run in different social classes probably have very different experiences.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:51 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm a middle class-ish southerner. Most baby boomer men I know served during Vietnam and most of the men of the generation before them served in WWII. I also know a number of men and women who are veterans of more recent conflicts. People who run in different social classes probably have very different experiences.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:51 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I care a lot about what happens to women everywhere -- but even if I didn't care about women in the military, I don't think that threatening me with being raped myself would be an ethical way to get me to care.
I'm also a young American woman who'd probably be drafted, if a draft were to happen. To clarify my point a little: I'm not saying that solidarity with currently serving women is the reason we should draft people regardless of gender - the reason to have a gender-neutral draft is because I think it promotes sexist ideas otherwise.
I'm arguing that limiting the draft to only men doesn't do anything to solve the problem of rape in the military, so that's not a compelling reason for me to be against a gendered draft. It just limits the victims to men and women who society apparently cares less about. My argument is that if we're expanding the draft, I hope it'll make more people consider whether or not they're comfortable with the way people in the military are currently being treated.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm also a young American woman who'd probably be drafted, if a draft were to happen. To clarify my point a little: I'm not saying that solidarity with currently serving women is the reason we should draft people regardless of gender - the reason to have a gender-neutral draft is because I think it promotes sexist ideas otherwise.
I'm arguing that limiting the draft to only men doesn't do anything to solve the problem of rape in the military, so that's not a compelling reason for me to be against a gendered draft. It just limits the victims to men and women who society apparently cares less about. My argument is that if we're expanding the draft, I hope it'll make more people consider whether or not they're comfortable with the way people in the military are currently being treated.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
The article ob1quixote linked to is worth a read, imo.
I'm a vet, Vietnam Era, never in combat. Enlisted in 1974 when the war was basically over. When I got to the fleet, there were a quite a few sailors who had joined the Navy explicitly to avoid being drafted into a branch which might have made them a ground-pounder in the jungle. Many were quite disgruntled at having to give 2 years of their life in this way.
I'm not sure what the best answer is anymore. I do lean towards a gender neutral form of universal draft provided that non-military options are included. My reasons are a bit counter-intuitive:
--It's petering out, but the last decade of hero worship towards vets is dysfunctional and deleterious to a more full understanding of one's obligations as a citizen, imo.
--If folks were susceptible to being required to serve in some capacity, then I believe this would lead towards a more fully engaged citizenry. The last thing that the elites want is to have some uppity youths telling them they don't want to die in globalizing, imperialist adventures. Lives having meaning not only because each and every life is intrinsically (or innately) precious, but also because we each have a place in history--whether we understand that place or acknowledge it. Best we get really good at picking and choosing the moments in which we resort to force.
Universal conscription, or the possibility of it, is a means for forcing thoughts to turn in this direction. Not the most ideal way of making this happen, but I'm thinking it's a decidedly practical way.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:21 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm a vet, Vietnam Era, never in combat. Enlisted in 1974 when the war was basically over. When I got to the fleet, there were a quite a few sailors who had joined the Navy explicitly to avoid being drafted into a branch which might have made them a ground-pounder in the jungle. Many were quite disgruntled at having to give 2 years of their life in this way.
I'm not sure what the best answer is anymore. I do lean towards a gender neutral form of universal draft provided that non-military options are included. My reasons are a bit counter-intuitive:
--It's petering out, but the last decade of hero worship towards vets is dysfunctional and deleterious to a more full understanding of one's obligations as a citizen, imo.
--If folks were susceptible to being required to serve in some capacity, then I believe this would lead towards a more fully engaged citizenry. The last thing that the elites want is to have some uppity youths telling them they don't want to die in globalizing, imperialist adventures. Lives having meaning not only because each and every life is intrinsically (or innately) precious, but also because we each have a place in history--whether we understand that place or acknowledge it. Best we get really good at picking and choosing the moments in which we resort to force.
Universal conscription, or the possibility of it, is a means for forcing thoughts to turn in this direction. Not the most ideal way of making this happen, but I'm thinking it's a decidedly practical way.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:21 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm the first generation of a family that has been military since the American revolution that did not serve. I remember Vietnam, and still fly POW colors with the flag, and I almost joined until they told me that "ladies can't fly jets", and I decided that the military didn't need me after all. That said, I think the draft register should be abolished or apply to everyone.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 3:33 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 3:33 PM on February 2, 2016
I had a 45-minute walk home from high school, and a recruiter followed me home in his government car several times. Talk about creepy.
I got back at them though. A couple years later, I was living in a house at the very back end of my college campus. A military recruiter came wandering by, obviously looking for students to talk to. I said "Hey man, come walk with me, I'll help you out." And we walked a few minutes over to the main gates of the college ... where I knew there was a massive anti-war protest happening at that very moment. Shenanigans!
posted by miyabo at 3:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I got back at them though. A couple years later, I was living in a house at the very back end of my college campus. A military recruiter came wandering by, obviously looking for students to talk to. I said "Hey man, come walk with me, I'll help you out." And we walked a few minutes over to the main gates of the college ... where I knew there was a massive anti-war protest happening at that very moment. Shenanigans!
posted by miyabo at 3:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
OTOH, what do the alt-historians think about the Civil War? Would the Union have won without a draft?
Hard to argue otherwise. Depending on whom you read, less than 10% of Union soldiers were conscripted, and of those, most were substitutes. The army really didn't need them. My guess it was a program that seemed like a good idea at the outset and nobody ever bothered to second guess it once installed. Bureaucracy is like that.
The south started conscription a year earlier than the north, for all the good it did them.
If folks were susceptible to being required to serve in some capacity, then I believe this would lead towards a more fully engaged citizenry.
I like to think so as well, but I always remember the Maine, Edith Clavell, the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor. Even engaged people can get riled, and riled people can make rash decisions. Sometimes they turn out for the best, some times not.
Another topic for Alt-historians.
posted by BWA at 3:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hard to argue otherwise. Depending on whom you read, less than 10% of Union soldiers were conscripted, and of those, most were substitutes. The army really didn't need them. My guess it was a program that seemed like a good idea at the outset and nobody ever bothered to second guess it once installed. Bureaucracy is like that.
The south started conscription a year earlier than the north, for all the good it did them.
If folks were susceptible to being required to serve in some capacity, then I believe this would lead towards a more fully engaged citizenry.
I like to think so as well, but I always remember the Maine, Edith Clavell, the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor. Even engaged people can get riled, and riled people can make rash decisions. Sometimes they turn out for the best, some times not.
Another topic for Alt-historians.
posted by BWA at 3:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Due to falling out of touch with family after highschool, and not attempting to enroll in college before the age of 26, I never got registered for the draft while I was eligible and thus will never be eligible for federal education grants or loans. I've talked to men who didn't even realize that one of the check boxes they filled out when doing their financial aid papers was signing them up for the draft.
posted by idiopath at 4:11 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by idiopath at 4:11 PM on February 2, 2016
Slave armies are immoral.
I certainly felt that way after I got drafted and sent to Vietnam. I still feel that way.
Yes, the military is exempt from all kinds of Constitutional provisions. It has its own completely separate "justice" system* to support its undemocratic, hierarchic structure and lack of personal freedoms.
* The Uniform Code of Military Justice
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I certainly felt that way after I got drafted and sent to Vietnam. I still feel that way.
Yes, the military is exempt from all kinds of Constitutional provisions. It has its own completely separate "justice" system* to support its undemocratic, hierarchic structure and lack of personal freedoms.
* The Uniform Code of Military Justice
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
If there was mandatory military service then presumably everyone would eventually have medical coverage through the VA and the US would finally have a nationalized health care system so maybe it wouldn't be so terrible.
posted by GuyZero at 4:53 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 4:53 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
The VA doesn't cover all veterans, only those with serious service connected injuries (and a few other small groups, like former POWs and extremely poor veterans). For some reason there's this myth that gets perpetuated that all veterans get free health care for life (even among military types) and it's simply not true.
posted by miyabo at 4:59 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 4:59 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But it should be true.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
Note that even though Norway has mandatory service in theory, in practice it's so easy to get out of that if you don't want to serve, you won't have to.
posted by ymgve at 5:18 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by ymgve at 5:18 PM on February 2, 2016
There you go. In the US, men of a certain age have probably served.
There's that word again. The question is, who or what have you served? Because it sure as fuck isn't the cause of peace and humanity.
I guess it's easy for us outsiders to forget how militarized your society is.
Like the militarized societies of Bermuda, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Mexico, Norway, or the other 19 countries that actually require service and not just registration?
Ahem.
posted by klanawa at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's that word again. The question is, who or what have you served? Because it sure as fuck isn't the cause of peace and humanity.
I guess it's easy for us outsiders to forget how militarized your society is.
Like the militarized societies of Bermuda, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Mexico, Norway, or the other 19 countries that actually require service and not just registration?
Ahem.
posted by klanawa at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh, I didn't realize that Saudi Arabia was so militarized. They spend like 50% more than the US per capita, and one tenth of their GDP on the military.
posted by ymgve at 5:44 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by ymgve at 5:44 PM on February 2, 2016
Look, we've got to keep spending more than the rest of the world combined in case they finally get tired of our bullshit and all gang up on us.
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
a recruiter followed me home in his government car several times. Talk about creepy
As much as I am in favor of simply abolishing the SSS as an outmoded relic, which may or may not actually work when needed, our all volunteer military leads to some shady recruiting practices. Recruiters trying to meet the quotas will basically say whatever it takes to get some confused 18 year old to sign on the dotted line. It's one thing to engage in dishonest, high-pressure salesmanship when you're trying to sell someone a washer-dryer combo, it's another thing altogether to use those tactics when you're signing someone up for a job that might literally be life or death.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
As much as I am in favor of simply abolishing the SSS as an outmoded relic, which may or may not actually work when needed, our all volunteer military leads to some shady recruiting practices. Recruiters trying to meet the quotas will basically say whatever it takes to get some confused 18 year old to sign on the dotted line. It's one thing to engage in dishonest, high-pressure salesmanship when you're trying to sell someone a washer-dryer combo, it's another thing altogether to use those tactics when you're signing someone up for a job that might literally be life or death.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hit post too soon, but even when the recruiters are fibbing or following people home (jfc, really?), they'll try their best just to wear you down until you say yes.
Fortunately, my own recruiter story is kind of amusing. After scoring high on the ASVAB, an USMC recruiter starting calling my home, every. single. day. For a week, I'd get home from school and the phone would ring, and Sgt. Somebody would try to convince me that the Corps was the best thing that could ever happen to me. Having a father who enlisted in the marines in 1969, I knew better. I was also a near-sighted, long-haired, pot-smoking, fat kid who liked poetry and had tremendous problems with authority. All of this I told to the recruiter and he of course told me those were no problems and the Corps would straighten me out, oorah.
So after more than a week of this I just told him I was gay. There was a pause, and then I remember he said, "You know about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, right?"
To which I replied, "I think I just told you."
The Marine recruiter never called back. The next day, however -- and this is not a joke, this actually happened -- the Navy recruiter called.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
Fortunately, my own recruiter story is kind of amusing. After scoring high on the ASVAB, an USMC recruiter starting calling my home, every. single. day. For a week, I'd get home from school and the phone would ring, and Sgt. Somebody would try to convince me that the Corps was the best thing that could ever happen to me. Having a father who enlisted in the marines in 1969, I knew better. I was also a near-sighted, long-haired, pot-smoking, fat kid who liked poetry and had tremendous problems with authority. All of this I told to the recruiter and he of course told me those were no problems and the Corps would straighten me out, oorah.
So after more than a week of this I just told him I was gay. There was a pause, and then I remember he said, "You know about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, right?"
To which I replied, "I think I just told you."
The Marine recruiter never called back. The next day, however -- and this is not a joke, this actually happened -- the Navy recruiter called.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
I don't think the draft helps significantly to keep the US out of war. After all, there was a draft during the Vietnam war and that was the longest US conventional combat forces' participation in a major war in history.
We only had significant numbers of troops in Vietnam for seven of those years. The draft is what led to the massive antiwar movement and associated social upheavals during the 1960s.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:06 PM on February 2, 2016
We only had significant numbers of troops in Vietnam for seven of those years. The draft is what led to the massive antiwar movement and associated social upheavals during the 1960s.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:06 PM on February 2, 2016
there is no draft. there is a registration requirement. everyone should have to do that.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 7:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm going to try to keep this post coherent.
...the current situation where pretty much the only people who join the military are poor people being promised a better life doesn't seem any better from a class perspective.
I want to address this opinion that most people join the military out of obligation, not because I've seen it repeated a lot in this thread but because I've read it on Metafilter in various threads about the military. I know a lot of people in the United States Army who chose to join the Army even though they had other choices in life. I joined the Army because I wanted to, not because I needed to. And I know lots of people just like me. Now that might make you think I'm some kind of psychopath, murderer, brown-people hater, or just a garden variety gullible fool. I like to think that I'm none of those, but it's okay if you think that.
Now I'm an officer, infantry type, so of course, I make plenty more money than the Soldiers and NCOs do. And that'll probably cause you to disregard what I said about people not just joining the military out of obligation, but I've spent a lot of time with Soldiers. I was a platoon leader for 13 months and I had 45 enlisted guys in my platoon. I spent a lot of time with those guys, and I never heard any of them say that they joined the military because they had no other options. If I am given the opportunity to lead Soldiers again as a company commander, I'll keep asking them why they joined the Army, and maybe some of them will tell me that they joined because they didn't have a choice, but for now I just don't believe that most Soldiers join because they are forced to by circumstances. Certainly some are, but I don't think it's most. Anyway, the point of all of this is that I just want people to consider that members of the military have more agency than some people assume they do. A lot of them chose this when they could have chosen something else.
If I've got it twisted, I invite veteran members of Metafilter to square me away.
Anyway, on to the actual topic of conversation. I agree, as an individual and not as a representative of the military, that there should not be a draft at all. There are two reasons that I prefer to have a volunteer army. I enjoy working with Soldiers that I know signed up to be there of their own volition, and we have enough disciplinary problems as it is with the aforementioned volunteer army. I can only imagine trying to lead Soldiers who didn't choose to be there at all. To me it does make sense to have women register for selective service if we're going to keep that policy in place, but this is a moot point. It's like weighing using white phosphorous against using regular smoke rounds for obscuration (which apparently is a made up military word) in an urban environment. Sure, each has pros and cons, but using willy pete in civilian areas is against the law of land warfare, so why even talk about it? The draft is a bad idea. As others have already noted, if there is an existential threat to the United States of America, I expect people to sign up to defend it on their own. If they don't, then perhaps the country is no longer worth defending. I hope that is never the case.
Sorry about all the shady recruiters.
And lastly, I hate reading comments like
Man, it's a good thing we solved the problem of rampant sexual assault of female service members within the US military! If we hadn't, then suggesting that we make it mandatory for women would make us seem fucking monstrous.
because I hate that it is absolutely and undeniably true that we have a problem with rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in the United States military. It is shameful. The leadership has been doing a lot to try and stop it, but in the end it is up to junior officers and the NCOs to drive that culture change.
And thus ends my longest comment on Metafilter. Sure hope I at least got some sort of coherent thought across.
posted by A Bad Catholic at 7:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]
...the current situation where pretty much the only people who join the military are poor people being promised a better life doesn't seem any better from a class perspective.
I want to address this opinion that most people join the military out of obligation, not because I've seen it repeated a lot in this thread but because I've read it on Metafilter in various threads about the military. I know a lot of people in the United States Army who chose to join the Army even though they had other choices in life. I joined the Army because I wanted to, not because I needed to. And I know lots of people just like me. Now that might make you think I'm some kind of psychopath, murderer, brown-people hater, or just a garden variety gullible fool. I like to think that I'm none of those, but it's okay if you think that.
Now I'm an officer, infantry type, so of course, I make plenty more money than the Soldiers and NCOs do. And that'll probably cause you to disregard what I said about people not just joining the military out of obligation, but I've spent a lot of time with Soldiers. I was a platoon leader for 13 months and I had 45 enlisted guys in my platoon. I spent a lot of time with those guys, and I never heard any of them say that they joined the military because they had no other options. If I am given the opportunity to lead Soldiers again as a company commander, I'll keep asking them why they joined the Army, and maybe some of them will tell me that they joined because they didn't have a choice, but for now I just don't believe that most Soldiers join because they are forced to by circumstances. Certainly some are, but I don't think it's most. Anyway, the point of all of this is that I just want people to consider that members of the military have more agency than some people assume they do. A lot of them chose this when they could have chosen something else.
If I've got it twisted, I invite veteran members of Metafilter to square me away.
Anyway, on to the actual topic of conversation. I agree, as an individual and not as a representative of the military, that there should not be a draft at all. There are two reasons that I prefer to have a volunteer army. I enjoy working with Soldiers that I know signed up to be there of their own volition, and we have enough disciplinary problems as it is with the aforementioned volunteer army. I can only imagine trying to lead Soldiers who didn't choose to be there at all. To me it does make sense to have women register for selective service if we're going to keep that policy in place, but this is a moot point. It's like weighing using white phosphorous against using regular smoke rounds for obscuration (which apparently is a made up military word) in an urban environment. Sure, each has pros and cons, but using willy pete in civilian areas is against the law of land warfare, so why even talk about it? The draft is a bad idea. As others have already noted, if there is an existential threat to the United States of America, I expect people to sign up to defend it on their own. If they don't, then perhaps the country is no longer worth defending. I hope that is never the case.
Sorry about all the shady recruiters.
And lastly, I hate reading comments like
Man, it's a good thing we solved the problem of rampant sexual assault of female service members within the US military! If we hadn't, then suggesting that we make it mandatory for women would make us seem fucking monstrous.
because I hate that it is absolutely and undeniably true that we have a problem with rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in the United States military. It is shameful. The leadership has been doing a lot to try and stop it, but in the end it is up to junior officers and the NCOs to drive that culture change.
And thus ends my longest comment on Metafilter. Sure hope I at least got some sort of coherent thought across.
posted by A Bad Catholic at 7:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]
Did four years in the Coast Guard. Didn't enjoy most of it, but I'm still very proud of it. The military is absolutely not for everyone, and I'd say the same thing about any sort of "civil service" program, too. And it bugs the living hell out of me that ever GOP debate has been a dozen people who've never served talking about how war is so awesome for someone else's kids.
But my bottom line: Either we all need to register or nobody should register. I'm okay with either of these outcomes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
But my bottom line: Either we all need to register or nobody should register. I'm okay with either of these outcomes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know a lot of people in the United States Army who chose to join the Army even though they had other choices in life. I joined the Army because I wanted to, not because I needed to. And I know lots of people just like me.
That's a nice anecdote, but....
An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities. For such enlistees, military service can open opportunities that would not otherwise be available. Indeed, research has found that military service often serves as a positive turning point in the career trajectories of enlistees from disadvantaged circumstances (Elder 1986, 1987; Sampson and Laub 1996). [...]
In conclusion, among race, socioeconomic status, and immigration status, socioeconomic status is the only significant predictor of having ever served in the military. Class differences in military enlistment likely reflect differences in the non-military occupational opportunity, structured along class lines. This research shows that the all-volunteer force continues to see over-representation of the working and middle classes, with fewer incentives for upper class participation.
Who Joins the Military?: A Look at Race, Class, and Immigration Status (PDF)
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's a nice anecdote, but....
An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities. For such enlistees, military service can open opportunities that would not otherwise be available. Indeed, research has found that military service often serves as a positive turning point in the career trajectories of enlistees from disadvantaged circumstances (Elder 1986, 1987; Sampson and Laub 1996). [...]
In conclusion, among race, socioeconomic status, and immigration status, socioeconomic status is the only significant predictor of having ever served in the military. Class differences in military enlistment likely reflect differences in the non-military occupational opportunity, structured along class lines. This research shows that the all-volunteer force continues to see over-representation of the working and middle classes, with fewer incentives for upper class participation.
Who Joins the Military?: A Look at Race, Class, and Immigration Status (PDF)
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Personally I've tended to support the idea that a 1-2 year civil/military service commitment by all adults (male or female) would probably be a good system but I also admit that it would likely be gamed to hell and probably require all sorts of constitutional amendments. In regards to registering for selective service yeah that should probably be gender blind with the caveat that modern militaries rarely need universal conscription outside of edge cases and from a structural standpoint the modern US military is built around the specialization that is probably only possible with an all volunteer force.
Still I have some real concerns about the make-up of our volunteer military as it's socio-economic and racial make-up seem less than representative of the US as a whole and that tends to result in overuse of those forces (because any cost in human lives is unlikely to be paid by the elites in society).
In short as long as we are going to have a military force and fight in wars there are going to be issues with representation and universal selective service is possibly the most fair way of implementing that.
posted by vuron at 8:38 PM on February 2, 2016
Still I have some real concerns about the make-up of our volunteer military as it's socio-economic and racial make-up seem less than representative of the US as a whole and that tends to result in overuse of those forces (because any cost in human lives is unlikely to be paid by the elites in society).
In short as long as we are going to have a military force and fight in wars there are going to be issues with representation and universal selective service is possibly the most fair way of implementing that.
posted by vuron at 8:38 PM on February 2, 2016
nice ABC.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:39 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:39 PM on February 2, 2016
The reasons for people choosing to join the military a complicated and a suspect most choose to join out of a combination of factors related to number of relatives in the armed services, socio-economic status, race, educational background (or more importantly access to higher education), access to jobs, etc there is a very real concern that the volunteer military is less than representative and that results in decisions where troops are deployed with less caution than would be the case if your division was made up a demographically accurate population with a substantial number of women being deployed in active combat duty. Would sexism trump militaristic adventurism?
What is very interesting to note is that for some minority populations particularly among older cohorts the US military was seen as a centerpiece of race-blind meritocracy. Policies where minorities could succeed on their own merits have been in place and have been accepted to a degree which is almost unheard of in the private sector and is often uncommon even in public sector employment. Yes racism informs who joins the military but we need to keep in mind that in many cases this is because the military was seen as a refuge from the widespread systemic racism ever present in out society.
posted by vuron at 8:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
What is very interesting to note is that for some minority populations particularly among older cohorts the US military was seen as a centerpiece of race-blind meritocracy. Policies where minorities could succeed on their own merits have been in place and have been accepted to a degree which is almost unheard of in the private sector and is often uncommon even in public sector employment. Yes racism informs who joins the military but we need to keep in mind that in many cases this is because the military was seen as a refuge from the widespread systemic racism ever present in out society.
posted by vuron at 8:57 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
When I was a teenager, I had an internet friend from Germany who was just starting his mandated year (? might have been two?) of service. He did his as a paramedic assistant of some sort, never had to even go near the military. I think this would be a great idea in any country.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 PM on February 2, 2016
respect for veterans does not automatically equal "glorification of the military."
I too have several vets in my family and respect the hell out of them. But I also think it's entirely possible to accept that the U.S. glorifies the military in a not-so-healthy way, i.e., both things can be true at the same time.
posted by hapax_legomenon at 10:40 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I too have several vets in my family and respect the hell out of them. But I also think it's entirely possible to accept that the U.S. glorifies the military in a not-so-healthy way, i.e., both things can be true at the same time.
posted by hapax_legomenon at 10:40 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh hell yeah, everybody should know, bottom line, their society sees them as an expendable bag of meat, potentially no more valuable than a German Shepard.
posted by ridgerunner at 12:19 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ridgerunner at 12:19 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I really, really hate the ideas for mandatory civil service as well. First off, it's authoritarian and anti-freedom. Let people choose what to do with their lives, if they hate the government, don't make them work for it against their will. All of the stuff about draftees performing poorly in the military compared to voluntary soldiers is going to apply to any other job you put them in.
If there are civil service jobs that actually need doing, or we could benefit from having them done, then pass a bill to fund hiring people voluntarily to do them. If you want to encourage service among young people, give them hiring preference for those jobs.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
If there are civil service jobs that actually need doing, or we could benefit from having them done, then pass a bill to fund hiring people voluntarily to do them. If you want to encourage service among young people, give them hiring preference for those jobs.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's that word again. The question is, who or what have you served?
I take it in the same sense as involuntary servitude, but that is mostly just me. Unfortunately.
Yanking innocent young people out of their lives and sending them far away to kill or be killed, all in support of corporate interests, is unconscionable. At least it is to me. The fact that most of my fellow citizens do not agree is a tragedy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:20 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I take it in the same sense as involuntary servitude, but that is mostly just me. Unfortunately.
Yanking innocent young people out of their lives and sending them far away to kill or be killed, all in support of corporate interests, is unconscionable. At least it is to me. The fact that most of my fellow citizens do not agree is a tragedy.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:20 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder if there is any good science on the impact of compulsory national service programs. Based on the annecdotes of my Non-USian friend who endured it; it didn't seem to foster the kind of community and egalitarian spirit that some of the advocates claim. It sounds like it was more of a continuation of the kind of social bullshit encountered in American High Schools.
posted by humanfont at 5:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
That is a good point. For many it would be 2 years if pressure to social conformity after the K-16 experience. My anecdotes from people that experienced it tend to be from upper or upper middle class Scandinavian, Swiss and Israelis so I strongly suspect that their generally positive experience is broadly applicable.
posted by vuron at 5:29 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by vuron at 5:29 AM on February 3, 2016
Isnt broadly applicable
posted by vuron at 5:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 5:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
When I was a teenager, I had an internet friend from Germany who was just starting his mandated year (? might have been two?) of service. He did his as a paramedic assistant of some sort, never had to even go near the military. I think this would be a great idea in any country.
Switzerland is the same. You can basically do anything that is for the betterment of Swiss society; it's called civilian service. I know a guy who just finished two years of beekeeping, which falls under agriculture programs. You can also choose the fire service, civil defence, or a number of other options. (Wikipedia)
posted by tracicle at 6:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Switzerland is the same. You can basically do anything that is for the betterment of Swiss society; it's called civilian service. I know a guy who just finished two years of beekeeping, which falls under agriculture programs. You can also choose the fire service, civil defence, or a number of other options. (Wikipedia)
posted by tracicle at 6:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
When I registered for the draft, the Selective Service Committee sent me a free Mach 3 razor
When I was considering the Navy, I got a pair of socks.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:05 AM on February 3, 2016
When I was considering the Navy, I got a pair of socks.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:05 AM on February 3, 2016
I really, really hate the ideas for mandatory civil service as well. First off, it's authoritarian and anti-freedom.
Hardly. It's an extension of the social contract requiring everyone to spend one year of their lives doing something that helps knit society together. Hell, here in Ontario, community service/volunteer hours are a requirement for graduating high school now. It's educational to get people to do something that's bigger than themselves.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hardly. It's an extension of the social contract requiring everyone to spend one year of their lives doing something that helps knit society together. Hell, here in Ontario, community service/volunteer hours are a requirement for graduating high school now. It's educational to get people to do something that's bigger than themselves.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Authoritarianism usually does come with nice sounding justifications, but it's still authoritarianism to force people into jobs they don't want to do.
That isn't a social contract Americans will or should sign on to. Selective Service is only tolerated because in theory it may be necessary to confront existential threats to the nation.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:50 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
That isn't a social contract Americans will or should sign on to. Selective Service is only tolerated because in theory it may be necessary to confront existential threats to the nation.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:50 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
(Maybe I should be saying it's an "authoritarian policy" rather than it's "authoritarianism." I'm not trying to suggest it's fascism or anything, just an extremely heavy handed wielding of government authority.)
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 AM on February 3, 2016
Hell, here in Ontario, community service/volunteer hours are a requirement for graduating high school now.
This was on its way in when I graduated high school in Miami in 88. I thought it was gross then and I think it's gross now. I get the high minded side of what motivates it, but requiring people to participate in The System - potentially at the detriment of the needy to actually use that time to earn in order to keep the family fed - with their unpaid labor is icky. It negatively impacts the people least able to exercise options to not do it, all in the name of more tightly bonding people to the society they may have no choice but to live in.
The heck with that. I don't like forced indoctrination in the form of requiring repeatedly stating oaths and I like it less with people's time and effort. People paying their taxes and living within the rules should be the extent of what we ask of them to be part of society. Asking them to labor for it for free should not.
posted by phearlez at 11:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
This was on its way in when I graduated high school in Miami in 88. I thought it was gross then and I think it's gross now. I get the high minded side of what motivates it, but requiring people to participate in The System - potentially at the detriment of the needy to actually use that time to earn in order to keep the family fed - with their unpaid labor is icky. It negatively impacts the people least able to exercise options to not do it, all in the name of more tightly bonding people to the society they may have no choice but to live in.
The heck with that. I don't like forced indoctrination in the form of requiring repeatedly stating oaths and I like it less with people's time and effort. People paying their taxes and living within the rules should be the extent of what we ask of them to be part of society. Asking them to labor for it for free should not.
posted by phearlez at 11:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
> I dunno. Maybe free college for everybody, with mandatory military summers, doing whatever you're majored in.
"Great news, Mom! After basic training, I'm getting assigned to the Coalition Advanced Art History Activity outpost in Erbil Iraq. We'll be there to record and preserve ancient artworks and shoot the ISIS fuckers who try to blow them up. Oops, sorry for saying fuckers, mom. Lotta swearing in Basic."
posted by Sunburnt at 3:03 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Great news, Mom! After basic training, I'm getting assigned to the Coalition Advanced Art History Activity outpost in Erbil Iraq. We'll be there to record and preserve ancient artworks and shoot the ISIS fuckers who try to blow them up. Oops, sorry for saying fuckers, mom. Lotta swearing in Basic."
posted by Sunburnt at 3:03 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
There has never been a time in American history when any given man of any age probably served. At its height in WWII, the U.S. military was 16 million strong -- about 12 percent of the population of 135 million. It was nearly all men, so that's less than a quarter of American men serving in the largest mobilization in U.S. history.
This is false. What you are neglecting is that the draft age in WWII only included men from 18 to 38, about 16% of the population. About 60% of men of that age served in WWII. In fact, if you were under age 40 and walking on the street, people singled you out as a slacker and made comments.
posted by JackFlash at 7:36 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is false. What you are neglecting is that the draft age in WWII only included men from 18 to 38, about 16% of the population. About 60% of men of that age served in WWII. In fact, if you were under age 40 and walking on the street, people singled you out as a slacker and made comments.
posted by JackFlash at 7:36 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Slave armies are immoral.
What about non-slave armies? Are you okay with non-slaves fighting your wars for you?
posted by JackFlash at 7:40 PM on February 3, 2016
What about non-slave armies? Are you okay with non-slaves fighting your wars for you?
posted by JackFlash at 7:40 PM on February 3, 2016
My Israeli abd European friends hated their experience. Lots of busy work and bullshit.
posted by humanfont at 7:44 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 7:44 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Lots of busy work and bullshit.
I'm confident that anyone who served in the volunteer armed services will tell you that this is an authentic military experience.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:09 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm confident that anyone who served in the volunteer armed services will tell you that this is an authentic military experience.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:09 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's just fundamentally nothing for a military to uddelt do in peacetime, so it's inevitable.
posted by Dysk at 2:10 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by Dysk at 2:10 AM on February 4, 2016
I joined the army for student loan repayment. I didn't actually intend to join, I just filled out the web-form to get my mother (an Army nurse in Vietnam and then Air Force careerist my entire life) off my back. Both my parents were AF, I grew up on AF bases, I saw what it did to my parents (and this is the AF we're talking about, arguably the cushiest service in existence) and never had any desire to join the military, ever. But then of course, as mentioned above, the recruiter just started stalking me. Relentlessly. I resigned myself to do it because I couldn't really see any other way to tackle the loans, but I took 23 months between taking the ASVAB (which is good for 2 years) and finally signing on the dotted line. At my 10-year high school reunion, people laughed when I said I was gonna be joining the army.
In AIT I remember the XO-- as an officer, a near god-like figure to be avoided and/or appeased at all cost-- polling us low-ranking, enlisted, not-yet-MOS-qualified initial entry scum about why we'd joined the Army. Nearly everyone spun some heartwarming story about how 9/11 had affected them. Well, I've always been pretty emotionless and cynical, all their stories sounded like bullshit to me. I only believed one guy who I'd known for a while by then, who had the nebulous reason that since he was a little kid he had always wanted to join the army and be a soldier. He was a white kid, middle-class, didn't have any military in his family background as far as I was aware, he just wanted to be an Army man. (Less than two years after that I heard he was out of the Army, having been abruptly discharged on a crazy ticket after, apparently, a rough year in Iraq.) Anyway, while everyone else was speaking I was sitting there wondering if I should give the truth (I joined for purely mercenary reasons, to get out from under my $57,000 of debt) or lie like everyone else about some swelling of national pride and duty in the wake of terrorism or some shit. I really don't remember what I said, though I think I might have told the truth because I think I sort of vaguely remember the XO making some impassive statement about taking all types or something. I really don't remember though.
Echoing others above, I know nobody active duty who would want conscripts working with them. We ragged on weekend-warrior Reservists and (worst of the worst) Guardsmen for being slovenly, undertrained, ill-prepared, and frankly, kind of embarrassing, and those people were volunteers, just like us, who'd been through Basic and AIT and whatever, just like us. I heard tell of people being deployed and seeing units of IRR folks who'd been recalled and they basically had to treat them like prisoners to keep them from trying to escape or fuck something up. They were next to useless, didn't want to be there, no one wanted them there.
I've always been kind of ambivalent about some kind of national service. On the one hand, I balked when in high school there was some move afoot to start requiring a mandatory community volunteer requirement in order to graduate; on the other hand, I think there is a disconnect between the people who call for (and make decisions about) military action-- and the people who elect and support those people-- and the ones who wind up having to execute those decisions. This militarization of society and lionizing of the troops seems to be something that's developed (or at least gotten worse) during my lifetime, or maybe I just didn't notice it before. I was in high school during the first Gulf War and other than there being a support group for the kids whose parents were deployed (which, to be fair, would make sense since our high school was located on a military base and literally all of our parents were connected to the military), I don't remember all this yellow ribbon and "Support our heroes" shit-- though again maybe because we were a military community it would have been considered déclassé to be tooting our own horns that way. I hate when the press and regular (civilian) people on call-in shows refer to the president as the Commander-in-Chief, or (worse, but not infrequent) their Commander-in-Chief. If you're not in the Armed Forces, he's not your commander. He was my Commander-in-Chief for a spell, and he's many people's Commander-in-Chief currently, but not any more. I'm out now. I don't have a commander to answer to.
I don't regret my time in the Army-- I have a reasonable if stupid job now because of it, no debt, I got to fire a bazooka and throw a live grenade-- but I think I would have resented having to do it as a requirement for citizenship.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 5:31 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
In AIT I remember the XO-- as an officer, a near god-like figure to be avoided and/or appeased at all cost-- polling us low-ranking, enlisted, not-yet-MOS-qualified initial entry scum about why we'd joined the Army. Nearly everyone spun some heartwarming story about how 9/11 had affected them. Well, I've always been pretty emotionless and cynical, all their stories sounded like bullshit to me. I only believed one guy who I'd known for a while by then, who had the nebulous reason that since he was a little kid he had always wanted to join the army and be a soldier. He was a white kid, middle-class, didn't have any military in his family background as far as I was aware, he just wanted to be an Army man. (Less than two years after that I heard he was out of the Army, having been abruptly discharged on a crazy ticket after, apparently, a rough year in Iraq.) Anyway, while everyone else was speaking I was sitting there wondering if I should give the truth (I joined for purely mercenary reasons, to get out from under my $57,000 of debt) or lie like everyone else about some swelling of national pride and duty in the wake of terrorism or some shit. I really don't remember what I said, though I think I might have told the truth because I think I sort of vaguely remember the XO making some impassive statement about taking all types or something. I really don't remember though.
Echoing others above, I know nobody active duty who would want conscripts working with them. We ragged on weekend-warrior Reservists and (worst of the worst) Guardsmen for being slovenly, undertrained, ill-prepared, and frankly, kind of embarrassing, and those people were volunteers, just like us, who'd been through Basic and AIT and whatever, just like us. I heard tell of people being deployed and seeing units of IRR folks who'd been recalled and they basically had to treat them like prisoners to keep them from trying to escape or fuck something up. They were next to useless, didn't want to be there, no one wanted them there.
I've always been kind of ambivalent about some kind of national service. On the one hand, I balked when in high school there was some move afoot to start requiring a mandatory community volunteer requirement in order to graduate; on the other hand, I think there is a disconnect between the people who call for (and make decisions about) military action-- and the people who elect and support those people-- and the ones who wind up having to execute those decisions. This militarization of society and lionizing of the troops seems to be something that's developed (or at least gotten worse) during my lifetime, or maybe I just didn't notice it before. I was in high school during the first Gulf War and other than there being a support group for the kids whose parents were deployed (which, to be fair, would make sense since our high school was located on a military base and literally all of our parents were connected to the military), I don't remember all this yellow ribbon and "Support our heroes" shit-- though again maybe because we were a military community it would have been considered déclassé to be tooting our own horns that way. I hate when the press and regular (civilian) people on call-in shows refer to the president as the Commander-in-Chief, or (worse, but not infrequent) their Commander-in-Chief. If you're not in the Armed Forces, he's not your commander. He was my Commander-in-Chief for a spell, and he's many people's Commander-in-Chief currently, but not any more. I'm out now. I don't have a commander to answer to.
I don't regret my time in the Army-- I have a reasonable if stupid job now because of it, no debt, I got to fire a bazooka and throw a live grenade-- but I think I would have resented having to do it as a requirement for citizenship.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 5:31 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
This militarization of society and lionizing of the troops seems to be something that's developed (or at least gotten worse) during my lifetime, or maybe I just didn't notice it before. I was in high school during the first Gulf War and other than there being a support group for the kids whose parents were deployed (which, to be fair, would make sense since our high school was located on a military base and literally all of our parents were connected to the military), I don't remember all this yellow ribbon and "Support our heroes" shit
It's possibly got something to do with the fact that the current wars are a lot more controversial - both in terms of anti-militarism, and in terms of body bags coming back. The former causes more defensiveness, the latter a greater need to rally behind some sort of community or idea.
posted by Dysk at 6:22 AM on February 4, 2016
It's possibly got something to do with the fact that the current wars are a lot more controversial - both in terms of anti-militarism, and in terms of body bags coming back. The former causes more defensiveness, the latter a greater need to rally behind some sort of community or idea.
posted by Dysk at 6:22 AM on February 4, 2016
If I am given the opportunity to lead Soldiers again as a company commander, I'll keep asking them why they joined the Army...
A Bad Catholic, I am confident that after a year as a company commander you will realize they joined to steal everything they could from your supply room, and to break everything they could not steal.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:50 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
A Bad Catholic, I am confident that after a year as a company commander you will realize they joined to steal everything they could from your supply room, and to break everything they could not steal.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:50 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's possibly got something to do with the fact that the current wars are a lot more controversial - both in terms of anti-militarism, and in terms of body bags coming back.
You need to support these 'facts.' Vietnam was enormously controversial, and killed far more soldiers, Marines, and fliers.
The lionizing of military service is certainly recent, and is the result of a successful PR campaign in support of Republican wars. It's doubly disgusting in light of the failure to care for, or about, returned vets.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
You need to support these 'facts.' Vietnam was enormously controversial, and killed far more soldiers, Marines, and fliers.
The lionizing of military service is certainly recent, and is the result of a successful PR campaign in support of Republican wars. It's doubly disgusting in light of the failure to care for, or about, returned vets.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
in terms of body bags coming back
I've mentioned this before here, but:
Back in the '90s, I worked (twice) for a guy who had been the desk officer at the Pentagon who received the casualty reports from the entire U.S. Army. Every day, he collected the details of deaths and serious injuries from around the world and passed them up the chain of command. He told me that one or two people die every day in the Army, even during peacetime, because it is a large organization with a lot of people, many of whom who do dangerous things while training to do other dangerous things.
The U.S. military death toll in the Global War on Terror (that is, everything the U.S. military has done since September 11th, 2001) is currently at 6,639 over the course of 5,259 days. That's just over one and a quarter per day, spread across the entire Department of Defense (though mostly from the Army and Marine Corps).
The Vietnam War had five individual years with more than 6,000 U.S. military deaths, and even if you take those years out, you've got nearly 6,000 more over the course of the less deadly 13 years.
The body bags of the last 15 years, while occasionally spiking into the news, are background noise.
posted by Etrigan at 10:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've mentioned this before here, but:
Back in the '90s, I worked (twice) for a guy who had been the desk officer at the Pentagon who received the casualty reports from the entire U.S. Army. Every day, he collected the details of deaths and serious injuries from around the world and passed them up the chain of command. He told me that one or two people die every day in the Army, even during peacetime, because it is a large organization with a lot of people, many of whom who do dangerous things while training to do other dangerous things.
The U.S. military death toll in the Global War on Terror (that is, everything the U.S. military has done since September 11th, 2001) is currently at 6,639 over the course of 5,259 days. That's just over one and a quarter per day, spread across the entire Department of Defense (though mostly from the Army and Marine Corps).
The Vietnam War had five individual years with more than 6,000 U.S. military deaths, and even if you take those years out, you've got nearly 6,000 more over the course of the less deadly 13 years.
The body bags of the last 15 years, while occasionally spiking into the news, are background noise.
posted by Etrigan at 10:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Vietnam was enormously controversial, and killed far more soldiers, Marines, and fliers.
I was comparing to the era discussed in the comment I was responding to - the time of the first gulf war.
posted by Dysk at 10:36 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was comparing to the era discussed in the comment I was responding to - the time of the first gulf war.
posted by Dysk at 10:36 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Kratom, controversy and harm reduction | He's takin' to the stars, to take down the man! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by kirkaracha at 10:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]