Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: End the All-Volunteer Force

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default End the All-Volunteer Force

    Tom Ricks says we should end the all-volunteer force.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default How very Americna of him...

    Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:
    The drawbacks of the all-volunteer force are not military, but political and ethical.
    His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.

    While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

    He continues:
    One percent of the nation has carried almost all the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of us essentially went shopping. When the wars turned sour, we could turn our backs.
    What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

    Contrary to this summation:
    A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military.
    It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation...

  3. #3
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.

    While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

    He continues:What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

    Contrary to this summation:It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation...
    Well said Ken. I find Ricks to be an elitist snob who has used members of the military to push his agenda. Also, if we had conscription then the military would have more people like him in its ranks - you know, educated, smarter, and morally superior. Like you said Ken the rules would not apply to him and as far as I know his sons have not served. Did anybody really know who Ricks was before we went into Irag in 2003.

    I can see it - bring back conscription and unionize the military.

  4. #4
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    I am conflicted on this one.

    On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.

    On the other hand, Ricks, who has never served in the military, decides that the right thing for the military is to reinstate the draft, long after he is past the age to serve. So he is quick to decide that young people should be coerced into going into harm's way in a fashion that he was never subjected to.

    How convenient for Ricks. I'm sure this will help his journalist career.

  5. #5
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation
    Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces.
    I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.
    End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose
    He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.
    It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA
    Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?
    Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare
    If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

    Quote Originally Posted by gute
    bring back conscription and unionize the military.
    It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  6. #6
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.
    General welfare is about the country (national) level.

    The one and only really good reason for war is that at times (rarely) it's the lesser evil in comparison to a bad peace.
    So in the end, all 'good' participation in warfare is about the general welfare (of the own country).

  7. #7
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

    This might be true.

    I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    The draft was well in place before Vietnam and our involvement lasted more than 10 years of which about 5-7 years was large scale ground combat. Casualty rates were much higher and I believe at one point injured and killed had reached 1,000 per month. Yet, with all those conscripts it still took us ten years get out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we were taking 1,000 killed and injured a week in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a hell of a lot more people screaming for us to come home.

    End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

    The military is big enough - matter of fact it probably should get smaller.

    It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

    How would you what's better - did you serve in a conscripted army? And the rates - higher than Vietnam, after Vietnam, after Korea, WWII - how do you know this?

    Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

    How does he know he never served.

    If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

    Agreed.

    It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.
    Draft riots were common in the Civil War and many a well to do man paid others to fight in his place.

    I agree with the comment about unaccountable policy elites, but many a volunteer soldier has questioned the policies. Conscripts questioned the policies during the Vietnam War, but they still served.

    Senator Gary Hart wrote a book about going back to a militia - interesting read.
    Last edited by gute; 04-23-2012 at 12:03 AM. Reason: my responses were not separate from American Pride's quotes

  8. #8
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default They need to adjust the meds...

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.
    Having lived and served a good many years when the Draft was operating -- as opposed to Ricks and others -- My observation was that did not occur. Given general US and world societal changes since that time, I would anticipate that to be a very flawed argument.
    I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.
    Uh, okay -- however, I have no idea with what you disagree. I agree with what you wrote there but I do not see how that negates the quoted statements from me. You'll have to clarify that for me...

    I do agree with your statements as said but my sensing is that the rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse are not as high as during Viet Nam though they are higher than was true in Korea. I question whether such problems are engendered by societal or military factors.
    End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.
    I don't think your comment answers or even addresses Entropy's point but you and he can sort that -- I'll only point out that the Congress is a firm supporter of DoD budget opacity in practice if not in speech. They like being able to hide things there and they do so with great abandon. IOW, the gross irregularities of Congress need to be fixed before any remediation of DoD can begin.
    It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat ... So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.
    Speaking as one who was there way back when and has a Son serving today as well as two others who did serve earlier, it did and has produced a "better quality" service member. If you think they're mediocre now, you shoulda been around in the 50s and 60s -- much less the 70s when there was a major drop in quality due to sociological tinkering and a targeted draft -- of marginally capable folks. Folks who survived in the system due to its over emphasis on fairness and time in service to become the senior NCOs who did not train the NCOs in your unit who allowed your troops to sink to that state...
    Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.
    He's-- for once -- correct but he's still attacking the wrong target. All his suggestion will do is allow the inept Politicians to give inept Commanders more troops to waste on stupid endeavors. We need to fix the Pols and fix the Command competence problesm; a Draft will do neither.
    If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.
    That's an interesting statement. It's also specious. While I agree that methods of incorporation are irrelevant; once incorporated, unfavorable combat conditions go with the job.
    It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars.
    If by well, you mean adequately, true. If by well you meant anything better than adequately, I believe if you do some in depth research, you'll find it isn't so.
    Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.
    In reverse order, US history says you're wrong; the Draft did not -- absolutely did not -- have that effect in the Civil War, WW I, WW II or during Korea and the entire Cold War period. I submit that to believe today would be different is delusional -- at best...

    Lastly, the world historical record does demonstrate the superiority of a volunteer force; the US record does not for a variety of reasons but primarily due to the fact that today's volunteer force is operating under personnel rules designed in 1917 for World War I, tweaked a bit for World War II, not tweaked at all for the volunteer aspect and operating under many arcane rules foisted by a bumbling Congress to insure 'fairness' and 'objectivity' in personnel assignment and selection. We have not had since WW I a pure professional force operating under professional rules, we have had and have today a hybrid force that is neither fully professional nor fully directed service.

    We should try to remedy that before we decide to use mass punishment of the innocent to fix something that said punishment will not fix. As I wrote earlier, this is classic attack on symptoms as opposed to causes...

  9. #9
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I very much agree Van -- but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.
    While I can recall pre-draft, draft and post draft eras, the disconnection factor has existed more often than not. On balance, I do not find that worrisome.

    However, the bit about a requirement for military experience as, if not a requirement, at least a desirable attribute for a political career is worrisome. I believe this is a factor resulting from the largely anti-military stance of the Academy nowadays and I think it speaks quite poorly of our educational establishment that such an attitude is endemic.

    Of course, the chubby little retirees in Ekaterinebug who helped bring that about are understandably happy with themselves...

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Mr. Ricks has written on this topic before and some of his arguments are problematic. First he points out that only 1% of Americans bear the burden for Iraq and Afghanistan. All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

    The big problem though, and the question Rick's doesn't answer (and he's been asked it before) is: How, given our political system, will that small portion of the population be chosen fairly considering there's over 4 million men and women who reach military age every single year?
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gladstone, MO
    Posts
    11

    Thumbs down

    Resuming conscription is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services. Yes, reestablishing a draft, with all its Vietnam-era connotations, would cause problems for the military, but those could never be as painful and expensive as fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq for almost nine years. A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military
    I was basically raised by a Marine Officer who was nominated for the Medal of Honor (amongst other medals) for saving his entire platoon and who has been gone since 2009. He never talked about the war until I told him I was thinking about ROTC in college (in 07). After listening to what he told me about, what he had to do just to keep his men alive, I was speechless. I could have never imagined what he had to do and that he could have lived with that especially with the way he was treated once he returned home. He didn't have a choice about joining yet he did it. When he came back, he was treated like he was Hitler incarnate by his fellow citizens who he fought for.

    He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.

    I know his experience and that of others are just anecdotal, but from everything I've read on it, it seems to sadly have been been the norm for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of service men. I think Mr. Ricks should seriously reconsider that idea.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    I think your man, Ricks, is trying to meet his quota of words published...

    If his belief is that if you have a substandard conscript army then the politicians would be more wary of committing to war then he may have a point. Then again the avoidance of military humiliation does not seem to factor into the thinking of US politicians - think Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan - to illustrate my point.

    I have repeated many times that in the military it takes 15-20 years of commissioned service for an officer to reach the rank of Lt Col and command a battalion of 600 plus men. Yet there is no barrier (in terms of qualifications and experience) to become President of the US. The same with the various Secretaries and congressmen. This is probably the (main) source of America's problems.

    When it comes to protecting the nation I go with the sentiments of George Orwell:

    "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
    Now in order to achieve this first line of 'protection' we need to select the type of 'rough men' who will do their duty when called upon to do so... and not cobble together a force to reflect the composition of the nation and to hell with their competence as warriors... and to act as a brake on the whims of politicians.

    Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?

    Conscription is or should be the last resort for a threatened nation.

  13. #13
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It was already pointed out that the 1% stems almost entirely from the size of the occupation forces and their rotation, not from the volunteer system. This is the case-specific nonsense of Ricks.



    Now the general nonsense, and I'll use the economic science toolbox to explain it:


    When we spend money, we do so to motivate someone else to do something he or she would otherwise not do. Give me a haircut, allow me to leave the shop with the TV set, pay me money when my flat burned out. The amount of money needed is roughly proportional to the amount of motivation required. That's why in some countries you pay less if you bribe.

    Price ~ motivation required

    Now if you want a volunteer, you pay him the appropriate price for his motivation. That's fair, that's voluntary. No power advantage is used to coerce (except stop-loss etc).

    If you hire a conscript, you don't need to pay him the appropriate price. instead, you can use a mix of inappropriately low price and power advantage, for coercion. This is the part about the loss of freedom through conscription.

    There's also a major inefficiency involved that proves that conscription is inferior for the country in comparison to a volunteer force, at the very least until sovereignty is really at stake:
    Whom do you get if you have a volunteer force? Most like the (able and) most easily motivated ones. It's like a reverse auction. You offer a price and the ones hired most easily agree, you raise and some more agree etc. In the end, you pay the marginal rate price - the price needed to motivate the last needed (wo)man. This means some are paid more than necessary to motivate them, but this waste stays in the society and doesn't account as harm done - it's just a transfer.
    Compare this to conscription: You just grab some, and coerce whoever of that group is not motivated by the money. This does not include any mechanism for recruiting the most easily motivated ones. The amount of motivation based on coercion accounts for as harm done to the own society.
    Even if you consider coercion + price as the sum of all mil personnel costs to society, you're still bound to arrive at the conclusion that conscription is more expensive to the society (because the volunteer system applies a technique to recruit the 'cheapest' personnel).


    In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare


    I found that most pro-conscription people are closet authoritarians, the kind of people that actually dislikes freedom and choice, no matter what they say.

  14. #14
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

    Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

    I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  15. #15
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Ricks is a moron. Pretty simple.

    Sam, I don't think conscription would create any empathy for civilians. You'd still have that core of professional military-types who will still feel entitled to comment on things they've never experienced (while still denying the right of others to do the same thing regarding them). It would just be more focused in the officer and professional NCO side of the house.

    Conscription in this country never broke the back of the elitist soldier culture...and it had ample opportunity to do so between 1945 and 1972. I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

    That disdain and/or disconnect has been there for as long as we've had a military. What some of the military elitists lose sight of now is that in many ways they're much better off than they have ever been before (in terms of pay and benefits, at least). What we're seeing now is a much larger all-volunteer military than we've had in the past. I think that makes the elite noises much louder than they were before.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #16
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.
    Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.

  17. #17
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.
    They already live off-base as often as they can. Then they draw the housing allowance.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

    Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

    I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?
    Let's get to a fundamental question: What is the purpose of conscription?

    It seems to me you and Ricks see it as a social engineering tool, either to compel policymakers to choose different policies or to "enforce service" onto Americans in order to change cultural values.

    IMO implementing conscription for such purposes won't achieve the desired results and will cause numerous other problems. The evidence that such ends can be achieved via conscription is very thin to nonexistent outside the context of a major threat to the United States (such as WWII).

    For me, conscription is practical question and it's purpose it to provide sufficient manpower to prosecute the nation's wars when other means (like volunteerism) are insufficient. We should, IMO, always be prepared to implement conscription (and indeed, If I were King I would extend selective service to women) if and when it becomes necessary. It should only be implemented when truly necessary however. Implementing conscription as a steady-state norm during war and peace is, in my view, not only wasteful but also damaging to the United States.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  19. #19
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    The numbers simply do not bear illustrate the superiority of an all-volunteer force.

    During the Civil War, the Union had a approximate strength of 2 million men, with 168,000 drafted, for a percentage of about 8.5%. With battlefield losses of about 20%, an 8.5% reduction in force would have been quite significant.

    In WW1, the US had a personnel strength of about 4.7 million. Of that, about 3 million were inductees. That's about 64% of the total force strength.

    During WW2, the US had about 13 million men under arms, with 11 million inductees; conscripts constituting about 85% of the force.

    Now, the US has been involved in the so-called era of persistent conflict for eleven years, with more to come. According to the Joint Chiefs Chairman:

    But in any case, I believe I’m chairman at a time that seems less dangerous but it’s actually more dangerous. That’s the essence of what I describe as a security paradox. Although geopolitical trends are ushering in greater levels of peace and stability worldwide, destructive technologies are available to a wider and more disparate pool of adversaries. Highly accurate ballistic missiles are prevalent in every theater. Bombs made out of fertilizer can defeat and destroy our toughest mine-resistant vehicles. A cyberattack could stop this society in its tracks. And these are real threats that we face today.

    What truly concerns me as chairman is that these lethal and destructive technologies are proliferating in two directions. They’re proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world, and they’re proliferating vertically, down to nonstate actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life. And that’s the security paradox.
    Today, the US has an active duty force of about 1 million men, none of which are conscripts. Yet the total expenditure for the GWoT has exceeded that of every other US conflict (yes, including WW2). In the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, there were definitive outcomes: 3 favorable, 1 arguable, and one negative. That's not a bad track record.

    During the most recent draft era (1940 - 1973), the US entered the following "wars of choice": Korea, Vietnam, and Dominican Republic. Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.

    So, the institutional momentum is increasing towards a greater number of military operations accompanied by higher costs (the causes of which are well documented by Pentagon watchers) and lesser definite and favorable outcomes. Even with the economic challenges faced by the country, there is little indication of slowing, much less reversal. Higher and more complex demands are being placed on a smaller, more expensive force, with the predictable results of poor conflict outcomes, higher personnel attrition, and high service crime rates. A military "elite" (mentioned earlier in this thread) has it good with higher pay, etc than their past counterparts. But that doesn't indicate whatsoever that the total force is doing any better (i.e. winning more wars more effectively; which on the whole it isn't); it only means that living conditions expectations have increased.

    Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition. Since 1973 (the end of the most recent draft era), Congress has elected to declare war a total of zero times, has issued a military force authorization a grand three times, and has had its war powers ignored by the President at least four times. And even though Congress has required that every federal department comply with standard financial practices, the Defense Department is the only one that has failed to do so. That doesn't incite much confidence in Congress' ability (or willingness?) to influence military policy, with specific regards to engaging in and favorably terminating conflict.

    So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    AmericanPride,

    Well, I agree that the AVF isn't any more able to win strategically incoherent wars than a conscript military can. So, yes, I guess by that metric the AVF is not superior.

    Also, I find that I agree with most of your comment in general, but the problems you bring up aren't solved through conscription.

    The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without.
    I think you might want to recheck this. There was no conscription after the Civil War until 1917 (except for a brief period in 1898). It ended in 1918 and didn't come back until 1940. Historically conscription was used only when manpower was needed for war.

    And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.
    Yes, now please explain how it would be different with conscription. I think you are making the mistake of believing that conscription, or the lack thereof, is the cause of all these problems you identify.

    Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.
    Ok, you imply the cause is conscription. Please explain how those wars would have been more successfully prosecuted with a conscript military.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time for psuedo operations in A-Stan?...
    By jcustis in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 11:05 AM
  2. SFA capability is rooted in Individual Talent (part 1)
    By Rob Thornton in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 09:30 PM
  3. U.S. Still Waiting For Iraqi Forces To 'Stand Up'
    By SWJED in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-04-2007, 06:13 PM
  4. Air Force Operations in Urban Environments Report
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2006, 04:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •