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..
You calling WWII Vets inexperienced?
When they started, yes. That's always the case. Even in the case of command. Catastrophic losses.
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.
