Ran across that article earlier and sniffed when I read it.
Re-read it and sniffed again. Minor political polemic couched as concern for the Army.
Desertion figures, as patmc says, prove little. As he implies, pursuing the few isn't perceived as worth the trouble and cost -- a minor contributor to schmedlaps astute observation that we have managed to incentivize irresponsibility. Some things are worth paying for even if big 'E' Economically unsound or inefficient.
His comment on marketing and recruiting is also apropos -- I contend that both are badly flawed and have been for over 30 years. Both still are using the WWI - interwar years - WW II, industrial models of trying to entice the low performers into the service because the high performers are 'better used elsewhere.' That's a recipe for mediocrity which we have continued to pursue against all logic. It is, criminally to my mind, an attitude that is espoused by the political leadership in both parties, by academia and -- wrongly -- accepted by the senior leadership of the Army. Low expectations will be met... :(
If the Army is to do what it needs to do then it must raise its sights and challenge people to prove they're good enough to hack it instead of luring loafers and convincing them they're adequate. That means higher standards, vastly improved entry training and less mickey mouse time wasting. It means not accepting mediocre performance. It means making the changes that a good many in the Army know need to be made. :mad:
We have a professional Army mired by draftee minded leadership, civilian and military -- and not at all helped by an incompetent and venal Congress.
That standard raising may be a bridge too far, sad to say -- it will certainly not sit well with those who insist on 'fairness' -- an absolutely ridiculous demand in view of the fact that life is not fair and combat surely is not...
Question: Bringing Back the Draft
Everyone and Anyone,
I am asking this question as a non-Military type.
I hear a great deal of discussion by "pundits" in the media about "National Service", which basically means bring back the draft. Let me state that I do not think this will happen, because it is politically impossible. When this issue is discussed I have notice a strange pattern - ex-Military types seem to oppose bring back the draft more then people who have only experience as civilians do.
I have heard a number of different proposals -
1. Bringing back a strictly military draft (seems to be the least favored by the chattering classes).
2. Having a National Service program like the Depression era - Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC). Either voluntary or mandatory.
3. Having a combination of #1 and #2, where you would be required to do service but could choose between the two options.
My questions are as follows -
Would bringing back the draft help out the issues discussed in the article?
Would it hurt?
Would brininging back some form of "National Service" help with the issues of narcissism discuss by other posters or would it just be the Government running people's live's for them?
What about my observation that former military seem to oppose the return of the draft more then civilians?
Currently, I am in the best-of-all learning situations - lots of questions and no answers. I want to get some input from people with real world experience.
Thank you for your input.
Here's a link to a Thread where the draft is discussed in some detail:
LINK
Go there and check down the thread, there are various answers to most of your questions. My opinions on your questions are below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Icebreaker
Everyone and Anyone,
I am asking this question as a non-Military type...I have heard a number of different proposals -
1. Bringing back a strictly military draft (seems to be the least favored by the chattering classes).
Least favored by almost everyone. Aside from the involuntary service issues, practically it would introduce more people than the Armed Forces Could absorb. The US has over 4M males and females reaching 19 each year; take just males and figure 75% could pass the physical exam; that would be 3M draftees alone in the Armed forces -- we do not need and could not equip and pay that many.
Quote:
2. Having a National Service program like the Depression era - Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC). Either voluntary or mandatory.
Favored by many who are too old to have to go...
Same problem applies, too many people, you couldn't exclude females in such a scheme, thus you'd have about 3M persons for a year. There isn't enough work out there to productively employ them for multiple years.
Quote:
3. Having a combination of #1 and #2, where you would be required to do service but could choose between the two options.
Aside from the equity problem, you still have more people than we are capable of productively employing.
Quote:
My questions are as follows -
Would bringing back the draft help out the issues discussed in the article?
Would it hurt?
Would brininging back some form of "National Service" help with the issues of narcissism discuss by other posters or would it just be the Government running people's live's for them?
What about my observation that former military seem to oppose the return of the draft more then civilians?
Thus my answers would be:
No, it would not help -- and most of those 'issues' are really non-issues; he smoke screened a political point, his last statement.
Yes, it would hurt for the reasons above and the next two items.
The latter, it would be major government intrusion for little to no benefit and would be very unlikely to cure narcissism -- might make it worse... :D
Current and former military folks are generally opposed due to the reasons I cited plus the fact that it would almost certainly be unfairly implemented and executed based on all previous experience and mostly due to the far more critical fact that todays technology and techniques require longer service to master than a Draft would offer. Armies are not good places for social engineering. High tech Armies are particularly unsuited for it...
Consider also that there's already a
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I'm in favor of a "national service" institution combining military and civil service. I think a fundamental part of the oft-cited narcissisism problem in the United States is the complete lack of a nationally-oriented experience and/or identity other than the Armed Forces. As far as Ken's argument regarding the complexity of warfighting, I put forward the idea that the combat arms branches remain exclusively voluntary in such a system.
morale and attitude problem in too many of the combat support and combat service support units for a variety of reasons, not least that they do a lot of hard and dirty work while getting little or no thanks -- and you want to add involuntary servitude to that? Sounds illogical to me.
I think your idea of volunteers only in combat arms would only exacerbate that. Not to mention that all the combat arms guys are now volunteers so what really changes?
I'd also suggest that narcissism is unlikely to countered by exposure to military service. I agree with you that in the US there is generally a lack of a nationally-oriented experience and/or identity but would suggest that isn't going to be changed by forcing teenagers to do something they'd rather not do. The teenage years are way past time for that problem to be addressed, that's a parent and elementary school thing; past ten years, you're pretty much wasting your time in that arena. The educational system in this country blew that in the late 50s in many but not all areas of the country due to a lot of silly social experimentation and it will not improve until that is rectified nationwide. Good luck with that...
The NKVD / MVD / KGB plan to soften us from within by fiddling with the educational system in fifteen year increments worked beyond their wildest dreams...:wry:
Added: Okay, so U Boat can type faster and is less wordy than I am; so what... :D
Try one and then make up your mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I'm not entirely convinced that a conscript force is inherently inferior to volunteer a force...
No one said that -- though having been in one many moons ago, I'm personally convinced that a force with conscripted troops will be less effective because in a democracy, politically it must be treated differently than a volunteer force. That different treatment means less adequate training (Mothers get upset when their kids get hurt -- they really get upset when their kid is someplace he or she doesn't want to be). There are other differences, including the time available constraint and equipment costs that were mentioned.
Quote:
...or that conscription (used broadly) is politically impossible.
Nothing is impossible, many things can be difficult. See below.
Quote:
...In a rough, 30-second mental review of military history, the Vietnam picture of conscription's effectiveness seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
What picture re: Viet Nam. Draftees did okay there, a large number did great. The problem with the Draft in Viet Nam was domestic, not combat related. The Draft was capable of producing far more people than were needed, thus a lottery and the unfairness of that and the deferment process. That and a generation of kids that were being told for the first time in their lives they had to do something they didn't want to do -- so they rebelled. Those were the Draft problems then, not performance.
Quote:
...Mobilization begins at the top. What is the policy? What is the required capability and manpower? Where can those resources be found? Importantly, what powers are necessary to bring those resources together? Money, people, equipment, etc can always be found, whether through requisition, creation, production, or outright seizure -- it's just a matter of finding that particular political arrangement that has sufficient viability to sustain it. There's some truth to Napoleon's words that "men will fight for a little piece of ribbon". Even "mediocre, irresponsible, selfish, and immoral" people can shoot rifles -- as long as they're shooting at the people we want dead, I'm not particularly concerned.
All true, sort of. But...
Quote:
So I don't think a national service program is unsustainable, only that it requires a great national exertion to change from the status quo. What may not be possible is finding a competent, unitary, and effective political authority capable of creating that policy for the right time and place.
That's the problem, isn't it?
As I said, nothing is impossible; many things are difficult -- and you just summed up the National Service difficulty. I also note you caveat with the right time and place. Do you have a recommended solution? Do you think it's needed at this 'time and place?'
Quote:
I think this is the most important question: is a "perpetual" war on terrorism a consequence of policy or is our policy a consequence of the enduring nature of the war?
Aside from the fact that has little or nothing to do with National service, I suspect the answer to that question varies greatly between individuals. IMO, there is no perpetual war but the current lengthy effort, more than a war as it involves US Law Enforcement and financial clout operating worldwide and out of media sight, was certainly begun due to policy failures.
Specifically, the failure of four administrations from both parties to realize that probing attacks from the Middle East over 22 years needed to be met far more forcefully lest they encourage escalation by the denizens of the ME who do not wish the west or the US well.
So I say the war is a consequence of policy failure by four Presidents from both parties and the current policy is an attempt to rectify that abysmal failure.