I think we should have mandatory national service where we can choose between a military branch or a peaceful branch. The peaceful branch would serve areas of humanitarian need within our nation.
I realize that, but I am focusing on the mandatory service part. I think it would help give our nation a sense of unity, sibling-hood, outward thinking, and dedication to service… and people can learn a trade or two.
As a Quaker, I don’t believe in mandatory military service. But I don’t speak for everyone.
Veterans really aren't fans of mandatory service. We have the primary branches, the National Guard, the Reserve. The military branches all have options for non-combatants. We also have the Peace Corps, Job Corps, and AmeriCorps.
We've learned that volunteers are far better soldiers than conscripts. As far as non-combatant service possibilities, there are tons, but should still be volunteer rather than mandatory.
Democracy is messy. We have to CHOOSE to serve our country every day. When we stop choosing to, we lose the country.
I realize that, but I am focusing on the mandatory service part. I think it would help give our nation a sense of unity, sibling-hood, outward thinking, and dedication to service… and people can learn a trade or two.
I still think the military can go on peaceful missions but maybe with a more international focus??
As a Quaker, I don’t believe in mandatory military service. But I don’t speak for everyone.
My daughter was in the Navy for eight years and attended university thereafter for an equal amount of years was not a victim in the Navy anymore than when at university.
Women are not safe from predatory men in any institution. We need to solve that problem. Maybe with mandatory service, we will have those Human Resources. Women are also vulnerable to predatory men in poor communities where lack of resources can perpetuate generational violence . Mandatory national service can break up such cycles and learned helplessness.
Right now we have a bunch of angry keyboard warriors screaming at each other with no sense of each others humanity. Maybe they would feel better if they could create action instead of reaction.
No one should be drafted if they don't have equal rights in this country. And if women do not have bodily autonomy they should not be required to serve.
while I understand where you are coming from - Black men have been forced to register for the draft over the decades, and they don't have equal rights.... it was even worse in the 60s when they were getting drafted to serve in Vietnam.
If women are drafted (and I think they should if men are drafted) it's a good argument for giving us equal rights - if we're fighting, why can't we control our body?
EXACTLY! That's why I said 'no one'. Equality by race, gender, sexual orientation, US citizen by birth but constantly being threatened with deportation, NO ONE.
True, but perhaps in a marriage/relationship where the couple has children, they should maybe be allowed a choice between them of which person will join the military.
well, I don't know what the rules were before for men with spouses/children when they got drafted. In the past, sometimes they weren't eligible; or if their drafting created economic hardship for the spouse they wouldn't be drafted. I don't know what the current rules are (since there isn't actually a draft - just a registration). But there are many couples with kids where both parents are in the military, so it's managed somehow.
The reason we got the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, is due to protests during the Vietnam War era. The argument was that if people could be drafted to fight for this country at 18, they should also have to the right to vote at 18.
Requiring all citizens, regardless of gender, to register for the draft is a step toward equal rights, and could result in boosting support for the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. IOW, if everyone is equally required to register for the draft, we should also have constitutionally-protected equality.
I don't think they should be drafted either way. For the most part, if they have children, they shouldn't be forced to leave them; however they're certainly entitled to join.
Now we have no war & draft isn’t necessary. But looking at the moving global pieces, I foresee WWIII with Russia, China, NK & Iran vs US, Canada & some European nations.
The US military has struggled for last few years to meet its enrollment needs. (All these big talking right wingers won’t flock to join in war & they’ll say “but my kids”)
So I see an active draft returning b/c signing up to die isn’t high on anyone’s list anymore; we won’t have the numbers when a war breaks out so parents won’t be exempted even from the draft.
I understand your point, and there's definitely some truth to it. However, I also see it from a different angle. When children are very young, under six, I believe they're best with their mothers. Mothers tend to be more nurturing, and I think that's crucial at that age. But there's also the issue of equal rights and responsibilities. As you said, if women want equal rights, they should have equal responsibilities. However, I don't think it's that simple. Biologically, men and women are different. We serve different purposes, especially when it comes to parenting. In my opinion, one gender might be better suited for certain roles. For example, I don't think it's wise to send women into war if they have young children. Once children are teenagers, 16-18, they're old enough to be independent. But if a child is under 10, I really think the father should go to war while the mother stays home.
You may believe whatever you wish--the nature-vs-nurture debate rages on. I think men are perfectly able to change diapers and bottle-feed, kiss boo-boos and tuck kids in for the night. Uteruses aren't required beyond birth.
Likewise, women are perfectly able to march in unison, learn how to use and maintain weapons and machinery, keep their heads down under fire, and develop effective battle strategy.
By the time a woman has a teenage child, she's well into her 30s, too old for boot camp--how many 35-year-old men join up? There's a reason young people are called to serve in the military.
Equality requires that women have the same responsibility to defend themselves, their homes, and their country as men have. And, frankly, women must have the same opportunities to prove themselves in male venues because otherwise men will never accept them as equals.
More women need to become generals in service and that requires a certain number of women going through the process.
As for wisdom, the effect of battle on any human being--male or female--is almost always horrendous. Soldiers return with serious mental issues that they carry into their homes and which affect their families, so maybe the wisest path would be to ratchet up our "soft power" and carry a stick large enough to avoid hot wars and pitched battles.
I understand your point, but I think we have different views on the draft. I believe it should be both a support draft and a combat draft, and it could be for both genders. However, I think it would be better suited for women. This isn't my original idea; I heard it from someone else.
I know men who are gentle souls and should never be required to learn how to kill anyone or anything (and certainly not forced to do so). I know women who are effective hunters and quite capable of taking someone out, if necessary.
The draft should be a single bucket with sorting according to individual psychology. Having a two-pronged approach divided by sex only perpetuates inequality and the myth that women need special consideration because of their biological function.
That is a good point. But considering bodily autonomy and women's right to choose, I feel like a draft would be good for that. The military branch of the government has little patience for stupidity that makes their work harder, and if one of their soldiers catches pregnant by accident or force they don't want to lose the investment they've put into her just because some hyperreligious dingdong thinks she should have to have babies. I think that preserving military readiness and taking care of what becomes temporarily government property might have a real impact on women's rights. If women are draft eligible, the military branch also won't want states blocking them from candidates by deciding that military service puts unborn babies at risk every time a woman has sex because she could be deployed before she knows she's pregnant, or while she becomes pregnant.
I believe that the draft would be good for an overhaul of military attention to sexual assault among their ranks, as well. They do need to have their troops working like a well-oiled machine, and if parts of the machine are liable to be attacking and putting other parts out of commission on a regular basis, they are going to put a stop to it. Right now there are few enough women in the military that it hasn't become a matter of practicality to crack down on assault, and morality has no place in any executive decisions in any branch of the government. Make the military half women and they have no choice but to rehaul their maintenance policies.
Women should not have to be drafted in order to get the rights they deserve. Your idea would just be kowtowing to the military/industrial complex. (Listen up Ike!)
Agree, but I think that a non-gender specific national service initiative with noncombat options could move us toward greater equality and civil rights for all. This is theoretical, of course.
Equal rights and bodily autonomy in or out of the military. How many black men/women served during WWII only to return to a country that had not changed to see them as equal - no GI bill - no opportunities to apply the skills they learned while serving - no home ownership opportunities - the list goes on.
As a Veteran of the USAF (1971-1975), I never agreed with the decision to NOT draft women. In 1971, women were approximately 1% of the active duty military; today it is close to 18% and growing. Women have proven to be more than capable of holding many of the jobs available in our armed services.
That said, not everyone is cut-out for the military (that includes many men); there are many other options that SHOULD be included: Teach American, Peace Corps, a regenerated Civilian Conservation Corps, or other mandatory government service. The exposure to people in other parts of the country and/or world, makes one a better citizen.
Overall, I support a mandatory 2-year service following high school. It is absolutely a continuing education function.
Every 18 year old in this country should be REQUIRED to give 1 year of service to their country….civil or military! It’s a small price to pay to be a citizen here., and it would reset the “it’s all about me” attitude prevalent today, give much needed dicisipline and direction to many youth who need it.
In general I am against a draft. But if there is one - yes, women should be drafted as well as men. As a feminist, I think equality works both ways. So women should be registering when they turn 18, just like men do. And if we have to have a draft - the burden should not just fall on men.
I believe women should register for the draft. If the need comes they will be available. Women are a very important part-of our current military. Semper Fi Sisters
Old retired Conservative Guardsman here, who started with the CAP in the 50s wrapped up supporting SocCent TacCom. Served with women throughout. Capable people are an honor to serve with and get the mission done. Everything else is an excuse when the SHTF.
Please don't change Jeff...you are exactly who we need in office. I wish I could contribute but I am currently on seasonal layoff! As for the draft...why do we still register men, after 50 years it seems unnecessary. With modern computing capabilities reinstating the draft for both men and women 18-25 wouldn't be difficult. If we were to peek our heads out of our American mindset we would notice that national service is required of both sexes in many countries but that might also seeing things like national health and secondary education programs.
I agree with you in theory, especially since this country doesn’t provide the support/benefits/etc. to take care of retired/current Military. Men/Women put their lives LITERALLY on the front lines for our Country, Global Freedoms, yet our military veterans can’t get quality mental/physical healthcare? Is it any wonder they have to ‘draft’ citizens - who would volunteer otherwise?
Until we can provide quality mental/physical health care for our Vets and can assure women they will be safe from physical/mental assault/battery while serving, I'm not for it. I constantly read of murders and rape incidences on our bases. Unacceptable. Also unacceptable, laws which prevent them from obtaining abortions due to the above.
As a retired Marine and father and grandfather to females I would urge the registration and draft of women. Only way to end male discrimination of them and misogyny is to treat them the same as men, IMHO. When you can fit it in, alternative service should be expanded to fill our non military needs and provide for those with sincerely held beliefs.
I think women should register for the draft. That does not mean they would be drafted but it could give our military a source for very talented people to serve in appropriate situations.
You're criticizing the man who's giving you a platform to express your opinion. He's actively engaged in politics, being open and transparent. It's fine if you disagree, but consider what he's doing for you, for US politics, and for global politics.
You know what you're right it is your right if you want to to defame someone but my question to you how's he feminine and if he is feminine what is the problem with that in our current Society
The funny thing about you is, you try to sound intelligent and witty, but you're not. It's kind of amusing, but also a bit depressing. It makes me feel sorry for you, but let's play along. If I looked in the mirror, I'd see someone smart. If you looked in the mirror, you'd see someone who needs help.
I am only one of two living members of the President's Commission in 1969 that led to the end of the draft. The first problem with this bill is that the Selective System today is an anachronism -- how many 18-26 year-olds are up to date with their addresses? The first order of business is to fix that system so that if needed, we can locate those that are needed for national security at all levels. Second, there is no question that we need a much bigger cohort of really intelligent people to join our defense agencies. But they are not going to be helpful if the only way to attract them is through a draft, then train them, then assign them, and then bring them up to speed with the roles they will play, and then get their output. That is why there needs to be much, much, much better planning with out tech and defense industries to attract them now, be fair to them, pay them as well as men and prepare them for the national security industry. I have served six times at high level of the Pentagon. This draft nonsense is no more than posturing. But what do we expect of our current Congress? The Armed Services committees should know better. THAT is the problem and that is because we elect less than qualified leaders whose interest in the media is stronger then either their policy goals or intelligence. We need Jeff Jackson in whatever role -- and hopefully in the future, an important national one.
Several other people have also suggested that we need intelligent, well educated people in the armed services and that is true. However, the Republican party is destroying our system of education --- trying to prevent elementary children from learning real history, shielding them from reality, nixing any high school and college classes on race, gender, equality, history, and literature. And the current administration is obfuscating, double talking, and covering up for what is really going on all over the world. So how are our young people going to be educated? Fox news?
There are terrific questions, but unfortunately I don't have the contacts, time, or energy to do a book that you deserve. The good news is that there is one, but a much more competent and knowledgeable writer than I am.
Just published this year, I highly recommend David E. Sanger's newest book: New Cold Wars" China's Rise, Russia's Invasion and America's Struggle to Defend the West.
I am only half way through the audible (my age prefers listening in the afternoon than reading and writing in the AM). One of the best of this genre, and I have read/listened to many.
Did the Pentagon not used to rely on diplomacy, proud to consider the military as last resort? Can you shed light on the definition of 'national homeland security (not 'national interests') and why State Dept. and White House politics/public image currently seem to rule military reactions? And one last, why is the world now our enemy when we can't dictate terms? Arriving back at that diplomacy/communication/negotiation aspect that seems disappeared.
Politicians/Policy Makers/Billionaires should also be required to serve 60 days in a Memory Care Facility....want to see how fast they find a cure for Dementia related diseases? We need to invest money in life on earth before we try to live on Mars. Just saying.
I think we should have mandatory national service where we can choose between a military branch or a peaceful branch. The peaceful branch would serve areas of humanitarian need within our nation.
There are peace missions that the military are sent on. They go and rebuild places that have been ravaged by weather and war.
I realize that, but I am focusing on the mandatory service part. I think it would help give our nation a sense of unity, sibling-hood, outward thinking, and dedication to service… and people can learn a trade or two.
As a Quaker, I don’t believe in mandatory military service. But I don’t speak for everyone.
Veterans really aren't fans of mandatory service. We have the primary branches, the National Guard, the Reserve. The military branches all have options for non-combatants. We also have the Peace Corps, Job Corps, and AmeriCorps.
We've learned that volunteers are far better soldiers than conscripts. As far as non-combatant service possibilities, there are tons, but should still be volunteer rather than mandatory.
Democracy is messy. We have to CHOOSE to serve our country every day. When we stop choosing to, we lose the country.
I realize that, but I am focusing on the mandatory service part. I think it would help give our nation a sense of unity, sibling-hood, outward thinking, and dedication to service… and people can learn a trade or two.
I still think the military can go on peaceful missions but maybe with a more international focus??
As a Quaker, I don’t believe in mandatory military service. But I don’t speak for everyone.
Women are not safe from predatory men in any sector of the military.
Women are not safe from predatory men anywhere.
Wow!!! That is a rather broad statement.
Generalize-much???
My daughter was in the Navy for eight years and attended university thereafter for an equal amount of years was not a victim in the Navy anymore than when at university.
💯
Women are not safe from predatory men in any sector of the military.
Women are not safe from predatory men in any institution. We need to solve that problem. Maybe with mandatory service, we will have those Human Resources. Women are also vulnerable to predatory men in poor communities where lack of resources can perpetuate generational violence . Mandatory national service can break up such cycles and learned helplessness.
Right now we have a bunch of angry keyboard warriors screaming at each other with no sense of each others humanity. Maybe they would feel better if they could create action instead of reaction.
No one should be drafted if they don't have equal rights in this country. And if women do not have bodily autonomy they should not be required to serve.
while I understand where you are coming from - Black men have been forced to register for the draft over the decades, and they don't have equal rights.... it was even worse in the 60s when they were getting drafted to serve in Vietnam.
If women are drafted (and I think they should if men are drafted) it's a good argument for giving us equal rights - if we're fighting, why can't we control our body?
EXACTLY! That's why I said 'no one'. Equality by race, gender, sexual orientation, US citizen by birth but constantly being threatened with deportation, NO ONE.
True, but perhaps in a marriage/relationship where the couple has children, they should maybe be allowed a choice between them of which person will join the military.
well, I don't know what the rules were before for men with spouses/children when they got drafted. In the past, sometimes they weren't eligible; or if their drafting created economic hardship for the spouse they wouldn't be drafted. I don't know what the current rules are (since there isn't actually a draft - just a registration). But there are many couples with kids where both parents are in the military, so it's managed somehow.
I still think it's a good idea to have choices.
The reason we got the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, is due to protests during the Vietnam War era. The argument was that if people could be drafted to fight for this country at 18, they should also have to the right to vote at 18.
Requiring all citizens, regardless of gender, to register for the draft is a step toward equal rights, and could result in boosting support for the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. IOW, if everyone is equally required to register for the draft, we should also have constitutionally-protected equality.
But 18 year olds cannot buy a pistol. So they should not be drafted as well.
But they can buy long guns. So......
I don't think they should be drafted either way. For the most part, if they have children, they shouldn't be forced to leave them; however they're certainly entitled to join.
Maybe parents in general could be exempt from the draft?
We’d have no military in this case.
We do have a military without any sort of draft. It exists right now. I am not suggesting that we ban parents from serving.
Now we have no war & draft isn’t necessary. But looking at the moving global pieces, I foresee WWIII with Russia, China, NK & Iran vs US, Canada & some European nations.
The US military has struggled for last few years to meet its enrollment needs. (All these big talking right wingers won’t flock to join in war & they’ll say “but my kids”)
So I see an active draft returning b/c signing up to die isn’t high on anyone’s list anymore; we won’t have the numbers when a war breaks out so parents won’t be exempted even from the draft.
Fathers can oversee their children as well as mothers. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
I understand your point, and there's definitely some truth to it. However, I also see it from a different angle. When children are very young, under six, I believe they're best with their mothers. Mothers tend to be more nurturing, and I think that's crucial at that age. But there's also the issue of equal rights and responsibilities. As you said, if women want equal rights, they should have equal responsibilities. However, I don't think it's that simple. Biologically, men and women are different. We serve different purposes, especially when it comes to parenting. In my opinion, one gender might be better suited for certain roles. For example, I don't think it's wise to send women into war if they have young children. Once children are teenagers, 16-18, they're old enough to be independent. But if a child is under 10, I really think the father should go to war while the mother stays home.
You may believe whatever you wish--the nature-vs-nurture debate rages on. I think men are perfectly able to change diapers and bottle-feed, kiss boo-boos and tuck kids in for the night. Uteruses aren't required beyond birth.
Likewise, women are perfectly able to march in unison, learn how to use and maintain weapons and machinery, keep their heads down under fire, and develop effective battle strategy.
By the time a woman has a teenage child, she's well into her 30s, too old for boot camp--how many 35-year-old men join up? There's a reason young people are called to serve in the military.
Equality requires that women have the same responsibility to defend themselves, their homes, and their country as men have. And, frankly, women must have the same opportunities to prove themselves in male venues because otherwise men will never accept them as equals.
More women need to become generals in service and that requires a certain number of women going through the process.
As for wisdom, the effect of battle on any human being--male or female--is almost always horrendous. Soldiers return with serious mental issues that they carry into their homes and which affect their families, so maybe the wisest path would be to ratchet up our "soft power" and carry a stick large enough to avoid hot wars and pitched battles.
I understand your point, but I think we have different views on the draft. I believe it should be both a support draft and a combat draft, and it could be for both genders. However, I think it would be better suited for women. This isn't my original idea; I heard it from someone else.
I know men who are gentle souls and should never be required to learn how to kill anyone or anything (and certainly not forced to do so). I know women who are effective hunters and quite capable of taking someone out, if necessary.
The draft should be a single bucket with sorting according to individual psychology. Having a two-pronged approach divided by sex only perpetuates inequality and the myth that women need special consideration because of their biological function.
That is a good point. But considering bodily autonomy and women's right to choose, I feel like a draft would be good for that. The military branch of the government has little patience for stupidity that makes their work harder, and if one of their soldiers catches pregnant by accident or force they don't want to lose the investment they've put into her just because some hyperreligious dingdong thinks she should have to have babies. I think that preserving military readiness and taking care of what becomes temporarily government property might have a real impact on women's rights. If women are draft eligible, the military branch also won't want states blocking them from candidates by deciding that military service puts unborn babies at risk every time a woman has sex because she could be deployed before she knows she's pregnant, or while she becomes pregnant.
I believe that the draft would be good for an overhaul of military attention to sexual assault among their ranks, as well. They do need to have their troops working like a well-oiled machine, and if parts of the machine are liable to be attacking and putting other parts out of commission on a regular basis, they are going to put a stop to it. Right now there are few enough women in the military that it hasn't become a matter of practicality to crack down on assault, and morality has no place in any executive decisions in any branch of the government. Make the military half women and they have no choice but to rehaul their maintenance policies.
Women should not have to be drafted in order to get the rights they deserve. Your idea would just be kowtowing to the military/industrial complex. (Listen up Ike!)
Agree, but I think that a non-gender specific national service initiative with noncombat options could move us toward greater equality and civil rights for all. This is theoretical, of course.
Absolutely agree!
At one time in our history, if a woman in the military got pregnant she had to have an abortion or resign.
Equal rights and bodily autonomy in or out of the military. How many black men/women served during WWII only to return to a country that had not changed to see them as equal - no GI bill - no opportunities to apply the skills they learned while serving - no home ownership opportunities - the list goes on.
By bodily autonomy, I'm assuming you mean being to refuse the jab?
Draft millionaires and arms trade people. They love a good profitable war, I'm sure they'll want to fight
I don't think anybody should be used as cannon fodder in wars that increase the profits of the military industrial complex.
If you think America acts in the interests of democracy around the globe, you are somewhat delusional.
And the politicians to lead the charge.
That would be funny but I don't think that will happen at all
Just like cadet bone spurs
As a Veteran of the USAF (1971-1975), I never agreed with the decision to NOT draft women. In 1971, women were approximately 1% of the active duty military; today it is close to 18% and growing. Women have proven to be more than capable of holding many of the jobs available in our armed services.
That said, not everyone is cut-out for the military (that includes many men); there are many other options that SHOULD be included: Teach American, Peace Corps, a regenerated Civilian Conservation Corps, or other mandatory government service. The exposure to people in other parts of the country and/or world, makes one a better citizen.
Overall, I support a mandatory 2-year service following high school. It is absolutely a continuing education function.
Every 18 year old in this country should be REQUIRED to give 1 year of service to their country….civil or military! It’s a small price to pay to be a citizen here., and it would reset the “it’s all about me” attitude prevalent today, give much needed dicisipline and direction to many youth who need it.
In general I am against a draft. But if there is one - yes, women should be drafted as well as men. As a feminist, I think equality works both ways. So women should be registering when they turn 18, just like men do. And if we have to have a draft - the burden should not just fall on men.
I believe women should register for the draft. If the need comes they will be available. Women are a very important part-of our current military. Semper Fi Sisters
Hi,
Old retired Conservative Guardsman here, who started with the CAP in the 50s wrapped up supporting SocCent TacCom. Served with women throughout. Capable people are an honor to serve with and get the mission done. Everything else is an excuse when the SHTF.
Please don't change Jeff...you are exactly who we need in office. I wish I could contribute but I am currently on seasonal layoff! As for the draft...why do we still register men, after 50 years it seems unnecessary. With modern computing capabilities reinstating the draft for both men and women 18-25 wouldn't be difficult. If we were to peek our heads out of our American mindset we would notice that national service is required of both sexes in many countries but that might also seeing things like national health and secondary education programs.
I agree with you in theory, especially since this country doesn’t provide the support/benefits/etc. to take care of retired/current Military. Men/Women put their lives LITERALLY on the front lines for our Country, Global Freedoms, yet our military veterans can’t get quality mental/physical healthcare? Is it any wonder they have to ‘draft’ citizens - who would volunteer otherwise?
Until we can provide quality mental/physical health care for our Vets and can assure women they will be safe from physical/mental assault/battery while serving, I'm not for it. I constantly read of murders and rape incidences on our bases. Unacceptable. Also unacceptable, laws which prevent them from obtaining abortions due to the above.
As a retired Marine and father and grandfather to females I would urge the registration and draft of women. Only way to end male discrimination of them and misogyny is to treat them the same as men, IMHO. When you can fit it in, alternative service should be expanded to fill our non military needs and provide for those with sincerely held beliefs.
I think women should register for the draft. That does not mean they would be drafted but it could give our military a source for very talented people to serve in appropriate situations.
With rights comes responsibilities! Can't have your cake and eat it too
Enslavement is not a responsibility.
If they draft women..... they should draft feminine men like Jeff Jackson. He cries all the time about MTG!
Wow, Charlie; go public and prove you’re dumb.
He’s a troll seeking attention like those under the bridge creatures often do… don’t feed it.
Run along Tiff.... Biff and Muffy are looking for you.
Only cowards hide in the shadows.
That's Major Jackson to you. Twit.
My apologies.... "No-Privates" Barrett
You're criticizing the man who's giving you a platform to express your opinion. He's actively engaged in politics, being open and transparent. It's fine if you disagree, but consider what he's doing for you, for US politics, and for global politics.
It is not only fine for me to disagree with Jeff Jackson... it is my right... I will continue to do so as long as this is a free nation.
You know what you're right it is your right if you want to to defame someone but my question to you how's he feminine and if he is feminine what is the problem with that in our current Society
No.... low IQ people that think they are always right are the problem in our current society... look in the mirror to find one.
The funny thing about you is, you try to sound intelligent and witty, but you're not. It's kind of amusing, but also a bit depressing. It makes me feel sorry for you, but let's play along. If I looked in the mirror, I'd see someone smart. If you looked in the mirror, you'd see someone who needs help.
He is in the military right now. Surprised you haven't seen him there
Hey bawbag! Open mouth and change feet. 🙄
Hey AOC.... you spelled your initials wrong again.
I am only one of two living members of the President's Commission in 1969 that led to the end of the draft. The first problem with this bill is that the Selective System today is an anachronism -- how many 18-26 year-olds are up to date with their addresses? The first order of business is to fix that system so that if needed, we can locate those that are needed for national security at all levels. Second, there is no question that we need a much bigger cohort of really intelligent people to join our defense agencies. But they are not going to be helpful if the only way to attract them is through a draft, then train them, then assign them, and then bring them up to speed with the roles they will play, and then get their output. That is why there needs to be much, much, much better planning with out tech and defense industries to attract them now, be fair to them, pay them as well as men and prepare them for the national security industry. I have served six times at high level of the Pentagon. This draft nonsense is no more than posturing. But what do we expect of our current Congress? The Armed Services committees should know better. THAT is the problem and that is because we elect less than qualified leaders whose interest in the media is stronger then either their policy goals or intelligence. We need Jeff Jackson in whatever role -- and hopefully in the future, an important national one.
Several other people have also suggested that we need intelligent, well educated people in the armed services and that is true. However, the Republican party is destroying our system of education --- trying to prevent elementary children from learning real history, shielding them from reality, nixing any high school and college classes on race, gender, equality, history, and literature. And the current administration is obfuscating, double talking, and covering up for what is really going on all over the world. So how are our young people going to be educated? Fox news?
There are terrific questions, but unfortunately I don't have the contacts, time, or energy to do a book that you deserve. The good news is that there is one, but a much more competent and knowledgeable writer than I am.
Just published this year, I highly recommend David E. Sanger's newest book: New Cold Wars" China's Rise, Russia's Invasion and America's Struggle to Defend the West.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/New_Cold_Wars/BNnOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
I am only half way through the audible (my age prefers listening in the afternoon than reading and writing in the AM). One of the best of this genre, and I have read/listened to many.
Delighted you are interested.
Did the Pentagon not used to rely on diplomacy, proud to consider the military as last resort? Can you shed light on the definition of 'national homeland security (not 'national interests') and why State Dept. and White House politics/public image currently seem to rule military reactions? And one last, why is the world now our enemy when we can't dictate terms? Arriving back at that diplomacy/communication/negotiation aspect that seems disappeared.
I think we should draft worthless politicians!
Politicians/Policy Makers/Billionaires should also be required to serve 60 days in a Memory Care Facility....want to see how fast they find a cure for Dementia related diseases? We need to invest money in life on earth before we try to live on Mars. Just saying.
We should draft billionaires and corporate executives, especially those who run the military-industrial complex. https://substack.com/home/post/p-145170747