Thoughts on Military Conscription - Long Post

[Lefty375]

I wholly agree with that statement, but I feel as if that is a problem that can be fixed. How? I can come up with ten solutions to fix that problem, but then I am sure there would be double the flaws with my solutions.
I can see myself writing more out of frustration with my peers than with clear, cognitive thought. I am just sickened seeing American flags burned, and listening to ignorance spew from my peers mouths' when they bash America, their own country. The first thought in mind is having them do what is done to keep our country safe, free, and at liberty from the evils around the world. Give them a first person perspective of what goes on in other countries compared to here.

I find what you propose incredibly scary. I welcome the marketplace of ideas and wish more people would become informed and participate.

We had a potential flag burning on campus, and we ended up having a civil discussion, and no flag burning took place. I would rather have a flag burning country than a no dissent allowed country.

Further, one doesn't need a first person perspective to study what we have done right and wrong around the world. To never be critical of your own country leads down a dark path. The good policy stands on its own merit, it doesn't need my unwavering patriotism. I support good ideas because they are such, not because my country is doing them.

 

[Devildoc]

I am off two minds. First, I could see the benefit of a draft in a war. You need bodies. And if you have a draft in the war, that war WILL end, somehow. And everyone will have skin in the game. It's amazing how quickly conflicts will end if everyone feels the pain.

Second, a draft will bring in a metric shit-ton of people who simply won't cut it. They will scream and cry and whine and pout, and no amount of external motivation will change them. We have enough trouble with people like this who willingly join now.

I like the idea of national service in some form.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

I find what you propose incredibly scary. I welcome the marketplace of ideas and wish more people would become informed and participate.

We had a potential flag burning on campus, and we ended up having a civil discussion, and no flag burning took place. I would rather have a flag burning country than a no dissent allowed country.

Further, one doesn't need a first person perspective to study what we have done right and wrong around the world. To never be critical of your own country leads down a dark path. The good policy stands on its own merit, it doesn't need my unwavering patriotism. I support good ideas because they are such, not because my country is doing them.

I appreciate your feedback, I see from your point and can understand that as well.
Sadly, civil discussions are few and far between in my classes, maybe I am at fault for this, maybe not. Either way, I do hope that discussion and peaceful deliberation rises up in classes across our country, as in my own experiences it is hard to share opposing view points, and it is extremely frustrating, especially when even professors are narrow minded. This is the world I live in though.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their responses to this forum, I can say whole heartedly I have gained a plethora of knowledge, and I enjoy hearing things from perspectives that I do not have. Thank you all!

 

[Johca]

Pertinent to conscription reducing unemployment, the history of the Civilian Conservation Corps (A New Deal Program) which had several purposes that included putting massive numbers of young men into being a disciplined outdoor labor working in austere physically demanding conditions at minimum wages. There was also some education for trade type jobs that came along with it as the target unemployed youth were also minimally educated.

The Civilian Conservation Corps and American Education--Threat To Local Control.

There was also significant US Army oversight and involvement. The U.S. Army, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and Leadership for World War II, 1933—1942

Keep in mind the primary purpose behind conscription is to build a massive numbers of enlisted to be boots on the ground and btw not to be (for lack of sufficient descriptor) higher paid and educated NCOs or commissioned officers.

 

[carlo amedio]

Teaching. You may have your one off instances, but these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism. "How to be a Patriot" is straight out the most oppressive dictatorships in history. Again, look at history for examples.

Yes, I believe your understanding of my argument is accurate. Revisit history again, and if you don't have a grasp on my examples then please take a look at them. When a gov't forces a belief system on its citizens or HOW and WHAT to think about the gov't, that becomes indoctrination. Calling the class "Nationalism" is also very indicative of a fascist/ Communist model. I know that is not your desired end state, rather a name for lack of a better offer, but look at your examples for the class: Patriotism and Nationalism. Classes teaching that are indoctrination and history/ human nature support this. I think you're operating under a perfect world hypothetical, not thousands of years' of history.

one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country.

I think I already spoke on that, and I never said we should teach people what to think(i might know where you're you got that idea, I'll address it later)
But setting aside this course has an opt-out, you made the claim teaching nationalism or patriotism is indoctrination. This either means you're wrong or indoctrination has a lighter connotation than I thought. Under this definition the pledge of allegiance is indoctrination, and I have been indoctrinated into loyalty to my family because I was taught to love and be loyal to them. Lastly, you claim that our current education system is not indoctrination since

these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism.

but every class is still a government sponsored message. We also teach evolution, and since it's technically a theory and many disagree we offer an opt-out but also Imposed?!!!??!?!
I said:

make it elective so we don't pull a 1984

That's a far cry from the communist re-education camps you brought up. There is choice here and force there.

Nations don't like dissent and the less democratic the less a nation will tolerate. That being said you have the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership.

You keep conflating the government with the nation, they are NOT the same, the government serves the nation and the people and is lower than both. "the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership." first off, we should never be loyal to our servants- our leaders must serve us and if they do not we must rebel. But as for the rest of this sentence I agree, they told people they were teaching patriotism, but that was never the goal. it was always forcibly brainwashing the masses into loyalty to THE GOVERNMENT and this would not happen in America as the government must be a totalitarian regime BEFORE they change the education system, otherwise dissent would be caved to long before rebellion would be necessary, just look at how we treat the teaching of evolution, the people have a watchful eye on the school system.

My statement:

The course work can be how to treat the American flag and some basic American history, highlighting the best and most important parts so we don't have to see any more embarrassing videos making fun of Americans for not knowing shit about America ETC...

your reply:

Have you taken a civics class? It should (it did for me 25 years ago in Jr. High) present things like how to treat the flag, but it also taught (primarily) how our gov't works and why. History is a required class but "highlighting the best and most important parts" isn't teaching. When you pick and choose the topics while ignoring their counterpoints or context you've selectively presented information to meet a desired end state. That's indoctrination.

When I said best and most important parts I should have said most crucial such as date and significant events. In the context I was putting it that was ludicrously unclear. that was why I referenced videos like this:

That being said I would like to ask you to clearly define indoctrination, I think this context was the best usage, here is my definition, tell me if you concur because I think it would be conductive to figure out where we stand in this discussion.

Teaching something to an individual but not allowing them to critique the idea before accepting it.
This is why I see teaching patriotism as moral so long as people are always allowed to ignore/opt-out.

 

[Isiah6:8]

teaching patriotism

Why does any entity need to teach patriotism? Without teaching, isn't patriotism something people opt in by expressing or opt out of by not, based on their own learned experiences?

 

[Dienekes]

Did you not participate in grades 6-12? If you did, I'm sure there were at least a couple of American history classes already. It's not that the shit isn't taught; it's that dreads simply isn't paying attention. And no, not every government provided class is indoctrination. Look at math and science, look at English and literature (where I'm positive you read 1984 and got the reference). Are these examples of indoctrination? It's a pretty far cry to say that a government teaching a book about the perils of government overreach is indoctrinating anyone. Also, who in the hell thinks a freshman in high-school has the critical thinking skills to critique a brand new idea being introduced to him let alone in the face of a teacher who has been teaching the same shit for 10 years and has heard it all before. Any kid who could critique such an idea is getting shut down or the principals office.

Opting-out of a patriotism class? Are you kidding me? What high-schooler in their right mind would opt-out of a "love your country" class in the face of name-calling peers especially at that age. To suggest such is lunacy. As far as public education should be a government service, it should teach factual history and civics not "this is what true Americans think". That happened before and it was called McCarthyism which you should look into. Granted, the government could do better. A half-credit of civics and a full credit of American history, maybe two at the most, is not going to create American scholars and could be done better, but a patriotism class is not the answer.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

Keep in mind the primary purpose behind conscription is to build a massive numbers of enlisted to be boots on the ground and btw not to be (for lack of sufficient descriptor) higher paid and educated NCOs or commissioned officers.

So basically the idea of conscription is to have a cheap scape goat in times of war, giving the country the ability to have such massive amounts of soldiers that sheer volume can win out a war?

 

[Devildoc]

So basically the idea of conscription is to have a cheap scape goat in times of war, giving the country the ability to have such massive amounts of soldiers that sheer volume can win out a war?

Not "cheap scapegoats," but yes, the idea of a military action is you have your guys kill more of the bad guys than they kill. Of course, we don't throw 100,00-man armies against one another like we used to, but that's the idea. Now we extrapolate the same argument for machinery, but the principle is the same.

 

[Gunz]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their responses to this forum, I can say whole heartedly I have gained a plethora of knowledge, and I enjoy hearing things from perspectives that I do not have. Thank you all!

There's good, bad and ugly about a draft.

The Good: Right now there is a huge disconnect between the few who serve and the majority who don't. When the draft was in effect, even in peacetime, a much larger percentage of the population had military training and understood what it's like to serve their country, and most accepted it as their duty. There was a much larger pool of people who understood military terms and military life. Draftees and even conscientious objectors have earned the Medal of Honor.

The Bad: Conscripts don't always make the best soldiers.

The Ugly: Unless the war has popular support, you're going to end up with a bunch of fucktards in the ranks who will engage in everything from obstructionist behavior to disobedience of orders. I wouldn't have wanted to work with draftees in Vietnam and thankfully most Marines were volunteers.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

The good only stands to be true in a society unalike the one we live in now. With so much focus on personal freedoms, using bathrooms of choice, and letting people express themselves as they please regardless of natural orientation, Conscripts would be absolutely devastating.

I remember when I was a junior in high school, we watched a video documentary surrounding American people during WWII, and young men across the country were happily enlisting to serve, being sent off to training in bunches from neighborhoods.

Today, I see the bad and the ugly easily and heavily out weigh the good. My opinion has definitely shifted in regard to whether or whether nor Military Conscription would be better for the country. While, as you ( @Ocoka One ) and others pointed out, there are pros, the cons are much more prevalent.

 

[carlo amedio]

Did you not participate in grades 6-12? If you did, I'm sure there were at least a couple of American history classes already. It's not that the shit isn't taught; it's that dreads simply isn't paying attention. And no, not every government provided class is indoctrination. Look at math and science, look at English and literature (where I'm positive you read 1984 and got the reference). Are these examples of indoctrination? It's a pretty far cry to say that a government teaching a book about the perils of government overreach is indoctrinating anyone.

I'm not saying every government taught class is indoctrination, I'm saying that a class that teaches students to be patriotic is no more indoctrination than a class that teaches evolution.

Also, who in the hell thinks a freshman in high-school has the critical thinking skills to critique a brand new idea being introduced to him let alone in the face of a teacher who has been teaching the same shit for 10 years and has heard it all before. Any kid who could critique such an idea is getting shut down or the principals office.

What? I'm sure not many high shool students will debate the teacher, that is a great point... and true for legitimately every class, but there still exists a choice. also, if a teacher sends a student out for critiquing the teacher's material then the teacher is punished, they don't get to do that unless they have justifiable cause to send out the student

Opting-out of a patriotism class? Are you kidding me? What high-schooler in their right mind would opt-out of a "love your country" class in the face of name-calling peers especially at that age. To suggest such is lunacy.

so I guess that you have the same stance on teaching sex education and evolution?

As far as public education should be a government service, it should teach factual history and civics not "this is what true Americans think".

I never said that. I said that the core idea should be to love and have loyalty to their country, not loyalty to the government, not loyalty to the most pervasive beliefs. An anarchist can still love and be loyal to their country, he just holds different views of what is best for the country, so what true American's think if they are patriotic is simply that we should do what's best for America. To not be patriotic is by definition to either dislike ones own country or want what's worse for it, I believe teaching kids to be patriotic is in the same ball park as teaching them to be moral.

pa·tri·ot·ic
ˌpātrēˈädik/
adjective

1. having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

 

[carlo amedio]

Why does any entity need to teach patriotism? Without teaching, isn't patriotism something people opt in by expressing or opt out of by not, based on their own learned experiences?

For the same reason we need to teach people morality, every American should be patriotic just like every American should be opposed to theft. patriotism is love or support of ones country, it should be innate for an American to be patriotic because to not be requires an individual to dislike their country or not support it.

 

[x SF med]

@Guzzo - the shiny new degree you are bashing @TLDR20 about... um, he spent more time teaching Special Operations Medicine than he did in nursing school... think about that, a multiply deployed SF medic with numerous years teaching medicine having the wherewithal to go back to college (and I say back, because the SF medical pipeline makes most college programs look like kindergarten) and get a civilian degree in nursing.

Conscription in time of war has naught to do with the people with whom you attended college, nor does your argument hold water when you are going about the college to military thing in the reverse order as the individual with whom you disagree. Your major mistakes were taking your arguments 'ad absurdum' and then 'ad hominem' without taking into account the other viewpoint. You fell into the same trap as those individuals with whom you took classes at Florida Gulf Coast University, I mean TLDR20 is a graduate of both University of Pineland and UNC... but that may not compare to FGCU in academic excellence.

Step down off your soapbox, check your attitude and chill - because you are outclassed by your competition, and it's showing. Just a little advice before you try your holier than thou shit on an instructor after enlisting, you'll thank me in the future - do not underestimate your peers or leaders, real players never show their hand until it's time to rake in the pot.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

@Guzzo - the shiny new degree you are bashing @TLDR20 about... um, he spent more time teaching Special Operations Medicine than he did in nursing school... think about that, a multiply deployed SF medic with numerous years teaching medicine having the wherewithal to go back to college (and I say back, because the SF medical pipeline makes most college programs look like kindergarten) and get a civilian degree in nursing.

Conscription in time of war has naught to do with the people with whom you attended college, nor does your argument hold water when you are going about the college to military thing in the reverse order as the individual with whom you disagree. Your major mistakes were taking your arguments 'ad absurdum' and then 'ad hominem' without taking into account the other viewpoint. You fell into the same trap as those individuals with whom you took classes at Florida Gulf Coast University, I mean TLDR20 is a graduate of both University of Pineland and UNC... but that may not compare to FGCU in academic excellence.

Step down off your soapbox, check your attitude and chill - because you are outclassed by your competition, and it's showing. Just a little advice before you try your holier than thou shit on an instructor after enlisting, you'll thank me in the future - do not underestimate your peers or leaders, real players never show their hand until it's time to rake in the pot.

Understood. My apologies for any disrespect @TLDR20

 

[Johca]

Devildoc gave a great response correcting the perspective that conscription is get cheap scape goat in times of war. I'm expanding upon it as being a cheap scape goat is not a driving factor behind conscription and is insulting t0 those who were drafted into military service prior to 1973.

Conscription is based on awareness a large career force standing army during peacetime is expensive to recruit. train, equip, house and maintain. If you look at post WWI, WWII. and to lesser extent Korean War, Southeast Asia Conflicts and the current war on terror the obligation to take care of the wounded, maimed, and dead is not cheap. If initial enlistment bonuses (includes paying off education loans/debts), education benefits during and after enlistment the money spent to entice people to enlist is also not inexpensive.

BTW conscription (the draft) is an option that still exists, but is less relied on due reliance on shifting the initial mobilization of recalling separated from military service back into service and initiating stop loss measures, particularly during and after DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. When I enlisted in 1973 the initial military obligation was no more than 6 years of combined active duty, reserve, and inactive reserve duty. The obligation, since ca. 1980 is now eight years.

10 U.S. Code § 651 - Members: required service

[1] shall serve in the armed forces for a total initial period of not less than six years nor more than eight years, as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the armed forces under his jurisdiction and by the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard when it is not operating as service in the Navy, unless such person is sooner discharged under such regulations because of personal hardship. Any part of such service that is not active duty or that is active duty for training shall be performed in a reserve component.
(b)
Each person covered by subsection (a) who is not a Reserve, and who is qualified, shall, upon his release from active duty, be transferred to a reserve component of his armed force to complete the service required by subsection (a).

This transition to a longer initial enlistment service obligation (8 vs 6) has less connection to political nicety of military being all volunteer and strongly more connected to many types of weapons of mass destruction being available to various governments and the thoughts that a serious conflict will go weapons of mass destruction before conscripts could be drafted and subsequently be sufficiently and adequately trained for utilization availability to be of any use.

To counter this perspective it should be pointed out our political leadership at the Federal level never expected a long drawn out limited war against an enemy (war on terror) that is not a Nation-State.

 

[Marauder06]

@TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives.

@Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?

@TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives.

@Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?

We are *still* in war now, after 16 years, in large part because we don't have a draft.

In short, a draft would cause the American people to start caring about the war. We'd either knock it off, or get serious about winning it.

Your reference to "Commando Units" is a non-sequitur. No one gets drafted into SOF, it's a volunteer thing. Moreover, while we will never have "enough" of them, SOF is not what we need more of to win a major war. SOF is always a supporting effort in major theaters of conflict. SOF isn't the main effort now. What we need most in any major conflict is not "more SOF," it is political will. All the SOF in the world isn't going to win major conflicts if the national will isn't behind it.

One of the reason "support for the troops" is so high and the war has gone on for so long is because it only affects a very small part of the citizenry in any real way. When I was in grad school I was shocked to find that most of my classmates had never even met a veteran, much less had a meaningful relationship with one. So the "war" was/is very abstract to them. What do they care about how long a war lasts, or how much it costs, or how much it hurts people, if literally none of those things affect them in any meaningful way? If there was even a chance they could get drafted, then people would be concerned about things like why we're there, what we're doing it for, and how we're going to win. They'd put pressure on the policy makers, who would have to make the case to the people instead of sending out the all-volunteer force to fight an expensive and never-ending conflict.

This is an article that... someone with a writing style similar to mine wrote about the subject. This might be the piece that @Il Duce mentioned. I think it sums up the arguments supporting what I just stated pretty well.

This is not a new concept. Fighting a war without exposing your own population to the potential "calamities of war" has been considered a very poor game indeed since shortly after the founding of our country.

 

[Isiah6:8]

For the same reason we need to teach people morality, every American should be patriotic just like every American should be opposed to theft. patriotism is love or support of ones country, it should be innate for an American to be patriotic because to not be requires an individual to dislike their country or not support it.

Teaching morality is not the same as teaching patriotism. Who is any person or entity to tell another what they should or should not be? I don't agree with your thoughts and believe that what you describe is what @AWP already said earlier. Thank you for the response.

 

[carlo amedio]

Teaching morality is not the same as teaching patriotism. Who is any person or entity to tell another what they should or should not be?

why are they not comparable? we teach people not to steal because it is important they understand theft is bad, we should also teach people to love and be loyal to their country so they understand it is wrong to hate and betray their country. People can think whatever they want, but they should be pushed by society at large to see loyalty and love for their country as important just like they should be pushed to believe theft is immoral. This is not closing the debate of course, people should be allowed to hate America just like they should be allowed to think theft is ok (so long as those thoughts do not manifest themselves in actions) after all the classical ethical quandary is "is it ok to steal bread to feed your family?"