I'm Pro-Military So I Support Senator Obama (and I, Frank Schaeffer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaef...up_b_90282.html

I have been reading more by this author and he makes sense to me.

UlsterScotNutt;

Just read the article by Frank Schaefer. Very interesting. He makes some very good points concerning the Military. I agree with some of what he says but hesitate to expound on it for it would surely anger a great many in the Forum. There is also the fact that I am an outsider looking in.

Camac.

Camac,

You always seem to reply from a knowledgeable base though. You, by no means, are an outsider and besides anger is based on unknowns and fear.

I just read another op-ed piece by him with regards to the draft, titled: "Liberals should enlist support for a return to military draft" Frank Shaeffer

That should entice some discussion.

UlsterScotNutt

UlsterScot Nutt;

On the subject of the Draft I must say that having seem the U.S. Draft system at work I totally disagree with it. In order for a draft to work it must be fair and unbiased. The system in use in the 60s' and 70's had far to many loopholes in it to be equitable. Far to many deferments and the fact that individuals who had absolutely no business being drafted were. ie. The MacNamara Boys. These kids had serious emmotional and intellectual problems and were more of a danger to themselves and others than they were to the enemy. Forrest Gump was a fictional characterization of one. There were two of then in my unit and both were evaced for phsychological reasons. The poor bastards were scared out of their wits and couldn't cope. No my Friend the Draft is not the solution.

Camac.

Camac,
Forrest Gump won a Medal of Honor. I will need to read up on The MacNamara Boys. Secy of D is the only MacNamara I know of from the Vietnam Era.

The failure was not in the draft of itself but a failure within the draft. The things you mention are not because of the draft but are exposed because of the draft. Biased, unfairness, inequity, loopholes are exposed. We have a classification for the MacNamaras of the draft, 4F.
Look what is happening with our recruiting today. We have this problem with an all volunteer military plus more, criminals, gangs, psycho's , mental deficients and a general cross section of the population at large volunteers. In addition we have the "value added recruit", who will come out and join the elite highly paid mercenary armies we hire in Iraq under the guise of privatization and security. Our military is alienated, separated and used wrongly to enforce social-political manipulation. This countries population is distinctly apart from its military and growing further apart daily. This is not a good thing for the military nor the people and therefore the country. Checks and balances are what make our country work.

I'll try and find the article I referenced before.

UlsterScotNutt

Camac,
Here is the article I referenced.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaef...-s_b_95950.html

UlsterScotNutt

Camac, I get it!! Slow me!! MacNamara Boys IS in reference to Robert MacNamara the Secy of Defense, during the Vietnam Era and political lack of genius. What a god awful time.

I'm sorry, he doesn't make much sense to me. Here's his list of "unintended consequences of an all volunteer army". As you can see I don't concur with them.

* Wars of choice have become easier
Really? During Vietnam there was a draft, the Korean War too - the American Civil War had a draft on both sides. It could be said that a draft makes wars of choice easier by providing a ready supply of soldiers to fight it. History shows wars of choice are not more easily facilitated by volunteers.[I]

*Civilian leadership of the military is weakened as civilian leaders without military experience are hesitant to tell those with experience what to do, as is in pathetic evidence in Congress, while at the same time people in the military wonder if their civilian leaders have their best interests at heart.
[I]And the draft would change this how?[I]

* Wars drag out since for most Americans, our wars -- out of sight and out of mind -- cost "nothing..."
[I]Which explains the widespread contempt for this war? Please!

* We are not, "all in it together." The military is no longer a level playing field contributing to the melting pot factor and integration of our society...
So the military is a social experiment in egalitarianism? I thought it was supposed to be an efficient fighting force capable of getting a job done. Volunteerism would best facilitate such a force, since its members serve from a desire, and an attitude of professionalism is better cultivated in volunteers than those who do not serve out of choice.

* We have created a military class that sees itself as more patriotic, more American and more decent than the rest of society and looks down on those who do not serve.
And your point? This is simply an attitude.

* The all-volunteer military is in fact an all-recruited military with recruiters concentrating on the "most productive" parts of society with need-based recruiting that has less to do with patriotism and more to do with a paycheck, benefits and health insurance.
A generalization that has little to do with verifiable facts unless evidence can be provided concerning the attitudes of the majority of service personel.

* Patriotism and service have become the professionalized commodities of military "specialists..."
I'd like to have military specialists for the same reason as I'd like having a specialist perform heart or knee replacement surgery on me. What do you want, amateurs? Is conforming to an ideology more important than efficiency and effectiveness in a military at war?

* The line between and all volunteer force and a mercenary force has blurred.
Is the military a social experiment in demographic pluralism or a professional fighting force? Besides, traditionally a mercenary force is hired from outside parties disinterested in the ideological or patriotic reasons for the conflict in question. Volunteers from the citizenry are not equivalent to mercenaries in that they have a personal stake in the conflict and outcome as such. Tell me how the implication that our volunteer army is only in it for the money and "bennies" is not utterly insulting to them as well as patronizing.

* The democratic tradition of citizen participation is going out the window.
I'm sorry, but citizen participation by choice or without it is not only a democratic tradition, but a facist, communist and any other governmental ideological tradition. It is thus independent of types of government. In a time of conflict, I'd say practicality trumps adherence to social ideology or mythologies concerning the military.

*The use of "contractors" in Iraq, where there are 160,000 contractors as opposed to 140,000 troops, means that the mercenary aspect of our military is being formalized with a second shadow military made up of those who have served in the official military becoming freelance mercenaries for much higher pay. (It also means that actual American casualty rates are much higher than reported because our contractors don't "count").
The parenthetical sentence can be easily corrected with changes in reporting and does not entail rearrangement of the military just to get accurate body counts. This statement needs to be qualified, since it suggests that most of the 160,000 contractors are ex-military people who become mercenaries that fight, when it could well be that the majority of outside contractors provide food, water, transport or other logistical duties. I suspect that the military prefers its own on the front lines for the most part, since its only the military's own members who they can trust to risk their lives when they're ordered to do so.

Antwn --

UlsterScotNutt;
I guess that's what happens when you put a ex-Ford executive in the position of Defence Secretary. Bodies lots of bodies and more bodies. (Cannon Fodder)


Antwn; A professional Military is a Mercenary Military with the added bonus of Patriotism.

And the subtracted bonus of pay incommensurate with risk and skill.

I don't mean to run down patriotism -- but let's keep material compensation and intangible ideology running clear and separate here. You can't wire your patriotism home to your wife and kids to eat on -- or to spend caring for you indefinitely with your crippling head injury.

UlsterScot Nutt;

Reading the articles by Schaefer in which he infers a distancing between the Military and the Civilian populous, a feeling of elitism on the military's part, makes me wonder if we are not entering a Time Warp. So much of what I read and see at times convices me that the U.S. is the New Rome and now we have these articles adding more evidence. Starting from the time of Sulla and up to the Fall, the Roman Military became more and more the power behind (and in front) of the Throne. As it became more powerful it chose the Emperor and at one point it auctioned the Empire off to the highest bidder. Rome aslo became more and more reliant on mercenaries and in the end these same mercenaries took over completely.

Maybe THAT is why GWB is now greeted at press conferences by: "Hail Ceasar"?

Antwn, thanks for jumping in with very specifics. It is this type of discussion I was trying to illicit. I have placed my points in behind yours with **. The draft may not be the answer to a problem but a problem does exist within our nation in relation to our military. The military recognises a problem. The most ominous statement in the op-ed piece is the one by Adm. Stanley Arthur. I also think there is alot , that is part of this article that has not been addressed.

* Wars of choice have become easier
Really? During Vietnam there was a draft, the Korean War too - the American Civil War had a draft on both sides. It could be said that a draft makes wars of choice easier by providing a ready supply of soldiers to fight it. History shows wars of choice are not more easily facilitated by volunteers.[I]
**Vietnam and Koea were conflicts part of the Cold War and the Civil War?? none of these compares. How many countries have we invaded and bombed since 1972 when I believe the draft ended. Easily facilitated?, the start or the warring part?A sentence in the article is "You want to know why this war drags on, it is because it does not involve you or your children personally. PS You should see my neighbors mom now ( will make sense alittle later}.

*Civilian leadership of the military is weakened as civilian leaders without military experience are hesitant to tell those with experience what to do, as is in pathetic evidence in Congress, while at the same time people in the military wonder if their civilian leaders have their best interests at heart.
[I]And the draft would change this how?[I]
** By having a greater number of former servicemen and women in the general public. A closer relationship through family and community to government.

* Wars drag out since for most Americans, our wars -- out of sight and out of mind -- cost "nothing..."
[I]Which explains the widespread contempt for this war? Please!
** Widespread contempt, yes, in what? polls? so few have done anything towards ending this war. There use to be protests and I use to print the posters, haven't seen or done one in over 2 years. Contempt? Yea, til dinner time.

* We are not, "all in it together." The military is no longer a level playing field contributing to the melting pot factor and integration of our society...
So the military is a social experiment in egalitarianism? I thought it was supposed to be an efficient fighting force capable of getting a job done. Volunteerism would best facilitate such a force, since its members serve from a desire, and an attitude of professionalism is better cultivated in volunteers than those who do not serve out of choice.
** Yes, and it can be an efficient fighting force to get the job done, with a draft. Is an entire army of professionals the need or intent?

* We have created a military class that sees itself as more patriotic, more American and more decent than the rest of society and looks down on those who do not serve.
And your point? This is simply an attitude.
** Attitude is the foundation of action.

* The all-volunteer military is in fact an all-recruited military with recruiters concentrating on the "most productive" parts of society with need-based recruiting that has less to do with patriotism and more to do with a paycheck, benefits and health insurance.
A generalization that has little to do with verifiable facts unless evidence can be provided concerning the attitudes of the majority of service personel.
** Anectodal, My next door neighbors kid is joining the Marines today, why, because he is bored with work, they will arrange to take care of his truck payments, he wants to get into physical condition and they promised him a signing bonus, job of his choice and no deployment for a year. We'll see.

* Patriotism and service have become the professionalized commodities of military "specialists..."
I'd like to have military specialists for the same reason as I'd like having a specialist perform heart or knee replacement surgery on me. What do you want, amateurs? Is conforming to an ideology more important than efficiency and effectiveness in a military at war?
** Service and patriotism are not solely the domain of the military. Amateurs, no trained soldiers. Ideology got us into this war. A firm understanding of what it means to be a nation of representative democracy and a republic demands it. Check out the forum topic on Firefighter losing job because he can't speak Spanish, idealogy over need arguments.

* The line between and all volunteer force and a mercenary force has blurred.
Is the military a social experiment in demographic pluralism or a professional fighting force? Besides, traditionally a mercenary force is hired from outside parties disinterested in the ideological or patriotic reasons for the conflict in question. Volunteers from the citizenry are not equivalent to mercenaries in that they have a personal stake in the conflict and outcome as such. Tell me how the implication that our volunteer army is only in it for the money and "bennies" is not utterly insulting to them as well as patronizing.
** Again , professional army, the difference between a military and professional military explain? One run with amateurs another of professionals? The private security in Iraq now, are they in it for the huge financial gains and or the ideology behind creating a democratic state? The statement is geared at recruiting and those that the method recruits. It does not insult or patronize. Please reread.

* The democratic tradition of citizen participation is going out the window.
I'm sorry, but citizen participation by choice or without it is not only a democratic tradition, but a facist, communist and any other governmental ideological tradition. It is thus independent of types of government. In a time of conflict, I'd say practicality trumps adherence to social ideology or mythologies concerning the military.
** Still a tradition and a very important part of the checks and balances of this nation. Again, see firefighter ideology. Also, the argument is an after the fact argument, the conflict exists and there is no draft now.

*The use of "contractors" in Iraq, where there are 160,000 contractors as opposed to 140,000 troops, means that the mercenary aspect of our military is being formalized with a second shadow military made up of those who have served in the official military becoming freelance mercenaries for much higher pay. (It also means that actual American casualty rates are much higher than reported because our contractors don't "count").
The parenthetical sentence can be easily corrected with changes in reporting and does not entail rearrangement of the military just to get accurate body counts. This statement needs to be qualified, since it suggests that most of the 160,000 contractors are ex-military people who become mercenaries that fight, when it could well be that the majority of outside contractors provide food, water, transport or other logistical duties. I suspect that the military prefers its own on the front lines for the most part, since its only the military's own members who they can trust to risk their lives when they're ordered to do so.
** Exactly, the parenthesis indicate an aside. There is no front line in an urban warfare. These contractors are armed and ready on the streets as is everyone else. Armored vehicles, armed heliocopters, fortified bases, armed personnel performing logistics just as any army does. Then why do top army brass use hired personal bodyguards along with visiting dignitaries?

I have read the whole thread and the articles, so this may be a somewhat tangent comment. And at the risk of attracting the ire of both sides of the political isle and most of the western world let me ask a few questions...

What war?

Where in the world is there a flags in front, bugles in back, sabres up, and boots down fight going on?

To these questions I would reply, in reverse order;
"Nowhere"
"Oh, you mean the mafia style, gangland violence perpetrated by less than 0.1% of the resident population against any and all of their political rivals including, but not limited to, the United States' military?"

You see, I too have friends who have been over there, or are still there. I've been forced to attend two of their funerals. All of them have had the same observation about Iraq. Independent of our motives for going over in the first place, they have all said that the US military is the wrong tool to fix Iraq's problems. In the words of one, "It's like curing cancer with a blowtorch." I can only imagine what he meant.

Iraq doesn't need George Patton.
Iraq needs Elliot Ness.



(BTW...the draft is a terrible idea that will never be done well in a society that values the individual over the state, and no matter when we leave Iraq, the pooh is going to hit the fan.)