If we could cut out loopholes that allow the wealthy elite — especially elected officials — to avoid themselves serving as well as allow their children to avoid service, then I'd be for it. I have zero doubt politicians would be less likely to be so cavalier about committing our human resources to war if they had actual blood in the game. They would also be less likely to bow to the intense lobbying pressure of the military/industrial complex, knowing the potential outcome is their kid getting killed.

 

Our country is sorely lacking in the "shared sacrifice" department. This would be one way to address that.

If we could cut out loopholes that allow the wealthy elite — especially elected officials — to avoid themselves serving as well as allow their children to avoid service, then I'd be for it. I have zero doubt politicians would be less likely to be so cavalier about committing our human resources to war if they had actual blood in the game. They would also be less likely to bow to the intense lobbying pressure of the military/industrial complex, knowing the potential outcome is their kid getting killed.

 

Our country is sorely lacking in the "shared sacrifice" department. This would be one way to address that.

Many on the political scene have kids in the military. Whether they are pushed or their kids may have the calling, it looks good on the resume. The "wealthy elite" I agree with you.

Many on the political scene have kids in the military. Whether they are pushed or their kids may have the calling, it looks good on the resume. The "wealthy elite" I agree with you.

 

Part of that closing of loopholes I mentioned would also involve nixing the string-pulling pols do to ensure their kids never see real combat.

In a 2012 demographics study of the military, about 99% of the non-officers did NOT have a college degree.

 

As to the "why" of this question, I think Habib, Bugatti, and Jim have clearly stated the thinking behind it.

In a 2012 demographics study of the military, about 99% of the non-officers did NOT have a college degree.

 

As to the "why" of this question, I think Habib, Bugatti, and Jim have clearly stated the thinking behind it.

 

Brilliant minds...

 

In a 2012 demographics study of the military, about 99% of the non-officers did NOT have a college degree.

 

As to the "why" of this question, I think Habib, Bugatti, and Jim have clearly stated the thinking behind it.

 

Not sure what the current recruiting pitch is, but when I was in high school the main pitch for enlistment seemd to be to go to the military to get money for college. Seems like it makes sense that those enlisted would not have a college degree, at least those that were only doing a 4 year stint. I could see why it would be higher among officers or those who have made a career of the military.

This topic is silly because we have a volunteer standing army that doesn't need a draft.

 

If we ever reinstated the draft it would mean we were already in a war .

 

If we are talking about shrinking the size of our standing army significantly and only draft in war time then I don't like that idea at all.

This topic is silly because we have a volunteer standing army that doesn't need a draft.

 

If we ever reinstated the draft it would mean we were already in a war .

 

If we are talking about shrinking the size of our standing army significantly and only draft in war time then I don't like that idea at all.

 

Aren't we already in an open-ended "war on terror" that's been going on for 14 years?

Draft all the illegals that meet age and other standard qualifications. Compulsory 2-year term to get on a citizenship track.

 

Isn't military service one way for foreigners hopeful to become or at least speed up the process to become naturalized citizens? So long as they can speak English well enough to communicate with fellow servicemen in a battle situation, I am fine with that.

Aren't we already in an open-ended "war on terror" that's been going on for 14 years?

 

More like 30 or more years, we just acknowledged it 14 years ago.

"War"?

 

No official declaration of "war" has occurred since the 1940s.

 

Make Congress do its duty and vote specifically and explicitly for military action or not. Since the 1950s Congress has avoided this by granting the President enormous authority in each significant 'conflict'. It keeps them from having to be accountable. Politicians hate that accountability thing.

Interesting thought, but I am not sure I want an army of illegals. :eek:

 

 

I was channeling my inner ref.:thumb:

More like 30 or more years, we just acknowledged it 14 years ago.

 

Probably fair. We could say 36 if we want to use the Iran Hostage Crisis as a starting point. Not sure that would be fair to the Jewish athletes in Munich in '72, though.

How about this...if the POTUS as the Commander in Chief actually had to go in the field, if we're at war? No, I'm not talking about them being on the front line...but, do you think Vietnam or Afghanistan/Iraq go on as long as they do if the president is having to be the jungle or the desert? Heck, I'd even imagine 6 months on a carrier in a rolling sea would be enough for anyone to give some serious second thinking as to why they were there and if it was really worth it. Right now though, it's too easy for these guys to sit in DC and play a giant game of Risk without losing a wink of sleep.