Pentagon Expert Say Military Draft May Be Necessary

By Jeralyn, Section Military Draft
Posted on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 06:49:49 PM EST
Tags: military draft (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Will anyone take notice now that at least one military expert is saying the only way to sustain our protracted ground war in Iraq is to bring back the draft?

The Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony Tuesday that increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps may not resolve severe and growing personnel problems. There was even talk of returning to the draft to fill the ranks.

....Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon personnel official now affiliated with the Center for Defense Information and the Center for American Progress... [said] The all-volunteer force was never designed for a protracted ground war, but that is exactly what it faces, he said.

“If the United States is going to have a significant component of its ground forces in Iraq over the next five, 10, 15 or 30 years, then the responsible course is for the president and those supporting this open-ended and escalated presence in Iraq to call for reinstating the draft.”

There just aren't enough quality recruits the experts say to fill the need of Bush's war.

< Montana Says No to Real ID | Defending Choice: Why It Is Good Politics >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pentagon Expert Say Military Draft May Be Necessary | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The draft should be limited (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:49:24 PM EST

The only people eligible should be those who supported the war, and their children.

If that were the case, I'll bet it would be hard to find any members of that "overwhelming majority" who thought it was a good idea in 2003.

I was against the war before being against it was cool. I was against the war when it was treason to say so.

Ah, yes . . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:01:22 PM EST

This line hit home:

Long before it was 'cool' AND I have proof of my uncoolness.


I went to Crawford and stood with (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:01:26 AM EST

Cindy Sheehan. Because I was against the war when it was really uncool to be against it will you guys retire my husband out of service today and help me tie him up and stuff him in a closet so he can't do anything about how he worries about the "kids" trying to survive Iraq right now? He did babysit and hold down the fort so I could try to get arrested. Any help in these areas would be greatly appreciated ;)


Sure...anything for a fellow traveler (none / 0) (#14)
by Kitt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:45:15 AM EST

will you guys retire my husband out of service today and help me tie him up and stuff him in a closet so he can't do anything about how he worries about the "kids" trying to survive Iraq right now?

Where is he?


He's home but scheduled (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:50:31 AM EST

to do Iraq in October. We can have a Halloween party and dress up like Sheriffs and pretend to arrest him with duct tape. I have also considered shooting him in the buttocks while cleaning a gun but we don't have one ;(


: It'll make him easier to catch (none / 0) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:29:53 AM EST

when I need to as well ;)

The Iraq War (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:09:17 AM EST

Was protested by a large minority of individuals before the War began. The history of these protests are there for those willing to look. It wasn't covered by the mainstream media, but many people were out in the streets demonstrating against this war befor ethe first bombs fell in '03. That is unprecedented in American history and gives this protester a lot of hope that being against war IS actually becoming cool.


Your headline (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:15:07 PM EST

Your headline is misleading. Korb is no longer with the Pentagon. Your headline makes it appear that he represents Pentagon's position. He does not.

More accurate would have been:

Anti-war Critic Says Military Draft May Be Necessary

Universal Military Service is the answer (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:34:15 AM EST

Long term the only thing that makes sense is Universal Military Service.

Let's have everyone do their share. Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief.. doctors lawyers..indian chiefs.

This will expose everyone to the military. Some will decide to stay because that like it, others will go into the Ready Reserve.. but either way it will have the effect of democratizing the citizens of this country by insuring they rub shoulders with each other, something that is not presently happening, and is a long term danger as the military becomes more and more isolated from the country in general, and from the anti-war Left in particular.

Two years of training, mostly in support roles, with the volunteers getting the advanced training in the military arts. It would start in the first three months following graduation from high school, or age 18 whichever is later. No exemptions except for severe health problems. After the two years, four years of weekend meetings each month with two weeks annual training on base. After that, four years of tri-monthly monthly meetings.

Whaaa? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:45:46 AM EST

I thought recruitment and reenlistment were in the stratosphere and all of our troops were so highly trained (and intrinsically superior to mere mortals) that the generals would pack up and leave if the rabble like myself were forced into the ranks.

Or is that no longer operative?


scar (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:19:28 PM EST

Now here I thought you wanted all the politicans and rich folks, and their childten, to serve. At least that is what I have seen from the Left.

Now I find that what you really want is to NOT serve.


lying liars (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:30:01 PM EST

Now here I thought you wanted all the politicans and rich folks, and their childten, to serve. At least that is what I have seen from the Left.
Now I find that what you really want is to NOT serve.

chickenhawks should put their children where they're making their money.

not lying about and impugning others' motives.

But it's not hard to believe that anyone for torture and against the constitution would also be for involuntary servitude.


Dearest Sailor (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:01:12 PM EST

I am shocked, yes shocked, that you do not support the cocept of everyone serving.

BTW - Do you have an actual comment to make regarding UMS?


the thread is about ... (none / 0) (#28)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:59:13 PM EST

... the draft, try not to hijack another thread.


: Wrong again (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:36:35 PM EST

Uh, how do you think you will get people into the UMS?
Can you spell "draft?"

to select for some purpose: as a : to conscript for military service

Slavery is OK if it's egalitarian? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by roy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:05:49 AM EST

So upon reaching adulthood, every citizen's first major interaction with the government is to do exactly what they're told to for two years, on penalty of imprisonment. And that's supposed to improve society?

The only lessons to be learned from involuntary service under less than dire circumstances are that we are mere servants to anybody wearing a better suit, or hatred of the government and the people who empower it.

(Do not confuse this with disrespect to those who serve voluntarily. My father served, as did several good friends, and they learned a great deal from their experiences)


roy (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:35:40 PM EST

The problem with your position is the definition of the word "dire," and who gets to decide when it applies.

Remember. We're not using this to produce THE fighting force, but to have people ready to quickly move into THE fighting force.


Yes, that's a big problem (none / 0) (#27)
by roy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:46:39 PM EST

People who tolerate only emergency conscription usually say it should only be used when repelling an invasion or fighting a defensive war (where something like the World Wars might count as defensive, but Vietnam and Iraq don't). That dodges the issue of having troops in the training pipeline before they're needed. So yes, it's a problem, but it doesn't follow that the solution is to just always force people into service.

It's hard to determine when amputation is the right treatment for an ailment, but that doesn't mean doctors don't bother to figure it out.


roy (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 04:05:27 PM EST

Uh.... WWII might count as defensive??? Did I mistakenly think that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, Wake, the Phillipins.....

And the doctors can not make a reasoned decsion without having all the options. No antibotics? Cut it off.

And remember. UMS is not meant to replace the volunteers, but to supplement them when needed.


: Pickled brains (none / 0) (#39)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:40:18 PM EST

Roy says:
People who tolerate only emergency conscription usually say it should only be used when repelling an invasion or fighting a defensive war
ppj slurs:
WWII might count as defensive??? Did I mistakenly think that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor
It's hard to tell whether it's the meds or the bourbon but 'incoherent' is the term that comes closest to this commenter's posts today.

Not necessary to see it as slavery (none / 0) (#25)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:07:54 PM EST

If the U.S. military were actually defensive, it would be a good thing for every citizen to serve as a duty of citizenship, as the Swiss do. The rubbing of shoulders among different classes and sense of shared responsibility would have a positive effect IMO.

And when the U.S. becomes as non-aggressive as Switzerland, I'd actually support such a policy.


That'd merely be slavery put to good use (none / 0) (#30)
by roy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:06:18 PM EST

It'd be great if people would rub shoulders across class lines more. But we're talking about making every single person in America spend two years with little input on how to live their lives. Losing much of their freedom of speech, freedom of travel, privacy, property rights, freedom of association, ...

We'd be putting every American through two years of, not just technical training, but indoctrination by the government. If the hypothetical US is non-aggressive, maybe we can say they're indoctrinating only good ideas, but that's still wrong and undemocratic. At the very least, we'd be telling every American that their role is to do what the government tells them, not to tell the government what to do.

If we ever become non-aggressive, I don't think we'd stay that way long if the people in charge had 200,000,000 adults trained for warfare and the precedent of being able to tell them all "go here and do this, or you go to prison". That's a huge mack daddy of a power to trust the government with.


: If the U.S. ever became non-aggressive (none / 0) (#33)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:40:48 PM EST

the message would be different, the training would be different, and indoctrination of the sort you (and I!) oppose wouldn't be required. A true defensive military looks and acts nothing like an offensive one.
But I'm not holding my breath. No change like this is going to take place, at least not in my lifetime.

Universal military service (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:07:43 AM EST

is NO answer for me or my family. My husband chose his job and a volunteer force has proven to be the best we can have. Nobody is forced to learn what they need to know to preform the job, they all take it very seriously and all study and preform at their best because they chose to serve others as they are serving. At no time in the history of this nation were we ever short of manpower to fight a war when the country was actually in any kind of danger!


: Tracy: Note that I said: (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:29:27 PM EST

Some will decide to stay because that like it, others will go into the Ready Reserve..
....Two years of training, mostly in support roles, with the volunteers getting the advanced training in the military arts.
So the professionals are not impacted, what we have done is produce a cadre of people that we could more rapidly train and use to reinforce if we found ourselves in a sure enough shooting war in which we did not want to, or could not, use our superior firepower in nuclear weapons to overcome a large disparity in troop levels.
BTW - I would think that anytime during the inital two years a UMS person could declare their desire to go professional and move into the branch of their choice.

good luck (none / 0) (#18)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:32:49 AM EST

selling that in your local Friends congregation


Draft Board Members are getting trained this month (none / 0) (#4)
by LimaBN on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:51:06 PM EST

A new round of training sessions has already been scheduled for all draft board members in Minnesota.

Do you have a link to this info? (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:02:35 AM EST

I would be forever in your debt.


All new board members get it (none / 0) (#32)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:31:31 PM EST

Plus annual training. It is routine in peace time.

Training for draft board members


: Amir (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:34:53 PM EST

Don't tell'em. They'd rather believe the sky is falling.

it ain't gonna happen (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:27:42 AM EST

it would be the political kiss of death for whichever party reinstitutes it. they all know that. they'd sooner destroy our military, than kill their political careers.

they all saw what happened during vietnam, after the tet offensive made everyone realize just how poor our military intelligence really was, and the likelyhood of our prevailing in that conflict. they don't want to be burned in effigy in new draft riots.

I'd like to think (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:46:34 AM EST

that some have finally realized that the GOP is in need of a mercy killing.


scar (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 04:35:34 PM EST

Shades of VT


: No, it's just a little black humor (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:33:31 AM EST

That is all we have left to survive this insanity we are forced to endure with "W" as our President. Some of the black humor I have heard from our troops lately is a very distasteful joke that claims to be teaching soldiers what friendly fire is......when you throw a grenade in your commanders tent though that isn't friendly fire, that's just change of command.

There IT is! (none / 0) (#15)
by Kitt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:47:15 AM EST

Thank you, Tracy!

At no time in the history of this nation were we ever short of manpower to fight a war when the country was actually in any kind of danger!

Kitt - Good grief (3.00 / 2) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:31:18 PM EST

Why do you think we had a DRAFT during WWII?

How many people do you think were just itching to hit the beaches on D-DAY?


: We had huge, huge, huge numbers of soldiers (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:45:45 AM EST

who volunteered for WWII so your statement is misleading. I can't speak for D Day exactly, remember that it was a big secret until it happened.....they didn't send out applications for the job. We had a draft before Pearl Harbor to ready us if we needed to join the war. Things were looking pretty scary on the globe. FDR was determined that everyone in the nation would "feel" the war effort if we had to go there and not just those who wanted to be a part of it, therefore the war would draw to close when it was supposed to and you wouldn't have a bunch of a$$hole$ on capital hill planning political strategy while soldiers spilled their blood on the next battlefield and the next and the next. FDR was a very fair minded man and Hitler with his alliances had to be dealt with and they were. Our involvement in World War II was shorter than our Iraq War already is now and we really did accomplish mountains of things in that short time period. We have no more accomplishments made in Iraq that better mankind in general that aren't blown up six months later.

There will be no draft. (none / 0) (#17)
by Slado on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:11:42 AM EST

Period.

The political will isn't there and most military experts know that a draft brings in way more bad recruits then good ones becasue most of the people there don't want to be there.

This isn't WWII. This is a long war against terror that frankly doesn't requie the mobilization that a draft is needed for.

It's not going to happen, no way, now how and anyone that thinks it will has other motives.

I thought it was obvious .... (none / 0) (#29)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:01:03 PM EST

Your headline is misleading.

... that he was an expert ON the pentagon.

At least ambiguous (none / 0) (#31)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:24:36 PM EST

It is at least ambigous. All the more since the subject was the not the pentagon.


quotation from the post (none / 0) (#40)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:44:00 PM EST

Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon personnel official now affiliated with the Center for Defense Information and the Center for American Progress

from teh commenter:

All the more since the subject was the not the pentagon.

Uhh, the pentagon isn't involved in the draft!? What a maroon!


: At the moment (none / 0) (#43)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:17:00 PM EST

At the moment, the Pentagon is not involved with the draft, as there is no draft. Congress will have to act on the draft before the Pentagon has anything to do with it.
In any case the Pentagon was not the subject of the sentence. The word "Pentagon" modified "expert."
I could say, "University of Minnesota expert Dr. Norman Borlaug says the spring is the best time to plant wheat." Do you think that I mean Dr. Borlaug is an expert on the U of M offering an opinion on the best time to plant wheat, or do you think that he is emlpoyed at the U of M and has some expertise regarding the planting of wheat?

As Others Said (none / 0) (#38)
by libertarian soldier on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:26:16 PM EST

It should be Pentagon Commentator

"Dr. Korb served as Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics) from 1981 through 1985. In that position, he administered about 70 percent of the Defense budget. For his service in that position, he was awarded the Department of Defense medal for Distinguished Public Service. Mr. Korb served on active duty for four years as Naval Flight Officer, and retired from the Naval Reserve with the rank of Captain."

How does four years active duty service, plus four years service in OSD that ended a quarter of a century ago, make him an expert?

This is what he said in 1999:
And right now, what we've done is we have a military force that actually is a higher caliber than the draft force. If you draft, you'd get a lot of people who didn't go to high school because you get a lot of people -- or who didn't finish high school, because you get a lot of people in this country who don't. I mean, virtually you have to be a high school graduate. Secretary Califano mentioned we're dropping out standards. Our standards -- even as we drop them a little bit -- are higher than they were at any time during the draft in terms of high school graduation, where they score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. And they're even higher than they were at the height of the Cold War during the Reagan administration. So you're getting much better people. You keep them for a longer period of time. One of the problems in Vietnam was because they were draftees, they could only stay for 12 months, and we were continually breaking up units. We had very little unit cohesion.

And that is all true today; even more so as advances in technology and TTP have made modern warfare--especialy COIN--even more sophisticated.
Plus his premise is false--does anyone think we are actually going to have a significant presence in Iraq for the next 20 years?

Bush does (none / 0) (#41)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:54:37 PM EST

does anyone think we are actually going to have a significant presence in Iraq for the next 20 years?

Duh, that's why bush is building permanent bases and the world's largest embassy.


: We have embassies in 170 countries (none / 0) (#44)
by libertarian soldier on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:50:01 AM EST

Including huge ones in Beijing, Moscow, Paris and Mexico City. None of them constitute bases; the size of an embassy is based on the importance of the country and the breadth of the relationship.
As far as permanent bases go, I have heard a lot of claims, but where is the beef? Your link? A 2004 article that said they will be "long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years"? C'mon. We had bases in Saudi for over a decade; we have had bases in the ROK for five decades. Neither constituted an occupation.