Need to bring back the draft

[Father Time]

isn't it ironic that the only war in modern history that needed to be fought was fought and won by a largely drafted army.

which war might that be?

wwii

 

[Toome]

Excellent posts. Nothing in the nature of warfare, essentially, has changed other than the concentration of Mass becomes vulnerable to atomic and chemical weapons. The advantage of conscript armies are obvious, as are the disadvantage, from leadership's point of view, that the leaders of a conscript force are held more quickly accountable in a democracy than are those who command volunteer groups.

What Clausewitz said some 180 years ago still holds true today: "War is an extension of policy by any other means." What's changed over the years is how political will is defined. During Clausewitz's time, it was defined by territoriality: the actual occupation of a land. Today, it's defined by economic influence. The difference is that the winner doesn't necessarily have to occupy the land, and in many cases does not.

This reshapes how wars are fought. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States has the military capability to lay waste to any country in the world, including China. But that's not how modern warfare is fought. It's a chess match with rules that apply both on and off the battlefield. In that game, the Chinese have a distinct advantage over the United States because they analyze problems without any regard for time, space or distance. We, on the other hand, want instant solutions with easily definable objectives.

Vietnam taught us that victory is influenced by what happens off the battlefield. Contrary to popular belief, the US military wiped out the Viet Cong. It was a wholesale massacre. Same applies to the NVA; however, there was never a classic battlefield confrontation, so the NVA was able to sneak away to fight another day. But their casualties were staggering. It wasn't until a Democrat-controlled Congress cut defense spending that the US was forced to withdraw. Even then, it took the NVA two years before it could sweep away the RVN.

In today's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the popular belief is that we're losing. Not so on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, we've slaughtered Taliban forces and al Qai'da terror groups. In Iraq, we destroyed Saddam's war machine and crushed the insurgents at every turn. But that's not how victory is defined these days. It's defined by the perception of defeat as opposed to actual defeat. It's defined by lack of political achievement rather than concrete results. Politics is a matter of perception rather than reality. We obsess over the loss of a few troops in a firefight and ignore the fact that the other side lost hundreds more. That's what happened in Mogadishu: the RANGERS were caught in an ambush; they were surrounded by a numerically superior force at ratios that varied from 8:1 to 10:1 and came out of it alive with 19 dead while the Somalies suffered hundreds killed and scores more wounded. Yet Somalia is seen as an American defeat. It was the reversal of Leonidas' battle at Thermopyle and this time the Spartans survived!

I'm not one to blame the media for this. Although I really have low regard and high contempt for those maggots. Nope, this one's on us for not thinking for ourselves and being so easily influenced by opinion and conjecture. There's an interesting video of a fictitious newscast of the D-Day invasion that is based on actual facts but reported with today's news spin. While we know the outcome of the invasion, the "news reporters" with their "subject matter experts" paint a very gloomy picture for the Allies and the perception is that the invasion was ill-timed and doomed for failure. Eisenhower is painted as someone who is in over his head and who acted against the advice of his advisors by attacking prematurely. The Germans are portrayed as having formidable defenses and not likely to be defeated. Like I said, every sound bite is based on actual WWII fact, but they are given the twist and spin of today's media.

War is more sophisticated than massing forces and overrunning defenses. It has everything to do with how the local population perceives the war and how it's seen on the homefront as well. It seems that whatever happens on the battlefield is the last consideration.

 

[Toome]

Found the video. As I said, it's based on actual facts. None of the reported facts is false. It's just given the spin and conjecture that we're so used to today.

My point is that today's wars are different than the so-called "traditional wars" of WWI and WWII. So comparing today's world to that world is useless.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_XBJHrs4I[/ame]

 

[pinqy]

Excellent posts. Nothing in the nature of warfare, essentially, has changed other than the concentration of Mass becomes vulnerable to atomic and chemical weapons.

And yet without concentration of mass, conscript armies are much much harder to control and manage. And it's not just CBRNE, but the assymetric nature of modern conflicts that make conscripted troops a liability.

WWII is used as a positive example, but the draft started in 1940 giving plenty of train-up time, unit cohesion, and knowledge of impending war. Mass formations, giving plenty of control over the draftees (most of whom probably no longer thought about that status) was also a factor. Vietnam shows the difficulty with draftees in a conflict that required more independence at the lower levels.

 

[ginscpy]

Too many risk-takers, head-cases loose cannons etc in the volunteer military

They relaxed their stands to let violent felons in

 

[Toome]

Too many risk-takers, head-cases loose cannons etc in the volunteer military

They relaxed their stands to let violent felons in

They are called "RANGERS."

rltw

 

[SFC Ollie]

Too many risk-takers, head-cases loose cannons etc in the volunteer military

They relaxed their stands to let violent felons in

That was because to many candy ass es refused to sign up when we needed them. I was embarrassed by how low they had to take the standards to meet the needs of the country.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I disagree with having a draft, the only that should be in the military are people who competently qualify to be in and people who are motivated to want to be in, forcing people to so call "reduce" criminal activity is a big time fail because you have troops that commit crimes while in anyways and people who already have that type of attitude should not be force in. You want to reduce crime? Try focusing on stopping the causes and conditions that lead to criminal activity, not putting such people in the military via a draft.

 

[topspin]

too many killers dying to let the shots fly, leave the sane people to run the economy for the misfits that join the invasion crusaders.

 

[zzzz]

Why do we need a draft? Most of the recruits we have now are quality recruits and they want to serve their country. I also have a problem with it being called a mercenary army as troops are always paid and have been for ages. To me a mercenary army is as an army made up of foreign soldiers like the foreign legion. Yes we do have foreigners serving as US soldiers, yet they are fighting for their citizenship. I think the US is fine with the military they have now.

As time goes on, less and less fighting men will be required to conduct war. The mechanization and the utilization of unmanned fighting vehicles will gradually reduce that demand. But there will be an increasing demand for skilled mechanics and electronic trades to service these vehicles. Where the combat service support ratio used to be 4:1 in WWII and today is 7:1, in the future it may be 20:1 or greater. Therefore the need of intelligent and quality recruits are a must.

The argument that a draft will help keep the US from fighting wars is ludicrus. The powers that be have no regard for the troops other than the political situtation in case of war. Sure they may not want casualties but whether they are drafted or voluntary will have no bearing on whether we go to war or not.

 

[Gadawg73]

Too many risk-takers, head-cases loose cannons etc in the volunteer military

They relaxed their stands to let violent felons in

What experience do you base your opinion on?

 

[Gadawg73]

Volunteer militaries are highly motivated, highly skilled and very lethal.

I'd rather have the soldier next to me be someone who volunteered to be there rather than someone who was compelled to be there by law.

Vietnam was a sneak peek of what 21st century warfare would be like. It was viewed as an anomaly, unconventional and atypical of modern warfare. All the generals, admirals and other so-called experts thought the war of the future would be fought at the Fulda Gap between two superpowers with multi-dimensional forces from the air, land and sea. That war never happened.

The pattern has been consistent with Vietnam: Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and a dozen combat actions that the public isn't even aware ever took place. you can't fight this type of warfare with draftees. You need motivated warriors who are mission-oriented and willing to think outside the box to achieve results.

The bigger issue isn't the nature of warfighting forces. The issue is when and why an administration sends troops into harm's way and the overall political objectives it wants the military to achieve.

Special operations IS the future of warfare. John F. Kennedy knew that, Ronald Reagan understood it, and George W. Bush knew it as well. The problem is within the walls of the Pentagon. But with people like Pete Schoomacker, Henry Shelton and Dick Cody being posted to senior positions, there's hope that the Pentagon will eventually pull its collective head out of its ass and get on board. It's a classic struggle between straight-leg infantry types and snake eaters.

Verbatim of what I have heard from soldiers in the field home on leave a few weeks ago.
Thanks for posting this. Good friends of my sons, young men I have known since the late 80s as kids. They volunteered and want to be there.
My brother did 3 tours in Nam. Ask him about those draftee units and if he wanted one behind, beside or supporting his unit.

 

[Shooter]

We'll never see a draft again in this country.

 

[CurveLight]

You may draft all you want for some civilian service. While I believe that military service would help many people learn a trade and instill a sense of pride in themselves, and I believe that a draft would reduce criminal activity.

I really wouldn't want those draftees to be serving in the active military. Our military is doing just fine without it. Don't need it and the country really doesn't want it.

As usual, you're fucking clueless about the issue. We do need the draft to maintain our occupations and after the next major terrorist attack the draft will be instituted within 6 months. Our military is not doing "just fine" or maybe you consider historical highs for suicides and prescribed medication addiction as being cool?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'm old school. I believe everybody in America owes their country two years of their life in the military. Doesn't seem to have hurt those that came before them very much. In fact, I think those people were much more mature than the young folks of today.

 

[CurveLight]

Too many risk-takers, head-cases loose cannons etc in the volunteer military

They relaxed their stands to let violent felons in

What experience do you base your opinion on?

I partially agree with that statement and my experience is based on friendly fire kills in desert storm. There were some so fucking bloodthirsty they couldn't wait to pull the trigger and it cost American lives. Don't feed that fog of war bullshit because it doesn't apply to what im referencing.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm old school. I believe everybody in America owes their country two years of their life in the military. Doesn't seem to have hurt those that came before them very much. In fact, I think those people were much more mature than the young folks of today.

Yep. You are old school. The new school is against slavery.

 

[Gadawg73]

You may draft all you want for some civilian service. While I believe that military service would help many people learn a trade and instill a sense of pride in themselves, and I believe that a draft would reduce criminal activity.

I really wouldn't want those draftees to be serving in the active military. Our military is doing just fine without it. Don't need it and the country really doesn't want it.

As usual, you're fucking clueless about the issue. We do need the draft to maintain our occupations and after the next major terrorist attack the draft will be instituted within 6 months. Our military is not doing "just fine" or maybe you consider historical highs for suicides and prescribed medication addiction as being cool?

You make a good point but the draft will not solve those problems.
They will add to them.

 

[CurveLight]

We'll never see a draft again in this country.

That depends on the economy. Have you looked at it lately?

 

[editec]

Volunteer militaries are highly motivated, highly skilled and very lethal.

I'd rather have the soldier next to me be someone who volunteered to be there rather than someone who was compelled to be there by law.

Vietnam was a sneak peek of what 21st century warfare would be like. It was viewed as an anomaly, unconventional and atypical of modern warfare. All the generals, admirals and other so-called experts thought the war of the future would be fought at the Fulda Gap between two superpowers with multi-dimensional forces from the air, land and sea. That war never happened.

The pattern has been consistent with Vietnam: Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and a dozen combat actions that the public isn't even aware ever took place. you can't fight this type of warfare with draftees. You need motivated warriors who are mission-oriented and willing to think outside the box to achieve results.

The bigger issue isn't the nature of warfighting forces. The issue is when and why an administration sends troops into harm's way and the overall political objectives it wants the military to achieve.

Special operations IS the future of warfare. John F. Kennedy knew that, Ronald Reagan understood it, and George W. Bush knew it as well. The problem is within the walls of the Pentagon. But with people like Pete Schoomacker, Henry Shelton and Dick Cody being posted to senior positions, there's hope that the Pentagon will eventually pull its collective head out of its ass and get on board. It's a classic struggle between straight-leg infantry types and snake eaters.

Verbatim of what I have heard from soldiers in the field home on leave a few weeks ago.
Thanks for posting this. Good friends of my sons, young men I have known since the late 80s as kids. They volunteered and want to be there.
My brother did 3 tours in Nam. Ask him about those draftee units and if he wanted one behind, beside or supporting his unit.

Drafee units?

Somebody is bullshitting somebody here. Can't be sure who, but somebody is remembering something that never happened.

There were no draftee "units".

The Army and Marine Corps both drafted people during Viet Nam, and neither created draftee units.