'America's Broken Army' NPR Series. Cavguy makes COL Gentile proud ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Actually it was the populace as well. The military never really occupied a position of respect in this country until the 20th century. It was viewed throughout the 1800s as a refuge for drunkards, unemployable dullards, and foreigners looking to learn English...

---

was the real issue. That was the realm of the Congress.

What you say is true but that enlisted population constitution was as much or more a result of the extremely low wages paid as anything else, that and the tendency of older communities to shun newer communities of immigrants. You get what you pay for was as or more true then than it is today. The popular attitude was due to the perceived quality of the troops, a quality directly attributable to what it was paid...

Witness today. The combat arms are enlisting better than average quality in all aspects young men and women from the middle classes from all across the US. That's because we now pay a sensible wage. That also attracts larger than normal quantities of immigrants from newer communities.

Not that the current great quality is treated much better by many in as well as outside the services than were their 19th and early 20th century counterparts...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

I would also question the long-term impact of citizen-soldiers who step into leadership positions after their term expired. Historically some of the biggest opponents to a standing force, and indeed good training and equipment for that force, were those same volunteers/draftees who later rose to political prominence. And if you think the officer corps is political now, you should look back through some of the stuff they were writing in the 1880s or so.

---

Very true. Many World War II graduates in positions of civil leadership also did not do anyone any favors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

What you say is true but that enlisted population constitution was as much or more a result of the extremely low wages paid as anything else, that and the tendency of older communities to shun newer communities of immigrants. You get what you pay for was as or more true then than it is today. The popular attitude was due to the perceived quality of the troops, a quality directly attributable to what it was paid...

---

And now that I've managed to wander us into a tangent....:D

The pay issue was certainly true in the period after 1900, but prior to that it wasn't as bad as one might think (not great, but it compared reasonably well with some other common wages of the time). There were men who enlisted because the pay was better than what they could make as a day laborer, and as always the quality went up when the economy went down, but the majority of the information I've looked at cited the low social status of the regular soldier as being more of a deterrent to qualified applicants than the low pay ("Soldier soldier will you work? No indeed I'll sell my shirt" was a line from a ditty of the time-roughly post Civil War-that reflected popular sentiment rather well) . The immigrant communities most common in the army throughout this period were the Irish and the Germans; and the Germans tended to enlist because they had often been in one of the many small German state armies before coming to the US. The Irish are an interesting story in and of themselves, but I won't divert the thread any more than I already have. I promise....:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I would also question the long-term impact of citizen-soldiers who step into leadership positions after their term expired. Historically some of the biggest opponents to a standing force, and indeed good training and equipment for that force, were those same volunteers/draftees who later rose to political prominence. And if you think the officer corps is political now, you should look back through some of the stuff they were writing in the 1880s or so.

---

I don't know, just to name a few:

• George Washington - LTC of Militia French and Indian War
• Abe Lincoln- Captain of Volunteers, Blackhawk Indian War
• Andrew Jackson - General of Volunteers, rivermen and pirates, War of 1812
• Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, etc: JOs in WWII
• Truman: Missouri NG FA Battery CDR, WWI

Obviously these are just a few, it was such a part of the fabric of our culture that virtually every President either served in war as a young man, or was a General coming off off a big victory.


My point is not that we don't need a big army though. If we keep the mission what it is now the Army needs to be even bigger. My point is that we should not see having a large standing army as being mandatory. We need to conduct a major review of all of our foreign policy tools, policies, and institutions in the context of a National Grand Strategy for how we move forward from where we are right now. Once we have a strategy and that review, the size and role of the Army and all of DoD need to be on the table just like everything else.

As many have stated, the Army is doing a lot of things that aren't very "Army-like," and that detract from the ability to train and equip for "Army" missions. Until we create new organizations to do those things, the Army will remain the catch-all.

So here is my question: If it comes down to a choice of an Army half the current size that just focuses on war fighting, with the creation of a new organization that does nation building; or keeping the Army the current size with the current full range of missions, which one will the boys in the Pentagon sign up for??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

...My point is that we should not see having a large standing army as being mandatory.

---

I'm not sure that everyone does see that, certainly some do but I think there are more that do not see it as desirable, much less mandatory. I do think a good many see it as an unavoidable necessity at this time.

Quote:

---

We need to conduct a major review of all of our foreign policy tools, policies, and institutions in the context of a National Grand Strategy for how we move forward from where we are right now. Once we have a strategy and that review, the size and role of the Army and all of DoD need to be on the table just like everything else.

---

Ideally you're correct, practically speaking, I believe it highly unlikely anything along that line will occur. If it should, it won't last. Our governmental system with potentially major changes every two years and almost certainly every four or eight years won't support such continuity of purpose. There are many myths that say we did that -- exercise continuity of purpose -- during the Cold War but they are not true. Each new administration brought major changes. We have one abiding strategic interest which does carry forward with every governmental change -- we do not tolerate threats. I think that's adequate, not great -- but adequate.

Quote:

---

As many have stated, the Army is doing a lot of things that aren't very "Army-like," and that detract from the ability to train and equip for "Army" missions. Until we create new organizations to do those things, the Army will remain the catch-all.

---

"Many" should read or recall more history. The US Army has done that for all of my lifetime; for all it's lifetime, in fact (and as do Armies in other nations). See the Corps of Engineers history and their Locks, Lakes and Dams for a small example. Think Lewis and Clark, roadbuilding in the early US, schoolteaching in the Philippines in the early 20th century, the CCC, McNamara's Project 100,000, Northern Watch and the Kurds to Guam, Kosovo...

Quote:

---

So here is my question: If it comes down to a choice of an Army half the current size that just focuses on war fighting, with the creation of a new organization that does nation building; or keeping the Army the current size with the current full range of missions, which one will the boys in the Pentagon sign up for??

---

The latter because the former is totally lacking in flexibility, effectively locks the US into a strategy that hews to 'nation building' which generally is NOT in our interest and which we should avoid to the extent we are able and the boys in the Pentagon know that (well, most of 'em anyway) -- it's for those reasons and not just because the latter is the status quo, provides for a larger budget, keeps control in the hands of DoD and does not adversely impact warfighting capability though those factors also count. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Don't forget these favorites:
--Misinterpret higher headquarters tasker, thereby doubling required workload
--12 hour run with hair on fire in response to above tasker
--Submit/Resubmit staff coordination/decision packet (at least 5 reps, usually with two reconsiderations of non-concurrence by the same office for failing to change "happy" to "glad"
--distill 50 pages of text into 3 bullet .PPT slide for 30 second podium "bob and weave."

---

Very good gents.

And my other mandatory events:

-making mountains out of molehills
-running around in circles
-digging yourself in deeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'm not sure that everyone does see that, certainly some do but I think there are more that do not see it as desirable, much less mandatory. I do think a good many see it as an unavoidable necessity at this time.Ideally you're correct, practically speaking, I believe it highly unlikely anything along that line will occur. If it should, it won't last. Our governmental system with potentially major changes every two years and almost certainly every four or eight years won't support such continuity of purpose. There are many myths that say we did that -- exercise continuity of purpose -- during the Cold War but they are not true. Each new administration brought major changes. We have one abiding strategic interest which does carry forward with every governmental change -- we do not tolerate threats. I think that's adequate, not great -- but adequate."Many" should read or recall more history. The US Army has done that for all of my lifetime; for all it's lifetime, in fact (and as do Armies in other nations). See the Corps of Engineers history and their Locks, Lakes and Dams for a small example. Think Lewis and Clark, roadbuilding in the early US, schoolteaching in the Philippines in the early 20th century, the CCC, McNamara's Project 100,000, Northern Watch and the Kurds to Guam, Kosovo...The latter because the former is totally lacking in flexibility, effectively locks the US into a strategy that hews to 'nation building' which generally is NOT in our interest and which we should avoid to the extent we are able and the boys in the Pentagon know that (well, most of 'em anyway) -- it's for those reasons and not just because the latter is the status quo, provides for a larger budget, keeps control in the hands of DoD and does not adversely impact warfighting capability though those factors also count. ;)

---

"Unavoidable Necessity" Roger that. The US Founding Fathers of course hated the idea of standing armies. Bear in mind of course that the "State Militias", to use the old verbage, have proven invaluable to the Federal Government goals of late also.

I must disagree with the sometime prevalent NPR aired attitude of anti-militarism, i.e. the Army is brutish, broken and banal to broader bliss. Generally NPR and the MSM in sum doesn't give the same degree of scrutiny to their "illuminated" pacificts, Global-Communists & sputnicks who have been entrenched over at State for decades now. GEN Powell, I believe, realised too late that he should've started from scratch because America, as it turns out, doesn't have a foreign policy other than the one that comes in the mail every month from the CFR...America, as it were, has a "globalist policy" and her people never consented for that.

James Mattoon Scott :wry:

Increasing the Armed Forces is necessary today in light of our large commitments and the stress they put on the members of those forces. Now there are those who maintain that maintaining a large "army" poses a threat to the republic. Yet for every Scott there are more 'Jiggs' Caseys around. :D

As Ken has pointed our military was larger during the 60's and 70's and there were no hints of a coup. Even in 1949 the "Revolt of the Admirals" was entirely political and there was never a hint of a military coup, and the actions of Louis Johnson would have done so in some other countries.

The Founding Fathers were rightfully leery of standing armies in their era, because then the army and navy were solely property of the monarch. Thus much easier to be used against an unruly populace or turn against their master (see France 1789). Our republic has matured much in the last couple centuries to where the maintanence of both a good sized armed force, both active and reserve, can be safely done. Yes it bears watching but isn't that what Congress is for? Then again quis custodiet ipsos custodes?