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.
Could you provide a basis for this thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I think it will be the right time and place in 4 - 8 more years, should the 'long war' continue.
Should the long war continue, the issue of National service and thus a military Draft will solve precisely what problem in that 'war?'
I place 'war' in quotes because as I indicated, I think this is at the same time less than a war and more than one -- it is not a war, it is an ethnic conflict with worldwide intelligence, military and law enforcement ramifications induced by the appeasement oriented western civilizations tolerance of some pushy and fanatic purported Islamists during the period 1972-2001. If you have not yet read it, I suggest you obtain access to a copy of the Nixon commissioned Global Terrorism report produced in 1976 and as a result of the attack in Munich in 1972 - LINK.
Your desire for a Draft to me indicates a need for mass; the only major military advantage conscription offers. What do you propose to use that mass for?
Quote:
Hence my question of: "is a "perpetual" war on terrorism a consequence of policy or is our policy a consequence of the enduring nature of the war?" IIt seems to me that as expensive as a perpetual war and national service may be, if it is a consequence of policy, then we have the option to change the policy in anticipation of the discussed problems. If, however, the perpetual war is imposed upon us, then what other choice do we have than to sustain the conflict?
I think 'perpetual' is a quite significant over statement and would submit that even if true, adding to the cost of said 'war' by going to an unnecessary added expense of conscription that will produce a large quantity of military personnel that are not needed is somewhat counterproductive.
Quote:
True. That is why I suggested that in a national service institution, the combat arms be reserved for volunteers only.
Said combat arms are already served by volunteers -- what would you use the rest of the conscripted persons for?
Quote:
The resources are there. It's a problem of distribution and use. It would require the federal government to reassert its power over the monetary system.
Perhaps, the issue is whether that's the best use of resources and if so why. To my knowledge, you have not yet explained why national service is a good idea in practical versus esoteric and idealistic terms.
Quote:
That's a failure of leadership to define the enemy. That's a problem of context, and not of national service itself.
Not totally true. WW II conscripts served for the duration plus 6 months in a somewhat existential (certainly large and all encompassing by any definition) war. That aided in the development of military and battlefield competence significantly and there was little difference discernible in those area between draftees and regulars at the end of the war.
Since then, there has been no need for such harsh terms of service and the politicians left the two year, peacetime draft term in place. Can you provide any reason why they should not have done so?
Quote:
I agree. Necessity is the last and strongest weapon. Under what conditions become necessary?
Fair question. Barring a significant miscalculation by one nation or another, a very slim possibility, I can foresee no conditions in this effort that would provide such necessity. You apparently do see such a necessity or possibility if not a probability; could I ask what, precisely, that is?
Tom is correct in that the times we had a Draft
it served us well and the guys who got drafted mostly did their thing and did it well. There is no other way to get a large mass -- if that is militarily required -- of people into the fight.
Having said that and having lived around the Navy and Marines from 1932 until 1940 and from 1946 until 1950 with no draft and recalling not only service but civilian and national attitudes, Steve is also correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
Actually the draft wasn't at all possible prior to 1914 or so, due in no small part to the furor caused by the riots during the Civil War. There was a lingering faith in the power of state volunteer units (and later the National Guard) to augment forces (in fact it was state troops and special volunteers that filled the ranks during the Spanish-American War).
I'd submit it was also not possible between the world wars; post WW II the Cold War -- and the way it was couched to the nation and the bi-partisan effort that it became -- made it possible until Viet Nam showed the political (NOT military) fallacy of the concept in less than major existential war in a democracy.
Quote:
I think you need to look deeper than the threat of the draft to the main causes for such 'volunteerism' (and mostly in state or special units...the Regulars usually remained understrength). The sense of Manifest Destiny, though mocked today, was still strong then. It was more of a social calling, combined with the 'thrill' of experiencing conflict.
Exactly; I'm old, I can remember the US before the mantra of big government and dependency on the government (and thus an attitude of "it's not my yob...") became prevalent. Today's lack of involvement and interest in the Armed forces is fault of said Armed Forces as well as of sweeping general and not always beneficial societal change. If the Armed Forces were smart, they'd have an outreach program that relied on the Reserve Components -- but that would mean giving them another mission, more money and some clout and thus is unlikely... ;)
Quote:
Points to consider, at least. I've never quite bought into the draft as being either a natural state for the United States or that it was really a good motivator for service. The historical record seems to suggest strongly that there are other factors at work.
Agree strongly. The myth of 'national service' of some sort sounds good to some -- it does not sound at all good to others and its record world wide is mixed at best. Here, it has not fared well and is highly unlikely to do so. A draft is an effective military tool when needed; the rest of the time its better left alone as it creates more problems than it solves. It emphatically will not convince the majority of teenagers to be good citizens (said as a guy who's raised four of 'em who finally outgrew their teenage insouciance -- though I have not outgrwon mine... :D).
National Service Should Bring Rewards For A Lifetime
A national program, intended to encourage young people (say, 2 years' time between the ages of 18 and 27) to spend a period of their lives, that is devoted to the service of their country, is a good and wholesome thing; but I don't believe that it should be mandatory, especially in a Democracy. If the rewards for national service were tangible, and were of the kind that would continue to reward over the course of a lifetime, there should be plenty of volunteers for such service, even in a time of war.
What I have in mind is an "Affimative Action"-type program. "Veterans" of such service should be placed at the top of every list for positions within the Federal Government, including for politically-appointed positions. Further, there should critical review of staffing, and should be adverse consequences to the head of any department or to the elected official, whose proportion of personnel who have served in such a way, is below average.
If such a program/affirmative action plan could be enacted, I imagine that a significant number of the graduates of the finest schools, as well as most of those with political ambitions, will see national service as an increasingly attractive way to start their careers. It would be up to the Federal Government to apportion these volunteers according to the needs of the country. In times of war, the military could lay claim to a larger portion of these volunteers than would be needed when there is no conflict. Yet, because of the unique appeal of military service, there should be plenty of youths pereferring to serve in uniform rather than to serve as social workers.
I do not agree with or support National Service
but I could agree with that. Not could -- Do agree. Good idea.
Where do I sign?