Volunteers!!

**carl** · 07-22-2012

Ken:

I don't know if any sociological benefits from such units would appear. It is only my opinion that they would. That is based on my reading that in the past that form of service was on the whole beneficial and human nature hasn't changed so I think it could be beneficial again. That personal opinion holds despite the culture being very different as you note.

You are right of course about the importance of training. It would not work if the training was inferior. But I am thinking that if a unit was only going to be used for one purpose, small war in Afghanistan, training could be specifically tailored for that and that alone. All other things would be disregarded so training might actually be better for the things that only applied to the specific purpose for which the unit was raised.

The other thing that I think would be critical for this type of unit would be that it would go to one place and stay there for three years. Even if it started off with slightly inferior training by the time it had been there for a year or two it would be extremely good at what it was doing in that particular place. It might be completely lost if called upon to repel a North Korean combined arms attack but that would not be why it was created. And these would not be "for the duration" units. Specific term lengths would apply, say 6 months training then 3 years deployed in the same place with say 30 days leave once a year.

Like I said, I know the personnel bureaucracy will never let this come to be. But some way some how has got to be found to break that bureaucracy.

**Bob's World** · 07-22-2012

James Madison, Federalist Paper 46:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

**Dayuhan** · 07-22-2012

I wonder, on a rough basis... what percentage of the population owned arms and was skilled in their use in, say, 1776, 1876, 1976... and today?

**Varity** · 07-23-2012

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I wonder, on a rough basis... what percentage of the population owned arms and was skilled in their use in, say, 1776, 1876, 1976... and today?

Here's the 1976-today:

Wow, and that's in the 70's. I never really associated the 70's with high gun ownership... I would imagine the downward trend is unbroken, starting from 1776.

**Dayuhan** · 07-24-2012

Interesting... it would be even more interesting to know what percentage of those gun owners shoot or hunt regularly.

All of this of course is closely tied to the transition from a predominantly rural population to a predominantly urban population. Country kids have options that city and suburban kids don't when it comes to learning to shoot, not to mention learning the basics of woodcraft.

**Bob's World** · 07-24-2012

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Interesting... it would be even more interesting to know what percentage of those gun owners shoot or hunt regularly.

All of this of course is closely tied to the transition from a predominantly rural population to a predominantly urban population. Country kids have options that city and suburban kids don't when it comes to learning to shoot, not to mention learning the basics of woodcraft.

Equally interesting to know what percentage of the regular army who shoot or hunt regularly....probably about the same.

I wouldn't put too much stake on shooting or woodcraft. If the US were invaded city folk would fight in the city and country folk would fight in the country. Foreign invaders would die in both places, as would Americans, but ultimately the invaders would lose. Invading someone Else's country is always hard, but some countries are harder than others based on the nature of their terrain and the people who live there. Afghanistan is a country like that. So is America. So are many other countries.

**Bob's World** · 07-22-2012

I have never argued that any RC army could be as fast and effective as a regular army to rapidly deploy and engage effectively. But that is not the point, and such a capacity has never, ever, been needed by our country. But the very effectiveness of such an active force is its greatest weakness as well. It is always an attractive option, and no President has shown the ability to ignore such an attractive option. This is a fact recognized by our founding fathers, that Kings always find good reasons for war that others don't see. That is why that power was placed firmly within the Congress. Not just to declare, but also to agree to resource and form such an Army in the first place. A cooling off period was built into the system and we have the geostrategic luxury to have such a period. Having a standing army in peace disrupts that system, and the facts speak for themselves. They founding fathers were spot on. Presidents find excuses for war and have worked to cut the congress out of the equation. It has not served us well and it has not made us safer.

For expeditionary interventions we have the USMC and a small number of Army units. That is more than sufficient to that mission. If a true war must be fought we have the time to build and train an army and to dust off our national militia as well.

When one commits the Army it commits the nation. It creates a de facto "war" and wars must be won. How many times must we fall into that trap before we learn that lesson??

**Bob's World** · 07-22-2012

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

"Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491

"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings."

Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-04-02); published in The Writings of James Madison
(1906) Edited by Gaillard Hunt, Vol. 6, pp. 312-14

**Dayuhan** · 07-22-2012

Originally Posted by Bob's World

For expeditionary interventions we have the USMC

Indeed we do... does anyone else remember Tom Lehrer? Remember, it was 1965...

Send the Marines

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve
Who is it that always intervenes
U.N. and O.A.S.
They have their place, I guess
But first... send the Marines

We'll send them all we've got
John Wayne and Randolph Scott
Remember those exciting fighting scenes
To the shores of Tripoli
But not to Mississippoli
What do we do, we send the Marines

For might makes right
And 'til they've seen the light
They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Till somebody we like can be elected

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means
Stop calling it aggression
We hate that expression
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo
They love us everywhere we go
So when in doubt, send the Marines

**Ken White** · 07-22-2012

Originally Posted by carl

You are right of course about the importance of training. It would not work if the training was inferior. But I am thinking that if a unit was only going to be used for one purpose, small war in Afghanistan, training could be specifically tailored for that and that alone.

Doesn't work that way. Training for combat has to be full spectrum and we currently train folks only for the 'job at hand' and grade held instead of the old fashioned way for world wide service and a grade or two ahead of that currently held. See the result? What do you suppose would occur with even less training?

As wars go, Afghanistan is quite benign -- but that can change in any number of unforeseen ways -- like the sudden entry of the Army of Pakistan because they're upset with the Pakistani Taliban flowing over the Afghan Border. Even a large shipment of mortars and Ammo to the Talib would be a game changer. We could cope with it, could even if there were Volunteers but what if the first few uses of those mortars caught Volunteer units in a big way (the Talib are smart enough to target the elements with political penalties rampant. See the Canadian experience...)?

You may be willing to take a chance on the Volunteer program. I suspect few politicians would agree.

The other thing that I think would be critical for this type of unit would be that it would go to one place and stay there for three years. Even if it started off with slightly inferior training by the time it had been there for a year or two it would be extremely good at what it was doing in that particular place. It might be completely lost if called upon to repel a North Korean combined arms attack but that would not be why it was created. And these would not be "for the duration" units. Specific term lengths would apply, say 6 months training then 3 years deployed in the same place with say 30 days leave once a year.

I'm unsure you'd get many volunteers to go to Afghanistan (for just one example) for three years.

It may also be unwise to predicate your efforts on being in one place for three years. For just one example, a slew of people left the Dominican Republic (conflict) and Germany (no conflict) in 1965-66 and went straight to Viet Nam with no replacements in the former nations.

You may start off with the premise that as they gain experience they'll get better but if they take a big hit from a North Korean attack (or anyone else's, large or small...) someone will pay. Particularly if it's soon after they get in theater, where ever it is...

Like I said, I know the personnel bureaucracy will never let this come to be. But some way some how has got to be found to break that bureaucracy.

I don't think the personnel bureaucracy would be your biggest problem -- I suspect that would be politicians. Second, I suspect, would be the volunteers themselves...

**carl** · 07-23-2012