It is now time for a "Soft" Military Draft

[Canon Shooter]

Plan to Fulfill Our Commitment to Military Families | Joe Biden

As parents of a service member who deployed to Iraq, the Bidens know that not just military members sign up to serve our nation, it's their families too.

joebiden.com

President Biden and his charming wife have embarked on a campaign to get American support - personal and taxpayer - for military families that may be struggling in one way or another. Fine.

But the American military is, in a sense, fucked up. The traditional makeup of a "battle ready" military force is led by officers and NCO's - career soldiers - with a large number of people who have crudely been described as "canon fodder." These unfortunates were either draftees or short-term enlistees, and although it sounds callous to say it, were considered sort of expendable in battle. These are the ones who "fought and died" for their country. The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

But the "all-volunteer" military has destroyed that paradigm. Everyone is presumably a long-term soldier, a long-term "investment," and NO ONE is now deemed expendable. This is why the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam and other historical wars. NO ONE is expendable.

In order to bring the all-volunteer army to fruition, "we" have had to dramatically increase the compensation of the lowest rungs, enhance the benefits, make it feasible for the lowest rungs to GET MARRIED (which was not economically feasible under the old paradigm - the main income for married couples with a low-level enlisted man during Vietnam was the non-military spouse's income). And even at this much higher level of compensation, many married enlisted people are struggling financially.

But again, this is fucked up. The lowest level soldiers SHOULD BE single men, ages 18-24, who plan to get the hell out of the service in 2, 3, or 4 years. "Short timers," so to speak. And they should constitute a numerical MAJORITY of those in uniform. As a result of our perverse military paradigm today, we have an ungodly expensive military force that we hesitate to put in harm's way, because (a) we have invested a lot in training them, and (b) most of them HAVE FAMILIES! This is nuts! What we need is Canon Fodder.

So I propose a "soft" military draft. The "soft" draft will be implemented as follows:

Every American must register for the Draft at age 18. Every registrant must take a short battery of written tests to assess their intelligence, aptitudes, and suitability for military service. They will be asked if they have any specific plans for the short term future...jobs, college, trade school, etc. They will also be given a physical examination to determine whether they are healthy and could be brought into good physical condition in a reasonable period of time.

THEN, the military services would be given the ability to INVITE candidates who meet their criteria to enlist in their branch of the military service. The candidates will be REQUIRED to respond to the invitation, and an absolute rejection would be an acceptable response. But it would give the military services the opportunity to sell their package, indicate what training would be given, and what an enlistment would entail, including pay, benefits, work assignments, veterans' benefits, and so on. It would be made clear that MARRIAGE and CHILD-BEARING are not compatible with this enlistment, and either one would be grounds for discharge under the new Soft Draft guidelines.

These enlistees would be limited to grade levels E-1 through E4, and a re-up would be required for consideration for higher advancement.

The objective would be to purge married soldiers from the lower enlisted ranks. Those currently in that situation wouldn't be tossed out, but in five years the objective would be to have all single people in the E1-E4 ranks. At the same time, the frivolous objectives of "diversity" and inclusion could be implemented painlessly.

It's a good thing I'm not Emperor. I would do this immediately.

It is, because it's a profoundly stupid idea...

 

[Mushroom]

The Marines just got rid of all their tanks.

No, they have not. They still have 3 Tank Battalions.

You are confusing a proposal by the current Commandant, to do so by 2030. That is still 9 years away, and most think it will never happen. It will not be the first time that a Commandant made such a recommendation, and the next Commandant ripped it up and said to ignore it.

And without the Navy having the capability to provide heavy naval gunfire, many of us think it will never happen. There is a reason why a MEU relies upon its Tank Platoon and has LCACs to get them to the shore. Without them, any force that was forced to land on a hostile location would be sitting ducks. Even the grunts at Gallipoli would have more support than a MUE without tanks.

 

[Mushroom]

Bullshit!

*yawn*

That is all you can say? Dismissed.

But think on this as you wander away. Why were the Marines sent into Lebanon (twice)? Haiti (numerous times)? Vietnam? Yes, Vietnam. The first ground troops there were 3/500 Marines in March 1965. The Army did not go there until July.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, they have not. They still have 3 Tank Battalions.

You are confusing a proposal by the current Commandant, to do so by 2030. That is still 9 years away, and most think it will never happen. It will not be the first time that a Commandant made such a recommendation, and the next Commandant ripped it up and said to ignore it.

And without the Navy having the capability to provide heavy naval gunfire, many of us think it will never happen. There is a reason why a MEU relies upon its Tank Platoon and has LCACs to get them to the shore. Without them, any force that was forced to land on a hostile location would be sitting ducks. Even the grunts at Gallipoli would have more support than a MUE without tanks.

Your information is dead wrong. The tanks are already going and will be gone by 2023. Not 2030. In 2020, the Army allowed the Marine tankers to transfer to the Army like they ate doing with many of their tanks.

You need to get current.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

*yawn*

That is all you can say? Dismissed.

But think on this as you wander away. Why were the Marines sent into Lebanon (twice)? Haiti (numerous times)? Vietnam? Yes, Vietnam. The first ground troops there were 3/500 Marines in March 1965. The Army did not go there until July.

Hey grunt! You are full of shit which is easy for a Marine.

Tell me the law which restricts the President from using any military force. You can't. So do a snappy salute, about face and show proper respect to your superior.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, they have not. They still have 3 Tank Battalions.

You are confusing a proposal by the current Commandant, to do so by 2030. That is still 9 years away, and most think it will never happen. It will not be the first time that a Commandant made such a recommendation, and the next Commandant ripped it up and said to ignore it.

And without the Navy having the capability to provide heavy naval gunfire, many of us think it will never happen. There is a reason why a MEU relies upon its Tank Platoon and has LCACs to get them to the shore. Without them, any force that was forced to land on a hostile location would be sitting ducks. Even the grunts at Gallipoli would have more support than a MUE without tanks.

What grunts at Gallipoli? That's the second time you screwed that up!

There were no Americans there dumbass! It was long before we sent troops.

 

[Mushroom]

Your information is dead wrong. The tanks are already going and will be gone by 2023. Not 2030. In 2020, the Army allowed the Marine tankers to transfer to the Army like they ate doing with many of their tanks.

The U.S. Marine Corps wants over the next 10 years to eliminate all of its tanks, a third of its tube artillery, some amphibious vehicles and aircraft as well as thousands of infantry and other personnel, all in an effort to reshape the service for island warfare in the Western Pacific.

In their place, the Corps would add scores of rocket-launchers, new high-tech communications systems and lots and lots of drones.

The U.S. Marine Corps Wants to Dump All Tanks by 2030

It's part of an effort to reshape the service for island warfare in the Western Pacific.

nationalinterest.org

*yawn*

Shall I provide about 50 more references?

This was only announced in June, for goodness sakes. Even if this is to happen, they first have to expand in the things like rockets and artillery that will be taking the place of the tanks.

What, you really seem to think that decisions like this are made, and 2 months later are enacted?

 

[Mushroom]

What grunts at Gallipoli? That's the second time you screwed that up!

There were no Americans there dumbass!

I think you are looking in a mirror.

Did I ever say "Americans"?

*looks up at comment*

Nope, I sure as hell did not ever say "American Grunts", I just said "grunts".

What, are you so ignorant, that you think that only the US has "grunts"?

Be gone with you, this is not even slightly entertaining anymore.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The U.S. Marine Corps Wants to Dump All Tanks by 2030

It's part of an effort to reshape the service for island warfare in the Western Pacific.

nationalinterest.org

*yawn*

Shall I provide about 50 more references?

This was only announced in June, for goodness sakes. Even if this is to happen, they first have to expand in the things like rockets and artillery that will be taking the place of the tanks.
rk
What, you really seem to think that decisions like this are made, and 2 months later are enacted?

Hey shit for brains, I work for the Army right now.

 

[Mushroom]

Tell me the law which restricts the President from using any military force.

Outside of the US? Basically Congress, not any law.

The President can literally order the Navy and Marines anywhere in the world, just on his say-so alone. And it has been that way since there was a US Navy and Marine Corps. The most that Congress can do is after 60 days withdraw funding.

I mean, come on, it is already the law. 50 U.S.C. sections 1541–1548. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title50/pdf/USCODE-2009-title50-chap33.pdf

You really are arguing just to argue, and it is obvious you do not really know anything about the subject.

 

[Mushroom]

Hey shit for brains, I work for the Army right now.

Well good for you. I am in the Army. For over 10 years now, and was also in the Marines for 10 years.

You "work for" the Army. Big whoop do doo. That tells me exactly nothing.

Once again, you provide no real reference, and just toss around insults.

Also, look at my reference you quoted back. It says it all.

"WANTS to dump tanks". Well, it does not take a braniac to know the different between "wants to" and "is". I want to make $1 million a day, does not mean I am going to do it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Outside of the US? Basically Congress, not any law.

The President can literally order the Navy and Marines anywhere in the world, just on his say-so alone. And it has been that way since there was a US Navy and Marine Corps. The most that Congress can do is after 60 days withdraw funding.

I mean, come on, it is already the law. 50 U.S.C. sections 1541–1548. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title50/pdf/USCODE-2009-title50-chap33.pdf

You really are arguing just to argue, and it is obvious you do not really know anything about the subject.

I don't know anything? That's is the War Powers Act, which has never been followed, and never been challenged in court. Do you know why? It unconstitutional, that's why!

You are simply a fucking amateur! You are Googling support for your positions and getting it wrong all the time. I tried to treat you with some measure of respect, but you responded with a middle school understanding of topic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well good for you. I am in the Army. For over 10 years now, and was also in the Marines for 10 years.

You "work for" the Army. Big whoop do doo. That tells me exactly nothing.

Once again, you provide no real reference, and just toss around insults.

Also, look at my reference you quoted back. It says it all.

"WANTS to dump tanks". Well, it does not take a braniac to know the different between "wants to" and "is". I want to make $1 million a day, does not mean I am going to do it.

Let's see 10 years as a Marine, 10 years in the Army. You must have made least E-5.

In regards to the USMC tank, here is a link proving that your claims were dead wrong.

Goodbye, tanks: How the Marine Corps will change, and what it will lose, by ditching its armor

Commandant Gen. David H. Berger has said that should armor be needed by Marines, he would look to the Army to provide that capability.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Try reading it! Oh, I forgot! It's not written in crayon. Try finding a 6th grader to read it to you!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think you are looking in a mirror.

Did I ever say "Americans"?

*looks up at comment*

Nope, I sure as hell did not ever say "American Grunts", I just said "grunts".

What, are you so ignorant, that you think that only the US has "grunts"?

Be gone with you, this is not even slightly entertaining anymore.

Look up the origin of the term "grunt". The forces at Gallipoli were not "grunts" because the term originated during the Vietnam War.

 

[Mushroom]

Look up the origin of the term "grunt". The forces at Gallipoli were not "grunts" because the term originated during the Vietnam War.

Losing circular argument. So looks up losing circular argument.

It is funny, but dull watching you spin in circles over and over again, then throw out even more predictable insults. Are you capable of any kind of reasonable thought and logic, or is it all you can do to constantly insult others and spin in circles?

By your logic, therefore the people of ancient Greece and Rome were not "Europeans", as that term did not come to pass until Emperor Diocletian used that term (in "Europa") until the third century as a province of what is now Turkey. By your very logic, almost nobody living on the continent before then was a "European", therefore calling the Picts, Gauls, or Celts "European" is wrong.

You really do not think things through very well, do you? And try to follow the most silly things, obsessing on a single word, and completely missing the very subject of the post itself. I guess if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with coprolite.

 

[Likkmee]

Soft military draft ?
People recently fired from Amazon ?
OK?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Soft military draft ?

15 days to flatten the curve...

 

[longly]

Dayton3

I've studied the U.S. military for decades. It would seem much more likely that you are the one who is uninformed.

You are right, and Gipper is wrong. The US does not have a huge army. I think even the Russians could defeat us under the right circumstances. We are too heavily dependent on our technology to make up the difference in the size of our army. That is dangerous thinking; never make assumptions about an enemy.

But he is right about a large professional army being a danger to liberty, but what are we going to do; we have to have a national defense.

 

[the other mike]

There is. Its called the Constitution. It just gets ignored.

They've been using the CIA to do that covertly for decades. .... most recently that we're aware of was in Syria under Brennan and company...... remember Obama;
"Assad must go." But Congress wouldn't approve sending troops to Syria so they went in covertly along with Saudi Arabia..... armed the rebels through Libya. ( Hillary Clinton knows all about that)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then get off your ass and enlist as Army Infantry

Pretty sure he did, and served in Vietnam.