Draft?

[mister_coffee]

There is also kind of an unspoken assumption in your words that our military is invulnerable and perfect and it is not possible for them to lose a war. The only way in that thought process to explain a loss is that our brave military was "stabbed in the back" by weak politicians back at home.

Unfortunately, that argument is indistinguishable from the arguments the Nazis used in Germany after WWI.

The truth is that wars are complex and ugly and you rarely lose or win for one single reason. Both sides are playing to win. And insurgencies are hard wars to fight and harder to win. And the Untied States is not at all well equipped for fighting them.

I'd also add that Afghanistan has only successfully been conquered once in recorded history. In the 13th century by Ghengis Khan. The Afghans defeated Alexander the Great and defeated both the British and the Russians multiple times in the 19th century. Compared to any of that history we got off pretty lightly there.

[mister_coffee]

Your own words seem to argue that we should give "no quarter" to enemies. Which is by definition a war crime.

Your own words seem to argue against civilian control of the military and the constitutional limits on the power of the executive to initiate war.

Your own words seem to argue against any kind of chain of command.

You seem to want a world where military commanders in distant lands are a law unto themselves and can act autonomously from any central control and without any serious accountability for their actions. That's been tried before. It didn't work out very well for the Roman Empire.

[Jingles]

So war crimes then.

Deliberately attacking an enemy who is out of the fight for whatever reason (surrendering or otherwise unable to fight) is a war crime.

I would think someone who served would be familiar with the laws of armed conflict. I would also think someone who served would understand why those rules are there and why it is important to follow them.

Maybe I missed something somewhere but after rereading my post I can,t find anywhere I even hinted at attacking an enemy that was out of the fight for any reason. What I did say was take the enemy out of the fight permanently not for a, week or 2 then have them return to kill you. Yes there are rules of conflict, some good some bad, as some ROE are good, some bad,a lot of the rules are to keep "war civilized" which is an oxymoron. War is brutal as it should be to keep people / nations from going to war. Goes to the saying Actions have Consequences
Let's take an example you have a school yard bully that keeps getting away with being a bully until that bully has the living schit beat out of him all of a sudden he realizes his actions has consequences and stops being the bully

[mister_coffee]

So war crimes then.

Deliberately attacking an enemy who is out of the fight for whatever reason (surrendering or otherwise unable to fight) is a war crime.

I would think someone who served would be familiar with the laws of armed conflict. I would also think someone who served would understand why those rules are there and why it is important to follow them.

[Jingles]

You seem to be arguing for allowing US forces to commit war crimes.

Depends on what you call war crimes, flagrently killing innocent non combatants no but first killing those out to kill you that isn't a war crime that is war.Hell I'll go so far as to say if the bleeding hearts say you can only wound an enemy combatant wound the bastard bad enough they won't ever return isn't a war crime either. But either way unless someone is willing to step up and fight they should have no say in how the battle is fought

[mister_coffee]

You seem to be arguing for allowing US forces to commit war crimes.

[Jingles]

There is this thing called the Constitution you might have heard of.

Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. Congress controls the funding of a war.

The guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, called the President, is the Commander-In-Chief. That's where the buck stops and the Chain of Command originates.

There is also this thing called "civilian control of the military" that goes back to a guy named George Washington. I imagine you have heard of him.

Yes it is congress that declares and funds wars but unless they get their butt's out on the front line no one politician or civilian should be dictating how the war is faught, a as there are way to many bleeding heart don't hurt anyone injecting their opinions how wars are taught while sitting back and letting others do the fighting. I personally don't give a Rats Azz who you are unless you are willing to step up and fight shut you mouth about how to fight
Yes war is hell and people die but damn it fight to win by almost any means necessary.
And Yes heard about George Washington the Commanding General of the entire,Continental Army who was also in the field with the troops not holed up in some office protected by secret service or a bunch of do gooders

[Rideback]

which goes back to your Constitutional reference, the framers were right. Of course with the Trump crowd their genetically predisposed physical exemptions will bone spur their way out of any actual service.

[mister_coffee]

I thought about it a bit and think that the only way a draft would make any sense is only for wars explicitly declared by Congress and any draft also has to be explicitly approved by Congress.

[Rideback]

It sounds like Jingles wants to see not only boots on the ground in the streets of Tehran but those same boots calling the missile strikes. Wow.

[mister_coffee]

There is this thing called the Constitution you might have heard of.

Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. Congress controls the funding of a war.

The guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, called the President, is the Commander-In-Chief. That's where the buck stops and the Chain of Command originates.

There is also this thing called "civilian control of the military" that goes back to a guy named George Washington. I imagine you have heard of him.

[Jingles]

Part of the problem with wars are we don't let those in the field fight the war/ conflict the REMF'ers in WA say what the fighters can and can't do...

What you are describing, as far as I can tell, is a military without a chain of command or accountability. I'm kind of doubtful you can win any war without those two things.

No the chain of command is in the field where the battle is being faught and the object is to kill the enemy before they kill you, NOT back in the halls of Congress they are sitting dodging verbal insults instead of lead.
War is hell people die but damn it fight to win not compromise it is not a boxing match that is caught under Marques of Queensberry rules

[mister_coffee]

Part of the problem with wars are we don't let those in the field fight the war/ conflict the REMF'ers in WA say what the fighters can and can't do...

What you are describing, as far as I can tell, is a military without a chain of command or accountability. I'm kind of doubtful you can win any war without those two things.

[Rideback]

I would argue that the Gulf War was as close to a strategic success as has happened in my lifetime. It was not entered without a huge amount of planning that entailed bringing the neighborhood in on the plans, staging, inventory of munitions and giving the American people insights about why, where and how it would be carried out. It was done without a draft.

"General Norman Schwarzkopf (1934–2012), nicknamed "Stormin' Norman," was the U.S. Army four-star general who commanded all coalition forces during the 1990–1991 Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm). As commander of U.S. Central Command, he led the successful 100-hour ground campaign to liberate Kuwait"

[Jingles]

Part of the problem with wars are we don't let those in the field fight the war/ conflict the REMF'ers in WA say what the fighters can and can't do, as is evidenced by the fact that the US has not won a conflict since WW2 we've advanced to the rear with our tails between our leg running damn near in shame. Get Congress off the battlefield and let the troops fight to win, not compromise, go balls to the wall, kick arse & take names for graves registration

[Rideback]

Be careful what you wish for Jingles.
Wars in our lifetime have already demonstrated their penchant for lasting long, costing more, killing and maiming more of everyday people, making money for the defense contractors and allowing the Trump class to sit on the sidelines with nary a hair out of place and fill their personal bank accounts. Neither Trump's son Barron nor his grandchildren will ever be drafted, they will sit out every war attending parties at Mar a Lago.

Meanwhile, money to pay for the wars Trump's kind will continue to come from the $ that should be spent on health care, good paying jobs and an economy that gives us the strength to have national security. Under Trump every one of those priorities has been dropped into the dumptster.

[Jingles]

.
So, Jingles, you would include President Bone-Spurs sons?
.

Yes, as Istated all living breathinf non handicapped individuals, male and female, and even those that don't know which they are, between the ages of 18 and 35, in fact maybe even a mandatory 2 year obligation and if you leave the country to dodge the draft as happened in the 60's you made a one way trip no coming back sorry slick willie you're gone, doesn't matter who you are you are no longer a US Citizen and are barred from entering the country

[mister_coffee]

Yeah, I'd be all for a draft if Barron went.

I do not understand what military problem is solved by a draft.

Right now the Big 2 problems we have in the Persian Gulf are (1) we are losing billion-dollar radars to $50,000 drones, and (2) we need to defend supertankers against the same drone attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. It isn't clear to me how a mass draft of 18-year-olds would solve either problem.

Similarly I do not know how a draft makes our military more effective at defending either Taiwan or the Baltic States. Both places we are likely to have future wars.

[just-jim]

.
So, Jingles, you would include President Bone-Spurs sons?
.

[Jingles]

Why start the draft at 20 drop it to 18 and every living non disabled individual between 18 and 35 is subject to the draft.

[PAL]

"As of March 2026, the Trump administration has not ruled out implementing a Vietnam-style military draft (lottery system) to support ongoing military operations in the Middle East. While not currently active, officials confirmed that options, including conscription for 20-year-olds, remain on the table to meet staffing needs. "
Karoline Leavett said all options are on the table. She did not say the above and neither did T, but there was a implication that it could be considered.
More research is required.

Probably best to sign up before a draft is instituted. Maybe a better assingment. Sure.