Comments on: America “Must Afford” Costs of Volunteer Force

By: congdo

congdo — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:49:15 +0000

If the “All volenteer ” system works then why are we recruting in forign countries and encourgaging more and more illegal’s to join.…HOUAH

By: snipe

snipe — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:39:22 +0000

The draft is a tricky thing. If we end up in a conflict with another country there will be no choice. People will just have to answer the call before it gets to them. Own up to being an american.
As for the pay and bonuses for soldiers. I don’t think they earn enough for what they do. The bonus check though should be realistic. more than 15 to 20 grand and the person is more about the money than the service so do we really want them to stay in. Their mind is in the wrong place.
Increase pay to inflation at least and lower the bonus.
Also stop wasting all of this money to research we know won’t work.
Pick companies with good track records and standing relationships with U.S. and other countries, then don’t let them rip us off.
The product is to our needs and standards wanted or they don’t get a single penny.

By: A Patriot

A Patriot — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:07:56 +0000

Well reading over everyones remarks I can see good points on both sides of the issue but the real question is how well would a drafted force fight over an all volunteer force, I am not enlisted now nor was I ever the only reason I am not is because of a rare illness that I have that they will not not allow me to but my heart has always been with the men a women fighting. I really don’t care if it’s drafted or not as long as we remain the worlds strongest force because if we lose that we may never recover.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:10:08 +0000

Nice!An Evangelical Christian has more power
and ability over his/her none Christian opposite
and they complain about it? Just look at this:“Wars and rumors of wars.” That is part of
the Good News!It’s more of a Christian war,than
none Christian.

By: CTR1(SW)

CTR1(SW) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:11:23 +0000

By the way Krivka, if you were so unhappy they why did you stay for 30 YEARS?

Perhaps it is because you were earning one of those big, fat, civilian Dod salaries. Yet, hypocritically, here you are complaining about Dod spending. YOU WERE THE PROBLEM!!

You are a typical “desk-driver.” You want a good salary and regular raises, but want the real workers to remain poor.

You are pathetic!

One of the biggest problems today is not the abundance of stupid weapons, it is the abundance of stupid civilians.

By: CTR1(SW)

CTR1(SW) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:59:35 +0000

First things first:
R. Hahn complained that there are too many christians in our military. Or, perhaps these christians are too evangelical.
How about this: 24 of the 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independance held Seminary degrees. And, General George Washington — yea, the same guy who became president — told his troups that they should “add the Christian Faith” to their patriotism.
If you do not want christians defending this country which was founded on the Bible, then which faith do you prefer? Perhaps you prefer Atheism? Or even more, Islam? Then you would have an American Taliban. (Infidels get beheaded in Islam.)

As for defense spending: I AM SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING THE “BELT-WAY” IDIOTS COMPLAINING ABOUT DEFENSE SPENDING!! (My apology for yelling.) Defense spending is insignificant (single digit percent) compared to the pork and free handouts given by these bozos. I say terminate ALL free handouts, domestic and worldwide. People complain about the coming “nanny-state.” Via our congress the U.S. taxpayer is supporting a “nanny-planet.”

As for the draft:
The liberal wants a large, fully drafted (thus generally disgruntled), under-educated, underfunded military force.
The conservative wants a small, volunteer (chose to be there), educated, well funded military force.

(A draft has no educational standard. A volunteer service does.)

Which of these two would better defend this country? This presupposes that the liberal actually wants to defend this country. (If you actually listen to them, it is clear that they do not. They blame this country for all of the world’s ills. It is phylosophically contradictory to defend that which you hate.)

By the way, go back and read the description of the liberal military. This is also the description of the civilian population in any communist country save one thing. In communist countries it is illegal for the civilians to own guns. (Hum. Which article in the Bill of Rights are the liberal trying to elimiate?)

NOW DO YOU WONDER WHERE THE LIBERAL (COMMUNISTS) WANT TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY?

It just occurred to me that the Military Industrial Complex (a nice liberal buzz-phrase) would love the draft. Demand would be high and supplies would be low. Prices would really sky-rocket, and so would their profits.

By: brent hodges

brent hodges — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:25:53 +0000

Draftees were 25% of the soldiers in Vietnam and the rest were regular army. They didn’t get a bonus either.

By: zebob

zebob — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:50:10 +0000

A draft or national service will occur when the benefits are greater than the liablities. For that to happen the all-volunteer force will have to decline substantionally from its present situation. After 9–11, the President should have called for national mobilization. He didn’t, and now years after it’s a bit too late. The real long-term concern is with the exodus of young officers. No draft will fix that, unless you stop-loss them indefinately. I think we will just have to watch a long, slow, painful process of the Army dying before drastic acton ends up taking place.

By: R Hahn

R Hahn — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:48:54 +0000

Well, this comment will not be popular. There has been news coverage concerning the all voluntary forces. The article that brought my attention concerned religious zealots that are currently filling the higher ranks not only at the Air Force Academy, the Pentagon but, nco ranks. These groupgs have set about a crusade to condem and convert troops into their religious beleifs, including demoting those who don’t relent. A lot of denial has been spouted out of converting the lower ranks, dah. The bottom line is that when the draftees were introduced into Viet Nam, this Evangelical pressure came to a screeching halt. I wonder if the same scenario would produce a devine intervention into what I see as a version of the “American Taliban”. JUST A THOUGHT.

By: LCDR_Kent

LCDR_Kent — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:30:05 +0000

I have served in both a draft Army (68–71) and a volunteer Army (81–87). I much prefer the All-volunteer force. We will need to draft people when we are attacked by a very large force and have to defend these shores from invasion. We can prevent attacks by having a well trained volunteer force. Sept. 11 happened because the prez didn’t take action against Al Qaeda when smaller targets were attacked. We cannot treat terrorists like criminals; they are like gorilla forces.

By: don

don — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:39:54 +0000

i for one have always thought the draft should have never been stopped. as one poster stated even if were only to the reserves and national guard level. all young men and women of our nation should have to contribut our security, too, many of them may even learn something about responsibility and integrity. (IMO)

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:56:54 +0000

I may be missing something but how does a draft alleviate spending versus an all-volunteer force? They still have to pay the soldier, even though it's chump change compared to even a fringe 'poverty level income' paying job. They're underpaid as it is. Meanwhile Congress keeps voting themselves a raise and can't take care of issues in-session? I don't agree really... I too believe that drafting people will hurt more than it'll help. We have a lot of patriotism in this country, but trying to say, 'we can't afford' the best Army in the world is pretty weak; especially when you keep sending them off to wars to lower those stockpiles so we can keep the defense contractors going strong... We have only ourselves to blame; or those in Congress and the White House.

By: Mamou

Mamou — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:52:37 +0000

Why would we want to destroy the world’s best military by incorporating a draft? Is this part of the Obama Kool-Aid drinker’s strategy for discrediting yet another great American institution? Is this the new rhetoric; that we can’t afford to PAY a volunteer force? Give me a break.

Marxists like Obama want higher taxes so that our wealth can be redistributed to the world, but they don’t like the pay and benefits of an all volunteer force? Give me a break. Try being submerged on a submarine for 75 days or dodging bullets in the desert for a year! Then, let’s see if you think our military gets too much. Please, let’s not use cost control as the basis for a DRAFT argument.

By: krivka

krivka — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:59:23 +0000

As everybody is entitled to an opinion, there are plenty here. Here is mine. A draft, no matter your opinion, does get the media’s, as well as the general population, focused on the world’s issues. And that is a good thing. I have worked for the DoD for thirty years, in procurement. I have witnessed some of the most outrageous spending under the republican’s. It seems like the door to the candy shop is open whenever they are in power. Now with the outsourcing of jobs, responsibilities, services, and basically the defense of the country, a MAJOR shift would have to occur before the much needed draft is implemented. For instance, are we only going to draft trigger pullers and combat engineers? In the past we drafted, cooks and MPs too. But now with those lucky republican connected contractors like KBR and Blackwater, we don’t need them. (even though a draft would fulfill the mission at 1/10 the cost).
Would a draft work with the way the government spends money now? Well, the highers would be out of luck. The number of potential second career choices would shrink, but is that a bad thing?
I think I would try to create a system where the draftee would perform his/her duties as described, and then be given a choice after the two years either to stay in or go. Maybe the new military could pay the E-4s and above a better wage. It could be doen if you quit giving the enemy money to not shoot at us, stop giving away tax dollars to the christian/republican lobby (see Blackwater), and quit buying stupid weapons and other “systems”. The land warrior stuff is crap, and the future combat stuff wil be the same. Those programs are nothing but welfare and a transfer of our tax dollars to the good for nothing contractors.
We need a draft, a new cabinet level post whose duties would be to review weapon buys (maybe we could finally but the soldier’s and marines a 21st century PDW and battle rifle)
It is time to belly up to the bar and get this done.

By: btrp

btrp — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:28:09 +0000

I have served in the service with draftees, I saw no real problems. I agree with a draft to the reserve and national guard only. I think the second ammendment’s milita clause supports this in my view of the law. I only support a draft to the active forces if congress has the guts to declace war.

By: Equality

Equality — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:25:04 +0000

Reinstitute the draft, selection based upon income. Those from families making the most money get drafted first. I wonder how many wars we would start then?

By: MM1 Retired

MM1 Retired — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:20:45 +0000

I feel that all those bonuses should be stopped. Instead of wasting all that money they should restart the draft and every person is open for draft. No exceptions. However there would be some selectiveness as to who goes. Gang members or medically deferred should be the only ones. No college deferrments whats-so– ever. If caught lying its jail. No fines either. The rich have to go as well as the poor. Maybe this will help end the debacle and we can use the funds saved to better help the country not some other place that doesn’t even want our help.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:07:26 +0000

The draft will drag the service down to where we were after vietnam. A disgruntled Army with a high discharge and low retention rate that will cost more than paying for the All volunteer army and the equipment it needs.

By: ItMatters

ItMatters — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:12:37 +0000

Since I have served in both the draft Army and the all volunteer Army cost should be considered but not the deciding factor. The Army I retired from is smaller, better trained, better equiped, SMARTER, and dedicated to professionalism. There are many more positive adjectives to this professional Army but few would read something that lenghty.
I remember in the 1970’s when the Dutch Army was unionized, what a disaster, and that was due to conscription. We shouldn’t want to go back in time to what was a failed system. The only possible way a draft could work today is if there is a war and that there are no exceptions to service (Think about the song, I ain’t no senators son(lyric) used in so many films about the Vietnam era.

By: A Patriot

A Patriot — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:56:10 +0000

I personally think that a draft in the
United States would cost us more than an all volunteer force would in the end, for instance The Israelis have a mandatory force at the age of 18 both male and female but they consider it there duty to in order to keep there home land considering the the situation throughout the middle east as many Americans don’t have that sense of patriotism, if the draft was put back into action the AWOL rate would likely increase sharply thus wasting the money put into there training and moral would go down sharply reducing combat effectiveness.