An interesting sentiment from our prestigious defense secretary which I find very interesting.

Full story here. It is the second story on the page, near the bottom. He's apologized to the veterans in question who were forced into the military by way of the draft, saying,

But that is exactly what his statement did, is disparage their service to our country which was absolutely crucial to our victory in WWII. In Viet Nam, regardless of what you think of that particular conflict, a large number of people gave up their lives in forced service, and should be commended, not touted as "adding no value" to our fighting forces. I think perhaps, it was the poor leadership which added no value. The soldiers, whether drafted or volunteer, were just following orders.

I don't think any intelligent veteran misinterpreted what Mr. Rumsfeld said... It was very clear indeed.

What Rumsfeld meant by what he said is that compared to a professional, all volunteer military, people who are drafted to serve only a short period of time, as in Vietnam, do not add to the tactical and strategic core. They are enlisted, hurriedly trained, sent to a theater of combat, and discharged.

The strongest part of our military doctrine is the ability to hand down lessons learned, and teach new soldiers coming into the service.
After Vietnam, our armed forces went through a rough time precisely because of this. It was not until the early eighties, that we became once again a strong powerful force.

WWII draftees should not be compared lightly to Vietnam draftees. These soldiers were, for the most part, in service for a far longer period of time. They were able to implement new doctrinal changes first hand and made the military stronger. Difference between the social issues of the times contributed to the effectiveness of the draftees.

I'm not rah rah for rummy, but I agree with his initial statement, and intent.
He was trying to say that a draft is not needed, in fact it may be detrimental to the military advances over the last 25 years.

It doesn't take a big thinker to realize that someone forced to risk their life would likely not be as effective as someone who voluntarily risked their life.

Given the same exact job, which worker would be more productive, a prisoner in a work camp or a private citizen? I'm willing the private citizen, the one who chooses to be there.

This is why I like Rummy -- he tells you what he thinks in plain terms. He doesn't care if veterans are hurt by his words. He is not a PR guy. He fights war.

And not to belittle the sacrifice made by those men who have been drafted into service, but...

"Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

I though everyone had heard that...

Mike

It seems to me we may be comparing applies and oranges. The brave veterans of past wars fought in a basically untechnical army/navy/marines/air force.

In today's military it takes a great deal of time for a soldier (airman, sailor, etc.) to learn the detailed technical knowledge necessary to handle even the simplest of the military's equipment.

And, now that we are integrating the battle capabilities of the services even more (putting together special ops with aircraft, for instance), the degree of training is even more necessary. The battle field of today is a lot more complex.

This is made even more so by our demand that all unnecessary injury and death, both to the military and civilians, be kept to a minimum - there is little room for sparcely training troops.

If we want to minimize collateral damage (terrible phrase!) we need the most highly trained - and that means long term - people possible.

I watched Congressman Rangel on this topic for about five minutes. His opponent was a light weight or not very interested in arguing with Rangel. Because of this I was nodding along with a few points Rangel made.
If we are going to war it might be smart to incorporate the draft to be ready to fill in if it becomes long term and if the volunteer recruits disappear.

But then he began ranting about the social justice of equally exposing all Americans to the war and I got confused. He stopped making any sense but his tone implied that he was checkmating his opponent. He kept chastising him for being a former navy guy and saying that he was talking about infantrymen.

It sure sounded as if he would call for denying volunteer troops and letting them take their chances at winning service. Political agendas are not as important as fielding the most effective army possible.

Anyway, the segment ended and my opinion of Rangel was returned to normal.

Rangel is not really interested in reinstating the draft. Instead, what he is interested in, is making even the wealthiest representatives in our government think twice about going to war, by making THEIR children have to go, too. But I think this whole point is off topic.

This thread is about the statement Rumsfeld made about drafted soldiers adding no value to the armed forces. While I agree with Basheva that today's military is much more highly trained, and the high technology we use make the draft an illogical decision... To downgrade the service of so many men with a blanket statement like that is simply maddening. How dare someone who never served in war or even in peace, himself, even think to disparage the service and sacrifice of others? This man needs to have a little more respect for the veterans of this country who fought in the name of freedom, IMHO.

Mike, I'm sorry, but men behind desks don't fight wars... Soldiers do. Yes, I do agree, though, that he said it quite plainly... That he has no regard for the sacrifices of those who were drafted into war.

Stefan, either you didn't read my post, or you didn't believe it.
I respect your opinion, but you are wrong about what he meant by his statement.

This statement is being used by media and those looking for an avenue to bash the administration.
I don't support the war without further, concrete proof, but this is being used for strictly partisan, political purposes.
I have known many fine men who were Vietnam draftees, and they served with distinction. But the fact that they were in the service did not measurably contribute to the core effectiveness of the military.

I repeat, they served honorably, and many were decorated for valor. They went through hardships of the likes that I have not had to endure.
They did teach us, however, that we should look long and hard before instituting a draft again, precisely because of problems we had at that time. Another issue was the combat tour rotation in Vietnam which exasperated the draftee problem, but I digress.

You won't find anyone who honors our veterans more than I, so I wouldn't make these statements without careful consideration of my words.

SOD Rumsfeld's comments, while dumb and adding nothing to the current debate on war vs. Iraq constitute a minor gaffe. Much like our former President CLinton, who told the colonel on his local draft board that he "loathed the military", yet when he was president, he had no qualms about sending young men to die for him. Clinton's white house press secretary, the idiot DeeDee Myers made the statement that "the best and brightest" did not go to Vietnam. SO I guess according to her, only people in college and able to avoid service(Clinton) were worth living.

What Clinton's team did or did not do is not the point at issue here. Comments referring to Clintonian issues are merely static trying to draw the issue from a Republican gaffe. It has nothing to do with previous administrations, all of which had an array of problems.

I could concede you are right about Clinton not doing anything!! His eight years were a litany of doing nothing!! When a president of the United States is discovered to have said he loathes the military it will always be relevant. Those statements, along with "what is is", and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" define totally the man Bill Clinton. What a sad excuse for a person.

HeatherRob - this is about Rumsfeld's comments. I understand that some may want to compare this to other politician's comments which is fine. As long as it is evident a comparison is trying to be made.

However, this thread will NOT be railroaded into yet another "I hate Clinton" thread.

Take that over here: Clinton and his big... mouth... or
Was Clinton a Good President?

I see nothing wrong with what he said, as long as you interpret it to mean draftees currently going into the military. And I believe that's what Rumsfeld meant. I highly doubt he meant previous draftees were all worthless.

I guess politicians have to analyze every single word they will say and find out how people can interpret/misinterpret it in order not to offend anybody.

Dang it Jaime, every time I try to squeeze in a dig at Clinton you catch me, you are omnipresent!

Suspect everyone has missed the more sinister reason why the present administration is rejecting the possibility of a draft.

A volunteer army may more readily be experimented with. The new army, fed amphetimines and other performance enhancing drugs (which can lead - as we recently saw at Fort Bragg - to no less than four wife murders) would have far less recourse to suing the Pentagon than a draftee would...

Any thoughts......

I watched that news conference and IMO it was not meant to degrade vets. His comments were not carefully worded but it wasn't as big of a deal as the press is making it out to be. He should have clarified his position, applogized for the misunderstanding, and moved on.

The story might be important to vets but I'm sure they have more important complaints (such as medical care and benefits) than an offhand comment made by Rumsfeld. They are already well aware of the value this country put on their service in VietNam. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't quite follow how volunteers are more susceptible to government experiments than draftees....each is still under military law. There isn't a separate law for a drafted army than a volunteer one.

As for the rest of it - I agree with Danya's statement

Could there possibly be another reason why the Administration is hesitant to take volunteers?.

Consider this.

The standing military is not part of the productive workforce wheras taking volunteers may withdraw trained labour from companies.
Surely thats not the capitalist way to do things?.

Just a thought.............regards.......Alan.

I think it's simply because there is no need at this point in time. If enough soldiers started to die or we were involved in several wars at the same time the military wouldn't oppose the draft at all. The politicians, however, would pay hell for it if it ever got that far.

A bit like Vietnam?.

It got a bit expensive in lives and money so it came time to go away.


Regards........Alan

No, I suspect you have missed the real reason why we don't need a draft.


Our military is already an all volunteer force.
Aside from 'go-pills' given to some aircrew on long combat air patrols, what drugs are you referring to? The anti malarial pills given to special ops troops based at Ft. Bragg? I guess they would be performance enhancing, if you stretch it.

And no soldier, draftee or volunteer is able to sue the pentagon. We lose all military effectiveness when we run our armed forces like the postal service.

Which is why the government has been known to test chemical and biological agents on them. As late as the early 70's it was found that we did testing on our own soldiers this way.

The small pox vaccine is a great example. I don't care how many soldiers are forced to be vaccinated it will not be well recieved by the public unless and until there is an actual case of Small pox. Too bad for the drug companies that hoped to cash in. Congress even gave the drug companies a free pass for any lawsuits that resulted in it's use. I suppose if someone comes down with a case of smallpox they still have a chance to profit but I hope they wouldn't go to those lengths.

Sorry, that was completely off topic.