An end to the Draft Registration

[RuralEngineer]

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-push-en ... 04861.html

I have mixed feelings about this because while I feel the money is likely wasted and the chances of ever needing a draft again are infinitesimal, I personally am in favor of some kind of mandatory service in the event that we are in a true defensive conventional war similar to WWII.  On the other hand, the draft has been abused horrendously in the past to force young men to die in foreign conflicts we really had no business being in.  Seeing that go away for ever certainly doesn't break my heart.

[Pointedstick]

You don't consider involuntary servitude to be a form of slavery?

[MachineGhost]

Hopefully, it won't take 149 years to pass...

I agree with the OP though.  We should have public service requirements.  Lots of European countries require public service and it seems rather effective for cohension.

The Peace Corps and Job Corps is not a bad start, but they should be elevated to the stars and stripes level of patriotism.

[Pointedstick]

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.

I guess they could make breathing a crime, summarily convict everyone of it, and then sentence them to "national service" in lieu of imprisonment.

[RuralEngineer]

You don't consider involuntary servitude to be a form of slavery?

I suppose it could be viewed that way, for a devout anarchist  .  Other people might consider it one of the few true responsibilities that come from being a member of a nation.  It's been this way since before the advent of taxes, central government, or most other modern institutions.  When attacked, everyone is expected to contribute.  What form that takes may vary.

I don't believe in objective absolutes with respect to these kinds of issues.  For me, I find it more appalling for men to fight and die to defend their country while others kick back and ride it out.  I believe there is objective evidence to support the assertion that a draft was critical to winning WWII, the type of war I'm referring to.  I do not believe that the character of our young people (on average) is the same as it was back in the 1940's and I'm firmly convinced that even if we were invaded (by a credible threat of some kind, China perhaps) that there would be significant numbers of people who would feel completely justified in finding a way to let their neighbors fight and die in their stead.  As soon as we discover a means to identify the cowards and allow the enemy to invade their property without encroaching on that of the responsible citizenry, I'll retract all support for any kind of draft or mandatory service.  As long as we're a nation with borders that have to be defended, I don't see it as a viable option in any war that threatens our survival as a nation.

Either way it's a shit sandwich.  I just find my option a bit less soggy.

[Pointedstick]

Wasn't the idea behind the 2nd amendment that the arms borne by the militia (the general body of people, even when unorganized) would be sufficient to repel an invasion? With about as many arms in civilian hands as citizens these days, I think it's pretty clear that the American citizenry is exceptionally well armed; probably orders of magnitude better than the countless peasants in the 20th century who successfully fought off the world's most powerful military forces with rusting Combloc knockoff SKS and AK rifles.

I just don't see why a slave army would be necessary to defend a nation under attack. Heck, an American slave army equipped with the world's best military technology couldn't even defeat half-starved Vietnamese peasants.

[dragoncar]

If we need a draft in the future, it will be instituted.  No need to do pointless registrations before that (except to get kids on the mailing list!).

Moreover, I have no doubt the federal government already has every kid turning 18 in some computer database.  It's much easier these days, so why have them "register"?  Or maybe I'm missing some nuanced reason for registration.

It could also be easily incorporated into voter registration.

[MachineGhost]

that even if we were invaded (by a credible threat of some kind, China perhaps) that there

Speaking of China invading, it looks like the Red Dawn reboot failed to make a splash.  It was released last year in Nov.  I didn't hear much of anything at all.

[MachineGhost]

Moreover, I have no doubt the federal government already has every kid turning 18 in some computer database.

It's called Enumeration at Birth.

I've always found the SS to be really stupid.  It is so obvious it is not just a draft, but specifically for sending young adult children out to get intentionally slaughtered because the age range is only 18-25.  All for false pride and patriotism.  They're barely functioning during those ages.

When I said public service earlier, I did not mean military service.  Helping people makes the world a better place, not killing them.

I'm not persuaded WWII was a legitimate war as far as the Japan invading Pearl Harbor.  We forced them into it by cutting off their gas supply and other acts of hegemony.  Now, Hitler, that was truly an evil vegetarian menace (Nostradamus said so!) and yet, it still seems more rational to act like Rick in Casablanca.

[notsheigetz]

I think it is unlikely that we will ever see military conscription again in the United States again unless there really is a "truly defensive war" (And I would submit that in the even more unlikely event that we had to fight a "truly defensive war" as opposed to a politicians wet dream of power there wouldn't be any need for a draft - there would be ample volunteers).

I haven't heard a military person call for a draft since the end of the war in Vietnam and I think this is because they learned a very important lesson there about conscription in a free and informed society. It is one of the great untold stories of the Vietnam war but the U.S. military was in a near state of mutiny by the time it was over (google "The Quiet Mutiny" for more information if you're interested).

[RuralEngineer]

Wasn't the idea behind the 2nd amendment that the arms borne by the militia (the general body of people, even when unorganized) would be sufficient to repel an invasion? With about as many arms in civilian hands as citizens these days, I think it's pretty clear that the American citizenry is exceptionally well armed; probably orders of magnitude better than the countless peasants in the 20th century who successfully fought off the world's most powerful military forces with rusting Combloc knockoff SKS and AK rifles.

I just don't see why a slave army would be necessary to defend a nation under attack. Heck, an American slave army equipped with the world's best military technology couldn't even defeat half-starved Vietnamese peasants.

It's possible.  But, I hope you can see that your assertion is very speculative and doesn't have any historical backing in this nation.  Comparing a defense in the U.S. against a determined invader to Vietnam is tough because, poorly equipped or not, they had substantial advantages that we don't enjoy. For one, disguising troop movements in the wheat and corn fields of the mid-West is an exercise in futility.  The U.S. is so damn big and urbanized starvation is going to be much more of a factor in any invasion for most of our population than it was for the Vietnamese.  In fact, the war of 1812 is the last time we were really invaded and it didn't go so well.  The Constitution directly empowers Congress to raise armies as necessary and the President is the "Commander in Chief."  It's pretty clear to me that the Founders didn't envision the 2nd Amendment being our sole source of nation defense as a good idea.

As for you "slave army" remark, our military performance in Vietnam was exemplary to my understanding.  Kill ratio of 3:1 or so (including lesser trained South Vietnamese troops).  Everything I've ever seen on the Vietnam war (I'm 28 and not military, so we're talking TV and books) shows failure in leadership, excessive political interference in military matters (don't shoot the planes on the ground so as to not piss off the Chinese/Russians, wait until they get into the sky and start attacking us, etc.), wrong goals (war of attrition fought in South Vietnam), and in the end an erosion of domestic will to fight led to the results of Vietnam.  I've never seen anything that led me to believe that it was our soldiers under-performing.

Having said all of that, a mostly conscript army did a pretty fine job in WWII.  Historically speaking, volunteer forces haven't had to go through the fire the way conscript forces have.  We have yet to see a large scale conventional war fought using volunteer forces.  I'm not even sure it's possible.  The closest thing to it might be Desert Storm and the Iraqis had all kinds of conscripts.  Basically your position might be valid, but I know that mine works because it worked for us in the past.  It will work for us again if used properly and not abused like it was in Vietnam.

[RuralEngineer]

I'm not persuaded WWII was a legitimate war as far as the Japan invading Pearl Harbor.  We forced them into it by cutting off their gas supply and other acts of hegemony.  Now, Hitler, that was truly an evil vegetarian menace (Nostradamus said so!) and yet, it still seems more rational to act like Rick in Casablanca.

Japan had already invaded China (including the "Rape of Nanking"), invaded French Indochina, and we were the bad guys by refusing to sell them oil?  Obviously we were "asking for it." 

Does not compute MG, sorry.

Also, in terms of evil, Japan is credited with something like 5.4 million dead due to genocide.  That's only 50% of what the National Socialists got, but then again, they're a very small country.

[MachineGhost]

Japan had already invaded China (including the "Rape of Nanking"), invaded French Indochina, and we were the bad guys by refusing to sell them oil?  Obviously we were "asking for it." 

And how was the Rape of Nanking or invasion of Indonesia any of our business and doesn't also contradict your assertion that you're only for the draft for purposes of homeland defense?  All that B.S. was half a world away and was the British Empire's problem, not ours.  If Roosevelt hadn't an occult agenda for us to get into the war against the Nazis, he wouldn't have intentionally poked the hornet Japanese by embargoing their nest.  Are you claiming that political actions have no blowback consequences?  That is what Pearl Harbor was just as as much as WTC 1992 or 09/11.  So if anything, your rationale does not compute at all, which makes me suspect what your real agenda is.  You're either a chicken hawk or a war profiteer.  Which is it?

Also, in terms of evil, Japan is credited with something like 5.4 million dead due to genocide.  That's only 50% of what the National Socialists got, but then again, they're a very small country.

Mao killed several tens of millions more.  Yet, we didn't invade China or induce them to attack us.  Why not?  I'd love to hear how you rationalize inducing Imperial Japan to attack us but not Communist China.

[RuralEngineer]

Japan had already invaded China (including the "Rape of Nanking"), invaded French Indochina, and we were the bad guys by refusing to sell them oil?  Obviously we were "asking for it." 

And how was the Rape of Nanking or invasion of Indonesia any of our business and doesn't also contradict your assertion that you're only for the draft for purposes of homeland defense?  All that B.S. was half a world away and was the British Empire's problem, not ours.  If Roosevelt hadn't an occult agenda for us to get into the war against the Nazis, he wouldn't have intentionally poked the hornet Japanese by embargoing their nest.  Are you claiming that political actions have no blowback consequences?  That is what Pearl Harbor was just as as much as WTC 1992 or 09/11.  So if anything, your rationale does not compute at all, which makes me suspect what your real agenda is.  You're either a chicken hawk or a war profiteer.  Which is it?

Also, in terms of evil, Japan is credited with something like 5.4 million dead due to genocide.  That's only 50% of what the National Socialists got, but then again, they're a very small country.

Mao killed several tens of millions more.  Yet, we didn't invade China or induce them to attack us.  Why not?  I'd love to hear how you rationalize inducing Imperial Japan to attack us but not Communist China.

You do realize none of your points conform to international norms right?  Wiping out a naval fleet is not an accepted response to a trade embargo.

I'm not saying we should have attacked Japan for what they were doing in China and Indochina.  However, selling them oil to continue their genocide is an entirely different matter.  We were entirely within our rights to refuse to support their war effort.  Are you seriously trying to argue that we had some kind of obligation to support Japan's atrocities and by withdrawing our resources we opened ourselves up to a justified attack on Pearl Harbor?  Because that's what your post is coming across as.

Mao's evil is as irrelevant as Stalin's (we didn't attack him either, but then again he didn't attack us).  Do you have evidence to show that we subsidized Mao's mass murder?  Most people, even non-interventionists, draw a line between what happens within a nations borders and when they start invading and destroying other nations.

I guess if I refuse to sell a gun to a guy because he tells me he needs to kill his girlfriend, and he attacks me, I've "incited" him to violence.  Guess I had it coming.

Japan had a choice.  They chose to invade other nations and commit genocide.  We warned them by embargoing steel and other war materials first.  They didn't stop.  Then we embargoed oil.  They chose to attack.  It became a defensive war and they lost.

[Pointedstick]

We have yet to see a large scale conventional war fought using volunteer forces.  I'm not even sure it's possible.

That's exactly why I oppose conscription so fervently. It's a direct enabler of massive, industrialized war.

Most people, even non-interventionists, draw a line between what happens within a nations borders and when they start invading and destroying other nations.

That's sort of a funny definition of non-interventionists. They don't support intervening until they do?

I guess if I refuse to sell a gun to a guy because he tells me he needs to kill his girlfriend, and he attacks me, I've "incited" him to violence.  Guess I had it coming.

Japan had a choice.  They chose to invade other nations and commit genocide.  We warned them by embargoing steel and other war materials first.  They didn't stop.  Then we embargoed oil.  They chose to attack.  It became a defensive war and they lost.

It was hardly a defensive war after the opening shots were fired. Nearly all the fighting took place over the Pacific or in Japan itself.

Your gun analogy is really good, and caused me to rethink some things, but I think if we were to extend it to cover the Pacific theater, we would say that after the guy attacks you for not selling him the pistol, you not only beat him unconscious, but you find out where he lives, kill his dog, and burn down his house with your homemade napalm flamethrower.

[RuralEngineer]

That's exactly why I oppose conscription so fervently. It's a direct enabler of massive, industrialized war.

That's sort of a funny definition of non-interventionists. They don't support intervening until they do?

It was hardly a defensive war after the opening shots were fired. Nearly all the fighting took place over the Pacific or in Japan itself.

Your gun analogy is really good, and caused me to rethink some things, but I think if we were to extend it to cover the Pacific theater, we would say that after the guy attacks you for not selling him the pistol, you not only beat him unconscious, but you find out where he lives, kill his dog, and burn down his house with your homemade napalm flamethrower.

You usually raise interesting points PS, even if I don't agree.

1. A very valid point.  Industrialized warfare is a horrible beast.  However, Ghengis Khan is attributed with causing the deaths of 40 million people.  That's 2/3rds as many as were killed by all forces COMBINED in WWII (60 million total).  He did it with arrows and swords, not exactly the height of industrialized warfare.  Humans are really good at killing things, regardless of technology or the organizational structure of our militarizes.

2.  I'm not saying that non-interventionists would support action, even if the aggressor nation were invading other foreign nations.  I'm saying that most non-interventionists I've known draw a distinction between the two scenarios (internal vs. external conflicts) and have been more likely to favor other action against those kinds of countries short of armed conflict.  I'd try and use an example like the Syrian civil war or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but U.S. foreign policy is anything but consistent, so I only open myself to ridicule.  Basically my point is that the oil embargo is not the equivalent of Pearl Harbor (it's not even a blockade).

3.  My analogy only applied to the embargo of the oil.  If we extend it to the attack on Pearl Harbor it goes something like this.

I refused to sell the man a gun so he could shoot his girlfriend.  He followed me home, waited until I left for work and murdered my daughter.
At this point you bet your ass I find where he lives, burn his house to the ground while he's tied up in it with his soiled underwear stuffed in his mouth.  I let the dog go though.  I like animals.

I understand your point, but they had declared war on us, along with Germany.  In order to be secure we had to eliminate their ability to make war or reach some kind of mutually beneficial peace arrangement.  I'm not sure why it was decided that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable solution, but I can completely understand why we had to break the Japanese war machine in order to secure the U.S. against future attack after they destroyed the Pacific Fleet (well, most of it).

[notsheigetz]

Are you seriously trying to argue that we had some kind of obligation to support Japan's atrocities and by withdrawing our resources we opened ourselves up to a justified attack on Pearl Harbor?  Because that's what your post is coming across as.

I thought that it had been fairly well established by historians, even those favorable to FDR, that it was his goal to provoke an attack by the Japanese to justify joining the war in Europe and thus coming to the aid of the British. As to whether he knew when and where the attack was going to come, that might still be debatable, but I believe there is ample evidence that this was his goal.

[RuralEngineer]

Are you seriously trying to argue that we had some kind of obligation to support Japan's atrocities and by withdrawing our resources we opened ourselves up to a justified attack on Pearl Harbor?  Because that's what your post is coming across as.

I thought that it had been fairly well established by historians, even those favorable to FDR, that it was his goal to provoke an attack by the Japanese to justify joining the war in Europe and thus coming to the aid of the British. As to whether he knew when and where the attack was going to come, that might still be debatable, but I believe there is ample evidence that this was his goal.

Irrelevant. I can't believe it seems reasonable to base the legitimacy of a defensive action on the intentions of a single man rather than the legality of the action itself.

Suppose we were invaded by Italy because the Jersey Shore antagonized them and we later found out Obama was behind it all along. Does that in any way validate Italy's invasion over a TV show or invalidate our nation's response?

In addition I'm not sure it has been proven that FDR wanted war with Japan. Germany, perhaps. I'll need to research.

[Pointedstick]

Suppose we were invaded by Italy because the Jersey Shore antagonized them and we later found out Obama was behind it all along. Does that in any way validate Italy's invasion over a TV show or invalidate our nation's response?

I don't think anyone's claiming it would validate Italy; rather, it would be incredibly damning to Obama and should overshadow any of the positive sides of his legacy.

Furthermore, if Italy invaded us over Jersey Shore and was quickly repulsed, I would not consider nuking Venice and Milan to be appropriate actions.

But I will admit that the principles of personal defense are only tenuously applicable to international conflict. On a personal level, you don't have the right to escalate your defense into an attack once the threat has passed (for example, shooting a fleeing attacker), but the size and power of nations makes that point only arrive once you've devastated their country.

[notsheigetz]

In addition I'm not sure it has been proven that FDR wanted war with Japan. Germany, perhaps. I'll need to research.

It might not be accurate to say he wanted war with Japan but I think it would be safe to say he thought it was inevitable and that we might as well get on with it. As for proof that he deliberately set out to provoke war, you can read about the McCollum memo which was declassified in 1994 here....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... index.html

It details the 8 point plan to provoke the attack, all of which were implemented.

[RuralEngineer]

I don't think anyone's claiming it would validate Italy; rather, it would be incredibly damning to Obama and should overshadow any of the positive sides of his legacy.

Furthermore, if Italy invaded us over Jersey Shore and was quickly repulsed, I would not consider nuking Venice and Milan to be appropriate actions.

But I will admit that the principles of personal defense are only tenuously applicable to international conflict. On a personal level, you don't have the right to escalate your defense into an attack once the threat has passed (for example, shooting a fleeing attacker), but the size and power of nations makes that point only arrive once you've devastated their country.

Further attacks against Italy would depend on their capability to do us additional harm.  In this example it seems stupid to continue to attack them because they aren't much of a threat, but Japan was a heavy hitter in WWII, even compared to us.

I think we're pretty much in agreement.  I just shudder when people expect us to have some kind of crystal ball or psychic on speed dial in order to divine the intentions of an action rather than analyze the action itself.  Most often the information is just not available.

I disagree about the personal defense thing.  If we're talking some kind of armed robbery looking for my TV, sure.  But if someone is targeting my family the threat has to be eliminated by any means necessary.  You are correct that this may not be considered legally justifiable, but it fits my morality.