Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
hey irate, what do you think of what kerry claimed was a 'backdoor draft?"
|
i think it sounds like something the navy would come up with.
the rest of the draft discussion sounds downright hysterical to me but i do fear that a backdoor type of draft is something to be concerned about. the idea does bother me... but i do see it differently from a conventional draft.
i'm against a conventional draft (except in cases where the death of the nation and massive civilian causualties are plainly the cost of defeat) for many reasons... chiefly because when my life is on the line i don't want someone who didn't volunteer to be watching my back.
a backdoor draft is an entirely different animal. usually this means that the military would enforce a policy called "stop loss". stop loss should be lawful under emergency circumstances only until the military is given ample time to recruit and train replacements for those who choose to end their service after their obligation is filled. it becomes abusive when stop loss is a matter of policy and not a temporary solution.
my biggest problem with Bush defense policy is this very issue. i feel they are bordering on exploiting the discipline and loyalty of some of our troops by extending the stop loss rules unfairly. if congress will not pony up the money to train enough volunteering troops to win the war or if keeping soldiers years beyond their voluntary commitment is the only way of maintaining sufficient manpower... then i think that a serious re-evaluation of the method and purpose of the war is needed.
morale is high right now. the troops feel confident in the President and in their purpose. however, if that willingness to sacrifice is squandered by politicians who get too greedy to listen to the average soldier... then the line from need to exploitation has been crossed.