Volunteers!!

[Bob's World]

They were first to mobilize.

They captured the critical Pacific island of Guam with it's protected deep water port.

They accepted the surrender of the Spanish Garrison in Manila.

They were on average: "25 years old, 5 feet 8 inches tall, and weighed 148 pounds. Most were single; fewer than ten percent had graduated from college. Their professions were quite varied; many were farmers, but more were clerks, students, or laborers. Fewer than half were members of a church."

They earned three Medals of Honor.

They were highly regarded by the Regular Army Generals appointed over them:

General General Wheaton at Malabon March 25th was asked "Where are your regulars"? Pointing to the Oregons then advancing on the first entrenchment he replied, "There are my regulars"!!

Again at Malinta March fith the General said "Orderly overtake those Oregon greyhounds on the road to Polo and order them to Malinta. Go mounted or you will never catch them"!

http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonh...ED1FECDEC4E121

http://books.google.com/books?id=yUw...nteers&f=false

There is a legend that lives among our military forces today that only regular army forces can fight wars. This is completely contrary to the history of our nation. Offered here is but one small example of how the American militia has stepped up in time of need to serve the nation, providing the time and space to allow the regular force to prepare for war.

[Varity]

There is a legend that lives among our military forces today that only regular army forces can fight wars. This is completely contrary to the history of our nation. Offered here is but one small example of how the American militia has stepped up in time of need to serve the nation, providing the time and space to allow the regular force to prepare for war.

One question. What militias do we have today other than of course, groups like the Michigan Militia?

I think it would be hard to go back to the old "well-regulated militia" paradigm, because our culture and even the meaning of the word militia has changed so much. Who would even join a militia when they could join the regular army?

[Ken White]

In every war, they have also introduced innovative thinking, new and better ways of doing things and changed a rather hide bound regular force for the better. The longer we have gone without such infusions, the more stultified the regular force has become. For an example, see the period 1953-2001.

[Bob's World]

One question. What militias do we have today other than of course, groups like the Michigan Militia?

I think it would be hard to go back to the old "well-regulated militia" paradigm, because our culture and even the meaning of the word militia has changed so much. Who would even join a militia when they could join the regular army?

These men were mostly members of the Oregon National Guard, and volunteered for wartime service when the call went out.

Similarly, on 15 September 1940 the 162nd Infantry of 41st Division mobilized and boarded the train up to Fort Lewis Washington. They were aboard the fleet that sailed from New York, splitting underway, with half heading to North Africa and the other half going through the Panama Canal and to Australia. The 41st is credited with killing more Japanese soldiers than any other division serving in the Pacific, and was one of the first American Divisions to deploy for WWII and one of the last to return. They had served in France in WWI as well, but did not fight under their division patch guide-on and patch in that campaign.

"Militia" is a term that has fallen to hard times of late. Our fear of militias in Afghanistan led us to avoid the obvious security solution of building locally recruited and employed security forces answering to District and Provincial governors. Instead we have been on a 11 year effort of attempting to create an Afghan National Army, a force that answers to the central government for the sole purpose of preserving the central government.


So long as we protect the 2nd Amendment we will have a "militia" in the US. Not "well regulated" to be sure, but one very deadly force that keeps our current government in check, and that deters any foreign force from even dreaming of invading us.

[JMA]

In every war, they have also introduced innovative thinking, new and better ways of doing things and changed a rather hide bound regular force for the better. The longer we have gone without such infusions, the more stultified the regular force has become. For an example, see the period 1953-2001.

These infusions seem to have a merely temporary positive effect before in the immediate post-war period the same bunch of garra-troopers (or their clones) emerge and bring the army back to some real soldiering.

From Lord Moran's "The Anatomy of Courage" written six-months after the Armistice:

The clear, war-given insight into the essence of a man has already grown dim. With the coming of peace we have gone back to those comfortable doctrines that some had thought war had killed. Cleverness has come into its own again. The men who won the war never left England; that was where really clever people were most useful. I sometimes wonder what some of those good souls who came through make of it all. They remember that in the life of the trenches a few simple demands were made of all men; if they were not met the defaulter became an outlaw. Do they ask of themselves when they meet the successful of the present how such men would have fared in that other time where success in life had seemed a mirage? Are they silently in their hearts making those measurements of men which they learnt when there was work afoot that was a man’s work? They know a man, for reasons which they are too inarticulate to explain, and they are baffled because others deny what seems to them so simple and so sure.

Of course this quote is more than the military reverting to type immediately after a war. In the current circumstances where relatively small percentages of the forces are deployed a long way from home it is a relatively simple matter for the garra-troopers to ring fence and protect their territory from war learned changes and progress. I wonder how many times modern returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been admonished (or worse) to remember that they are not in Iraq/Afghanistan anymore and they need to get back to 'real' soldiering?

Further, I share his concern for the qualities of the "successful of the present". With the return to the pre-war selection processes nothing changes at officer or enlisted levels. There is no hope.

[Varity]

"Militia" is a term that has fallen to hard times of late. Our fear of militias in Afghanistan led us to avoid the obvious security solution of building locally recruited and employed security forces answering to District and Provincial governors. Instead we have been on a 11 year effort of attempting to create an Afghan National Army, a force that answers to the central government for the sole purpose of preserving the central government.

I would argue that the fear of militias in the US originated from the radicalization of American militias that ended in the Oklahoma City Bombings (though domestic terrorism is not over yet...).

So long as we protect the 2nd Amendment we will have a "militia" in the US. Not "well regulated" to be sure, but one very deadly force that keeps our current government in check, and that deters any foreign force from even dreaming of invading us.

But we don't have militias today, meaning right now in 2012, as far as I know (again, not counting right wing extremist paramilitary "militias"), do we? The second amendment says a militia is good, but does not say we must have one. It simply says we have the right to keep and bear arms, whether we're in a militia or not.

[wm]

Yes, Varity, there is a militia.

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

At least one state that I know of, New Mexico, also refers to its militia in its state constitution:

Sectuion 1. The Militia of this State shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this State.
The organized Militia shall be called the "National Guard of New Mexico," of which the Governor shall be the Commander in Chief.
Section 2. The Legislature shall provide for the organization, discipline and equipment of the Militia, which shall conform as nearly as practicable to the organization, discipline and equipment of the Regular Army of the United States, and shall provide for the maintenance thereof.

[Bob's World]

"militia" is a term that has been hi-jacked by several groups of disgruntled wantabes who spend their weekends camping out with their buddies, dressing in camo and playing with rediculous weapons (If America was ever invaded by a professional army, I figure I could take my Ruger 10-22 I bought as a kid and have all the military weapons I needed in short order. Not because I'm John Rambo, but just because it isn't that hard to isolate some REMF and take his gear.)

As to the existence of formal militias that are not part of the federally supported National Guard, I know Oregon has one, and I suspect many other states do as well.

When the Constitution was written it had been the law of the land for nearly 200 years that every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 (or there abouts) was required to be a member of the militia and to bring his own firearm. While this is no longer the case, America is still a land with a large armed male populace that would respond as irregulars if we were ever invaded, and that steps forward to voluteer or fill draftee ranks in times of war. Do we need a more formal system? Probably not. But don't let those who have hi-jacked the term of late lead you to believe that that is what a militia truly is all about.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob

Offered here is but one small example of how the American militia has stepped up in time of need to serve the nation, providing the time and space to allow the regular force to prepare for war.

So true if you go want to go back 60 plus years in our history. Fortunately we now have a standing professional Army ready to answer our nation's call to arms, while the NG generally remains in a state of partial readiness. Now the Active Component will hold the line while the NG works off the effect of too many twinkees and lattes, and industry produces enough military kit to equip them thus enabling them to deploy and be combat effective.

The million dollar question (perhaps the trillion dollar question) is how big does the AC need to be to hold the line?

I understand what you're saying and I know you are chumming the waters hoping I would take the bait, and of course having a pea sized brain, and a body designed for killing I couldn't resist the temptation.

I think that you're proposing is standing our current process on its head by increasing the readiness of the NG and decreasing the readiness of the Active Component by downsizing it, and then assuming we can expand the AC rapidly if required during a time of crisis. Did I get it right?

In hindsight, this may be feasible and even desirable, but I suspect that in this day and age this will only brief well, but in practice won't work due to changes in our culture, industrial base, complex skills required for a high tech military, etc. I always play counterpoint to your arguments (even when I agree with you on rare occassions ) because it is fun, but in all seriousness I think there are serious risks with this course of action.

By the way where do the reserves fit into all of this? Add a layer of fidelity to your proposal and in broad terms describe the roles of the NG, AR, and AC (Army and other services' reserves) and how this would actually work in say 2020, not 1942.

[davidbfpo]

There was a thread on State Militia organisations way-back, but searching failed to find it. Clearly my searching skills need an update.

[carl]

Bob Jones:

I am so glad you brought this up. This is something that we used to do in every war until I believe we gave it up in WWI-volunteer units recruited for the duration of the war. I think that is how we came up with most of the manning for all our wars up to then. There were even volunteer units dispatched to the Philippines to deal with the Insurrection.

I think it a great way to connect the population of the country with the war effort and the military without having to maintain a draft. Perhaps it can be a way to deal with unforeseen conflicts without having to maintain so large a standing force as we have now. It can be a political brake on adventurism in that if an effort were so unpopular that sufficient volunteers couldn't be raised, that is a pretty good sign that maybe it is inadvisable. It might also concentrate the thinking of the powers that be when they first engage in something. Volunteers signed up to do a specific job and open ended efforts with no clear idea of how to do it would not be popular.

I am talking about volunteer units, not mobilized NG or Reserve units. These units would be raised to be used for a pretty specific purpose and place. An advantage now (or say in 2002 or 2003) would be that volunteers would know what they were getting into, a small war with all the frustrations and ambiguities that entails, and they would be ok with that or they wouldn't volunteer.

I see many advantages in this arrangement except for 2 things. The first and most important is the military personnel system would have a kiniption if it was forced to deal with this and would fight it with all its might. The second is people would think it strange because we haven't done anything like this for a century. The second thing could be overcome, the first, probably not.

[JMA]

I am talking about volunteer units, not mobilized NG or Reserve units. These units would be raised to be used for a pretty specific purpose and place.

... and how long would it take from the decision to raise these volunteer unit(s) until they were battle ready?

[carl]

JMA:

With your particular experience you would be a much better judge of that than I. We could go back and look at American history and see how quickly units could be got up to speed depending on the type of unit and the quality of the leadership, but all of that would be over 100 years old.

I was thinking after I wrote that that the units in your war may have been pretty close to what we used to do so long ago. For example, Grey's Scouts (of which I only know a little about) seemed to have been a unit raised in the war for a particular purpose.

[JMA]

JMA:

With your particular experience you would be a much better judge of that than I. We could go back and look at American history and see how quickly units could be got up to speed depending on the type of unit and the quality of the leadership, but all of that would be over 100 years old.

I was thinking after I wrote that that the units in your war may have been pretty close to what we used to do so long ago. For example, Grey's Scouts (of which I only know a little about) seemed to have been a unit raised in the war for a particular purpose.

Bill Moore hints at the problem (above) with: "... complex skills required for a high tech military..."

Carl sometime ago in another thread I referred to a little booklet (available through the Marine Corps Association) titled "Battle Leadership" by the German, Adolf von Schell. Von Schell attended The Infantry School, Fort Benning in 1930-31 and noted in Chapter IX that because an invasion of the US was unlikely the US could prepare for war and choose to enter into it at a time of its choosing. It would follow that a 'quick' response would be out of the question unless there was a standing army in a battle ready state.

A totally 'scratch' unit would be out of the question because of the skills and experience required up the rank structure. For example your battalion commander would require 15-20 years service as would your top unit NCOs with the requirement for the company commanders (Brit system) being ten years and the platoon sergeants between 7-10 years and the section/squad NCOs at 3-7 years. Troopies you can do in 20 weeks IF you have the Officers and NCOs - against the above criteria - to command them. Officers at platoon commander level can be produced under the "90-day Wonder" regime at a pinch.

So what am I saying... if you have the command and leadership cadre in place you can possibly ship a newly trained battalion off to war in six months.

If you don't have the trained cadre then quite frankly I can't see how it could be done.

As far as the Grey's Scouts were concerned as a mounted infantry unit they drew their cadre from volunteers from across the army. I would think that in the US such a unit could be put together in a jiffy with the fully infantry trained manpower requiring only the 'mounted' aspect of training to be added... and the horses of course.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

Actually I started this thread primarily as a tip of the hat to an obscure, but distinguished unit. (But I'm not surprised to see you jump in. ;-)

But yes, I am also a proponent for having a peacetime army in times of peace, and only having a wartime army in times of war. Currently we are excessively engaged in conflicts of choice, but we are not a nation at war. One reason we are so excessively engaged in these conflicts of choice is because with a warfighting army sitting on the shelf it is far too easy for the President to launch the nation into such a conflict in the heat of emotion that follows some traumatic event, such as what occurred on 9/11.

America's major wars have all been fought and won primarily by citizen soldiers, men who either volunteered or were drafted for the fight and who returned to civilian life at first opportunity. European countries, prior to garnering the commitment of the US to protect them, all had large standing armies. With just a line on a map between you and your opponents one must have a rather large standing army as well as a large reserve. Maritime nations don't have that problem.

Japan and Britain both had about 225,000 men under arms to manage their empires in 1914; while France and Germany had much larger armies, and Russia had a huge army. The US at that time was less than half that of Japan and Britain. Now, I don't think the US could get by with 100,000 today, and probably not with 225,000 either. But we could cut to 3-400,000 easy, particularly if we would update some policies and take some outdated missions off the books.

I am a firm believer, that when it comes to trimming military budgets, armatures argue programs, while experts argue policy. Problem is that the Congress always wants the military to cut manpower and costs, but Congress never seems to have the sack to kill wasteful programs that profit their respective districts or to update old security policies either one. Or to tell Presidents "No" when they come up with some hair-brained military adventure to lark about with.

But this thread is a hat tip to the Oregon Volunteers and others like them. I know you've been to Guam many times. But next time thank the Oregon Volunteers who stopped there on their way from San Francisco to Manila back in 1998 to take the keys to the place away from the Spanish. Similarly next time you are in Manila, imagine the scene, the proud garrison of Spanish regulars in their fine dress uniforms, humiliated beyond words when a rag-tag bunch of Oregon country boys came into the fort and accepted their surrender. Story says the wives of the Spanish officers cried in outrage that their husbands would have to surrender to such commoners. I'm sure they did. I wish I had the DVD.

Also, next time you are in Zambo, thank the Oregon volunteers for that one too, as it was a very veteran 41st Infantry Division that secured that bit of real estate, coming off a very hard fight on Biak island (and a couple years of hard fighting up the coast of New Guinea before that).

Our Cold War history skews our thinking, and breaks our budgets. Time to move on. Looking back offers the keys to how we move forward.

[Bob's World]

... and how long would it take from the decision to raise these volunteer unit(s) until they were battle ready?

23 April 1898 President McKinley called for 125,000 volunteers.

11 May 1898 the Second Oregon Volunteers were on the train from Camp Withycombe outside Portland, Oregon ( a great little military museum there, btw for those who enjoy that kind of thing) to their port of debarkation in San Francisco. As I recall they took up the motto "First to Assemble" as they were the first such volunteer regiment to form and ship out.

25 May they sailed from San Francisco.

20 June the Spanish Garrison on Guam surrenders (little to no fighting)

(8 July the US annexes Hawaii - oops, we tend to overlook that little land grab)

13 August Manila falls.

[Dayuhan]

Similarly next time you are in Manila, imagine the scene, the proud garrison of Spanish regulars in their fine dress uniforms, humiliated beyond words when a rag-tag bunch of Oregon country boys came into the fort and accepted their surrender. Story says the wives of the Spanish officers cried in outrage that their husbands would have to surrender to such commoners.

Actually that "proud garrison of Spanish regulars" was in desperate straits, surrounded by an army of Filipino insurgents who had driven them out of the surrounding provinces and short of food and water. They requested (some would say begged) the privilege of being allowed to surrender to Americans (after a brief staged "battle" to assuage pride) to avoid the impending ignominy of having to surrender to Filipinos. They may have feared more than ignominy, though in fact the Filipino insurgents generally treated Spanish prisoners far better than the Spanish treated captured Filipinos. Also far better than American volunteers treated captured Filipinos a bit down the line, when they even bothered capturing any: many of the American volunteers had received their early martial experience during the Native American genocide, and brought the associated tactics with them.

If you went out tomorrow and called for volunteers to go fight in Afghanistan, providing their own officers and equipment (as was the habit in the days of your nostalgia), who do you think you'd come up with, and how do you think they'd fare if deployed?

[Bob's World]

That sounds about right in regards to the Spanish already being bottled up.

As to a call for volunteers for Afghanistan? Well, all the current forces there are volunteers, the vast majority joining long after the conflict began. But what is the majority popular opinion to that fight? For a government always in search of metrics, that might provide a powerful one.

Have the President make an empassioned call to college students across America to provide 125,000 volunteers to go to Afghanistan and finish this essential campaign once and for all. The sound of crickets would be the most likely response.

[carl]

Have the President make an empassioned call to college students across America to provide 125,000 volunteers to go to Afghanistan and finish this essential campaign once and for all. The sound of crickets would be the most likely response.

I am not sure about that. That has almost never been the case when volunteers were called for in the past. One reason is, for good or ill, I think Americans like to fight.

But more importantly is what you imply when you say "Have the President make an empassioned call". I don't remember that being done. I remember being called upon to shop, and I remember the military pitching people to become soldiers. That is qualitatively different from having the President, and with him all the powerful and culturally influential people he can call upon, saying there is a vitally important job to be done and it can't be done without you. We need you. I think you would get a good response. Maybe not 125,000 but enough.

The difference between asking people to join the military and become part of the military to do a particular job is subtle but important.

[carl]

If you went out tomorrow and called for volunteers to go fight in Afghanistan, providing their own officers and equipment (as was the habit in the days of your nostalgia), who do you think you'd come up with, and how do you think they'd fare if deployed?

Things would have to change of course as regards to officer selection. That is critical.

But you are wrong about vols having to supply their own equipment. Except for some of the fancy units early in the Civil War and Confederate cavalrymen supplying their own mounts, they were supplied mostly by the state and ultimately the federal gov.