The problems of a Professional Military

[Wiseacre]

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.

Okay, so you want to reduce the current number of recruits down to 70,000 from 200,000, right? And then increase that number by instituting a draft if a declared war occurs. That means you've got 130,000 fewer newbies coming in every year if there's no war, which means in 5 years your total numbers are cut in half, because you have to shape your numbers in each successive rank to manage the lower ranks.

The real issue becomes what happens if after 5 years you get into a declared war. No war, no problem, but it one does come along you're gonna have a problem cuz you can 't institute a draft to build up your numbers AND train 'em to be proficient, AND equip 'em with the stuff they need in a short timeframe. The old days when you gave a kid a gun and told him to keep his head down and shoot somebody are gone forever. An awful lot of those draftees are going to come home in a bodybag, but hell, at least we saved some money.

Or maybe you think we'll just send the volunteers over somewhere to fight the declared war. Yeah right, you guys go fight and die, but the draftees won't. Yeah, that'll fly real well, how many volunteers do you think you'll get after the 1st war is over? Hell, how many would re-up in such a system? I suspect your retention rates will go all to hell, who'd want to stay in a military that sends you off to war but not these other guys? Fuck that, I'll do my 3 years if I'm unlucky enough to get drafted.

Right now the military says they can fight 2 wars at once, under your plan they really couldn't fight even one, not for long anyway. If I was 18 again and under your scheme, I might volunteer to do 4 years if the benefits were good enough, but I wouldn't re-enlist and stay longer. Your concept would destroy the effectiveness of our military serrvices; yeah you can save some money, but you better not get into a war.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How about if we develop a foreign legion? That way when we invade and occupy another nation which has oil or copper or another resource industry needs we won't need to send OUR kids into harms way.
































sarcasm alert.

 

[MikeK]

Why We Lost World War Two
by The Gadfly


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.

 

[Wiseacre]

How about if we develop a foreign legion? That way when we invade and occupy another nation which has oil or copper or another resource industry needs we won't need to send OUR kids into harms way.

sarcasm alert.

Well hell, why don't we just nuke the bastards. Drop an H-bomb on your ass if you mess with us. No more nation-building afterwards either. We're already sending drone missiles up they ass, why fool around?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

 

[MikeK]

How about if we develop a foreign legion? That way when we invade and occupy another nation which has oil or copper or another resource industry needs we won't need to send OUR kids into harms way.

That is a good suggestion. So good in fact that it appears to be exactly what the shadow government has in mind with these civilian "contractors."

It hasn't worked out like they planned because their war-mongering puppet, George W. Bush, got carried away, overplayed the game and caused the loss of the White House and the Congress. In fact he's lucky he hasn't ended up in prison. But the game is far from over. The existing puppet is not the war monger Bush was but neither is he a dove. He was allowed to assume Office because his role is that of pacifier. He is there to keep the lid on until the politics cools down a bit, after which the emerging legion formerly known as "Blackwater" can resume full-scale operations in the Middle East.

 

[MikeK]

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 OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

I don't know why the above quote is attributed to me. I didn't write it and I disagree with it. I believe in maintaining a citizens army, which is an army consisting largely (but not totally) of conscripts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

I don't know why the above quote is attributed to me. I didn't say it and I disagree with it. I believe in maintaining a citizens army, which is an army consisting largely (but not totally) of conscripts.

It came from post 63, which is yours.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

Actually, mine was the OP. And, contrary to your post, I do care for the effecacy of our military.

But, I recognize the need to make spending cuts.

The military consumes a big part of our budget.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

Actually, mine was the OP.

I know. And, as I noted before, you proceed from a false premise:

An all volunteer military establishes a larger than necessary military

Absolutely untrue - Congress decides the size of the military; the military being all-volunteer has no bearing on that whatsoever.

And, contrary to your post, I do care for the effecacy of our military

Not according to what you espouse here.

But, I recognize the need to make spending cuts.
The military consumes a big part of our budget.

Ah. So your --real-- concern is deficit spending.
Military spending is roughly 28% of entitlement spending.
How much of that do you look to cut?

 

[Nosmo King]

The OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

Actually, mine was the OP.

I know. And, as I noted before, you proceed from a false premise:

Absolutely untrue - Congress decides the size of the military; the military being all-volunteer has no bearing on that whatsoever.

And, contrary to your post, I do care for the effecacy of our military

Not according to what you espouse here.

But, I recognize the need to make spending cuts.
The military consumes a big part of our budget.

Ah. So your --real-- concern is deficit spending.
Military spending is roughly 28% of entitlement spending.
How much of that do you look to cut?

A standing Army of 70,000. 60,000 in the Navy. 25,000 in the Air Force and 15,000 Marines. Keep funding the Veteran's Administration (until all the vets from Iraq andd Afghanistan are properly cared for)

Let the American armed forces look and act like the American armed forces acted and looked before the military industrial complex took spending to unsustainable levels. History shows us how a peacetime military should look. Don't try to spin this as unAmerican. It's as American as it gets.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, mine was the OP.

I know. And, as I noted before, you proceed from a false premise:

Absolutely untrue - Congress decides the size of the military; the military being all-volunteer has no bearing on that whatsoever.

Not according to what you espouse here.

But, I recognize the need to make spending cuts.
The military consumes a big part of our budget.

Ah. So your --real-- concern is deficit spending.
Military spending is roughly 28% of entitlement spending.
How much of that do you look to cut?

A standing Army of 70,000. 60,000 in the Navy. 25,000 in the Air Force and 15,000 Marines. Keep funding the Veteran's Administration (until all the vets from Iraq andd Afghanistan are properly cared for)

You didnt answer my question. I'll rephrase:
Since your "real" concern is deficit spending, and entitlement spending exceeds defense spending by ~350%, how much do you propose to cut from entitlement spending?

 

[MikeK]

The OP doesn't give a hoot about the troops or the efficacy of the military - he just wants to push his political agenda.

I don't know why the above quote is attributed to me. I didn't say it and I disagree with it. I believe in maintaining a citizens army, which is an army consisting largely (but not totally) of conscripts.

It came from post 63, which is yours.

The post is mine but the quote clearly is not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I got my draft notice last time around and I'm still pissed
Your turn now Mikey, if nothing else you'd make a lovely target which might you past your nasty desire to use others as cannon fodder.

When did you become a chickenhawk?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know why the above quote is attributed to me. I didn't say it and I disagree with it. I believe in maintaining a citizens army, which is an army consisting largely (but not totally) of conscripts.

It came from post 63, which is yours.

The post is mine but the quote clearly is not.

The quote is the last line of post #63.
You don't remember what you wrote?

 

[The Gadfly]

It came from post 63, which is yours.

The post is mine but the quote clearly is not.

The quote is the last line of post #63.
You don't remember what you wrote?

That's because he didn't write it; he lifted, derisively retitled, attributed to me, and reposted my post #53. He did not use the "quote" function (he'll have to tell you why, I don't know), hence the confusion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The post is mine but the quote clearly is not.

The quote is the last line of post #63.
You don't remember what you wrote?

That's because he didn't write it; he lifted, derisively retitled, attributed to me, and reposted my post #53. He did not use the "quote" function (he'll have to tell you why, I don't know), hence the confusion.

Huh. Go figure.

 

[MikeK]

I got my draft notice last time around and I'm still pissed
Your turn now Mikey, if nothing else you'd make a lovely target which might you past your nasty desire to use others as cannon fodder.

When did you become a chickenhawk?

I really don't know what you're talking about -- which is not at all surprising. I wonder if you do.

 

[MikeK]

The post is mine but the quote clearly is not.

The quote is the last line of post #63.
You don't remember what you wrote?

That's because he didn't write it; he lifted, derisively retitled, attributed to me, and reposted my post #53. He did not use the "quote" function (he'll have to tell you why, I don't know), hence the confusion.

Thank you.

 

[daveman]

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.

You were a protester?

Then why do you think you can speak authoritatively about military matters?

I don't tell you how to smoke pot and not bathe, do I?