This Just In...
Jim Lampley is still insane.
I have an almost perverse desire to read his blog posts. I can't explain it. It's like the need to look at a car crash.
Jim thinks the draft should come back. But it's not because he supports it or thinks it is a great way to increase the size of the military He wants the draft so every parent has a stake in the military and the use of military force. His basic idea is to scare everyone into never using military force again.
This entire draft thing over the last year has been such a headache. Before the last election, I had friends of mine who I thought to be rational, intelligent individuals, say that they were voting for Kerry because of the draft. My first thought: WTF? "They say that Bush will bring back the draft." I asked the obvious question: who is "they"? Guess what obvious question I never got an answer to. I didn't need an answer though cause I knew who "they" were. "They" were Moveon.org. Punkvoter.com, MTV, and every other fear mongering liberal group. I pointed out to these friends of mine gripped with fear that the last draft bill introduced in Congress was introduced by Charlie Rangel, a liberal Democrat. Fortunately, that fact did not destroy the misinformation about the draft that was put into their heads.
We are now 134 days since the re-election of the president. Where's the draft? I thought I was supposed to be in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle somewhere in the Sunni Triangle by now. Why no draft? It's very simple. Drafts are counterproductive for the armed forces. We have a high quality army because it is all volunteer. It is a professional force that requires specific skills and a specific personality. Time is a huge factor. The traditional draft term is 2 years. Our modern military is too complex and has too much specialized equipment for someone to be trained and put into the field in a 2 year time span. Gone are the days of a few weeks in the country and then you get your rifle and sent to the front. In fact, 2 years is the timeframe that the military says it would take to train a sufficient number of replacements for the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would be no real benefit.
It also takes people to train people. If there is a huge influx of personnel that have no military skills, there will be a greater need to pull officers and soldiers from the field to train them. Then there is the problem with the costs of feeding, clothing, and paying a new huge force. I guess all these liberals would support a huge budget increase to the military.
It is also a political nightmare. What serious politician would vote to bring back the draft? They would be run out of office. Think back to when the last draft was ended. There was a guy in Congress from Illinois who introduced one of the first bills to abolish the draft. His name: Donald H. Rumsfeld. Tell me why the head of the Defense Department, whose entire military philosophy is to be lighter and faster, would want a huge increase in soldiers.
Back to Jim. He is ignoring a lot of reality, which he's apt to do. Last year, 2 million males turned 18. The 2004 recruiting goals for all the armed forces was 187, 437. Even if you increased that goal drastically, you would have to be pretty unlucky to be drafted. Just as a matter of population, the luck of the draw would probably end up picking more poorer people than rich (there's more poor than rich in the country). Nice system, huh? It solves nothing.
Jim offers up this gem. "If millions of parents in the red states had been faced with the prospect that their teenager might face a decision about the next military adventure, might they have looked at Iraq a bit differently?" Uh, does he know who is in the military, politically speaking? Military service members and families voted overwhelmingly for President Bush. The parents in red states are the ones that have kids in the military right now. They are well aware of the situation. Jim seems to view a term of service in the military as a punishment or a death sentence. That viewpoint speaks so much about him and the people like him.
I have an almost perverse desire to read his blog posts. I can't explain it. It's like the need to look at a car crash.
Jim thinks the draft should come back. But it's not because he supports it or thinks it is a great way to increase the size of the military He wants the draft so every parent has a stake in the military and the use of military force. His basic idea is to scare everyone into never using military force again.
This entire draft thing over the last year has been such a headache. Before the last election, I had friends of mine who I thought to be rational, intelligent individuals, say that they were voting for Kerry because of the draft. My first thought: WTF? "They say that Bush will bring back the draft." I asked the obvious question: who is "they"? Guess what obvious question I never got an answer to. I didn't need an answer though cause I knew who "they" were. "They" were Moveon.org. Punkvoter.com, MTV, and every other fear mongering liberal group. I pointed out to these friends of mine gripped with fear that the last draft bill introduced in Congress was introduced by Charlie Rangel, a liberal Democrat. Fortunately, that fact did not destroy the misinformation about the draft that was put into their heads.
We are now 134 days since the re-election of the president. Where's the draft? I thought I was supposed to be in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle somewhere in the Sunni Triangle by now. Why no draft? It's very simple. Drafts are counterproductive for the armed forces. We have a high quality army because it is all volunteer. It is a professional force that requires specific skills and a specific personality. Time is a huge factor. The traditional draft term is 2 years. Our modern military is too complex and has too much specialized equipment for someone to be trained and put into the field in a 2 year time span. Gone are the days of a few weeks in the country and then you get your rifle and sent to the front. In fact, 2 years is the timeframe that the military says it would take to train a sufficient number of replacements for the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would be no real benefit.
It also takes people to train people. If there is a huge influx of personnel that have no military skills, there will be a greater need to pull officers and soldiers from the field to train them. Then there is the problem with the costs of feeding, clothing, and paying a new huge force. I guess all these liberals would support a huge budget increase to the military.
It is also a political nightmare. What serious politician would vote to bring back the draft? They would be run out of office. Think back to when the last draft was ended. There was a guy in Congress from Illinois who introduced one of the first bills to abolish the draft. His name: Donald H. Rumsfeld. Tell me why the head of the Defense Department, whose entire military philosophy is to be lighter and faster, would want a huge increase in soldiers.
Back to Jim. He is ignoring a lot of reality, which he's apt to do. Last year, 2 million males turned 18. The 2004 recruiting goals for all the armed forces was 187, 437. Even if you increased that goal drastically, you would have to be pretty unlucky to be drafted. Just as a matter of population, the luck of the draw would probably end up picking more poorer people than rich (there's more poor than rich in the country). Nice system, huh? It solves nothing.
Jim offers up this gem. "If millions of parents in the red states had been faced with the prospect that their teenager might face a decision about the next military adventure, might they have looked at Iraq a bit differently?" Uh, does he know who is in the military, politically speaking? Military service members and families voted overwhelmingly for President Bush. The parents in red states are the ones that have kids in the military right now. They are well aware of the situation. Jim seems to view a term of service in the military as a punishment or a death sentence. That viewpoint speaks so much about him and the people like him.
