The problems of a Professional Military

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nosmo King, Dec 1, 2011.

  1. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,020
    Thanks Received:
    3,308
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,315
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,259
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,043
    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..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,020
    Thanks Received:
    3,308
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,315
    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.
     
  4. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,259
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,043
    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
     
  6. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,020
    Thanks Received:
    3,308
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,315
    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.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
    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.
     
  8. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,849
    Thanks Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,881
    War is hell...
    :eek:
    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.
     
  9. The Gadfly
    Offline

    The Gadfly Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,190
    Thanks Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +611
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,810
    Thanks Received:
    4,341
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,780
    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.
     

Share This Page