http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/military-officials-women-should-register-draft-n509851
I agree 100%. What do you think?
I agree, too.
Yes. Equal rights means equal responsibilities.
Disagree. No one should have to register for the draft whether male or female.
It seems fairly obvious to me that there is no longer any reason to exclude women from registering for the draft.
@MichiganGeorgia , when I was in my teens in the early 80’s, I always thought it unfair that I could not register for the draft. I’m just as capable as a man…so as a retired military person, I agree. To me this is not a question of 'should women be in combat?" but more for serving your country if there ever is a need for the draft.
The question about whether women be in combat or allowed to have combat specific jobs, then my answer is yes. IF they can qualify using the same bar that men use. The standards should not be lowered or changed because we are women. Having served during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I would not want a woman on my team that could not hold their own in a combat situation.
I know a lot of men do not want women in combat, but let’s face it, the line of combat is changing. They also use the excuse of “if women were captured, then we would make concessions that we would not make if it were a man”…
Bottom line, women should have to register, even if not used for combat, they could fill a slot that would free up a man for a combat position. Serving in the military is not a bad thing.
Agree.
100% agree that women should register as well. All positions should be open to everyone, and I am of the same opinion as @ChuckleDoodle that the standards should not be lowered - whoever is most qualified gets the position, regardless of gender.
I agree totally as well, the military has already opened pretty much all positions to women, and with the number of women who have served and our serving, the old arguments against not drafting women goes by the wayside, since they have proven that they can do the job. The only arguments against it I hear are from conservatives, who argue the same tired old ‘facts’ that have been used to try and keep women out of combat, that women will be sexually abused if captured, that they cannot do the job the same way men did, or those honest enough to admit it, that they still retain the idea that it is a ‘man’s job’ to protect home and country.
More importantly, if we exclude women from the draft, it is creating an imbalance in what we are seeking socially, where on the one hand women have been fighting for the right to achieve things they are able to, it is giving the rights and benefits without the responsibility.
While I think a draft does not make for a strong military, I totally agree that women should have to register. It is rather archaic that they don’t .
Agree if there is a draft or registration, but the US military is at the point where conscript servicemembers are unlikely to be needed or desired (or if they are, there are probably serious issues with foreign policy that require conscript servicemembers for unpopular long term military action). So the Selective Service System is really an example of a useless government bureaucracy that can be cut.
Yes. If AARP can find us without anyone having to sign up for anything, so can the U.S. government.
I don’t know; it seems to have worked out ok in World War II.
Of course, the personnel needs of the US military today are quite different from the needs of the US military then.
Yes, they should have to register.
I think most of the people who are opposed to it are erroneously conflating the concept of “registering” with “combat”.
WWII isn’t necessarily proof either way as the Axis powers which lost WWII also had militaries which were made up of draftees…especially towards the middle-end of the war.
And being militaristic societies, their draftee systems involved mandating most of the male population to undergo military instruction from as young as late elementary school onward, basic training and few years of service, and periodic refresher reservist training until they reached ~50-60 years of age in peacetime*. Much more extensive than what the US has had in its history.
That and most historians felt the US’ greatest contribution to the defeat of the Axis wasn’t necessarily the military power though that was important. Instead, her greatest contribution was her manufacturing capacity as the “arsenal of democracy” and logistical management. Capacities Axis leaders seriously underestimated to their later extreme regret and defeat.
- I.e. Hitler Youth/Reich Labor Service in Nazi Germany's case, military instruction in Japanese K-12 from as early as elementary school once the militarists took full hold of Imperial Japan from the early '30s onward.
** This was extended past 60+ in the latter part of the war due to manpower shortages after the war started going badly for the Axis. The Imperial Japanese army conscripted 40-60+ year olds in the last years and the Nazi Germans had the Volksturm.
Logistics is the part of military power that is widely underrated by readers and writers of military history. Combat in battles gets most of the attention, but getting personnel and equipment where they need to be is a prerequisite for successful combat.
^^ so true. I was a Flight Engineer on the C-141B Starlifter aircraft during Desert Shield/ Storm and I can’t tell you how many trips we made from Stateside to Germany to Saudi Arabia and back to Germany. In the beginning we were pulling 30 hour days, with 10 hours off (if we were lucky) before we went at it again, delivering more equipment, supplies, and people. It was very hectic. I’m very surprised there wasn’t any major air accidents during this time. Everyone was exhausted.
Forget the draft.
China has too many men. If we need more people in the military, we should just draft them.
What is a 30 hour day–have not previously seen the phrase and don’t know what it means. Sounds grueling.