Is Public Will at odds with Public Sacrifice?

[Rob Thornton]

This morning on the Earlybird I saw a WSJ article where the CSA announced plans to look at acceleration of adding the additional troops to meet the objective of 2 years at home station for every one year deployed. There is concern that the 15 month deployments may cause additional attrition of experience. Mentioned was the usual prescritpion of enlistment/re-enlistment bonuses and promotions to support expansion.

Several other articles recently have caught my attention since I've been back. Some were on who serves, who wants to serve, who does not want to serve, why, etc (one of my favorites pointed to the small minority of congressional and other political leaders here and in the UK who have current familial ties to the military). Retired General Scales has been a huge proponent of drawing attention to readiness issues, and I think gets at it as a fundamental strategic problem. So here are a couple of questions I think would help us design a Human Resourcing Strategy to meet not just the military's increased personeel needs - not just in quantity, but also in quality (Quality in the categories of both the very best for public service & in terms of filling the ranks - a buddy was just flash PCS'd to Riley amid reports of soldier disturbances and the need for officers and NCOs on the ground immediately):

Does our Public Will support the required Public Sacrifice in the context of a emerging global power struggle amongst resurgent states, emerging non-state organizations (runs the gammut of groups here) which will compete on many different levels for limited resources (could be energy resources, water, minerals,etc) in an worl that is increasingly at risk to pandemics, global warming, and other environmental accelorators?

OK - I know that's a mouth full, but trying to frame the question show's how difficult captuing the public will to sacrifice their leisure time and cable T.V. can be. Short of an overwhleming cause that has a persitant gravitational theme that is politician proof, the only other recourse I see is to invest in people in such a way that it attracts and retains them. It becomes a standard of living and quality of life for not just them, but their families. Our Political culture seems to have a problem with this - people are risky and expensive (long term costs), and re-elections often require playing to somebody's bottom line. The Heinlein concept of public service for full citizenship (with the caveat of military or some other public service prior to holding office) is probably a non-starter.

Thoughts?

[sullygoarmy]

Rob. Great question. When the extention announcement was made last week, I immediately thought of Heinlein's great book, Starship Troopers (much better than the movie by the way) and how the veterans eventually "rescue" the government and the only way to gain full citizenship is to serve. Great concept but I do not ever see our society making that leap. We have always been very mistrusting of standing militaries all the way back to the founding of our country. The concept of a "citizen-soldier" is the basic foundation of the civilian controlled military today and always has been.

Back to the public will question. I would argue that America does not have the will to make the public sacrifice to deal with both the emerging global power struggle and other world-wide issues. Someday I may look back at this post and say, "boy did the American people ever prove me wrong". But it seems ever since WWII where the government ensured the American people were involved, it just hasn't happened.

Looking at the generations of people the U.S. has produces over the last 80 years gives us a clue as to why the desire for public sacrifice may have declined. The heros of WWII, the fabled "Greatest Generation" went through the depression, loss of jobs, income and overall a lower standard of living. As a result, the expectation of some sort of sacrifice was already established as we entered WWII. The veterans, reaping the well-deserved rewards of the GI Bill, wanted nothing more than peace for their families and to provide them with a better life: enter the baby-boomer generation. I'd argue that the generations after the "greatest generation" have has a lower and lower level of sacrifice expectations based on the increased properity of the United States, its place on the global stage, and the values taught to us as children.

We still have our heros of today, those willing to sacrifice for the greater good of our people. Imagine, however, if we shifted the GDP for military spending to 5% versus the current 3.4%. Or if we did a Thomas Friedman type of tax on gas, raising the price of gas to $5 a gallon to not only pay for the war, but to accelerate the search and development for alternative energy fuels. I suspect these "sacrifices" would cause a major source of discontent across most of the U.S population. We seem to be plodding along as a nation in a dream-like state, opting to focus on the ridiculous news (Imus, Duke Lacrosse, Anna Nichole Smith...she's still dead by the way) than on the tough issues at hand: Iraq, Iraq, global warming, the possible outbreak of a global pandemic. I'm scared that it will take an major bump in the road to awaken America from her dream-like slumber. Something much bigger and worse than 9/11.

And of course, the public is fickle. How long did we have support for the government's actions after 9/11? Two years, maybe less? We've become a fast food society, with little patience for long term plans. The longest our political system looks out is 4 years, which is even longer than the attention span of many of our fellow citizens.

To end my pre-coffee rantings:p , here's a quote from Starship Troopers "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part..and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live." -Colonel Dubois.

[goesh]

Well said, sullygoarmy.

[Old Eagle]

There has to be a way to increase the audience participation in the security of this great nation. Little bumber stickers aren't doing it for me any more, although they beat the heck out of the alternatives we saw during Vietnam and its aftermath.

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

Not sure what the answer is.

P.S. True confession. I was a draft dodger myself -- joined the Army before my draft board figured out that I had graduated from HS and lost my 2S.

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

[Tom Odom]

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

Be happy you have a mane...I just have silver briar patches called ears these days :eek:

tom

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by Old Eagle,

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

I read an pro-draft argument not too long ago on the value of service as a kind of citizenship program - but as Old Eagle stated, its a huge burden and at odds with creating and maintaining a professional force capable of expeditionary type requirements, not to mention drawing away funds for material needs. Using public service in this manner also invites "experimentation" - something to consider.

Since a draft is not an option which meets our security needs, what is? I think there are a several ways to appeal to the public to serve. The first couple, we already do, and may get you an initial 4 year tour - these are usully "leap frog" options where service is used as a stepping stone to some other career - could be a technical job or politics, or many others. Some will serve based off of traditions, or desire for adventrue. However, as these service members take on additional responsibilities, they take on "quality of life" requirements that the public service may be at odds with since the public as represented by the government may be unable or unwilling to make. At that point they (public servants) have to choose between conflicting responsibilities. As they rationalize where their loyalties are, they start with their perception of loyalty shown to them. Stay (for 20 or 30), or leave and find employment elsewhere in a market that covets the skills public service has developed in them.

I think we need to re-evaluate public service on the premise of "value" and how much we are willing to pay public servants for their talent and sacrifices the majority of the population is unwilling/unable to make. By creating an "incentive to serve" perception that is proportional to the level of sacrifice, you create an organization(s) in which people are willing to endure the hardships associated with it. If your only doing it for a small pecentage of the population - then it becomes a question of how much you can afford vs. the cost of doing without (or in this case an inferior public service required to meet the needs of national security).

We pay hefty prices for professional sports tickets, pay per view, starbucks brews, Internet Service Providers, cltohes etc, that we know are over priced, but we (those aquainted with some flavor of public service are exempted) don't spend very much time thinking about the value of soldier, teacher, fireman, police officer, etc.). Remember Sen. Kerry's gaffe? Why does congress vote itself a raise? Because no one else will (or because it can).

My answer to make public service attractive would be to take a long reaching approach. While bonuses may attract the 19 year old and the first termer, the more mature folks we want to retain require the type of stability that allows them to plan for the long run. They require good medical and dental for their families and housing that their spouses feel good about because they can raise their families in a good environment. They require access to good schools that meet the special needs of families where one of the parents is constantly deployed. They require day care and extra curricular activities for their children that help the families cope with deployment stress while husbands and wives take on the burden of the nation ( and I mean the spouses who are left to run the household. You have to build an organization where loyalty is more then a flash in the pan, and establishes a reputation for success in the public from which it recruits. It has to be worth it. It has to compete. The last one sounds contrary to "public service", but is it given what we are asking? My thoughts are that the burdens of public service on the individual and his family are only going to increase.

Any Human Resourcing Strategy for public service has to be more then just filling pot holes.

[carl]

I contend the American people DO have the will to contend with whatever sacrifices are needed. The American elites, politcal, academic and media DO NOT. The flyover people man the current military, provide the much maligned contract truck drivers and provide what small courtisies (sic) can be given to troops in transit. Do a periodical search and see. One of the States (Texas maybe?) just started a program where the remains of slain soldiers are met at the airport and escorted to their burial site.

The "greatest generation" was great but they were responding to direct and sustained attack. During the Vietnam the Americans put up with years and years of no real strategy in a place of no immediate consequence before we pulled the plug. During Reagan's time we spent what was required until the job was done. In the buildup to this war, no one objected too, in fact everyone expected, the commitment of 400,000 men. The elites were the ones who couldn't stand the thought. Rumsfeld and company cut the force, not some mass letter writing campaign.

I think we (I say this as an always was civilian) will do whatever is asked of us. What we can't do is spontaneously and en-masse create a wise strategy and see it through. The elites are the ones who do that and they aren't up to it.

[Tom Odom]

I would not dismiss the draft as unsuitable or flawed or even unable to sustain an expeditionary force. We did--quite successfully--use the draft in repeated wars requiring large sustained mobilizations. Where the draft became fatally flawed was in its manipulation over time, especially as what became viewed as acceptable behavior in seeking deferments --or using the Guard as a sanctuary--changed.

Secondly when you discuss the draft, it does not have to be an all or nothing approach. The military would NOT become all draftee below a certain rank. It still had regulars in past wars and it would in the future as well.

Third and in line with the second point is to look at the draft as a much needed tool to mobilize RESERVES because that is what the draft does best. If you scheduled a draft to flesh out reserve force structure and then brought them onto active duty as needed that would provide a stair step approach to manpower escalation rather than what we have now, which is beat the regulars to death and then really screw over the reserves (and Guard) that we have already. Consider for a moment had we had such a system in place in 2002 that would have allowed a limited draft of manpower to surge end strength, say for a duration of 6 years based on 2 cycles of three-years service (because as Old Eagle points out short draft terms are dysfunctional).

Fourth in regard to discussions of strategic mobility, flexibility, ad nauseum, I would again say that there is a definitive benefit to strategic pause when it comes to making sure you really want to go jump into a particular briar patch. This forum is about Small Wars that are fought in distant lands by smaller deploying forces largely under the radar of the media or the public. Those operations tend to be doable. Where we go astray is when we are not willing to pay the costs and hash out the strategy to support a large deployment and sustain it over time. That strategic pause inherent in a Desert Shield type scenario gives us time to answer the magic questions "Do we really understand what we are about to do? And if so, do we still want to do it?"

Best

Tom

[120mm]

My idea is to impose a draft into a strategic reserve. Minimal military training, and basic exposure to military life for a very short period of time. During the training period, individuals could be recruited for an active duty military career based on aptitude/interest.

One of the biggest obstacles to military service, imo, is the fear of the unknown which prevents people who would be happy in the military from joining.

[Stan]

120,
You could even say your idea has been proven and works. Estonia's military has been doing just that for nearly a decade.


My idea is to impose a draft into a strategic reserve. Minimal military training, and basic exposure to military life for a very short period of time. During the training period, individuals could be recruited for an active duty military career based on aptitude/interest.

9 months minimum and based on many factors, 11 months maximum (which includes primary leadership courses). There's more typical basic military training, but Estonia's DoD structure is very different from ours and, more than half of all the draftees stay on and make a career out of the military.


One of the biggest obstacles to military service, imo, is the fear of the unknown which prevents people who would be happy in the military from joining.

There was a time when the Chief of Staff actually traveled around the country with an NCO telling families that their sons would be in good hands and no harm would come to them (these were not draft dodgers, the parents were actually hiding their sons).

It was late in the 1930s when the Estonian President even drafted foreigners living in Estonia. He said: You are eating our bread, you have obligations to the State.

I think every American should experience military service.

[marct]

Hi Carl,


I contend the American people DO have the will to contend with whatever sacrifices are needed. The American elites, politcal, academic and media DO NOT.

I think that you have raised a very important point, and one that goes to the heart of the overall question. Let me recast this in a couple of questions:
Who are the "elites" and why are they "elite"?
What is "public service" and who defines it?
What is the American concept of "personal honour" and how does this relate to the concept of "sacrifice"?Let's start with the first one. One of the enduring effects of the English Civil War was to break the Aristocracy and Gentry's belief in the Great Chain of Being (GCB; i.e. that there was a divinely inspired ordering in the world and society - a basic position of RC theology at the time). After all, regicide for cause certainly does force a society to reconsider its ordering, and the "new" ordering under Cromwell was much more "Protestant".

That said, in a rather round about way, the meme that replaced the GCB was that elites were "elite" because they were "better" but, unlike the GCB, they had to continually show it (this is tied in with the concept of "dis-covering" salvation by evidence of God's grace - see Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Ethic-Spirit-Capitalism-Editions/dp/048642703X/ref=sr_1_1/104-5344735-2088738?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176813547&sr=8-1) for a really detailed analysis). This somewhat curious blending of "blood right" (Weber's Herrenschaft for those who are interested) with a de facto requirement for merit led to several things, including an increased ability for class mobility through superior merit (e.g. the 1792 expansion in the House of Lords).

For the Colonial elites in North America, you had varying expressions of this, but in most cases it came down to a situation of if you wanted to claim elite status, you had to act as if you were an "elite". By this, I don't mean the social manners, I mean the clear and visible signs of being "superior" in some field of endevour. After your Revolution, the lines of social legitimacy changed: in Canada, we retained the Crown as the ultimate arbiter of elite status whereas in the US that shifted to abstract "social actors" (e.g. the Constitution, economic success, etc.). This shift was picked up by de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHyper/DETOC/toc_indx.html) when he made the following observations (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHyper/DETOC/ch2_20.htm):

While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that of the former is narrowed. In a short time the one will require nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other stands in need of science, and almost of genius, to ensure success. This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast empire; that man, a brute.

The master and the workman have then here no similarity, and their differences increase every day. They are connected only like the two rings at the extremities of a long chain. Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?
But in a democracy where the poor may become rich and the rich may become poor, there is little social and cultural pressure on them since they are not a class in and of themselves. Again, from de Tocqueville,
The territorial aristocracy of former ages was either bound by law, or thought itself bound by usage, to come to the relief of its serving-men and to relieve their distress. But the manufacturing aristocracy of our age first impoverishes and debases the men who serve it and then abandons them to be supported by the charity of the public. This is a natural consequence of what has been said before. Between the workman and the master there are frequent relations, but no real association.While there have been periods when local manufacturing aristocracies in the US have created certain "usages" (e.g. the public works status markers of libraries, schools, etc pushed by the Carnagies, et alii), I suspect that Lou Dobbs would agree with most of what de Tocqueville said :wry:.

So, back to that question: who are the elites and why are they "elite"? Also, I would ask "What do the 'elites' owe to the State by virtue of their status as 'elites'?" I think this starts to touch on the other questions.

Back in the Roman Republic and, later,the Empire, there was a direct military responsibility of a member of the two "elite" classes to the state. This led to the development of the cursus honorum that was a very well laid out path, including military service, followed by elite children before they could gain any political office. As with the Brits post ECW, you had to prove that, at the individual level, you actually were 'better' (or at least met certain minimum standards).

One of the things that truly gets my goat these days is that the concept of the cursus honorum seems to be alive and well in the non-elite 'classes' of both Canada and the US, but pretty conspicuously absent from most of the 'elite' classes (with some notable exceptions). As Carl notes:


I think we (I say this as an always was civilian) will do whatever is asked of us. What we can't do is spontaneously and en-masse create a wise strategy and see it through. The elites are the ones who do that and they aren't up to it.

In a lot of ways, this strikes me as a generally valid observation and one that cuts to the core of the social contract that is the United States.

Marc

ps. I'll get out of lecture mode now :o

[Old Eagle]

As I mentioned before, regardless of any perceived benefits, universal conscription is not sustainable.

The last draft failed because the mode of "selection" in "selective service" was deemed grossly unfair. Mind you, this was a political/emotional judgement, not a quantifiable statistic. The only way to overcome this flaw is to have a lottery-type draft, redrawn every year, with almost ZERO exemptions. This will still not solve the male/female issue, but I don't want to go there.

A coupla us took the Army through the last transition and it was butt ugly. My first draft-age platoon contained one trooper with an MS in biology and another who functioned at the third grade level. The -10 manuals for his track meant nothing because he couldn't begin to understand the words, let alone the meaning. The remainder of the platoon fell somewhere in between on the spectrum. Communicating at a level that everyone understood and providing motivation that spanned that broad a spectrum was a huge challenge.

My post-draft platoon, which still had a coupla draftees, was much more homogenous, with most soldiers functioning at the 9-10th grade level. It was ugly for other reasons -- drugs, race problems, etc., but it was less of a leadership challenge in the long run.

By the time I commanded an infantry company, virtually all my soldiers were HS grads with high ASVAB scores. Several had a coupla years of college. Command was truly enjoyable by that time.

I would still like to see more inclusive public service programs, but primarily driven by mechanisms other than a draft.

[selil]

2 years minimum service, military or civil servant options, no public services unless the invidual or spouse serves.

[goesh]

The Public isn't much buying into the notion of military service and boots on the ground, regardless of mission and intent, regardless of COIN applications or more traditional operations. Send a robot, send a drone, you don't need me. This isn't as much an issue of personal will and character uniting and morphing into a collective mechanism of action as it is a philosophy of more high tech is better than more manpower. Go to any mall on any given Saturday and see the wonderous cell phones people have, then note that is all many of them have and ever will have.

[Rob Thornton]

Oringinally posted by Goesh
The Public isn't much buying into the notion of military service and boots on the ground, regardless of mission and intent, regardless of COIN applications or more traditional operations. Send a robot, send a drone, you don't need me. This isn't as much an issue of personal will and character uniting and morphing into a collective mechanism of action as it is a philosophy of more high tech is better than more manpower. Go to any mall on any given Saturday and see the wonderous cell phones people have, then note that is all many of them have and ever will have.

Goesh - you bring up some great questions about what motivates us and influences how public treasure is spent

How do you overcome the majority's (public) cultural predisposition in favor of the minority's (those wrestling directly with the COIN problems) perceived reality or human requirements?

Is this a failure of the military's and our political structure to inform the public of what is at risk? Most Americans under 40 cannot conceive of the burdens and problems lack of the current professional military and public servants would create - The closest things I can remember myself are the ATC strike under President Reagan and the Metro Police Department in Nashville - both back in the 80s.

Do we maintain current perceptions out of ignorance or for other reasons such as funding for systems which may influence political districts and Industry?

How would we change the dynamics and what is at risk?

Is our HR strategy reactive or proactive? Talking with RTK this morning and he told me about the 20 grand for CPTs over 3 but under 8 - which may have been timely 3 years ago, but now we have an 04 and 05 problem - In a COIN environment where experience and maturity matter a great deal - are we targeting the right folks - goes back to building a strategic HR plan that builds longevity not band-aids.

[Stan]

Hi Old Eagle !


A coupla us took the Army through the last transition and it was butt ugly. My first draft-age platoon contained one trooper with an MS in biology and another who functioned at the third grade level. The -10 manuals for his track meant nothing because he couldn't begin to understand the words, let alone the meaning. The remainder of the platoon fell somewhere in between on the spectrum. Communicating at a level that everyone understood and providing motivation that spanned that broad a spectrum was a huge challenge.


I totally agree. We need set standards, even for the draftees. My time in the 70's was horrific. Tests were based on D.C. 'standards' and a 70 percentile was barely 8th grade. They forced most in the 80s to retake the test and several ended up with lower scores than they had at basic service entry.
Still, that weeded out what would end up being needed to reduce the Army's overall end strength.

I indeed do not want to see gang members, drug and racial problems, so some means of setting the benchmark are in order, but bring on the draft anyway and let those folks see "independence at a price".

Regards, Stan

[goesh]

Mr. Thornton, I don't think the Public's perception alluded to in your first question can ever be altered. Even after 9/11, the will to fight wore off long before Iraq became the long term haul it is and we knew it would be. I think there is serious debate occuring in the upper echelons of the jihadist/AQ camp as to whether or not America even needs another 9/11 type attack. It's come down to that I'm afraid. There is an ancient fear over men of action taking control and remaining in control that keeps the Public on the curb waving flags on Memorial Day but prevents them from fully engaging with warriors once the parade is done. It simply is safer and easier to keep at a distance because civilization has about completely dulled the hunting instinct in human beings and technology enables that need. That's my 'long' view of it. Warriors pretty much exist to kill enemies and the view of warriors as other than that is a tough sell to the species in general. One would think the Liberal camp would embrace COIN but that is not the case.

I don't think the military is really capable of informing the Public of the need to commit and ultimately fight and impliment COIN and traditonal tactics because necessarily the need for death quickly rears its ugly head and technology instantly presents images of collateral damage and weeping civilians. How many mothers would literally shield the eyes of a child from the image of dead jihadis on tv, when indeed these same jihadis would slit the throats of their children? Who wants Sonny and Sissy to grow up to be hunters?

I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return. Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.

Your comment about people under 40 not realizing the necessity of government and defense is spot on but two things come to mind when the needs of dire necessity crop up and we are faced with bitter necessity. In the first flood I ever helped fight, I took my place in the sandbag line and when I turned to heave a bag into the arms of the person to my right, it was a scrawny woman. I said, "Where did you come from!?" and she responded, "I'm a Librarian" and she lasted in line almost as long as me. In the first brush fire I ever fought in, we were on the line doing what little we could with what little we had and all of a sudden this little kid comes running up with a damn squirt gun and starts squirting the flames. You should have heard the roars and cheers that went up on the line when he took his place with us. Somehow it's there when needed but don't ask me how.

[RTK]

I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return. Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.




Rob and I spent a good deal of time in the gym talking about this a few hours ago when we should have been getting in shape. :)

The problem, IMHO, isn't recruiting - It's retaining what we have. A year ago many of us saw our peers leaving in droves. The response of others who should have been in the know was something akin to Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing on the street corner shouting "All is well!"

We all knew better. Now it's a problem.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

You know, you remind me a lot of a good friend, drinking buddy and fellow PhD (12 years in the Canadian Navy). His nickname is "Crusty" :D.


There is an ancient fear over men of action taking control and remaining in control that keeps the Public on the curb waving flags on Memorial Day but prevents them from fully engaging with warriors once the parade is done.

Of course here is a fear of this happening! Societies controlled by their militaries have, historically, been amongst the most repressive, abusive and stagnant regimes in existence. At the same time, societies that do not have a fairly heavy component of ex-military people involved in their governance end up getting run over by barbarians, either internal or external.


It simply is safer and easier to keep at a distance because civilization has about completely dulled the hunting instinct in human beings and technology enables that need. That's my 'long' view of it. Warriors pretty much exist to kill enemies and the view of warriors as other than that is a tough sell to the species in general. One would think the Liberal camp would embrace COIN but that is not the case.

The Liberal camp, at least in it's US incarnation, is unlikely to embrace COIN unless it is "sold" to them as a moral imperative from a Liberal, ideological perspective. My wife, who describes herself as an old style, Yankee Democrat Liberal (and also says she would never have married me if she knew my political views beforehand :D) has come around to the point where she views COIN ops, and the current surge, as such a moral imperative. It's been an interesting transformation on her part...


I don't think the military is really capable of informing the Public of the need to commit and ultimately fight and impliment COIN and traditonal tactics...

I agree but, respectfully, why in the Hades is it the militaries responsibility to do so? This is supposed to be the job of the politicians and the press.


I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return.

I'd be interested in what you, and Rob, think about the Canadian Forces latest ad campaign (http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/home/home.aspx?bhcp=1). Personally, I think it's brilliant given the Canadian audience.


Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.

Gotta agree with that :D!


Your comment about people under 40 not realizing the necessity of government and defense is spot on but two things come to mind when the needs of dire necessity crop up and we are faced with bitter necessity....

I've seen similar things myself, and this is one of the reasons I am ore likely to say that the responsibility of getting the message out is the job of the politicians and the media, not the military. I must say, that I have been heartened immeasurably by a number of my students asking really hard hitting questions about the Long War (aka GWOT) and what they can do. Many of them are Left wingers, but they show a good an understanding of the corrosive effects on our society of a long, drawn out war and they want to limit those effects by winning the war.

Marc

[goesh]

Battle fatigue/shell shock/ PTSD is going to factor into attrition significantly in light of the active, 2 front war and all the negativity attached to it , for which in case of the latter factor the military doesn't traditionally have much defensive capability. I doubt a miraculous turnaround on either front would impact attrition either and you face a Congress whose political bent is historically stingy in giving warriors much money. Does this sense of urgency flow clearly to the top? I'm not sure if it does. Do you have Admin on the desks on the home front as gung-ho and as competent as General P. is in the field? God knows we civilians can't provide any assistance with that need for equitable balance. (Marct, I attempted to PM you about that canadian video but that probably didn't succeed either given my 1950s tech ability and hardware)

[goesh]

Is it my ethnocentrism or am I simply behind the times? I didn't see any .303s on that video!:p Very impressive ad, very creative - no wonder you Kanucks make such good allies. (you even have good hockey teams)

[Tom Odom]

Joe G's latest column:


COMMENTARY
Back Bush's war strategy? Then bring back the draft
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/galloway/17103049.htm)
McClatchy Newspapers

Here's a question for those who still support President Bush's strategy to stretch out the Iraq War until after he's left office, and for those who think we should be prepared to continue our bloody occupation of Iraq for five or 10 more years:

Are you ready to support reinstating Selective Service - the draft - even if that means your sons and daughters or your grandchildren will have to put on the uniform and go hold the cities and towns of a nation in the middle of a civil war?

Until now, the burden and sacrifices of military service in Afghanistan and Iraq have been borne by volunteers - young men and women who in large part hail from small towns and counties of our nation.

[Stan]

By Eric Lichtblau
Published: December 23, 2006

This report, albeit a tad vintage sounds more likely the case.
Probably should give the 34 year old system a spin, see if she works :D


WASHINGTON: As the de facto media contact for the Selective Service System, Dick Flahavan is the Maytag repairman of government press people. With the military draft out of business since 1973, the Selective Service just doesn't get a lot of calls these days.

But by midday Friday, Flahavan's office had fielded dozens of inquiries, not just from reporters but from some anxious parents as well, all with some variation of the same urgent question: Are you reinstituting the draft?


The exercise planned for 2009 would run computerized models to assign random lottery picks by birthday and simulate the processes for notifying those selected and for lodging conscientious objector claims.

Watch out Marc, the 'Dodgers' are comin' (back again) :eek:


Since the start of the war in Iraq, some Democrats and Internet bloggers have been stirring up talk of a "secret plan" by the Bush administration to resume the draft, and the mere mention of the idea summons Vietnam-era images of birthday-generated draft lotteries and draft evaders fleeing to Canada.

[marct]

Watch out Marc, the 'Dodgers' are comin' (back again) :eek:

Oh, Damn! Come on, Stan! We don't need these guys again - we already have way too many US servicemen attempting to claim "refugee status" because they are being deployed to Iraq. Let's swing a deal - we'll grant hem refugee status and then send them to Estonia for you to command :eek:.

Marc

[marct]

:p


Is it my ethnocentrism or am I simply behind the times? I didn't see any .303s on that video!:p Very impressive ad, very creative - no wonder you Kanucks make such good allies. (you even have good hockey teams)

Personally, I wish we still had the FN (my favorite was the FN-C3). One of the things I really like about the ad was how it tied "Liberal" values into serving in the Canadian Forces.

On the .303 issue, now, I personally, learned how to shoot with a .303 (okay, after graduating from popgun .22's). I like .303's, although I suspect that a .50 cal is probably better. Still and all, there's something about the range and stopping power that I really like. BTW, I learned how to shoot at summer camp when I was 9 - don't let the "kinder, gentler" propaganda influence you too much :D.

On hockey, let's agree to disagree - in advance :cool:. As a die hard Leafs fan who thinks he NHL has gone down the tubes since the recent (1972) expansion, let me just say that there is waaayyy tooooo much American influence in the game!!!!!

Marc

[RTK]

Oh, Damn! Come on, Stan! We don't need these guys again - we already have way too many US servicemen attempting to claim "refugee status" because they are being deployed to Iraq. Let's swing a deal - we'll grant hem refugee status and then send them to Estonia for you to command :eek:.

Marc

How about this: Grant them refugee status under the condition that they serve in the Canadian Army.

Then deploy their asses to Afghanistan. :D

[goesh]

(I hear you Marct on the .303 I dropped my first deer with one):)

[Stan]

RTK, Good idea:


How about this: Grant them refugee status under the condition that they serve in the Canadian Army.

Then deploy their asses to Afghanistan.

EOD and MDD slots recently became available in Afghanistan :D

[marct]

Hi RTK,


How about this: Grant them refugee status under the condition that they serve in the Canadian Army.

Then deploy their asses to Afghanistan. :D

Hmmm? Our very own Foreign Legion! Since this is Canada, we would have to make sure that hey were put in a position where they could act n keeping with our national ideals. Hmmm, how about deploying them in a Peace Keeping / Community Building role in North Waziristan :D.

Marc

[RTK]

Hi RTK,



Hmmm? Our very own Foreign Legion! Since this is Canada, we would have to make sure that hey were put in a position where they could act n keeping with our national ideals. Hmmm, how about deploying them in a Peace Keeping / Community Building role in North Waziristan :D.

Marc

Give them good practical experience in Northwest Territories.

[marct]

Give them good practical experience in Northwest Territories.

Well, we have been having a little spat with the Norwegians......

Marc

[Merv Benson]

Marc,

Just don't send them anywhere someone might have to count on them. I certainly would not want them "covering my back" in my unit. You have enough to worry about in a firefight without piling on concerns about a guy bugging out.

[SWJED]

30 April LA Times commentary - What War? (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson30apr30,0,7557486.column?coll=la-opinion-center) By Niall Ferguson.


It's a theme of nearly all the great post-Vietnam movies. In "Taxi Driver" and "The Deer Hunter," Robert De Niro plays a veteran who is dismayed, if not unhinged, by homecoming. From the mean streets of New York in the former to the Pennsylvania mining town in the latter, the folks back home just don't get it about the war.

I imagine that some American soldiers returning from tours of duty in Iraq might get an even stronger feeling of alienation if they were to visit, as I have in the last seven days, those quintessential American playgrounds, Las Vegas and Palm Beach. From the casinos of Nevada to the condos of Florida, the good times are rolling, regardless of events in the Middle East.

It's hard to believe, as you walk past the thronged roulette tables and inanely burbling slot machines of Vegas, that this is a country at war. As for that eye-catching billboard "For the Injured" on Interstate 95, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the war wounded of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It's just another ambulance-chasing lawyer, brazenly advertising his readiness to sue someone if you trip on the sidewalk.

At least vets who came back in the 1970s found that home was pretty messed up too. By contrast, those returning home today must feel like latecomers to a gold rush...

[tequila]

Sounds like our good friend Niall needs to restiffen his upper lip. I doubt the grandees of the Victorian era that Dr. Ferguson so romanticizes stopped their Grand Tours or gambling expeditions because a few regiments of sepoys and low-country scum were slaughtered at Maiwand or taken prisoner in Baghdad --- much less when a few million wogs starved to death in Mysore or Madras. Remount your pith helmet, Dr. Ferguson!

[MaxL]

The Liberal camp, at least in it's US incarnation, is unlikely to embrace COIN unless it is "sold" to them as a moral imperative from a Liberal, ideological perspective. My wife, who describes herself as an old style, Yankee Democrat Liberal (and also says she would never have married me if she knew my political views beforehand ) has come around to the point where she views COIN ops, and the current surge, as such a moral imperative. It's been an interesting transformation on her part...

Nail on the head. If one wants to enlist Liberal support for 'foreign adventures,' one needs to take the liberal view of the US into account. Chomsky, while, ah, problematic, illustrates this view (if only in its most extreme form) quite clearly; America is an imperial power, like all imperial powers America acts in ways which benefit itself.

Which might mean it would be a good idea to acknowledge up front--honestly--all the ways in which America might benefit from a given course of action, and making the argument that, nonetheless, it'll help the locals more than it hurts them, so it's the right thing to do. If true, it shouldn't be that hard to get the liberals on board.

Now, how that might help/hurt our standing with locals, I'm not sure.

[marct]

Hi Max,


Nail on the head. If one wants to enlist Liberal support for 'foreign adventures,' one needs to take the liberal view of the US into account. Chomsky, while, ah, problematic, illustrates this view (if only in its most extreme form) quite clearly; America is an imperial power, like all imperial powers America acts in ways which benefit itself.

I'm glad you put 'foreign adventures' in quotes :). I think that it is important for the US to be extremely careful in how it exercises its power. BTW, while I certainly do call the US an "imperial power" I tend to use it in the "real" meaning of the term "imperial" - i.e. "sphere of influence", rather than the monarchical overtones that got added on during the middle ages.


Which might mean it would be a good idea to acknowledge up front--honestly--all the ways in which America might benefit from a given course of action, and making the argument that, nonetheless, it'll help the locals more than it hurts them, so it's the right thing to do. If true, it shouldn't be that hard to get the liberals on board.

The use of moral imperatives as adjuncts and "grounds" for the exercise of imperial power are somewhat tricky. Britain used that strategy extensively in the 19th century, and the disjuncture between the moral strategy (unilinear evolution and the drive to "civilize" the world) and the political / military reality of WW I served as the base for the dissolution of the Empire in the 20th century. I've noted similar leit motifs in President Bush's speeches about Iraq, especially his simplistic "morality" equations, which I find very troubling. I think that a systematic comparison of the rhetoric and politics that led to the invasion of Afghanistan and that of Iraq show some basic differences that are worth examining.


Now, how that might help/hurt our standing with locals, I'm not sure.

As long as there is no major disjuncture between the rhetoric and the reality, it probably won't hurt. There is always a question of motives, and altruism is frequently considered to be BS.

Marc

[tequila]

An interesting article in the latest Military Review addressing this issue and arguing that democracies engaged in COIN should keep their military presence low in order to maintain public support, or at least disinterest, over the length of time necessary for COIN to succeed.

Discouraging Hearts and Minds: Democracies and Insurgencies (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/Claessen.pdf)- Maj. Erik Classen, Belgian Armed Forces

[Merv Benson]

An interesting article in the latest Military Review addressing this issue and arguing that democracies engaged in COIN should keep their military presence low in order to maintain public support, or at least disinterest, over the length of time necessary for COIN to succeed.

Discouraging Hearts and Minds: Democracies and Insurgencies (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/Claessen.pdf)- Maj. Erik Classen, Belgian Armed Forces

I haven't read the link, but I am curious whether they are favoring a small foot print strategy to maintain political support. If so, I believe Iraq may be an example of where their strategy did not maintain political support.

[tequila]

That is precisely what Maj. Classen is arguing. I think in his view the footprint in Iraqi is nowhere small enough for this to work - his model is more El Salvador and a strictly advisory capacity for COIN as opposed to the occupation in Iraq, which is currently consuming most of the Army and USMC's active duty combat forces.

Another example unmentioned by Classen (the article has some big flaws IMO, but makes an interesting argument) is KMAG from 1946-1950, which oversaw the creation of the ROK military and constabulary that successfully (and brutally) crushed the Communist insurgency in South Korea that occurred during that time. The best English-language reference for this time period is Allan R. Millett's A House Burning: The War for Korea 1945-1950 (http://www.amazon.com/War-Korea-1945-1950-Burning-Studies/dp/0700613935). An online talk by Professor Millett is archived by the Pritzker Military Library here (http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2005-10-13-allanMillett.jsp)and is quite good, as is most stuff by Prof. Millett.

[Tom Odom]

Thus, the key to maintaining resolve and preventing the insurgent from discouraging the electorate is to ensure that the conflict loses media traction. In theory, this is possible because the great majority of the electorate cannot or will not handle more than a few political issues at a time. If the media considers other issues more important than the counterinsurgency, then the problem is solved: issues dominate public attention, the counterinsurgency disappears from the political agenda, the electorate slips into indifference, and the government can sustain its resolve indefinitely. Of course, this scenario runs counter to the usual government reaction when popular support for the conflict decreases which is to start a media campaign to promote the counterinsurgency.

did this guy write the blog-gag?

I cannot help but feel a sense of deja vu, given that this author is Belgian. This policy was exactly how King Leopold managed to establish the Congo as his own private money-making venture and portray it as a charitable "loss" until Western authors--notably Conrad--exposed it for what it was.

As for the limit on troops in El Salvador limiting news coverage on the war there, he is in my opinion sorely mistaken because it did nothing of the sort. The news media was all over that story and it stayed that way. Bill Meara was there; he could comment on this one.

Best

Tom

[120mm]

did this guy write the blog-gag?

I cannot help but feel a sense of deja vu, given that this author is Belgian. This policy was exactly how King Leopold managed to establish the Congo as his own private money-making venture and portray it as a charitable "loss" until Western authors--notably Conrad--exposed it for what it was.

As for the limit on troops in El Salvador limiting news coverage on the war there, he is in my opinion sorely mistaken because it did nothing of the sort. The news media was all over that story and it stayed that way. Bill Meara was there; he could comment on this one.

Best

Tom

The media WAS all over that one, and the unwashed lefties WERE banging their silly drum outside the White House, but Joe Six-Pack didn't give a rip, (as I've said before, the electorate hates hippies) and in fact, the liberal hysteria over El Salvador and Nicaragua seemed to ADD to Reagan's reputation in the eyes of the electorate.

As long as the media cannot play off the conservative general dissatisfaction of lack of progress during COIN, shrill lefties don't have much traction in the US. No matter how much importance the media chooses to give to it.

[Schmedlap]

The poor support for the war on our home front and the difficulty that we have in recruiting an adequate number of qualified individuals is, in my opinion, a symptom of cultural decay. That is not an indictment of those who choose other ways to improve society. It is an assessment of the low number of people desiring to serve in the military, relative to the population of our nation, and the large number of people who actively seek to undermine our efforts.

There are many ways to serve society other than through military service. Unfortunately, many choose to avoid all of these options and go so far as to undermine our society. My impression is that the majority of those who are capable of service to society, but who choose not to serve, are physically weaker, mentally softer, more selfish, less educated, and increasingly see civil society as an obstacle to their goals of instant personal gratification, rather than as something that they are a part of and that they desire to serve. There is nothing for them to defend other than their own lot in life. I suspect that the detachment that many feel from civil society is a symptom of being less educated. Though more people today have more years of formal educational experience than at any time in our history, they are not receiving a liberal education that equips them with the knowledge and reasoning skills to make sense of the world around them. They either do not understand the benefits of our society or they see those benefits as an entitlement that they need not repay. Our culture, in general, also does little to instill a desire to serve. Fewer Americans are asking what they can do for their country because they are more focused on what their government will do for them.

In a time of war, one would expect that threats to our nation would preoccupy the citizenry more than usual and that more recruits would seek out the military services, rather than vice versa. Instead, recruitment has become more difficult and we have seen a large, shrill, anti-war network emerge and have its fringe views absorbed into the mainstream. Rather than recognizing a significant threat to our nation, they perceive our nation as an emerging threat to others. They lack the education to discern the moral difference between hijackers slamming a plane into the Twin Towers and an American aircraft accidentally bombing the wrong target and killing civilians.

Even among those who want us to prevail in Iraq, many buy into the well-crafted emotional arguments presented by the anti-war nuts. The rising toll of Americans killed in Iraq is seen as the measure of failure, rather than an unfortunate cost of war that tells nothing of the progress made in theater. Service members have been effectively portrayed in the media as incapable and helpless pawns, forced into service by dire economic circumstances and lack of opportunity, being mentally destroyed by the immorality of any war, but especially this one. Supporting the troops now means demanding our return because the assumption is that we are helpless fools being sent to our certain death for no reason. Mere ignorance is not a sufficient explanation for how a nation can be so thoroughly duped by such bankrupt arguments. That nation must also be morally corrupt to be able to view mortal combat as a simple numbers game lacking any context.

We have a cultural problem in America. That is why we are exerting so much thought and effort to treat its symptoms with larger bonuses, more benefits, fancier uniforms, more awards, and addressing the public outcry over demands placed upon our service members.

Perhaps my isolation from society after years of deployments and field problems, with the media being my conduit to American culture, has made me cynical. I hope that is the case.

Sorry if I rambled.

[goesh]

John Q Public hasn't a clue regarding the complexity of modern military forces and with such a simplistic view, the connotations of service become simplified and even mythical, i.e. it's all about marching and shooting, which most anyone can do. Then again, as technology mutates (upgrades) at an accelerated pace and becomes central to the very fabric of our lives, and human evolution continues at its snail pace, additional unrealistic expectations and understanding of the military manifest -the 'shock and awe' mindset takes center stage and otherwise intelligent people think a war can be won in a matter of weeks and months. Add to the mix the usual Leftist/socialist/anti-American agendas and it seems for all practical purposes that military service is becoming almost at thing of the past. In time of real need, they will come, our young men and women will step up to the plate and make the sacrifices to insure some semblance of national integrity. We see this every day in small ways but to those 'in the mix', it is not so readily apparent.

[wm]

Perhaps my isolation from society after years of deployments and field problems, with the media being my conduit to American culture, has made me cynical. I hope that is the case.

I suspect that the isolation gate swings both ways. Just as your view of American culture has been colored by its representation to you by the media, the view of most Americans in regard to their military's culture has been similarly colored by the media. I see it every day in my 10-year old's infatuation with things military due to thingsl like the Play Station games Call of Duty and Halo. He really doe not have a clue about the reality of the military life. I retired a few years before he was born. He has never even seen me in uniform much less had to have me out of his life for an extended period during a deployment. I am planning to bring him fon visits to the local VA hospitals to give him some insight into the kinds of sacrifices members of our military make for our country.

Distortion is involved on both sides. This is an unfortunate outcome of the "social distance" attendant on having a small all-volunteer standing military force.

Nonetheless I suspect that Goesh is is right when he said ,

In time of real need, they will come, our young men and women will step up to the plate and make the sacrifices to insure some semblance of national integrity. We see this every day in small ways but to those 'in the mix', it is not so readily apparent.

[Tacitus]

In time of real need, they will come, our young men and women will step up to the plate and make the sacrifices to insure some semblance of national integrity.

I agree with this statement. I don't know anybody who doesn't.

As near as I can tell, people just don't see the fate of our nation hinging on the outcome of this democracy project in Mesopotamia. Some people do think propping up the Maliki government and occupying Iraq indefinitely is the linchpin to our national security...some don't.

For those that don't, accusing them of hating America, being communists, rooting for the moral degradation of the country, being a 5th column for Al Qaeda, (feel free to fill in any other wild charge I have missed) is ineffective in changing minds because they do not see that as an accurate description of their own views, but just ad hominem.

[goesh]

"For those that don't, accusing them of hating America, being communists, rooting for the moral degradation of the country, being a 5th column for Al Qaeda, (feel free to fill in any other wild charge I have missed) is ineffective in changing minds because they do not see that as an accurate description of their own views, but just ad hominem." (tacitus)

As a former Hippy, I would have liked to have seen my former brethern at the top of the list when it comes to the moral degradation of the nation, but anyway, the polarity shifts radically to the Right when direct threats are perceived. I don't see either side ever being able to fully manipulate and control the definitions of what constitutes a real threat to the nation. It's hard to beat Western Democracy, literally and figuratively. In some mystical way, the average Commoner can perceive real threats and they go enlist. PacK instinct? Something to do with our canine teeth?