It is now time for a "Soft" Military Draft

[DGS49]

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.

 

[pknopp]

The way to help struggling families is to bring the troops home.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Military recruiters are already given access to the nation's high schools to pitch the idea to the young guys about the advantages of signing up to be a soldier or sailor and seeing the world. I think the only difference you offer is requiring the young guys to give them an answer and make an actual response to their appeals.

 

[Coyote]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

A. I haven't noticed a hesitancy to send troops anywhere.

B. They'd be better off at home anyway.

 

[TNHarley]

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict

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

 

[progressive hunter]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

we can start with the people living off of welfare that dont have jobs,,, they can deal with public sanitation and start cleaning streets and parks of trash and litter,,

 

[Moonglow]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

It is one way to get universal healthcare.

 

[Coyote]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

It is one way to get universal healthcare.

True Dat.

Who'd have thought the army was socialist?

 

[Moonglow]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

It is one way to get universal healthcare.

True Dat.

Who'd have thought the army was socialist?

I do when I get paid to go see the doctor at the VA.

 

[Sunni Man]

The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

That is total BS. ...
I am veteran and in Vietnam officers and NCO's did not wear insignia, you didn't salute officers or call then "Sir" out in the bush. They were the favorite target of enemy snipers. 1st and 2nd Lieutenants had a very high casualty rate, as did Captains. The job nobody wanted was carrying the heavy radio on your back and being next to an Officer for him to use the phone. It made both of you prime targets to get shot.

The Japanese during WWll were notorious for their targeting of officers and NCO's.

All the pilots and co-pilots of the 8th Air Force heavy bombers who bombed Germany during WWll were officers. The 8th AF had the highest % casualty rate of any organization, more than the Army, Navy, or Marines.

My father was a 2nd Lieutenant during the Korean War. He was a Forward Observer and would go several miles into the mountains behind enemy lines for a month at a time to direct artillery fire by radio. The North Korean soldiers would comb the mountains searching for FO's. The next officer who took my father's place was discovered and killed 3 days later. The life expectancy of FO officers was rather grim.

 

[Coyote]

The officers and NCO's occasionally got killed, but the canon fodder were put out front, in the greatest danger.

That is total BS. ...
I am veteran and in Vietnam officers and NCO's did not wear insignia, you didn't salute officers or call then "Sir" out in the bush. They were the favorite target of enemy snipers. 1st and 2nd Lieutenants had a very high casualty rate, as did Captains. The job nobody wanted was carrying the heavy radio on your back and being next to an Officer for him to use the phone. It made both of you prime targets to get shot.

The Japanese during WWll were notorious for their targeting of officers and NCO's.

All the pilots and co-pilots of the 8th Air Force heavy bombers who bombed Germany during WWll were officers. The 8th AF had the highest % casualty rate of any organization, more than the Army, Navy, or Marines.

My father was a 2nd Lieutenant during the Korean War. He was a Forward Observer and would go several miles into the mountains behind enemy lines for a month at a time to direct artillery fire by radio. The North Korean soldiers would comb the mountains searching for FO's. The next officer who took my father's place was discovered and killed 3 days later. The life expectancy of FO officers was rather grim.

I didn't know that...thanks for letting us know.

What about those much higher up...the generals, etc? I admit...my historical perspectives could be biased here, I keep thinking about things like the battle of Gallipoli.

 

[Orangecat]

It is one way to get universal healthcare.

Who'd have thought the army was socialist?

Trading away your individual freedom and liberty has always been a way to get free healthcare. Let individuals choose.

 

[Likkmee]

Good boys ! Actually I refer to them as meatheads....blindly following orders, rational or not.
Son. I order you to kill your granny.We suspect she's anti-_____
YES SIR !

 

[Likkmee]

It's the only true statement that piece of shit Kissinger ever made

 

[whitehall]

What is the "commitment" to Military families exactly? If Biden claims to fulfill it, the logical assumption is that it wasn't fulfilled before. Trump promised to get us out of these military adventures but Biden seems unaware of everything except his association with China.

 

[Sunni Man]

ARMY AND MARINE OFFICER CASUALTIES BY RANK AND AGE

Officer casualties in Vietnam, including warrant officers, numbered 7,874, or 13.5 percent of all casualties. The Army lost the greatest number of officers – 4,635 or 59 percent of all officer casualties. Ninety-one percent of these Army officers were warrant officers, second lieutenants, first lieutenants or captains. This was a reflection of the role of warrant officers as helicopter pilots (of the 1,277 warrant officer casualties, 95 percent were Army helicopter pilots), and of the young lieutenants and captains as combat platoon leaders or company commanders.

NAVY AND AIR FORCE OFFICER CASUALTIES BY RANK AND AGE

The Air Force lost the highest percentage of officers. Of 2,590 total Air Force casualties, 1,674 or 65 percent were officers. Many of them, as experienced pilots, were older (two thirds were thirty or older) and many were high ranking. Almost 50 percent were majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels and three were generals. The Navy had a similar profile: 55 percent of its 622 officer casualties were 30 years of age or older, and 45 percent were ranked at lieutenant commander or above when they died. It should be emphasized that 55 percent of all Navy and Air Force officer casualties came as a result of reconnaissance and bombing sorties into North Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia.

Names On The Wall: A Closer Look At Those Who Died In Vietnam

By Bill Abbott

www.historynet.com

 

[d0gbreath]

I'll probably be lynched for this .... but

I think that there should be some form of compulsory service, not necessarily military, because I respect the rights of those who oppose war and violence, but there are other service avenues for that.

I also think there need to be more restrictions on a president for how he can engage our military in a conflict - and more required of Congress to allow it.

No one is expendable...we should never ever have another Gallipoli.

It is one way to get universal healthcare.

True Dat.

Who'd have thought the army was socialist?

As a dependent for 18 years, I could easily be a source for the fact that all branches of US military service are the biggest socialist organizations in the world. Socialist countries can't even get close.

 

[Moonglow]

Good boys ! Actually I refer to them as meatheads....blindly following orders, rational or not.
Son. I order you to kill your granny.We suspect she's anti-_____
YES SIR !

The one on the far right doesn't look enthusiastic enough...

 

[DGS49]

Company-grade officers in Vietnam were the exception. Most were canon fodder anyway. OCS and ROTC, not really military folks at all.