Should women be eligible for the next military draft?

CSM David Heidke - January 27, 1973 was when the draft ended for my military generation.

LCpl James Robertson - There already are female Generals Working at the Pentagon, and if you've been paying attention, there are women that have been trying to go through the Ranger School and successfully completing it. No one likes the idea of a draft but there comes the point of an issue of equality where women and men are to be considered on the same playing field. Washington has established that you can no longer separate Combat Arms as a male only MOS. Eventually you'll find more females will start to flex into combat arms, It's only a matter of time. To exclude them from the Selective Service Program if it still continues would be crazy as it is against everything that all the females have been working towards for decades of equality.
Remember: females and males are equal, so let's make it equal

1sgt. Billy greene, I never said there were no women generals at the pentagon, I said a women general should, meet with women draftees, and deciding for themselves , men do need to be deciding this issue .

We as women can not exclude and cherry pick which facet we want equality. If we meet the criteria and qualifications then we should be drafted.

MSG Alfred Aguilar - I for one completely agree with that. There should be no loopholes for anyone to get out of the draft due to social or economic status. I understand medical completely. As far as special situations those soldiers could be assigned to a support unit that will not see combat and still fill vital roles that are needed. There should be no excuse for any healthy adult over the age of 18 to be able to dodge a draft. Hopefully this Country learned a lot from the past. Equal rights can not be a convenience only thing . Equal rights needs to be 100% equal or you best throw out the term equal and come up with a new term.

SPC Kevin Schober - Hi Kevin, I am not in favor of a draft. I am simply indicating that if we do go back to a draft, it can not be the draft of the 60's. I joined the Army the year the draft was stopped, 1973. I saw the caliber of candidates back then.

MSG Alfred Aguilar - I agree . I would much rather see a force made up completely of soldiers that choose to be there. I would much rather have some one covering another soldiers back VS someone being forced to be there when they do not want to be. I do understand the need to have the ability to quickly draw upon the population if needed though. I hope it never comes to that again. But if it does the loopholes for avoiding it need to be closed up in order to make it fair.

OH, the draft will happen again, you can bet on that.

My Dad was the Command SgtMaj of the Army Signal Corps, Ft. Huachuca, on his retirement in the '70s; him having joined the military in '39. Me, I joined the Marines in '68 to avoid being drafted into the Army. So when the draft ended I thought it a good thing but his thought was that an all-volunteer force is a dangerous thing, having more of a tendency to separate itself from the populous, especially when the more privileged classes do not choose the service as a way of life (of course there are exceptions). With a draft, all walks of life converge, and most draftees don't make the military a career either (yes, more exceptions, I'm sure {probably the hidden benefit of a draft is that people who normally wouldn't consider the military as a career surprise themselves by liking it and staying in!}). The idea is that with internal civil unrest caused by whatever catastrophe, economics included, the military is more likely to side with government control than with the disaffected in the streets. It's happened elsewhere in history said he and so thought the draft protected us from the military itself.

Sgt Hard Philips - Should the Government really be protected against Civil Unrest?

Honestly I don't think the Government needs protecting at all. The People need protecting from the Government in far more cases.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - His point was the reverse, that were martial law to be declared, it'd be less likely the armed forces would go along were there draftees. His argument, not mine. I just figured the thought from his rank and position deserved an airing. I'd've thought then, and do so now, that a professional military man would want an all volunteer force, having been in the Marines when in 1968 there were draftees. But the only way to know would be if they told you, that or the immediate short-timer's calendar. (I think the old service numbers for the Army began with RA for regular army and US for, I suppose, "citizen," but the Corps just used numbers [e.g., 2463760 {some numbers just won't be forgotten!}.])

Second and third order effects, these women who don't want to serve, will get pregnant and just op out. We'll waste money training them only for them to depart shortly after. So before mandatory selective service apps are processed, AR 635-200, chapter 8 needs to be revised, at minimum. I'm an active duty (dual mil) mom of 3, and next up would be FCP revisions. With all this said, I am for the -1% of females who want to be rangers, but thoroughly understand that you should not use a fork to do a spoon's job.

There were very few women in my mos. It was physically challenging so many would just get assigned elsewhere, but keep their status in the mos for promotions. You can not imagine how angry that made me and others who worked hard and did the job. It made us have to work 2x as hard for half the respect. I could never understand why, if you are not working the job your mos is not reassigned. You are right, many would just get pregnant and take the discharge, again, makes it very difficult for the dedicated and proud.

PO1 Kaytee S - Every member of the military services should be proficient in arms no matter what they do in their "jobs". I much admire the Marines saying, "Every Marine a rifleman". The military has too many people who think they're in a 9-5 job, who think they were hired to work in IT or other technical field. Wouldn't it be nice to know that if a position is over run that everyone had some capability with a rifle?
In my years I ran into too many Naval personnel who hadn't touched a firearm since boot camp 20 or more years ago. I may be a little touchy on the subject because I was SEABEE and a member of a small arms squad (Bravo Company) But I just don't believe there shouldn't be at least an annual test for all service members, enlisted and commissioned and remedial training for those who fail.

Not every service member needs to be a Marine to serve.... When I was in bootcamp... there "wasn't time" for the "girls to train with firearms" because, after all, they were non-combatants (1977). The only member of my unit who did get training, was one who already had civilian pistol training and certification. Another passed the qualification testing for SEAL training... but got only a note in her records that she had done so, no arms training for her! However, except for a couple who got medical discharges, all went on to serve. Later, after A & C schools, I couldn't get training because there was no individual training available locally-- I would have had to get "my unit" to go as a group; kinda hard when one is hospital based... even if there was interest from fellow "unit" members, you can't shut down the hospital, or even just the lab, to go "play with guns" (as my dept. Chief put it) you wouldn't be using in your military duties. And that Korean War medic I know... he was a little "4-eyed" draftee, and plenty of expert riflemen were glad for his presence in combat zones, even if he couldn't "qualify". As for modern warfare... sharpshooters are still needed, but not everybody needs to be one; video gamers and computer geeks have more pertinent "training" to operate the REALLY big "firearms"....

I agree with you SSG Audwin Scott - I have a daughter and personally do not want her to be drafted. If she decides to Enlist or go to the darkside and become an Officer then that is her choice. That being said, in regards to gender equality, I see it happening.

But it is not only about combat arms positions. First and foremost, if someone doesn't enlist at all, where does the combat arms come into this discussion? I'm sure those that were drafted during WWII, Korean, or Vietnam didn't all go into combat arms positions. Young men that don't sign the selective service will not be eligible for federal funds for college or other federal opportunities.

SFC Michael Hasbun, I think it's an equivocation to conflate the Western notion of the metaphysical equality of all human beings with the expectation that all human beings are equally prepared to perform all important functions. Why are women inferior citizens merely because their body are not well-suited to carrying 150 pound rucks and directly engaging the enemy? Women already perform a vital function in society by bearing and raising the next generation. In ancient Sparta, women who died in childbirth were given a grave worthy of a warrior who had died in combat. Why do we automatically assume that traditionally male contributions are more important and admirable?

I don't recall espousing any of your notions. I'm solely advocating for equality. If people want to argue traditional gender roles and societal hierarchy, that's fine, but not the topic of my post...

SFC Michael Hasbun, implicitly your notion of equality requires that women perform roles for which men are both obviously better suited and have traditionally performed for centuries. I don't think it's at all clear what the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving "equality" are. It's a rather nebulous term.

I think it's rather straight forward. One standard for all. Gender is irrelevant. If an individual can perform at a predetermined level, regardless of gender, then the job is theirs. With the exception of medical readiness, don't track or record gender at all. (Same with race, that nonsense needs to go away too, but that's a different topic).