The problems of a Professional Military

[daveman]

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.

Notice I said two years active service after training. "A" Schools are longer than a year now?

It's not just training, it's on-the-job experience. A tactical fighter crew chief (maintenance technician) needs about 7 1/2 years to be truly proficient.

The draft is simply not suitable for the high-tech military we have.

 

[daveman]

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.

No. I would follow the time honored tradition of the American military and scale back during peace time. For example: in 1865 there were over 1.2 million Americans in uniform. By 1868 that number was reduced to below 75,000.

We put aside the rifle and pick up the plow in peacetime. This platinum plated military we continue to fund is a phenomenon born of the Cold War. And since we have failed to follow our own precedents, we have used that military more often than our combined history through 1941.

Scenario:

We're at peace. Military manning is at a minimum.

Suddenly, we're at war. We draft people. Then what? We can teach them to shoot a rifle in 6 weeks, but can you teach them to fight together effectively at the squad and unit level? Fix airplanes? Effectively fight with tanks? Set up digital battlefield communications?

No one advocating a draft has the first idea about what's required to utilize today's military hardware.

 

[daveman]

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.

Simply unworkable. Period.

 

[initforme]

I would never ever support a draft. It should be illegal.

 

[MikeK]

I would never ever support a draft. It should be illegal.

Why?

Are you presently eligible for conscription (able-bodied male between 18 and 31)?

 

[Douger]

'Professional military" Is a ridiculous concept. It's a bunch of 18 year old fuckups that want to work until age 38-40 or so and progress to suck on another govt. tit until age 60 or so.
They are the ultimate socialists who proclaim they're defending murkins from the evulz of socialism !

 

[MikeK]

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?

Again, the post is mine but the quote is not. If you don't understand what an attributed quote is let me know. I'll be happy to explain.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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 can see your point and I have to completely disagree.

the only thing a draftee to war has on his mind is his discharge date and how to make it to that time.

nothing more


Yes the cost of the DoD is high and we need to make cuts, but changing from professionals too people that don't want to be there will end up with more problems as we are forced to play catch-up every time we have to go to war.

close foreign bases, select only the best for enlistment/re-enlistment and go from there.


oddly, the economy has more control of who gets in and when. Good economy, anyone can get a waiver for damn near anything, bad economy and the military can pick and choose.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're an idiot on many levels.

First the Vietnam War is the best example of a "selective" draft ruining the military with druggies and criminals operating on their own in the field, which helped our demise.

WWII was a die or survive war for the US, so the draft took every able bodied male compared to the Vietnam War where people like Bill Clinton could hide in grad school.

As for the professional military causing wars around the world, go fuck yourself you uneducated kook.

Oh, read a little bit about history...Bush JR didn't start up the war with Saddam.

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?

 

[GoneBezerk]

I think you post your crazy shit here thinking you are actually accomplishing something besides sitting in your own feces and then eating it.

'Professional military" Is a ridiculous concept. It's a bunch of 18 year old fuckups that want to work until age 38-40 or so and progress to suck on another govt. tit until age 60 or so.
They are the ultimate socialists who proclaim they're defending murkins from the evulz of socialism !

 

[MikeK]

I think you post your crazy shit here thinking you are actually accomplishing something besides sitting in your own feces and then eating it.

'Professional military" Is a ridiculous concept. It's a bunch of 18 year old fuckups that want to work until age 38-40 or so and progress to suck on another govt. tit until age 60 or so.
They are the ultimate socialists who proclaim they're defending murkins from the evulz of socialism !

But it looks like he struck a nerve if this kind of schoolyard shit-slinging is your best response.

 

[GoneBezerk]

No, just pointing out IT doesn't post anything of merit here....at least have some merit in a post even if wrong/stupid.

The majority of twits talking trash about the US military never served 1 minute and don't know the definition of a professional military.

I guess you fall into the kook group too defending a kook.

I think you post your crazy shit here thinking you are actually accomplishing something besides sitting in your own feces and then eating it.

'Professional military" Is a ridiculous concept. It's a bunch of 18 year old fuckups that want to work until age 38-40 or so and progress to suck on another govt. tit until age 60 or so.
They are the ultimate socialists who proclaim they're defending murkins from the evulz of socialism !

But it looks like he struck a nerve if this kind of schoolyard shit-slinging is your best response.

 

[Warrior102]

I think you post your crazy shit here thinking you are actually accomplishing something besides sitting in your own feces and then eating it.

'Professional military" Is a ridiculous concept. It's a bunch of 18 year old fuckups that want to work until age 38-40 or so and progress to suck on another govt. tit until age 60 or so.
They are the ultimate socialists who proclaim they're defending murkins from the evulz of socialism !

But it looks like he struck a nerve if this kind of schoolyard shit-slinging is your best response.

Speaking of the military, why don't you enlist, asswipe?

Might make a man out of you. Who knows

 

[MikeK]

No, just pointing out IT doesn't post anything of merit here....at least have some merit in a post even if wrong/stupid.

The majority of twits talking trash about the US military never served 1 minute and don't know the definition of a professional military.

I guess you fall into the kook group too defending a kook.

I think of a "professional military" as a mercenary military, which, for political reasons is not a good idea. I believe our main army should consist of 60% conscripts, 40%cadre, which defines a People's army. An all volunteer, "professional," army is the government's army, which is politically dangerous.

I would like to ask about your military service, how it came about and what your thoughts about it are.

 

[daveman]

No, just pointing out IT doesn't post anything of merit here....at least have some merit in a post even if wrong/stupid.

The majority of twits talking trash about the US military never served 1 minute and don't know the definition of a professional military.

I guess you fall into the kook group too defending a kook.

I think of a "professional military" as a mercenary military, which, for political reasons is not a good idea. I believe our main army should consist of 60% conscripts, 40%cadre, which defines a People's army. An all volunteer, "professional," army is the government's army, which is politically dangerous.

I would like to ask about your military service, how it came about and what your thoughts about it are.

Re: the bolded -- no, you don't.

 

[editec]

The nature of wars may be changing so much that the whole questiopn of a draft will be so LAST CENTURY.

Doubt that?

I am informed that are now training more DRONE operators than we are pilots in the military.

Bottom line is that robotics and technology are reducing the number of men we need to fight wars.

Of course we'll always have people in the mix but the mix itself is changing rather quickly.