The problems of a Professional Military

[Unkotare]

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.

We have a greater military than any nation in the history of mankind. Our economic woes are not due to the military and will not be solved by gutting it, no matter how badly irresponsible leftists like obama want to.

 

[Unkotare]

" 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protester of the Vietnam conflict and I can assure you that were it not for the conscription factor we would not have withdrawn from that unnecessary debacle when we did. "

LOL, you actually think the end of the Vietnam war had anything to do with the draft? You are a total ******* idiot, I can assure you of that. There were several reasons why we got out of Vietnam, the draft wasn't one of them, let alone the deciding factor.

If you came on like a sensible adult rather than a schoolyard scumbag I might be interested in know what you think those "several reasons" are. But the only kind of individual who takes advantage of the anonymity and distance afforded by these Internet forums to call total strangers "total ******* idiots" are stupid punks who wouldn't dare pop off like that in a face-to-face conversation. So nothing you have to say is worthy of discussion.

You are like dogshit on a sidewalk to be stepped over and ignored.

Have you even considered the likelihood that the problem is that you ARE a total ******* idiot?

 

[Unkotare]

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..

We beat Germany, Italy, and Japan with a draft.

Because we had to. They all had conscript militaries as well.

 

[Douger]

People that are enamored by a non existent threat are to be referred to as meatheads.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

We have a greater military than any nation in the history of mankind. Our economic woes are not due to the military and will not be solved by gutting it, no matter how badly irresponsible leftists like obama want to.

If someone is worried about military costs, instituting a draft will only make that worse. It is expensive to draft people and train them. And then when enlistment is up, they are gone. And they dont make the best soldiers because they dont want to be there.
And the cost to society is pretty high. Imagine drafting a young engineer and set him digging ditches for 2 years. The economy is deprived of his talents.
Yet another ill-thought out post from the toilet master.

 

[The Rabbi]

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..

We beat Germany, Italy, and Japan with a draft.

Because we had to. They all had conscript militaries as well.

War was also very different then. We haven't seen a landing like Normandy or Inchon in 60 years for a reason. No need for it. As technology has improved each soldier is more "productive." Think of the difference between launching a 30-06 from a Garand and launching a drone with Hellfire missile. Each one takes one guy to do it but the effect is magnified with the Hellfire.

 

[editec]

From civil libertarian standpoint an all volunteer force is the only moral choice.

But from a nationalistic standpoint, it can have negative consequences.

First, it does seem to make it possible for the government to run continuous low level war, because the majority of the population isn't politically invested in it like they would be if a draft was in place.

Secondly because it creates further divide between the kind of people who serve (a professional military caste/class) and the kind of people who don't.

Despite the two shortcomings, I think the system we have right now is the right choice for this nation at this time.

The draft can be reinstated if necessary.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

We certainly can afford to defend our own country. It's defending everyone else that we can't afford.

 

[old navy]

But what happens if the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz and we ain't there to keep it open? You know who shows up first when tsunamis, volcanoes, and earthquates hit and countries are devastated? The US Navy, that's who. [/COLOR]

Hell yeah!!

Go NAVY!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

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?

Yes, women too. No one said anything about dorms. Local, state, federal, public school and special districts are a few of the areas where citizens could perform service in their own communities. Of course the devil is in the details but to dismiss out of hand such a concept without exploring its cost-benefit is way too conservative.

 

[Warrior102]

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?

Yes, women too. No one said anything about dorms. Local, state, federal, public school and special districts are a few of the areas where citizens could perform service in their own communities. Of course the devil is in the details but to dismiss out of hand such a concept without exploring its cost-benefit is way too conservative.

Log off and enlist, asswipe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Yes, women too. No one said anything about dorms. Local, state, federal, public school and special districts are a few of the areas where citizens could perform service in their own communities. Of course the devil is in the details but to dismiss out of hand such a concept without exploring its cost-benefit is way too conservative.

Log off and enlist, asswipe.

I enlisted in 1967, asshole.

 

[Warrior102]

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

Yes, women too. No one said anything about dorms. Local, state, federal, public school and special districts are a few of the areas where citizens could perform service in their own communities. Of course the devil is in the details but to dismiss out of hand such a concept without exploring its cost-benefit is way too conservative.

Log off and enlist, asswipe.

I enlisted in 1967, asshole.

Thanks for your service, asswipe.

 

[Unkotare]

People that are enamored by a non existent threat are to be referred to as meatheads.

Shut the **** up and go sit in the corner, Neville.

 

[Euro]

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 think a drafted army could work well for peace-defence, for instance a soldier that just stays on a base in a country where their is no war could be drafted. E.g. a soldier in USA,Germany, South Korea. Place where their is low risk and no war. Those postions can be filled by cheap labour/drafted soldiers.

But those in Afghanistan, Iraq that are in a war should be paid, those in a real war. Special troops should be also be paid, NAVY seal,pilots,officers.
So you don’t need to have all volunteer or all drafted. You could have some drafted and some proffesionals volunteer.

Peace time defence: Drafted:e.g. soldiers in Germany,South Korea,Japan,USA etc. No-pay.
Those in aWar: Should be paid: Soldiers in Afghanistan,Iraq etc.+ trained personell like officers, pilots, special forces etc.

 

[Unkotare]

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?

We certainly can afford to defend our own country. It's defending everyone else that we can't afford.

Good thing we DON'T do that then.

 

[uscitizen]

We had a volunteer military during the draft as well.
You could still volunteer and several who were drafted decided to make a career of it.

and I agree if the draft was still active we would not still be in Afganistan.

the privatization/outsourcing of our military is my biggest concern in this area.
When do we become mercenaries?

 

[Wiseacre]

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?

Yes, women too. No one said anything about dorms. Local, state, federal, public school and special districts are a few of the areas where citizens could perform service in their own communities. Of course the devil is in the details but to dismiss out of hand such a concept without exploring its cost-benefit is way too conservative.

So you've done a cost-benefit analysis? Great, how many draftees will it take every year to make sure nobody is excluded that should serve? Gonna have to significanrtly increase the number of training facilities and also the trainers. What'll it cost to maintain a big enough bunch of people to go after the ones who don't show up? How much'll it cost for the training of everybody, all those newbies that don't know shit, it takes time to turn 'em into soldiers and more time to train 'em to do something. Yeah, these days the skills you need may take a year or more to learn; you wanna put an expensive piece of equipment in the hands of somebody who doesn't fully know or care how to use it? 3 squares, place to live, for all those people that ain't cheap. I'd say a good bunch of 'em won't want to be there; gonna have a lot more trouble than we have now, better double up on security and law enforcement personnel.

Seriously, you want to go to war with a force that doesn't want to serve? Why do you think the US military is hands down the finest in the world? It's cuz they all volunteered, most other militaries are filled with men who don't want to serve and will not fight. The left comes up with cockamamie ideas sometimes; this one is really dumb.

 

[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.

 

[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?

----------------

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.