Trump is trying to politicize the military

[SLD]

So this past week has seen several initiatives by Trump to turn the military into an arm of the Republican Party, and him in particular. It started with the open meeting with the generals and admirals where, after talking about the way Obama walked down stairs, said that they needed to be ready to fight the enemy within, and then proceeded to say they’d get training by fighting in an urban setting in the U.S. The statements were stunning. But the flag officers refused to respond with applause or anything but stony silence. Trump apparently was unhappy with the response he got.

Trump has also called for the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago. A judge just struck down the deployment in Portland, but it will likely be appealed to the Trump friendly Supreme Court. I haven’t read the opinion so I can’t predict if it will be upheld. But regardless, the danger to civil military relations is seriously threatened. If the military is ever seen as being used against the people, or even ever is seen as an element of conservatism in the United States, the people will lose all respect for it. It will be a disaster for the military, and I think the generals and admirals know it.

I used to be against the draft. Now I’ve reconsidered. We don’t need a professional military, we need a citizen one. One where its leaders can’t be sure that the ranks will simply obey their orders. We need a military made up of people who are not concerned with making the military a career, but are willing to serve their country and take the oath to the Constitution for a period of time. A draft will sweep up liberals and conservatives alike. MAGATs will be forced to work with liberals. Races will be mixed. It could not be politicized.

Hopefully our military leaders understand the dangers that Trump poses to them and will respond with honor, telling him to no. But I’m not holding my breath.

 

[bilby]

I used to be against the draft. Now I’ve reconsidered. We don’t need a professional military, we need a citizen one. One where its leaders can’t be sure that the ranks will simply obey their orders. We need a military made up of people who are not concerned with making the military a career, but are willing to serve their country and take the oath to the Constitution for a period of time.

The draft eliminates that word I have highlighted.

You have a citizen military, made up of people who are willing to serve their country and take the oath to the Constitution for a period of time.

Of course those people are also "concerned with making the military a career", but you can't avoid that without taking away the "willing to", and replacing it with "told to".

 

[bilby]

Races will be mixed.

Well, they weren't before 1948, but that didn't stop the US military from being pretty effective.

It could not be politicized.

 

[Terrell]

Sounds like disciplinary issues waiting to happen. You're forcing millions of people who don't want to be there, may have better options, or both to do military service. It's when and how many, not if, people aren't going to be willing to play ball. Not to mention most 18 year olds are not qualified to be in the military.

Military Times article

At least some of these people will have talents that can be put to better use elsewhere, you're delaying their ability to do so. It's also going to cost a bunch of money, those people have physical needs, that will cost tax dollars to fulfill, and those people are going to want paychecks. They're not going to be happy if they could get higher pay elsewhere and are barred from doing so.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Sounds like disciplinary issues waiting to happen. You're forcing millions of people who don't want to be there, may have better options, or both to do military service. It's when and how many, not if, people aren't going to be willing to play ball. Not to mention most 18 year olds are not qualified to be in the military.

Military Times article

At least some of these people will have talents that can be put to better use elsewhere, you're delaying their ability to do so. It's also going to cost a bunch of money, those people have physical needs, that will cost tax dollars to fulfill, and those people are going to want paychecks. They're not going to be happy if they could get higher pay elsewhere and are barred from doing so.

Many disciplinary issues stem from supervisors letting the small things go, the stuff that doesn't warrant action by the commanding officer. People with disciplinary issues or just bad attitudes will have them no matter where they are or what they are doing.

If we want a qualified pool of individuals, mandatory registration and calling up a portion of them as needed will do. Affects to careers that are put on hold can be mitigated by law just as there are laws in place now to protect service members and their family financially. Remember, for the vast majority of the human population, careers in the hard sciences are not going to be disrupted. Most people are just filling cubicles.

Plenty of countries have mandatory conscription Switzerland, Norway, Greece and Finland which I'm told is the happiest place on earth. Finland is six months to a year. That's a high turnover rate and they seem to find the money for it.

Peoples perception of the military must largely come from movies, that there needs to be some warrior attitude to serve. Or maybe it's piss poor marketing on the part of the military. It floors me that people willingly take on a mountain of student loan debt that will take them on average 20 years to pay off when for three years of active duty between high school and college the government would pay for it all for four years and provide a monthly tax free allowance along the way. Here that allowance would be about $1400, in Southern California, about $4000. For most, this is way better than mom and dad can do.