Thoughts on Military Conscription - Long Post

[Ball N' Chain]

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.

Thanks for the response. I can definitely see how a draft would bring nationwide attention to the war. Even if some one was out of eligibility to be drafted, they more than likely have a relationship to some one, whether it be a friend, cousin, nephew, son, daughter, or so forth who may be drafted and that would also bring the attention.

 

[Johca]

Morals is about the vices and virtues of character and when extended beyond individual to larger and larger groups of people it's to some degree becomes the appropriate and inappropriate compass basis of determining what is being fair and unfair in interacting with others. Whatever that consensus is becomes influential in putting in place laws and regulations.

Patriotism is supporting ones country or government or having a devotion to it. There are several examples in modern history where patriotism caused significant compromise of moral compass of many people. Point being is in a democracy teaching civics and citizenship is a bit separated from indoctrinating devotion to the government in power or the homeland.

 

[carlo amedio]

Patriotism is supporting ones country or government or having a devotion to it. There are several examples in modern history where patriotism caused significant compromise of moral compass of many people. Point being is in a democracy teaching civics and citizenship is a bit separated from indoctrinating devotion to the government in power or the homeland.

patriotism is never properly defined as loyalty to the government

 

[TLDR20]

patriotism is never properly defined as loyalty to the government

Carlo

Notice how most people's grammar and punctuation is at least somewhat proper?

Follow suit.

 

[carlo amedio]

Carlo

Notice how most people's grammar and punctuation is at least somewhat proper?

Follow suit.

Ok.

 

[Dienekes]

Patriotism is not something that you can teach, and if you have to, it is not patriotism. Blind loyalty is not loyalty. Look to history and the examples of times when patriotism was taught in different regimes and then look at those regimes. The result will show you that though possibly well-intentioned (most weren't), the outcome is always less than ideal.

 

[Johca]

Correct about patriotism never being properly defined as loyalty to the government as it was laziness on my part as it is closely related to nationalism. The perspective being offered is patriotism has similarity to nationalism as it is applied to describe a population as having a sense of having a national consciousness. The perspective being offered for consideration is the sense of national consciousness can be manipulated by the government and even political groups other than the government to the point bad things are done in the name of the national consciousness. By dad things I am attempting to explain liberties, freedoms, rules of law pertinent to treatments of others get trampled by being with us (loyal) or against us (disloyal). What is being explored is there is a point where the moral compass consciousness of the individual can be and will be compromised or influenced by the national consciousness.

 

[carlo amedio]

Patriotism is not something that you can teach, and if you have to, it is not patriotism. Blind loyalty is not loyalty.

Yes it is, talk about all the freedoms we have, talk about past sacrifices that have been made to secure them, teach about the importance of loyalty to the country in which they reside but also make it clear that they may very well disagree greatly about how to best solve our problems, and of course make sure they know the state, politicians and all of their leaders are not so much their leaders but their servants. I don't know where you get this idea from that one needs a unique experience to love their country.

Look to history and the examples of times when patriotism was taught in different regimes and then look at those regimes. The result will show you that though possibly well-intentioned (most weren't), the outcome is always less than ideal.

You guys keep pointing me toward history, the American government would have to seize control of many things before they could get away with manipulating the school system, and they are currently just as capable of doing so as they would be if we had a class that taught the importance of love and loyalty to our country.

This argument is basically saying that the government will engage in a massive conspiracy with MANY educators involved to teach children to be loyal to the government rather than the country, none of the educators would object and word won't get out and they haven't done this before because the fact that no class with a determined goal of teaching patriotism existed before was, of course, the determining factor as to whether or not they could get away with it, and this would continue for generation until we end up in an Orwellian nightmare.

Am I calling you all insane for thinking that the government could become corrupt? no, of course not, but the flaw I see in these arguments is that the communist education camps are meant to keep people under control, not get them under control. I won't go back into history because I'm not a history buff but in America the second and first amendment would go long before the education system would be taken over, just look at the way people reacted to teaching of evolution and sex education, if they thought something wrong was being taught it would not be allowed to continue.

 

[Marine0311]

I am against a draft. Short answer is no. If you don't want to be my beautiful Marine Corps (Infantry) then stay the f out.

However I can go with a National Service.

 

[carlo amedio]

Correct about patriotism never being properly defined as loyalty to the government as it was laziness on my part as it is closely related to nationalism.

Ok, so I was using the terms patriotism and nationalism interchangeably and that was stupid, it doesn't really affect my argument because I meant patriotism, but still.

As for the rest of your comment, I had to look up national consciousness and re-read your comment about twelve times to understand it (I'm 18) so I'll apologize in advance if I misinterpreted:

The perspective being offered is patriotism has similarity to nationalism as it is applied to describe a population as having a sense of having a national consciousness. The perspective being offered for consideration is the sense of national consciousness can be manipulated by the government and even political groups other than the government to the point bad things are done in the name of the national consciousness. By dad things I am attempting to explain liberties, freedoms, rules of law pertinent to treatments of others get trampled by being with us (loyal) or against us (disloyal). What is being explored is there is a point where the moral compass consciousness of the individual can be and will be compromised or influenced by the national consciousness.

First of all, the problem you're talking about is group consciousness, not national consciousness(to be fair I just learned both terms) national consciousness would actually protect those groups as one cannot be "othered" if they share a common national consciousness with the entity who seeks to "other" them. The first step there is for the entity to use group consciousness, for example, Hitler did not start eliminating mentally disabled people under national consciousness as germans, but rather under group consciousness as the superior Arian race.

That being said National consciousness can be twisted against those outside a nation, which is why the first amendment is so important. So long as internally our nation acknowledges the fact that we all want what's best for America, the first amendment will act as a shield from us attacking other nations without justifiable cause. But for that to be the case, a nation needs to be patriotic and have a sense of national consciousness, if we start to see our political opponents as wanting what's worse for America rather than disagreeing on what's best, they will become the other through group consciousness. National consciousness is what keeps us from "othering" those inside our nation, and the first amendment protects us from "othering" those outside our nation.

 

[Johca]

Well you did get to group concio0usness and how it coopted Germany as a certain political party gained popularity to actually become the controlling government of a nation-state. The point being is groups that have power to impose conformity if such is the desire of those in control of the group. This imposing of conformity is what has the potential of using indoctrination and propaganda to influence a group either knowingly or in ignorance or out of ignorance to act benevolently or malevolently towards those outside of the group.

Here is some events of American History from the 1920s and 1930s. Considering the numbers of WWI vets involved on opposing side which side would you considering be more patriotic or les patriotic than the other? In the individual level of doing acts and deeds which individuals had the weaker or stronger moral compass?

West Virginia's Mine Wars -- has a simplified but accurate in that its not even close to being biased to one side or the other. Pay attention to arrests happening under martial law and origin introduction of the term red necks.

The Bonus Army Invades Washington, D.C., 1932 -- another event that involved WWI vets, can you attribute which side was more or less patriotic? This a particularly interesting event when considering several commanding General heroes of WWII were involved: US army led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton attack WWI Bonus Army.

Patton and the Bonus March of 1932.

McArthur and the Bonus March of 1932.

The objective of me presenting these historical events is moral conduct and behavior is in the self determination control of the individual unless it's knowingly, or in ignorance or out of ignorance usurped by willingness to conform to the whims of a group. A lynch mob is perhaps the most non-political violent example. Following through in this line of reasoning civics classes at best have purpose of limiting acts and deeds of group out-of-ignorance or in-ignorance. Knowingly is differed in my line of thought by the U.S. Constitution that expects changes to be done non-violently through the election/voting process.

Further these events happened after time when conscription had put a majority of U.S. male population into either voluntary or conscripted service. My earlier example of Civilian Conservation Corps was a between major World Wars based on a military model having purpose of promoting unity between the American people, decrease unemployment by supplying good fundamentals such as discipline, respect, and basic skills needed to get employment in a labor force transitioning towards needing to be educated in how to read, write, and do math. Prior to WWII less than 30% of the adult population between ages of 25 years old and older had completed high school and less than 10% of the adult population between ages of 25 years old and older had completed four years of college. 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait

Further there are many organizations having a stated purpose objective of developing and strengthening citizenship that include Civil Air Patrol cadet, program, Jr. ROTC (High School Programs), Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Future Farmers of America, etc, ect, etc.

 

[carlo amedio]

Well you did get to group concio0usness and how it coopted Germany as a certain political party gained popularity to actually become the controlling government of a nation-state. The point being is groups that have power to impose conformity if such is the desire of those in control of the group. This imposing of conformity is what has the potential of using indoctrination and propaganda to influence a group either knowingly or in ignorance or out of ignorance to act benevolently or malevolently towards those outside of the group.

National consciousness can be twisted against those outside a nation, which is why the first amendment is so important. So long as internally our nation acknowledges the fact that we all want what's best for America, the first amendment will act as a shield from us attacking other nations without justifiable cause. But for that to be the case, a nation needs to be patriotic and have a sense of national consciousness, if we start to see our political opponents as wanting what's worse for America rather than disagreeing on what's best, they will become the other through group consciousness.

To expand on what I've said I understand that one group can indoctrinate its members then oppress those not in the group, thus nationalism can potentially be dangerous if the group is America, given a hypothetical totalitarian government. Patriotism, on the other hand, is loving one's own country, not viewing one's country as better than others, thus it is very hard for an entity to use.

Here is some events of American History from the 1920s and 1930s. Considering the numbers of WWI vets involved on opposing side which side would you considering be more patriotic or less patriotic than the other? In the individual level of doing acts and deeds which individuals had the weaker or stronger moral compass?

Like I said I'm no history buff, but I will(and have) read any links, but I'm more interested in talking about my specific proposal, rather than comparing it to others throughout history. If a criticism exists of a similar scenario, why not just recycle the criticism so we don't risk getting off track?(more on this thought later)

West Virginia's Mine Wars -- has a simplified but accurate in that its not even close to being biased to one side or the other. Pay attention to arrests happening under martial law and origin introduction of the term red necks.

first, I have to ask, is that where the term rednecks came from as we know it today? But that's just a footnote, I'm back on topic now I'll give a quick summary, then delve deeper: Minors are in a terrible workplace, especially in WV, they have terrible wages and the company sells them everything they own at marked up prices. Basically, there is a monopoly on everything, terrible wages, shitty and unsafe working conditions and they work there anyways due to limited options. The UMWA unionizes them and they try many times to fix things unsuccessfully. Each different attempt gets progressively more violent until they start arming themselves. They end up creating a militia and all wear red bandannas(red necks). Then after things get too out of hand for the police federal troops are sent. The army leaders try to work with them, but things get all fucked up, and then the red necks surrender. Things take a long time to get better for the minors, but they do when the government gives unions more power. Ok?Ok.

There were two things you told me to pay attention to. Yes, they were nicknamed rednecks. my best guess is you were trying to say this was how they got "othered" but I'm not entirely sure so I'll just say that that was the name of the militia, maybe the summary you linked me to didn't cover something enough?

You then told me to pay attention to arrests occurring under martial law which is inaccurate, the US has never declared martial law... martial law means the military can arrest and try people. That aside they did arrest minors, but for committing crimes.

You also asked me two questions that applied to every scenario.

Who was more patriotic? Patriotism had nothing to do with this. The minors got dealt a shitty hand and screwed over by a company, they responded by staging an armed insurrection. the company didn't do anything in the name of patriotism, the police did their job, and when things got too bad the military did their job.

who had a stronger moral compass? Well not that it matters, but the mining company. The mining company has no moral obligation to give their workers a good life, the quality of the lives of the minors is not the concern of the company, even if they have a lot of influence over it. The company just needs to keep the minors working while not affecting their free will. They were never denying their workers the right to unionize, rather they were denying their right to do so without the company firing them and kicking them out of the companies property, those minors had no right to work there and the value of every worker is the absolute minimum they are willing to work for. The workers, on the other hand, staged an armed insurrection after the company decided they were replaceable. They did this out of desperation to support their families, but this fact makes their actions less immoral, not moral.

At this time I would like to bring up that we are talking about the logistics of teaching patriotism to the youth... most of what I've responded to has been a bit off topic IMO.

The Bonus Army Invades Washington, D.C., 1932 -- another event that involved WWI vets, can you attribute which side was more or less patriotic? This a particularly interesting event when considering several commanding General heroes of WWII were involved: US army led by MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton attack WWI Bonus Army.

Patton and the Bonus March of 1932.

McArthur and the Bonus March of 1932.

Another summary: After ww1 the government issued bonuses to soldiers redeemable in 1945, but when many soldiers lost their jobs in the depression they demanded bonuses early. To be fair this was not something they were entitled to just because it was something they deserved. MacArthur claims this is a commie plot to further deplete the budget in a time of economic hardship and out of a false sense of fear for security the veterans are driven out in a brutal fashion and their camps are burned.Ok?Ok.

Who was more patriotic? This event to doesn't really tie back into our discussion IMO. The soldiers wanted money so they tried to get bonuses early, the military drove them out. They were not "othered" as the entire country felt sympathy for them and Hoover was seen as a dickhead for it.

The objective of me presenting these historical events is moral conduct and behavior is in the self determination control of the individual unless it's knowingly, or in ignorance or out of ignorance usurped by willingness to conform to the whims of a group. A lynch mob is perhaps the most non-political violent example.

I don't understand this sentence. This seems to be an explanation so it's entirely possible my critique of these events being somewhat off topic is false, but I don't understand this sentence. sorry.

Following through in this line of reasoning civics classes at best have purpose of limiting acts and deeds of group out-of-ignorance or in-ignorance. Knowingly is differed in my line of thought by the U.S. Constitution that expects changes to be done non-violently through the election/voting process.

If I understood the one before this I could probably understand this one. Again sorry I'm having trouble understanding you.

The rest of your comment is about other organizations that are out there that teach patriotism, but I won't go any further until I know what you were saying earlier, just wanna make sure I know what I'm replying to.

 

[x SF med]

And just how did a tread about the virtues and vices of military conscription become a forum for the razor's edge of nationalism/patriotism becoming jingoism and a force for world domination?

 

[Gunz]

Threads devolve. It's science.

 

[Red Flag 1]

W