A DRAFT?
There have been discussions about reviving the draft, most recently in The Washington Post which you can read *HERE*. I have some views and observations on the subject.
When I first went to Vietnam in 1962 there were only a couple of thousand Americans, civilian and military, in the country. I was surprised that some of the military were draftees. I thought that was totally wrong. We had a fairly large standing army at the time. What was the point of sending draftees to a war zone when plenty of professional were available?
Another thing that irked me, actually outraged me, was to see American women over there. Why? Because I knew if there was ever an evacuation they would take the women first. The presence of American women in a war zone cut down my chances of survival. Never mind combat, women should never be allowed anywhere there is a remote chance of evacuation. Their very presence cuts down the chance of men making it out alive.
What does that have to do with the draft? Maybe nothing. But maybe if all the women were put in administrative jobs in the States, it would free up men for the combat zone. I don’t give a damn about Political Correctness. The PC people will bang their heads on this one. It is the same PC that insists women should be in combat that would say they should be evacuated first if it came to that. Those two schemes cannot co-exist. Enough of that. I’m still pissed about Vietnam.
Here’s a good question: If they start up the draft again, will they have the same requirements to be drafted as they have for enlisting? You can read the requirements for enlisting *HERE*. Note that they require high school education or equivalent. I enlisted at the age of 17. I wouldn’t be eligible today. I was expelled from high school. So, if they keep the same requirements, all a guy has to do is drop out of high school and he beats the draft?
Of course my question was rhetorical but it points out a basic flaw in the system, which is the requirement for a high school education. It would be silly to have that requirement in order to be drafted. So it is silly to have it as a requirement for enlistment.
Why not give kids a second chance? I detested school but I thrived in the military. There may be tens of thousands of kids out there like I was. They worry about the time needed to train properly? Okay, here’s an answer for that. If the education requirement is waived, the guy has to sign up for a longer hitch, say six years. Problem solved. He turns out to be a discipline problem? They get weeded out in basic training. Three guys in my group of 60 didn’t make it when I took basic. I think very few of them had HS diplomas.
The PC people will knock heads on this one also. “It will mean more minorities will do the fighting!” Yeah, so?
It will also get a lot of kids out of the ghetto.
When I first went to Vietnam in 1962 there were only a couple of thousand Americans, civilian and military, in the country. I was surprised that some of the military were draftees. I thought that was totally wrong. We had a fairly large standing army at the time. What was the point of sending draftees to a war zone when plenty of professional were available?
Another thing that irked me, actually outraged me, was to see American women over there. Why? Because I knew if there was ever an evacuation they would take the women first. The presence of American women in a war zone cut down my chances of survival. Never mind combat, women should never be allowed anywhere there is a remote chance of evacuation. Their very presence cuts down the chance of men making it out alive.
What does that have to do with the draft? Maybe nothing. But maybe if all the women were put in administrative jobs in the States, it would free up men for the combat zone. I don’t give a damn about Political Correctness. The PC people will bang their heads on this one. It is the same PC that insists women should be in combat that would say they should be evacuated first if it came to that. Those two schemes cannot co-exist. Enough of that. I’m still pissed about Vietnam.
Here’s a good question: If they start up the draft again, will they have the same requirements to be drafted as they have for enlisting? You can read the requirements for enlisting *HERE*. Note that they require high school education or equivalent. I enlisted at the age of 17. I wouldn’t be eligible today. I was expelled from high school. So, if they keep the same requirements, all a guy has to do is drop out of high school and he beats the draft?
Of course my question was rhetorical but it points out a basic flaw in the system, which is the requirement for a high school education. It would be silly to have that requirement in order to be drafted. So it is silly to have it as a requirement for enlistment.
Why not give kids a second chance? I detested school but I thrived in the military. There may be tens of thousands of kids out there like I was. They worry about the time needed to train properly? Okay, here’s an answer for that. If the education requirement is waived, the guy has to sign up for a longer hitch, say six years. Problem solved. He turns out to be a discipline problem? They get weeded out in basic training. Three guys in my group of 60 didn’t make it when I took basic. I think very few of them had HS diplomas.
The PC people will knock heads on this one also. “It will mean more minorities will do the fighting!” Yeah, so?
It will also get a lot of kids out of the ghetto.
posted by Walter Guest at 4:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home