The problems of a Professional Military

[Nosmo King]

Look fellas - I'm old enough to remember what the draft was like and how so many people didn't like it and took pains to avoid it. Those who were drafted mostly counted the days until they could get out. You have more problems with a conscripted military and a less effective force.

For God's sake, you don't deliberately weaken your military nd then use it as a reason not to go to war. If you have to go to war, you gotta have highly trained and motivated people to fight otherwise your casualty count will be much higher than it other wise would be. If you don't want a war, then don't get into one in the 1st place. Gonna be consequences either way, but drafting people is not going to save you money and you might end up with another Vietnam. You really don't want that.

World Wars were fought and won with draftees. The only reason we maintained a vast military industrial complex was the Cold War.

The Cold War is over. After every war but World War II, we scaled back our military. We prospered and lived in peace.

Since World War II, we fought in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Lebanon, Granada. Would American leaders be so free and easy about sending Americans into harms way if that standing force wasn't ready like a loaded pistol in the pocket of a bar fighter?

 

[Euro]

Look fellas - I'm old enough to remember what the draft was like and how so many people didn't like it and took pains to avoid it. Those who were drafted mostly counted the days until they could get out. You have more problems with a conscripted military and a less effective force.

For God's sake, you don't deliberately weaken your military nd then use it as a reason not to go to war. If you have to go to war, you gotta have highly trained and motivated people to fight otherwise your casualty count will be much higher than it other wise would be. If you don't want a war, then don't get into one in the 1st place. Gonna be consequences either way, but drafting people is not going to save you money and you might end up with another Vietnam. You really don't want that.

Isn it possible to have a drafted peace-time defence. E.g. the troops in Germany,South Korea, Japan, where their is no war could be drafted. Or the troops in US that isn’t in a war. The troops in countries with no war could be drafted.

The troops that are sent to war in Afghanistan and Iraq could be volunteer more proffesional troops.

But drafted troops could fill the positions in Korea,Japan,Germany and USA. That will cap costs.

 

[Intense]

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?

I support a Volunteer Military. You have a problem with recruitment? Increase Pay and Benefits first. Maybe consider trimming the fat on Pentagon Civilian Staff.

The Draft contributes to demoralization, crime, and corruption, bad morale. Not Everyone is cut out for Military Service.

 

[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?

I support a Volunteer Military. You have a problem with recruitment? Increase Pay and Benefits first. Maybe consider trimming the fat on Pentagon Civilian Staff.

The Draft contributes to demoralization, crime, and corruption, bad morale. Not Everyone is cut out for Military Service.

No, I have no problem with recruitment at all! I just wonder if we can afford to maintain a military that consumes such a large percentage of our federal budget. If we can afford to have a military capable of prosecuting two wars simultaneously. If having a fully loaded military actually begs its use rather than a truly prudent and considered use of its might.

I think there is plenty of argument for a skilled military and a well trained and professional officer class. I believe the maintenance of the military academies is vital to our national security. I just don't think keeping so many men and women in arms is always the right move for our country in peacetime. I believe that wars should be declared before they are fought.

 

[editec]

It is a GOOD THING to have a reduced professional military in place during time of peace.

During a major war, the DRAFT serves to augment those professionals.

In a war where the American people are behind it, like WWII, the draftees become a highly effective fighting force.

IN a bullshit war like Viet Nam, the draftees aren't expecially motivated to do anything but stay alive and help keep their comrades in arms alive, too.

 

[Intense]

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?

I support a Volunteer Military. You have a problem with recruitment? Increase Pay and Benefits first. Maybe consider trimming the fat on Pentagon Civilian Staff.

The Draft contributes to demoralization, crime, and corruption, bad morale. Not Everyone is cut out for Military Service.

No, I have no problem with recruitment at all! I just wonder if we can afford to maintain a military that consumes such a large percentage of our federal budget. If we can afford to have a military capable of prosecuting two wars simultaneously. If having a fully loaded military actually begs its use rather than a truly prudent and considered use of its might.

I think there is plenty of argument for a skilled military and a well trained and professional officer class. I believe the maintenance of the military academies is vital to our national security. I just don't think keeping so many men and women in arms is always the right move for our country in peacetime. I believe that wars should be declared before they are fought.

I'm with you on some of that. I think we should have more Bases near our own borders. Go underground more in the harsh climates too. Cut more on Defense Department as a whole, trim the fat. Actual Military, we need more, not less. Emergency Response, Disaster Relief, Reserve, better to be prepared. The World, Life, is unpredictable. Walk Softly, carry a Damned Big Stick.

 

[Wiseacre]

Look fellas - I'm old enough to remember what the draft was like and how so many people didn't like it and took pains to avoid it. Those who were drafted mostly counted the days until they could get out. You have more problems with a conscripted military and a less effective force.

For God's sake, you don't deliberately weaken your military nd then use it as a reason not to go to war. If you have to go to war, you gotta have highly trained and motivated people to fight otherwise your casualty count will be much higher than it other wise would be. If you don't want a war, then don't get into one in the 1st place. Gonna be consequences either way, but drafting people is not going to save you money and you might end up with another Vietnam. You really don't want that.

Isn it possible to have a drafted peace-time defence. E.g. the troops in Germany,South Korea, Japan, where their is no war could be drafted. Or the troops in US that isn’t in a war. The troops in countries with no war could be drafted.

The troops that are sent to war in Afghanistan and Iraq could be volunteer more proffesional troops.

But drafted troops could fill the positions in Korea,Japan,Germany and USA. That will cap costs.

So, a divided military, these guys fight the wars and these other guys don't. For the same pay and benefits? Or are you going to treat one group different from the other? I think you might have trouble getting guys to volunteer to fight the wars, just a guess.

What about the numbers? Nosmo wants to draft everybody from 18-30? Right now we enlist something around 200,000 people a year, if everybody gets drafted that is eligible and able, we're talking 10 times that. A military that is 10 times bigger than it is now? Our end strength is somewhere around 1.5 million, but we got somewhere around 30 million people in that age group and it's growing. Gotta include the women too, hell to pay if you don't. Say you don't draft 'em but allow them to enlist. That's a lot of people all told. I don't think you're going to save any money that way, in fact your costs are going to be way higher.

 

[Nosmo King]

What about the numbers? Nosmo wants to draft everybody from 18-30? Right now we enlist something around 200,000 people a year, if everybody gets drafted that is eligible and able, we're talking 10 times that. A military that is 10 times bigger than it is now? Our end strength is somewhere around 1.5 million, but we got somewhere around 30 million people in that age group and it's growing. Gotta include the women too, hell to pay if you don't. Say you don't draft 'em but allow them to enlist. That's a lot of people all told. I don't think you're going to save any money that way, in fact your costs are going to be way higher.

I think we should recruit about 30% of that 200,000. If we were unfortunate enough to have to fight in a declared war, that's when the draft would kick in to supplement those recruited.

 

[Mr Natural]

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..

You calling WWII Vets inexperienced?

 

[Intense]

Here is where Strong Second Amendment Rights come into play. War, Invasion, Anarchy. I'd support the Draft considering times of Eminent Invasion. Still, and Armed People, the best deterrent.

 

[Intense]

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..

You calling WWII Vets inexperienced?

When they started, yes. That's always the case. Even in the case of command. Catastrophic losses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

A all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military....

The size of the military is established by Congress.
The fact that the military is all voluntary has absolutely no bearing on that.
Thus: Epic fail.

The Department of Defense is bloated. It tends to develop costlier weaponry.

Because it is better to spend money than people.

 

[The Gadfly]

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..

You calling WWII Vets inexperienced?

When they started, yes. That's always the case. Even in the case of command. Catastrophic losses.

In fact, that last is precisely what happened. Take a good look at the military history of the early part of WW II, and you will find some disastrous operations, where enthusiastic but inexperienced, half-trained American troops, with inexperienced company-grade officers and senior officers still trained for and fighting the last war, were thrown against battle experienced enemy forces, See the battle of Kasserine Pass in the early North Africa campaign for a particularly horrific example. There are others.

Some of you were not paying attention when I discussed the differences between the requirements for a basic infantryman in 1940 and those for the same now. Those WW II troops could not function properly on today's battlefield, not because they weren't tough enough, brave enough, or dedicated enough, but because they were not educated and trained enough to work with today's equipment. At that, what we did in WWII, was to win a production and numbers game against better trained and equipped enemies, because we could replace our losses in men and equipment, and they ultimately could not. There is a myth that the American soldier, sailor or airman was superior to his German or Japanese counterpart; that is absolutely untrue, at least up to the point at which most of the best of the latter had been attritted, and replaced with more hurrriedly-trained replacements, as a lot of WW II vets will attest. One more time; the days of the dumb, half-trained infantryman are over!

Beyond that, there are other problems, with morale, discipline, and leadership associated with a partial conscript force. IN WW II and Korea, where we had a largely conscript force, we also had inexperienced and quickly trained company grade officers (google "Ninety-day wonder"). These were often distrusted, even hated, by the men they commanded; that situation is far from ideal, and results in all sorts of discipline, morale, and performance problems, as well as inadequate leadership. I can tell you, as a former infantry officer, that such a situation is not what we want. I have ZERO interest in how poor an a level of leadership and loyalty we can scrape the bottom of the barrel and get away with. I saw a similar result in some units in Vietnam. It resulted in poor discipline, officers who did not properly lead or take care of their men, and bad morale. That produced, among other things, Lt. Calley, other company grade officers who tried to be John Wayne, and got their troops slaughtered, and fraggings of officers (deserved or not). In addition, in any command that did not carefully guard against it, that system led to a sort of two-tier military with an adversarial relationship between professionals ("lifers") and draftees, who were often mistreated as a result. I found this disgusting, along with having , more than once, to clean up the mess caused by officers (including Academy graduates, yet!)putting themselves above the welfare of their troops, and NCOs who acted like bullies rather than leaders, when dealing with draftees. Among the things I believe every soldier, draftee or volunteer, has a right to expect from his leadership, is to be treated fairly, and with a modicum of respect by his superiors, to be led by example, not pushed from behind, and to have his leaders see to his well-being to the greatest extent permitted by the circumstances and the mission. Anything less is substandard, and one cannot expect to get the best out of any soldier that way. The best way to avoid that is to have a professional force, where professional standards of leadership are not only desired, but required, of all officers and NCOs.

 

[The Gadfly]

Because it is better to spend money than people.

Precisely! In addition, the learning curve from civilian to proficient soldier is steep; far better to take care of it on the training field, than the battlefield-the latter costs too many lives!

 

[Wiseacre]

What about the numbers? Nosmo wants to draft everybody from 18-30? Right now we enlist something around 200,000 people a year, if everybody gets drafted that is eligible and able, we're talking 10 times that. A military that is 10 times bigger than it is now? Our end strength is somewhere around 1.5 million, but we got somewhere around 30 million people in that age group and it's growing. Gotta include the women too, hell to pay if you don't. Say you don't draft 'em but allow them to enlist. That's a lot of people all told. I don't think you're going to save any money that way, in fact your costs are going to be way higher.

I think we should recruit about 30% of that 200,000. If we were unfortunate enough to have to fight in a declared war, that's when the draft would kick in to supplement those recruited.

So draft about 60,000 of the 200,000? For why, what purpose? How do you decide who gets drafted, you're talking 60,000 out of a couple of million or so eligibles who come out of high school every year. What if a guy doesn't finish high school, does he get drafted or not? Might be an incentive to drop out and not take the risk if you don't want to go. How many people will get drafted and not go? You're going to need a force of people that we don't have now to go find and prosecute 'em, right? I don't know, these guys want to volunteer but couldn't get in, but these other guys didn't want to go and they got put in jail. PR nightmare.

I simply see no reason whatsoever to draft people when you've got enough other people who will volunteer. If I'm not mistaken, the US stopped accepting volunteers at some point during WWII, everybody had to sign up for conscription and took their turn coming in when their number came up. Had too many people at once maybe. But in those days EVERYBODY wanted in, or almost everybody, those who didn't were not well received by the public. Not the case today, we don't have and likely will not have another world war to fight against somebody like the Nazis. There's a lot of guys today who don't want to serve, like in the 60's and 70's.

I see no savings if the total number of new recruits every year remains at 200,000 and the total force remains at around 1.5 -2 million, whatever it is. There's a whole host of problems that come with installing a draft, and no real benefit at all. Look, if you want to reduce the force and eliminate some bases and cut back on weapon systems, that's one thing. I can see it myself, if you could keep the politics out of it and let the military decide for itself how to cut back. After all, they're the ones who know best what is needed and what ain't. Part of the reason for the bloat is because some freakin' senator or representative somewhere wants to save jobs for his district, and it's both repubs and dems who do that.

 

[Nosmo King]

What about the numbers? Nosmo wants to draft everybody from 18-30? Right now we enlist something around 200,000 people a year, if everybody gets drafted that is eligible and able, we're talking 10 times that. A military that is 10 times bigger than it is now? Our end strength is somewhere around 1.5 million, but we got somewhere around 30 million people in that age group and it's growing. Gotta include the women too, hell to pay if you don't. Say you don't draft 'em but allow them to enlist. That's a lot of people all told. I don't think you're going to save any money that way, in fact your costs are going to be way higher.

I think we should recruit about 30% of that 200,000. If we were unfortunate enough to have to fight in a declared war, that's when the draft would kick in to supplement those recruited.

So draft about 60,000 of the 200,000? For why, what purpose? How do you decide who gets drafted, you're talking 60,000 out of a couple of million or so eligibles who come out of high school every year. What if a guy doesn't finish high school, does he get drafted or not? Might be an incentive to drop out and not take the risk if you don't want to go. How many people will get drafted and not go? You're going to need a force of people that we don't have now to go find and prosecute 'em, right? I don't know, these guys want to volunteer but couldn't get in, but these other guys didn't want to go and they got put in jail. PR nightmare.

I simply see no reason whatsoever to draft people when you've got enough other people who will volunteer. If I'm not mistaken, the US stopped accepting volunteers at some point during WWII, everybody had to sign up for conscription and took their turn coming in when their number came up. Had too many people at once maybe. But in those days EVERYBODY wanted in, or almost everybody, those who didn't were not well received by the public. Not the case today, we don't have and likely will not have another world war to fight against somebody like the Nazis. There's a lot of guys today who don't want to serve, like in the 60's and 70's.

I see no savings if the total number of new recruits every year remains at 200,000 and the total force remains at around 1.5 -2 million, whatever it is. There's a whole host of problems that come with installing a draft, and no real benefit at all. Look, if you want to reduce the force and eliminate some bases and cut back on weapon systems, that's one thing. I can see it myself, if you could keep the politics out of it and let the military decide for itself how to cut back. After all, they're the ones who know best what is needed and what ain't. Part of the reason for the bloat is because some freakin' senator or representative somewhere wants to save jobs for his district, and it's both repubs and dems who do that.

No. Recruit 70,000.

Draft if we are in a declared war.

Otherwise, keep it at 70,000.

 

[MikeK]

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.

The draft was not the focus of the Vietnam protest movement. Vietnam was.

The draft was active for a long time after WW-II and Korea and was never the subject of significant protest. The protest movement didn't begin until it became apparent that Vietnam was wholly unnecessary.

So try to adjust your sights and maybe you'll do better in other areas of this discussion.

 

[Euro]

Look fellas - I'm old enough to remember what the draft was like and how so many people didn't like it and took pains to avoid it. Those who were drafted mostly counted the days until they could get out. You have more problems with a conscripted military and a less effective force.

For God's sake, you don't deliberately weaken your military nd then use it as a reason not to go to war. If you have to go to war, you gotta have highly trained and motivated people to fight otherwise your casualty count will be much higher than it other wise would be. If you don't want a war, then don't get into one in the 1st place. Gonna be consequences either way, but drafting people is not going to save you money and you might end up with another Vietnam. You really don't want that.

Isn it possible to have a drafted peace-time defence. E.g. the troops in Germany,South Korea, Japan, where their is no war could be drafted. Or the troops in US that isn’t in a war. The troops in countries with no war could be drafted.

The troops that are sent to war in Afghanistan and Iraq could be volunteer more proffesional troops.

But drafted troops could fill the positions in Korea,Japan,Germany and USA. That will cap costs.

So, a divided military, these guys fight the wars and these other guys don't. For the same pay and benefits? Or are you going to treat one group different from the other? I think you might have trouble getting guys to volunteer to fight the wars, just a guess.

What about the numbers? Nosmo wants to draft everybody from 18-30? Right now we enlist something around 200,000 people a year, if everybody gets drafted that is eligible and able, we're talking 10 times that. A military that is 10 times bigger than it is now? Our end strength is somewhere around 1.5 million, but we got somewhere around 30 million people in that age group and it's growing. Gotta include the women too, hell to pay if you don't. Say you don't draft 'em but allow them to enlist. That's a lot of people all told. I don't think you're going to save any money that way, in fact your costs are going to be way higher.

Those who are stationed for peacetime defence in Japan,Germany,Korea and USA dosen’t need to be skilled. They are just there for presence.

Most other countries split between soldiers for homeland defence and soldiers in war. Homeland defence is provided by mandatory military service in one year for those that just finished high school. They secure the homeland bases. They’re not paid, they get food and shelter and a minimum payment about 20$ pr. day.

After one year of military training at home protecting homeland bases, they can choose if they’ll continue in the army. Either by going to war in Afghanistan or become an officer. If they choose to continue they get paid if they are needed.

That way drafted soldiers takes care of the homeland bases, and it is to each other if they’ll continue in the army after that.

So drafted soldier:Homeland defence mandatory. Protecting bases in Korea, Germany,Texas where their is peace. Minimum pay.
Volunteer: War afghanistan with payment after mandatory service

 

[Unkotare]

Those who are stationed for peacetime defence in Japan,Germany,Korea and USA dosen’t need to be skilled. They are just there for presence.

That is the most unbelievably fucking ignorant comment of the day. Congratulations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those who are stationed for peacetime defence in Japan,Germany,Korea and USA dosen’t need to be skilled. They are just there for presence.

And with that, the rest may be safely ignored.