AP-GfK Poll: Growing Support For Military Action Against IS
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Dec 14, 4:11 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An increasing number of Americans favor a more aggressive military stance against the Islamic State group amid increasing fear about threats against the United States, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Here are some things to know about public opinion on the U.S. response:
MOST WANT MORE MILITARY ACTION
According to the AP-GfK poll, 56 percent of Americans now say the U.S. military response to the Islamic State group has not gone far enough, up from 46 percent who said so in October of 2014. Another 29 percent say the U.S. response has been about right, and 12 percent think it's gone too far. Nearly 8 in 10 Republicans, about half of independents and 4 in 10 Democrats say the U.S. military response has not gone far enough.
The poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly behind airstrikes against the group in Syria and Iraq, and an increasing number support sending ground troops to the region.
Forty-two percent now favor sending U.S. troops to fight the Islamic State group after just 31 percent said that in January. Another 32 percent in the latest poll are opposed to sending troops, while 22 percent are still on the fence.
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_ISLAMIC_STATE_THINGS_TO_KNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-14-16-11-25
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,421 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We do need to bring it back. One reason we are so quick to commit to this kind of insanity is because we have the professional military, and we pay them well to do our dirty work, no questions asked. When there was a draft, it was my kids, and my neighbors kids who were being sent half way around the world for no good purpose. If we want to fight a war, we need to draft people to avoid sending our National Guard and reserve personnel out every second or third year. Of course, this time women would be drafted, and that would put a very, very different slant on the whole issue.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Here's a little history of the draft:
1898 (Spanish-American War) – Congress declares that all males between eighteen and forty-five are subject to military duty.
May 1917 – Congress passes the Selective Service Act, establishing local, district, state, and territorial civilian boards to register, classify, examine, and either induct and ship out or defer men between the ages of twenty-one and thirty for service in World War I. There is much opposition to this draft: during the first drawing, 50,000 men apply for exemptions and over 250,000 fail to register at all. In one round-up held in New York City in 1918 to catch those who failed to report, 16,000 men are arrested. After the war's end, efforts to set up standard military training and service are defeated in Congress.
1920 – The National Defense Act establishes a system of voluntary recruitment.
Nov. 1940 – Congress enacts the Selective Training and Service Act. All males between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-five are ordered to register for the draft and the first national lottery is held. Draftees are shipped to army induction centers in the country's first peacetime draft. Later, as World War II progresses, the draft age is lowered to eighteen and men are called to service not by lottery number but by age, with the oldest going first.
1941 – Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress gives the president power to send draftees anywhere in the world, removing the distinctions between draftees, regulars, National Guardsmen and Reservists, and creating one army made up of all.
Jan. 1947 – President Harry S. Truman recommends to Congress that the 1940 Selective Training and Service Act expire and that the level of required military forces be maintained by means of voluntary enlistments.
Mar. 1948 – In the wake of the escalating Cold War, President Truman asks that the draft be reinstated as the level of military forces falls below necessary numbers. The new Selective Service Act provides for the drafting of men between nineteen and twenty-six for twelve months of active service.
1950 – The Korean War draft, which exempts World War II veterans, calls up men between the ages of eighteen-and-a-half and thirty-five for terms of duty averaging two years.
June 1951 – The Universal Military Training and Service Act is passed, requiring males between eighteen and twenty-six to register.
1952 – Congress enacts the Reserve Forces Act, compelling every man who is drafted or enlisted to an eight-year obligation to military service. After a term of active duty is completed, one is assigned to standby reserve and can be called back to active duty upon a declaration of war or national emergency.
1965 – Opposition to the war in Vietnam leads to calls for draft reform and/or the complete elimination of Selective Service. For the first time since the Civil War, anti-draft demonstrations, particularly on college campuses and at induction centers, surface and proliferate. In its U.S. v. Seeger decision, the Supreme Court broadens the definition of conscientious objection to include religious beliefs nontraditional and nontheistic in nature.
1966 – In response to anti-war sentiment, President Lyndon Johnson appoints a special study commission to recommend changes in the Selective Service structure.
1967-70 – During this period, the number of conscientious objectors recognized by Selective Service grows two-and-a-half times and thousands of young men either destroy their draft cards or leave the country to avoid the draft.
1969 – President Nixon orders the "nineteen-year-old draft": if a young man is not drafted at age nineteen, he will be exempt from future military service except in the event of war or national emergency. Deferrals are allowed for hardship cases, certain occupations, conscientious objectors, clergymen, and high school and college students. Student deferments are a loaded issue, and one year later Nixon will argue in favor of ending them.
1969 – President Nixon orders a "random selection" lottery system for selecting men to serve in the war in Vietnam, changing the previous system of drafting according to age.
1970 – In U.S. v. Welsh, the Supreme Court adds sincerely held ethical and moral beliefs to the definition of allowable grounds for conscientious draft objection.
1973 – The 1967 Selective Service Act, extended through an act of Congress in 1971, expires, ending the authority to induct draft registrants.
1980 – The Selective Service System again becomes active, following the passage of legislation to reinstate draft registration without authorizing induction.
Present – At this time, the U.S. operates under an all-volunteer armed forces policy. All male citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, however, are required to register for the draft and are liable for training and service until the age of thirty-five.
Excerpted from American History Teacher's Book of Lists.
https://www.teachervision.com/us-history/resource/5669.html
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)1967-70 – During this period, the number of conscientious objectors recognized by Selective Service grows two-and-a-half times and thousands of young men either destroy their draft cards or leave the country to avoid the draft.
That's the key, right there. When we draft people, we have the citizen soldier concept, not the quasi-mercenary model we use now. As a nation, we feel differently about perpetual wars that piss away our resources and send our neighbors home in aluminum boxes.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)the draft didn't officially end until American involvement in the Vietnam War ended.
Also note that except for a brief period during the Truman years, the draft was in effect from 1940 until 1973.
We don't need a draft where only those who have money, or connections would get out of the draft and only those who have no way out would end up being killed. It was not my neighbors, or their kids getting drafted when I was of age, it was me, and I went. I was not in a combat zone, many who went through basic and AIT training with me did NOT come back. If you can guarantee that every politicians kids will be drafted, along with every CEO in the countries kids and grand kids, and there would be NO deferments what so ever, then tell me we should bring it back. Until then we need to find other ways to solve problems, and we need to stop trying to control and take the resources of other countries.
When every single person in the is country has a child, grandchild, or loved one, that could be drafted, then there would be no wars, but that will never happen.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)One of the reasons for moving to an "all volunteer" military was the unfairness, where GW Bush somehow got into the Texas Air Guard, and Donald Trump had a "bone spur." If we have a draft when we invade Iran, I'm thinking there will be no exemptions, women will be included, etc. Since the Guard and reserves now participate in wars, there is no opportunity to hide out there. Of course, our bought-and-paid-for Congress will try to rig the system so they and their wealthy donors can send other peoples' children to die in the sand, but that would generate lots of protest. When we invade Iran, which I think we will do, our quasi-mercenary force will not be large enough, and we will have to get more military personnel somehow.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the military is too small and there are enough volunteers that unless you significantly increase the size of the military, there would simply not be enough billets to fill with draftees.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)There was a lottery based on date of birth, and people were inducted according to their lottery number, with low numbers going first, and high numbers not going at all. My number was 19, meaning I would have been drafted in the 19th group of people inducted that year. I think they went as high as 45, so I would have been taken. The way the draft worked then, they only drafted as many people as they thought they would need. They did not draft everybody who was eligible, as they did in WWII.
hack89
(39,171 posts)where are you going to put the draftees? The military doesn't want them - two years is not long enough to train a modern soldier/sailor/airman. The military wants volunteers.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)When we do something stupid, and we will, we will need far more military personnel than we have now. In Iraq, we stretched the military to the breaking point, extending one year tours to 18 months, rotating National Guard people into combat every two or three years, and demanding far more of this "streamlined" military than it could manage. When (not if) we invade Iran, we will not be able to get away with the same thing again. We will need to draft a whole bunch of people, run them through a short basic training and AIT, and throw them into the fight, just as we did in Vietnam. And the results will be the same. Many of them will be killed and wounded. They will return with PTSD. The country will turn against the war. We will declare victory and leave.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the military is high tech - they have no way to quickly integrate a bunch of low skilled cannon fodder and use them effectively. Our military doctrine and tactics are predicated on highly skilled personnel using high tech weaponry. In Vietnam the military was not high tech - basic infantry equipment and tactics were not significantly different from WWII and were well suited to a conscript army.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We still rely on infantry to run around and shoot the enemy with rifles.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there is reason the US military was able to invade and capture Baghdad with only three divisions. It was an integrated combined fires organization that moved and engaged the enemy with a speed, precision and massed fires unseen in military history. There would have been no use for a Vietnam era infantry. There is no way to to quickly get a bunch of draftees to a level of proficiency - we will fight any future wars with soldiers we have on hand.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)spending for the NSA and other intelligence agencies with the military itself seeing an increase in the number of drones rather than troops.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We never seem to get tired of turning to a military solution in the very situation it's least likely to work. We're not even sure what ISIS is, who is in it this week, where they hide out, which governments support them, and so on. But Ted Cruz wants to carpet bomb them, so the Democrats will be forced to go along to avoid looking weak on terrorism. I swear to God, I could convince Congress to nuke Disneyland if I put my mind to it, and I could hire enough lobbyists and "experts" to lie for me.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)GOP: Obama war request is dead
President Obama’s proposal for the use of military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is dead in the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy declared on Monday.
The California Republican said Obama’s draft authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, could not win the 218 votes needed to pass the lower chamber, and suggested key GOP-led committees could draft an alternative.
“I do not see a path to 218 with what the president sent up because the world has become more dangerous since he laid out Yemen as the strategy of how to move forward,” McCarthy told reporters in his office. “This would weaken our ability to respond to our current situation.”
Administration officials have held up the U.S.’s counterterrorism efforts in Yemen as a model for success in battling Islamic extremists, though ongoing fighting there prompted the U.S. to close the U.S. embassy and evacuate military personnel.
McCarthy’s declaration, which was unscripted and came during his first pen-and-pad with reporters as House majority leader, means it’s now unlikely that Obama’s war powers measure will even get a vote on the House floor.
If Congress doesn’t pass an AUMF, Obama will continue carrying out military airstrikes against ISIS extremists using an outdated authorization passed by Congress in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Asked Monday about McCarthy’s remarks, White House press secretary John Earnest said he was surprised that lawmakers want to inject themselves into U.S. nuclear talks with Iran but won’t take up Obama’s AUMF request.
“[W]e see Congress eager to weigh in and advocate for the role that they should have that would prevent diplomacy, while at the same time you hear members of Congress who are unwilling to take any steps that would constrain the president's ability to wage war,” Earnest said.
“It seems to me they might have their priorities a little backwards.”
Obama sent his new war powers measure to Capitol Hill in early February, only to have it pronounced dead on arrival by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Republican hawks argued that language restricting “enduring offensive ground combat operations” could tie the hands of military commanders. Liberals griped that that language could lead to an open-ended ground presence in Middle East once again.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/238619-gop-obama-war-request-is-dead
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)They aren't informed well enough to make a correct decision.