The problems of a Professional Military

[Nosmo King]

I've been wondering if the all volunteer military is really a good idea.

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military. we spend more than any other nation in the history of mankind on defense and we just can't afford it any longer. The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry. It acts as a funnel for funding a specific sector of the economy and that spending is not always as efficient or as effective as we deserve. It is perpetuating what President Eisenhower so presciently predicted: a growing Military Industrial complex.

A military made up of draftees would present service to our country to more people over a wider spectrum of our population. Draftees won World War II so we can see clearly that our military prowess would not be eroded.

And would a draft allow protracted warfare the way we have seen it since 9/11? Would a nation concerned about a draft tolerate the longest wars we have ever engaged in? Would draft resistance do for Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? Could America be as comfortable with the meat grinder that was Vietnam if we had a professional military rather than the draft?

And would Commanders-in-Chiefs be as willing to pull the trigger (as Bush did in Iraq) if they had to really consider the war lust of a nation facing a draft?

I understand that both systems, all volunteer and a military draft, have there pros and cons. Given the facts that we have been engaged in war for ten continuous years and are now facing severe budgetary constraints, is it time to revisit the draft?

 

[Lovebears65]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

 

[Nosmo King]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

Can we afford it and doesn't it make it more likely to be used without necessary caution? Do you think that we cannot mobilize an effective armed service should we be faced with a dire threat as we were in 1941? Having a huge, platinum plated military means we have to both pay for it through the nose and be tempted to use it in less than fully considered situations.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A volunteer force is best for a country the size of ours. We have more than enough people who are willing to volunteer and serve as professionals. Maintaining a volunteer force is not what causes our large military. The military does not recruit more than it needs to supply its necessary manpower. The reason our military is so large is because our country insists on maintaining so many overseas installations. We need to get our military out of other countries and re-structure our military infrastructure for DEFENSE of our homeland.

 

[Lovebears65]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

Can we afford it and doesn't it make it more likely to be used without necessary caution? Do you think that we cannot mobilize an effective armed service should we be faced with a dire threat as we were in 1941? Having a huge, platinum plated military means we have to both pay for it through the nose and be tempted to use it in less than fully considered situations.

There has to be some professional military . Maybe they can cut back on some but you have to have some to train the new comers .. No way around it

 

[Nosmo King]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

Can we afford it and doesn't it make it more likely to be used without necessary caution? Do you think that we cannot mobilize an effective armed service should we be faced with a dire threat as we were in 1941? Having a huge, platinum plated military means we have to both pay for it through the nose and be tempted to use it in less than fully considered situations.

There has to be some professional military . Maybe they can cut back on some but you have to have some to train the new comers .. No way around it

We could maintain levels comparable to pre-1940. We certainly would retain the military academies. We would retain a vibrant and professional officer ranks. But we would have to pull out of foreign bases. Let the Koreans defend Korea, the Germans defend Germany and the Japanese defend Okinawa.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A volunteer force is best for a country the size of ours. We have more than enough people who are willing to volunteer and serve as professionals. Maintaining a volunteer force is not what causes our large military. The military does not recruit more than it needs to supply its necessary manpower. The reason our military is so large is because our country insists on maintaining so many overseas installations. We need to get our military out of other countries and re-structure our military infrastructure for DEFENSE of our homeland.

Our military is small. Less then 10 divisions. 1/3rd of our divisions are Guard Brigades.

The reason we had a manpower crunch when Iraq and Afghanistan were going is because we have to few COMBAT brigades.

Our Army should have at least 40 more Combat Brigades and our air force and Navy need more as well.

The Marine Corps is down to 2 Divisions and a Brigade. It should be rebuilt to 3 Divisions.

 

[waltky]

War is hell...

Violent sex crimes by US Army soldiers rise: Report
Jan 20, 2012 WASHINGTON: Violent sex crimes committed by active US Army soldiers have almost doubled over the past five years, due in part to the trauma of war, according to an Army report released on Thursday.

Reported violent sex crimes increased by 90 percent over the five-year period from 2006 to 2011. There were 2,811 violent felonies in 2011, nearly half of which were violent felony sex crimes. Most were committed in the United States. One violent sex crime was committed by a soldier every six hours and 40 minutes in 2011, the Army said, serving as the main driver for an overall increase in violent felony crimes.

Higher rates of violent sex crimes are "likely outcomes" of intentional misconduct, lax discipline, post-combat adrenaline, high levels of stress and behavioral health issues, the report said. "While we have made tremendous strides over the past decade, there is still much work to be done," Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli said in a statement. "Many of our biggest challenges lie ahead after our soldiers return home and begin the process of reintegrating back into their units, families and communities," Chiarelli said.

Violent sex crimes committed by US Army troops increased at a rate that consistently outpaced the national trend, a gap that is expected to continue to grow, the Army said. The top five violent felony offenses committed by soldiers in 2011 were aggravated assault, rape, aggravated sexual assault, forcible sodomy and child pornography. Soldiers suffering from issues such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, and depression have been shown to have higher incidences of partner abuse, according to the report.

Soldiers with PTSD are up to three times more likely to be aggressive with their female partners than those without such trauma, the report said. The report also said that family abuse cases are typically underreported. As the largest branch of the US armed forces, the Army has done the bulk of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, including years of extended duty and repeated deployments. The rate of suicides among Army soldiers was steady in 2011 after years of rising, the report said.

Source

 

[The Gadfly]

Can we afford it and doesn't it make it more likely to be used without necessary caution? Do you think that we cannot mobilize an effective armed service should we be faced with a dire threat as we were in 1941? Having a huge, platinum plated military means we have to both pay for it through the nose and be tempted to use it in less than fully considered situations.

There has to be some professional military . Maybe they can cut back on some but you have to have some to train the new comers .. No way around it

We could maintain levels comparable to pre-1940. We certainly would retain the military academies. We would retain a vibrant and professional officer ranks. But we would have to pull out of foreign bases. Let the Koreans defend Korea, the Germans defend Germany and the Japanese defend Okinawa.

The problem with that idea is this: in 1940, we could afford the luxury of being ill-prepared. Our homeland had two great oceans between us, and our potential enemies in Europe and the Pacific. Our cities, our production facilities, and our bases at home were essentially isolated from attack. When war did finally come, we had the time to mobilize, train, and supply a large force. At that it took us the better part of three years to get fully up to speed. Tithing less than twenty years, that advantage was forever lost. The world is a smaller place now; we are no longer isolated. That ought to be self-evident, when even a stateless group of terrorists can bring a war to our shores.

So far, we have faced a series of limited conflicts; however, there is no guarantee that paradigm will hold indefinitely. We can guess, but cannot know, what or who the next major strategic threat will be, but eventually there will be one; when it develops, we will most likely not have the luxury of time to build up the necessary forces to defeat that threat. The less prepared we are, the less aggressive our force posture, the more a potential enemy will be encouraged to believe he can engage and defeat us. I remind you as late as 1938, Hitler was not much more than a joke to us; less than three years later, he was a significant threat.

That aside, we have a world so interconnected economically now, that a conflict which would have been a delayed threat, if that, can now be an immediate geopolitical and economic strategic threat. To have the ability to respond appropriately to such a threat, we have to have a robust, versatile, highly agile professional force. At present, we make that work by using superior technology as a force multiplier. We can rely on the last only so long as others do not catch up to our advantage in technology; eventually someone will, and it could happen quickly.

We may or may not ever fight a war with large land armies again. Right now our technology mitigate against that; but it is not impossible. That same technology, however, demands a different kind of soldier, someone far more trained, educated, and technologically proficient than his WW II counterpart, or even the force that fought Vietnam. The day of the dumb, half-trained, conscript infantryman of yesteryear is over.

For all I know, the next war may be fought in cyberspace; but one thing I do know; if we are not prepared for it, we will lose it. The old adage, "If you want peace, prepare for war", still applies. Show weakness, and someone, somewhere will decide he can exploit it. For that matter, we can never be certain to what extent our abandonment of Vietnam may have encouraged our current adversaries. It is pretty obvious that conflict furnished our potential enemies with what they saw as the blueprint for defeating America in asymmetric war. I realize it is unpalatable for many, but preserving freedom is expensive. However, regaining freedom once it is lost will be even more expensive.

 

[whitehall]

It's a moot point nosmo. Barry just recommended that the voluntary Military force be cut to pieces in the next couple of years. It's the usual left wing response to budget cuts.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I've been wondering if the all volunteer military is really a good idea.

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military. we spend more than any other nation in the history of mankind on defense and we just can't afford it any longer. The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry. It acts as a funnel for funding a specific sector of the economy and that spending is not always as efficient or as effective as we deserve. It is perpetuating what President Eisenhower so presciently predicted: a growing Military Industrial complex.

A military made up of draftees would present service to our country to more people over a wider spectrum of our population. Draftees won World War II so we can see clearly that our military prowess would not be eroded.

And would a draft allow protracted warfare the way we have seen it since 9/11? Would a nation concerned about a draft tolerate the longest wars we have ever engaged in? Would draft resistance do for Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? Could America be as comfortable with the meat grinder that was Vietnam if we had a professional military rather than the draft?

And would Commanders-in-Chiefs be as willing to pull the trigger (as Bush did in Iraq) if they had to really consider the war lust of a nation facing a draft?

I understand that both systems, all volunteer and a military draft, have there pros and cons. Given the facts that we have been engaged in war for ten continuous years and are now facing severe budgetary constraints, is it time to revisit the draft?

----------------

In short you would enslave Americans and use slave armies to fight for freedom. Stalin would love you.

 

[Wiseacre]

I've been wondering if the all volunteer military is really a good idea.

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military. we spend more than any other nation in the history of mankind on defense and we just can't afford it any longer. The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry. It acts as a funnel for funding a specific sector of the economy and that spending is not always as efficient or as effective as we deserve. It is perpetuating what President Eisenhower so presciently predicted: a growing Military Industrial complex.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with an all-volunteer force.

A military made up of draftees would present service to our country to more people over a wider spectrum of our population. Draftees won World War II so we can see clearly that our military prowess would not be eroded.

I don't think so. First off, we already have more than enough volunteers, why would we want to draft somebody who doesn't want to be in uniform over another person who does? Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? The draft was a real problem, very divisive. Sons of rich guys didn't get drafted, or they crossed the border into Canada. I don't think you'd see any wider spectrum than you do now, and who the hell cares about spectrum anyway?

And would a draft allow protracted warfare the way we have seen it since 9/11? Would a nation concerned about a draft tolerate the longest wars we have ever engaged in? Would draft resistance do for Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? Could America be as comfortable with the meat grinder that was Vietnam if we had a professional military rather than the draft?

So you want to weaken our military so it can't effective prosecute a war? THAT's your reason for a draft? That really isn't very wise, you'd be increasing the body count of dead US military people.

And would Commanders-in-Chiefs be as willing to pull the trigger (as Bush did in Iraq) if they had to really consider the war lust of a nation facing a draft?

Didn't seem to stop a couple of democrat presidents back in the 60's. Seriously, if the president AND the Congress decide we need to go to war, the existence of a draft will not make any difference.

I understand that both systems, all volunteer and a military draft, have there pros and cons. Given the facts that we have been engaged in war for ten continuous years and are now facing severe budgetary constraints, is it time to revisit the draft?

Are you trying to save some money? You want to cut the pay and benefits of the military, right? So you're not only going to force somebody to serve but you're going to pay 'em less money. Have you considered how much money a draft will cost to operate? I don't think so.


There are no pros at all to a draft. NONE. I get that you want to really cut the defense budget and not get into any more wars. That's fine, you're entitled. But what happens if the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz and we ain't there to keep it open? You know who shows up first when tsunamis, volcanoes, and earthquates hit and countries are devastated? The US Navy, that's who. What would you do if North Korea invades the south, or the PRC invades Taiwan, or terrorists are conducting attacks on Americans from camps somewhere in the world? Let the UN handle it?

 

[MikeK]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

Did you not understand what NosmoKing said about WW-II, which was fought mainly by draftees? Or are you ignoring that extremely relevant fact for some reason?

Keep in mind that even if the draft were active our military would still retain a significant percentage of volunteer career soldiers, sailors and airmen. But one thing that ongoing conscription would provide is a massive pool of trained but separated military personnel in the civilian sector who could be recalled and made active again in a few weeks rather than the few months it takes to train raw recruits. If we had that advantage at the outset of WW-II we could have interrupted the Japanese expansion in the Pacific by several months, which would have been an enormous logistical advantage, shortened the War and reduced our casualty rate.

Also, a conscripted army is a People's army, which is a much more comfortable situation in the political sense. An all volunteer army is essentially a mercenary army which is far more responsive to the will of government.

Most important, I was an active protester of the Vietnam conflict and I can assure you that were it not for the conscription factor we would not have withdrawn from that unnecessary debacle when we did. If the draft were still active Bush could not possibly have obtained approval to invade Iraq. The People would not have permitted it.

The draft should be restored. And women should not be subject to it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've been wondering if the all volunteer military is really a good idea.

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military. we spend more than any other nation in the history of mankind on defense and we just can't afford it any longer. The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry. It acts as a funnel for funding a specific sector of the economy and that spending is not always as efficient or as effective as we deserve. It is perpetuating what President Eisenhower so presciently predicted: a growing Military Industrial complex.

A military made up of draftees would present service to our country to more people over a wider spectrum of our population. Draftees won World War II so we can see clearly that our military prowess would not be eroded.

And would a draft allow protracted warfare the way we have seen it since 9/11? Would a nation concerned about a draft tolerate the longest wars we have ever engaged in? Would draft resistance do for Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? Could America be as comfortable with the meat grinder that was Vietnam if we had a professional military rather than the draft?

And would Commanders-in-Chiefs be as willing to pull the trigger (as Bush did in Iraq) if they had to really consider the war lust of a nation facing a draft?

I understand that both systems, all volunteer and a military draft, have there pros and cons. Given the facts that we have been engaged in war for ten continuous years and are now facing severe budgetary constraints, is it time to revisit the draft?

A very thoughtful post (did you think you were posting at a different forum? Thoughtful posts are not usual here and are usually not welcome, but I digress) which asks questions worthy of its own thread.

I support universal service to be completed by every American citizen physically and mentally able between the ages of 16 and 32; two years in any branch of the military or serving America in other capacities. Those choosing military service would make the usual six year commitment, after training serve two years active duty and four years in the ready reserves; they would receive enhanced benefits for this additional commitment.

 

[Wiseacre]

I've been wondering if the all volunteer military is really a good idea.

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military. we spend more than any other nation in the history of mankind on defense and we just can't afford it any longer. The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry. It acts as a funnel for funding a specific sector of the economy and that spending is not always as efficient or as effective as we deserve. It is perpetuating what President Eisenhower so presciently predicted: a growing Military Industrial complex.

A military made up of draftees would present service to our country to more people over a wider spectrum of our population. Draftees won World War II so we can see clearly that our military prowess would not be eroded.

And would a draft allow protracted warfare the way we have seen it since 9/11? Would a nation concerned about a draft tolerate the longest wars we have ever engaged in? Would draft resistance do for Afghanistan and Iraq what it did to Vietnam? Could America be as comfortable with the meat grinder that was Vietnam if we had a professional military rather than the draft?

And would Commanders-in-Chiefs be as willing to pull the trigger (as Bush did in Iraq) if they had to really consider the war lust of a nation facing a draft?

I understand that both systems, all volunteer and a military draft, have there pros and cons. Given the facts that we have been engaged in war for ten continuous years and are now facing severe budgetary constraints, is it time to revisit the draft?

A very thoughtful post (did you think you were posting at a different forum? Thoughtful posts are not usual here and are usually not welcome, but I digress) which asks questions worthy of its own thread.

I support universal service to be completed by every American citizen physically and mentally able between the ages of 16 and 32; two years in any branch of the military or serving America in other capacities. Those choosing military service would make the usual six year commitment, after training serve two years active duty and four years in the ready reserves; they would receive enhanced benefits for this additional commitment.

Thought you wanted to cut the defense budget, your idea would be quite a bit more expensive. Women too? Co-ed dorms, like in college. Oh yeah, this is going to work.

2 years? In some specialties, it takes a year or longer to train 'em. Just when they get to where they almost know what they're doing, they're gone and we gotta start all over again.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Most important, I was an active protester of the Vietnam conflict and I can assure you that were it not for the conscription factor we would not have withdrawn from that unnecessary debacle when we did."

You think that's something to be proud of? Who better to decide national policy than a bunch of stoned idiotic brain-fried teenagers?

"Also, a conscripted army is a People's army,..."

What it actually is is a pissed-off army. And it just might be more pissed-off at the "friends" who inslaved them than a "foe" that didn't.

"The People would not have permitted it."

The American people are willing to put up conscription when faced with an emergency threat to the Nation's existance. It would be foolish to expect them to permit it otherwise.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Most important, I was an active protester of the Vietnam conflict and I can assure you that were it not for the conscription factor we would not have withdrawn from that unnecessary debacle when we did. "

LOL, you actually think the end of the Vietnam war had anything to do with the draft? You are a total fucking idiot, I can assure you of that. There were several reasons why we got out of Vietnam, the draft wasn't one of them, let alone the deciding factor.

 

[Political Junky]

So I guess you want a draft and people not staying in as long. What you will get is an inexperienced military. That is what makes our military the best. People WANT to be there so they strive to be the best..

We beat Germany, Italy, and Japan with a draft.

 

[MikeK]

" Most important, I was an active protester of the Vietnam conflict and I can assure you that were it not for the conscription factor we would not have withdrawn from that unnecessary debacle when we did. "

LOL, you actually think the end of the Vietnam war had anything to do with the draft? You are a total fucking idiot, I can assure you of that. There were several reasons why we got out of Vietnam, the draft wasn't one of them, let alone the deciding factor.

If you came on like a sensible adult rather than a schoolyard scumbag I might be interested in knowing what you think those "several reasons" are. But the only kind of individual who takes advantage of the anonymity and distance afforded by these Internet forums to call total strangers "total fucking idiots" are stupid punks who wouldn't dare pop off like that in a face-to-face conversation. So nothing you have to say is worthy of discussion.

You are like dogshit on a sidewalk to be stepped over and ignored.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Protested against the draft back in the day but in favor of it now. Flip-flopping like a small town politician except without as much class.