Is the Voluntary Military a Good?

[The Gadfly]

A soldier-hell, even a Marine- knows exactly where his pay comes from and that it is not nearly what he could be making in a civilian job.

In my opinion, anyone who prefers military life to a comfortable civilian life has serious psychological issues. I put four years in the Marine Corps and I never met a single individual who could have done better as a civilian but re-enlisted instead. In fact, I had no idea what my prospects were as a civilian but the day they handed me my DD-214 was one of the happiest days of my life! And that is no exaggeration.

I did my time and paid my dues but in my opinion military life SUCKS!

I can name you one who did; does the name LT Iilario Pantano ring a bell? Guy with a NYU degree and a high-flying NY career, who went back in the Marine Corps (had to get an age and dependent waiver to do it, yet) after 9/11. A model Marine officer, by most accounts; ended up prosecuted for war crimes for killing two Iraqi insurgents mostly on the suspect testimony of one slacker SGT (who sounds like YOUR kind of Marine). Cleared by an Article 32 investigation, though I doubt you approve. Just for the record, based on accounts of the incident, I'd have shot those two insurgents myself, without so much as a second thought. I shot VC and NVA for less, and do NOT regret doing it.

Pantano resigned his commission, and left the service, which I'm sure makes you happy; I guess REAL patriots (and professionals) who kill too many enemy are unacceptable to people of your stripe, many of whom were ready to have LT Pantano hung, and still consider him a murderer. I'd say we need a lot more like him, myself!

 

[earlycuyler]

Everyone who served in the military knows some things. And while my perspective is from the sixties I would think these things still hold. No soldier, Marine, Air Force, Army, or Navy recruit does anything they are not told to do. GIs of any strip work for their government, if they disagreed with any policy or duty, be it KP or latrine duty, they were always free to see the Chaplain.

Military life can be a good life if you can tolerate the restrictions and the constant travel, sometimes to the remotest reaches of the earth. Family stayed home. This lead to many family problems, the saddest thing for the soldier was the 'Dear John.' Personally I never quite fit in, my time was the time of the draft and most American boys thought it a duty and not the enslavement some consider it today. Failure to salute got my ass reamed out many times. 'Sorry Sir, I didn't see you.'

But you learn in the military, we still had the GI Bill, and the service taught you to take care of yourself, to grow up, to learn during those hours of just watch. We had lots of drunks and lots of lifers, and lots of dreamers hoping for a better tomorrow, no one complained about three-two, like all things it was a mixed experience.

Now consider today when Navy Seals presume to take credit for something they were ordered to do and when they were provided the training and tools to do it? Obviously Obama deserves credit for a gutsy decision and the Seals great credit for a pretty flawless operation, but when did this mindless (political?) whining become part of the military too? It is bad enough we have the useless whining of the tea party, now the military has entered the fray. Remember RHIP, the chain of command matters if order is to be maintained. What has happened to the code of conduct.

So I ask is the voluntary military another step towards the decline of America? A step closer to a banana republic in which the banana owners control the republic. Is the all volunteer Army a good thing? I am beginning to think not. Diversity provides brakes on group think. Your thoughts.

A grunt forever and proud of it.

Maybe not military, but for some other civic service. Not everyone is cut out for the military. So maybe they get drafted, but instead of the Army they have other options where they would serve the public for a set amount of time.

 

[MikeK]

A soldier-hell, even a Marine- knows exactly where his pay comes from and that it is not nearly what he could be making in a civilian job.

In my opinion, anyone who prefers military life to a comfortable civilian life has serious psychological issues. I put four years in the Marine Corps and I never met a single individual who could have done better as a civilian but re-enlisted instead. In fact, I had no idea what my prospects were as a civilian but the day they handed me my DD-214 was one of the happiest days of my life! And that is no exaggeration.

I did my time and paid my dues but in my opinion military life SUCKS!

I can name you one who did; does the name LT Iilario Pantano ring a bell? Guy with a NYU degree and a high-flying NY career, who went back in the Marine Corps (had to get an age and dependent waiver to do it, yet) after 9/11. A model Marine officer, by most accounts; ended up prosecuted for war crimes for killing two Iraqi insurgents mostly on the suspect testimony of one slacker SGT (who sounds like YOUR kind of Marine). Cleared by an Article 32 investigation, though I doubt you approve. Just for the record, based on accounts of the incident, I'd have shot those two insurgents myself, without so much as a second thought. I shot VC and NVA for less, and do NOT regret doing it.

Pantano resigned his commission, and left the service, which I'm sure makes you happy; I guess REAL patriots (and professionals) who kill too many enemy are unacceptable to people of your stripe, many of whom were ready to have LT Pantano hung, and still consider him a murderer. I'd say we need a lot more like him, myself!

I never heard of that Pantano individual and I know absolutely nothing about the charges lodged against him. And you know nothing about the Sergeant whom you denounce as a "slacker" and compound your empty assessment of him with an insult against me.

You don't know me and you have no idea what kind of Marine I was. What you need to know is I was honorably discharged. I never made rank because I had an "attitude." But my proficiency rating was straight 4.0, I was an expert rifleman, and I tolerated no miscellaneous bullshit.

I was in during peacetime and I consider myself lucky for that. I'm lucky and pleased that I never had to kill any Vietnamese because the Vietnamese never did anything to me and they represented no threat to my country. And I feel exactly the same about the Iraqis.

As far as your inferences where presumptive heroism is concerned, I don't need to kill anyone to validate my masculinity. I joined the Corps to fulfill my military obligation and to defend my Country. I didn't join to kill people who some politician falsely identified as a threat, or to be killed or crippled for absolutely no good reason.

So, again, I consider myself lucky to have avoided being placed in that position. For all I know that Pantano fellow is a psycho -- and based on some of your commentary I wouldn't bet heavily on your passing any tests, either.

 

[Wiseacre]

Mercenaries go where the money is, but US Armed Forces do not.

One who becomes a soldier for the express purpose of defending his country is a patriot. One who becomes a soldier in exchange for material compensation is a mercenary. The peripheral motivation and circumstances are not relevant.

Geez Mike, nobody is going to join up and get shot at for free. Of course they're going to be compensated, and it has to be enough to compete with the civilian economy. That doesn't make US service persons mercenaries, it's not like they are selling their services to the highest bidder. Nor does it mean, as you seem to suggest, that they are any the less patriotic or in thrall to the gov't and would support a coup de tat. I cannot accept the notion that a guy who is forced to serve is more patriotic than a guy who volunteers, both of 'em get paid by the same gov't. Your argument has no legs, man.

(Excerpt)

Home/NewsArmy increasing enlistment bonuses
Top amount for three-year recruit is $25,000; for two years, $15,000
By Lisa Burgess
Stars and Stripes
Published: June 1, 2007
Mideast edition, Friday, June 1, 2007

ARLINGTON, Va. -- The Army has boosted the maximum bonus ceiling for three-year enlistments to $25,000 for all recruits, and raised the two-year enlistment bonus from $6,000 to $15,000 for more than 45 Army jobs, officials announced Thursday.

Previously, the maximum bonus limit for a three-year enlistment was $10,000 for most Army jobs, with a $20,000 ceiling for a few very high-demand, undermanned positions, according to Julia Bobick, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Ky.

Army increasing enlistment bonuses - News - Stripes

(Close)


If there were a sufficient number of patriots available to satisfy the U.S. Army's need for personnel those bonuses would not be necessary. If those bonuses were discontinued it would be necessary to reinstate the draft. So much for the "patriotic" component of your assertion.


In 2007, the economy was humming along and the military services had to pay bonuses to attract and keep qualified people in certain career fields. Thanks in part to the Bush Tax Cuts, the unemployment rate was low so the military had to pay more. You can bet your ass those bonuses have been severely cut back since then, cuz the alternative civilian job market has tanked. No draft has been needed so far, and due to recent cuts in the defense budget I think the end strength numbers will dwindle. IOW, we don't need no stinkin' draft, we got enough people that want to get in now.


My father and his two brothers, along with many other Americans, enlisted in the Army four days after Pearl Harbor was bombed. They were patriots.

I joined the Marines in 1956, which I probably would not have done were I not 1-A (draft eligible). As I recall, my pay as an E-1 Private was around $25 a month and I didn't get any bonus, so I can say I was a half-ass patriot.

So, you joined in '56? That makes you 74 or older, right? You coulda joined the Reserves, or the Coast Guard, but you joined the Marines? With your attitude? Gotta say, your story doesn't fit too well, I think you're lyin' your ass off.

 

[AveAmerican]

A voluntary military is good in that the people who volunteer will often have a strong committment to their country and be willing to do what it takes to keep our nation safe. I have family members and friends who have put in varying numbers of years of service in the military. I have the utmost respect for them. Our military is out there defending our freedom, even if they may disagree with some of the actions our government asks of them. Who would you rather have at your back in a firefight -- a volunteer committed to the military, or someone forced to participate that may decide to turn and run rather than fight? I understand that the present group of volunteers have a wide variety of motivations for entering the military, but the fact remains -- they chose to be there.

 

[MikeK]

Where do you think we get special ops personnel? Here's a hint; they are NOT conscripts. Do you know what it takes to make a Special Forces soldier or a Navy SEAL? YEARS of training, on top of YEARS of conventional military experience, that's what! Yes, they are PROFESSIONALS, (and damn proud of it!).

It's a matter of exceptional capabilities and, most importantly, the motivation to apply them in a military context.

If the draft were active today a percentage of conscripts would, for one reason or other, and as with some WW-II conscripts, choose to remain in the military. And a sub-group of this modern percentage would be gung-ho for Special Forces training. But the vast majority of all conscripts, as with the majority of enlistees, would, like me, be gung-ho to get the hell out. So what's your point?

IN Army SF, it used to be said in the Vietnam draft era that every man was a THREE -TIME VOLUNTEER: VOLUNTEERED for the army, VOLUNTEERED for airborne duty, and VOLUNTEERED for SF. Why does that matter? Because in the kind of wars we've been fighting, we rely heavily on special operations troops to do what conventional units cannot, and you do NOT get those personnel from a draft.

For some odd reason you apparently believe those who are drafted are somehow inferior to those who enlist. I can understand how such a notion fits into your fantasies about military machismo but it's as wrong as two left feet.

Yes, I'm aware that during WW II, we had some specialized units that were partly composed of conscripted men who volunteered for them, but the training and capabilities were nowhere near those of today's special ops soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen.

That's because, as you've said, it takes years to organize and conduct such training programs. But my father told us about some Army Airborne units which were highly specialized. The Brits had some as well. What they lacked was the kind of technological equipment we have today, such as night-vision devices, pocket-size radios, GPS devices, etc.

The days of the kind of massed infantry and armor assaults and battles like we had in WW II and even Korea are over.

How can you be so sure of that? It's not impossible for us to become engaged in ground combat with a massive army like the Chinese as an alternative to a nuclear exchange.

So is the concept of throwing half-trained conscript infantry into modern combat. All that produces is more casualties.

You mean like we did in the Pacific during WW-II? Which, incidentally, is why it would be a good idea to reinstate the draft now so there would be millions of trained soldiers in the civilian sector who could be reactivated and deployed in a matter of weeks rather than the months it takes to draft and train raw recruits. .

 

[MikeK]

A voluntary military is good in that the people who volunteer will often have a strong committment to their country and be willing to do what it takes to keep our nation safe. I have family members and friends who have put in varying numbers of years of service in the military. I have the utmost respect for them. Our military is out there defending our freedom, even if they may disagree with some of the actions our government asks of them. Who would you rather have at your back in a firefight -- a volunteer committed to the military, or someone forced to participate that may decide to turn and run rather than fight? I understand that the present group of volunteers have a wide variety of motivations for entering the military, but the fact remains -- they chose to be there.

You probably are too young to remember there was a War in the 1940s, but it was fought quite bravely and largely by conscripted soldiers, sailors and Marines. Also, most of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted into that debacle as well and I've never heard of any who turned and ran. Have you? In fact everything I've heard about our troops' engagements in Vietnam has them performing rather bravely.

Too bad their courage and sacrifice were wasted and misused in such an unnecessary debacle.

 

[earlycuyler]

A voluntary military is good in that the people who volunteer will often have a strong committment to their country and be willing to do what it takes to keep our nation safe. I have family members and friends who have put in varying numbers of years of service in the military. I have the utmost respect for them. Our military is out there defending our freedom, even if they may disagree with some of the actions our government asks of them. Who would you rather have at your back in a firefight -- a volunteer committed to the military, or someone forced to participate that may decide to turn and run rather than fight? I understand that the present group of volunteers have a wide variety of motivations for entering the military, but the fact remains -- they chose to be there.

You probably are too young to remember there was a War in the 1940s, but it was fought quite bravely and largely by conscripted soldiers, sailors and Marines. Also, most of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted into that debacle as well and I've never heard of any who turned and ran. Have you? In fact everything I've heard about our troops' engagements in Vietnam has them performing rather bravely.

Too bad their courage and sacrifice were wasted and misused in such an unnecessary debacle.

Different generation. 100 of today's average draft age youth would never measure up to the sorriest of that generation.

" Also, most of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted into that debacle as well and I've never heard of any who turned and ran."

My father and uncle both went to Vietnam. Both said anyone who did not do their part were dealt with, or sent away. The draftees did not perform well so much as they did what they had to do to get done and go home.

 

[MikeK]

So, you joined in '56? That makes you 74 or older, right? You coulda joined the Reserves, or the Coast Guard, but you joined the Marines? With your attitude? Gotta say, your story doesn't fit too well, I think you're lyin' your ass off.

I also could have joined the Air Force, which, as far as the enlisted ranks are concerned, is one step above the Post Office in terms of military stature -- which accounts for punks who run their mouths because they have nothing else to run.

But I shouldn't denounce the entire Air Force because I recall two occasions when the Air Force treated me (and others) pretty decently. Too bad its enlisted ranks are compromised by bad-mouthing punks like you.

 

[The Gadfly]

Where do you think we get special ops personnel? Here's a hint; they are NOT conscripts. Do you know what it takes to make a Special Forces soldier or a Navy SEAL? YEARS of training, on top of YEARS of conventional military experience, that's what! Yes, they are PROFESSIONALS, (and damn proud of it!).

It's a matter of exceptional capabilities and, most importantly, the motivation to apply them in a military context.

If the draft were active today a percentage of conscripts would, for one reason or other, and as with some WW-II conscripts, choose to remain in the military. And a sub-group of this modern percentage would be gung-ho for Special Forces training. But the vast majority of all conscripts, as with the majority of enlistees, would, like me, be gung-ho to get the hell out. So what's your point?

IN Army SF, it used to be said in the Vietnam draft era that every man was a THREE -TIME VOLUNTEER: VOLUNTEERED for the army, VOLUNTEERED for airborne duty, and VOLUNTEERED for SF. Why does that matter? Because in the kind of wars we've been fighting, we rely heavily on special operations troops to do what conventional units cannot, and you do NOT get those personnel from a draft.

For some odd reason you apparently believe those who are drafted are somehow inferior to those who enlist. I can understand how such a notion fits into your fantasies about military machismo but it's as wrong as two left feet.


That's because, as you've said, it takes years to organize and conduct such training programs. But my father told us about some Army Airborne units which were highly specialized. The Brits had some as well. What they lacked was the kind of technological equipment we have today, such as night-vision devices, pocket-size radios, GPS devices, etc.

The days of the kind of massed infantry and armor assaults and battles like we had in WW II and even Korea are over.

How can you be so sure of that? It's not impossible for us to become engaged in ground combat with a massive army like the Chinese as an alternative to a nuclear exchange.

So is the concept of throwing half-trained conscript infantry into modern combat. All that produces is more casualties.

You mean like we did in the Pacific during WW-II? Which, incidentally, is why it would be a good idea to reinstate the draft now so there would be millions of trained soldiers in the civilian sector who could be reactivated and deployed in a matter of weeks rather than the months it takes to draft and train raw recruits. .

Mike, you still missed the point, or perhaps I did not make it clear enough. The problem with obtaining the raw material for special ops troops, is the size of the talent pool. In that regard, a voluntary enlistee is considerably more likely to re-enlist than a draftee, and those troops who are on a second, third (or subsequent) enlistment ARE that talent pool. Selecting trainees for potential special ops billets from those with less experience was in fact tried as an expedient during Vietnam, with less than desirable results. It was NOT lack of bravery or intelligence that caused the problems; it was simple lack of conventional military experience, and all too often it led to the unnecessary loss of some damn fine young officers and men. That's what led to current requirements for more time in service before applicants are selected for assessment, qualification and training.

Just to set the record straight, most draftees I saw in action in conventional units in Vietnam fought every bit as bravely as any professional; properly led, they were fine troops, even when their training was less than optimal. However, if their NCOs and/or officers were not the best, problems quickly became evident; not dissimilar to stories I've heard from WW II about bad results with a combination of green troops and equally inexperienced junior officers. So no, I most definitely do NOT consider draftees "inferior", but in Vietnam, some NCOs and officers did, and had a bad tendency to treat them as second-class soldiers. The result, whenever and wherever it was allowed to fester, was an ugly thing; it devolved into mutual hatred and distrust between draftees and "lifers" that created a sort of "two-tier" military. I see that as a failure of leadership, but it happened too often; and it led me to begin to loathe the idea of conscription; it seemed to me that it created tempting targets for weak officers and NCOs to abuse.