response 28 of 78:

Nov 8 04:01 UTC 2003

Richard, Tailhook was 12 years ago, and the Navy did an about face after
that, instituting a "zero tolerance" policy on sexual harrassment.  I
haven't been in the military, but what I've heard is that in the Navy, at
least, sexual harrassment is now taken very seriously.

response 32 of 78:

Nov 8 05:57 UTC 2003

My understanding is that drill sergeants are no longer allowed to 
verbally abuse recruits, let alone lay hands on them.  The sergeants 
are supposed to respect the recruits.

When I was in Army basic training (1982), they were allowed to say 
pretty much anything they wanted, but not to lay on hands.  They 
pretty much *didn't* lay on hands.  I was never struck by a drill 
sergeant.  So, if I understand policy correctly, they're probably 
actually not verbally assaulting recruits.  I find it a little hard to 
imagine... but my father found it hard to imagine they didn't hit.  We 
both have trouble imagining a non-smoking Army, women in combat, and 
the integration of gays into the military.

People seem to often assume that military culture cannot and *will* 
not change, but that's not at all a correct assumption.

re resp:6: Currently, there are National Guard and Reservists who have 
been sent overseas for a 1 year tour of duty.  They thought they were 
going for a 6 week to 3 month tour, and then that got extended after 
they'd reported.  One of the effects is likely to be an exodus from 
the Reserves/Guard as these people are sent home.  If the exodus is 
big enough, and there aren't enough replacements, one possible effect 
is reinstatement of the draft.  I don't think it likely, and I don't 
think it's a good idea, but it's possible.

Socially, there's already a small movement in favor of reinstituting 
the draft.  The military is made up of disproportionate numbers of 
minorities and people from poor families.  Some want to correct that 
by picking a representative cross-section of young men.

re resp:27: I have a co-worker with a daughter at West Point.  I'm 
told there is still some discomfort with women in the service 
academies, but it's getting less all the time.  There's a *lot* less 
tolerance for harrassment.

response 34 of 78:

Nov 8 08:35 UTC 2003

Fags can't integrate into the military, because any military with fags 
isn't a military at all.

response 36 of 78:

Nov 8 14:07 UTC 2003

Universal service would be very expensive but a lot would get done. It 
certainly would have some interesting effects on the labor market for 
low skilled workers. 

response 46 of 78:

Nov 9 03:53 UTC 2003

See the comments section on atrios.blogspot.com for a similar though
more lengthy discussion of this.  The flashpoint was the notion that
the military's anti-gay policy would be a problem if there were a draft,
now that homosexuality doesn't carry the social stigma it once did.

Some argued that, in a wartime situation necessitating a draft, people
wouldn't be able to escape service by claiming to be gay, or by BEING gay. 
Indeed, the common draft-escape routes of the Vietnam era (including
Canada) have all been closed now. 

But a friend of mine who served in Vietnam (and worked as a medic in
hospitals and battle zones) pointed out that you can't make somebody into
a soldier without his or her active cooperation.  Even just wetting the
bed every single night will eventually get you thrown out of the service. 
A passive-aggressive refusal to do anything would probably work too.

Not an easy path, mind you, and you'll get a "bad" discharge paper which
may affect future employment, but if you're really determined not to be in
the military ...

response 50 of 78:

Nov 9 09:06 UTC 2003

resp:35 "other social service"  You mean like Peace Corps or 
AmeriCorps?