Is Public Will at odds with Public Sacrifice?

[Rob Thornton]

This morning on the Earlybird I saw a WSJ article where the CSA announced plans to look at acceleration of adding the additional troops to meet the objective of 2 years at home station for every one year deployed. There is concern that the 15 month deployments may cause additional attrition of experience. Mentioned was the usual prescritpion of enlistment/re-enlistment bonuses and promotions to support expansion.

Several other articles recently have caught my attention since I've been back. Some were on who serves, who wants to serve, who does not want to serve, why, etc (one of my favorites pointed to the small minority of congressional and other political leaders here and in the UK who have current familial ties to the military). Retired General Scales has been a huge proponent of drawing attention to readiness issues, and I think gets at it as a fundamental strategic problem. So here are a couple of questions I think would help us design a Human Resourcing Strategy to meet not just the military's increased personeel needs - not just in quantity, but also in quality (Quality in the categories of both the very best for public service & in terms of filling the ranks - a buddy was just flash PCS'd to Riley amid reports of soldier disturbances and the need for officers and NCOs on the ground immediately):

Does our Public Will support the required Public Sacrifice in the context of a emerging global power struggle amongst resurgent states, emerging non-state organizations (runs the gammut of groups here) which will compete on many different levels for limited resources (could be energy resources, water, minerals,etc) in an worl that is increasingly at risk to pandemics, global warming, and other environmental accelorators?

OK - I know that's a mouth full, but trying to frame the question show's how difficult captuing the public will to sacrifice their leisure time and cable T.V. can be. Short of an overwhleming cause that has a persitant gravitational theme that is politician proof, the only other recourse I see is to invest in people in such a way that it attracts and retains them. It becomes a standard of living and quality of life for not just them, but their families. Our Political culture seems to have a problem with this - people are risky and expensive (long term costs), and re-elections often require playing to somebody's bottom line. The Heinlein concept of public service for full citizenship (with the caveat of military or some other public service prior to holding office) is probably a non-starter.

Thoughts?

[sullygoarmy]

Rob. Great question. When the extention announcement was made last week, I immediately thought of Heinlein's great book, Starship Troopers (much better than the movie by the way) and how the veterans eventually "rescue" the government and the only way to gain full citizenship is to serve. Great concept but I do not ever see our society making that leap. We have always been very mistrusting of standing militaries all the way back to the founding of our country. The concept of a "citizen-soldier" is the basic foundation of the civilian controlled military today and always has been.

Back to the public will question. I would argue that America does not have the will to make the public sacrifice to deal with both the emerging global power struggle and other world-wide issues. Someday I may look back at this post and say, "boy did the American people ever prove me wrong". But it seems ever since WWII where the government ensured the American people were involved, it just hasn't happened.

Looking at the generations of people the U.S. has produces over the last 80 years gives us a clue as to why the desire for public sacrifice may have declined. The heros of WWII, the fabled "Greatest Generation" went through the depression, loss of jobs, income and overall a lower standard of living. As a result, the expectation of some sort of sacrifice was already established as we entered WWII. The veterans, reaping the well-deserved rewards of the GI Bill, wanted nothing more than peace for their families and to provide them with a better life: enter the baby-boomer generation. I'd argue that the generations after the "greatest generation" have has a lower and lower level of sacrifice expectations based on the increased properity of the United States, its place on the global stage, and the values taught to us as children.

We still have our heros of today, those willing to sacrifice for the greater good of our people. Imagine, however, if we shifted the GDP for military spending to 5% versus the current 3.4%. Or if we did a Thomas Friedman type of tax on gas, raising the price of gas to $5 a gallon to not only pay for the war, but to accelerate the search and development for alternative energy fuels. I suspect these "sacrifices" would cause a major source of discontent across most of the U.S population. We seem to be plodding along as a nation in a dream-like state, opting to focus on the ridiculous news (Imus, Duke Lacrosse, Anna Nichole Smith...she's still dead by the way) than on the tough issues at hand: Iraq, Iraq, global warming, the possible outbreak of a global pandemic. I'm scared that it will take an major bump in the road to awaken America from her dream-like slumber. Something much bigger and worse than 9/11.

And of course, the public is fickle. How long did we have support for the government's actions after 9/11? Two years, maybe less? We've become a fast food society, with little patience for long term plans. The longest our political system looks out is 4 years, which is even longer than the attention span of many of our fellow citizens.

To end my pre-coffee rantings , here's a quote from Starship Troopers "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part..and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live." -Colonel Dubois.

[goesh]

Well said, sullygoarmy.

[Old Eagle]

There has to be a way to increase the audience participation in the security of this great nation. Little bumber stickers aren't doing it for me any more, although they beat the heck out of the alternatives we saw during Vietnam and its aftermath.

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

Not sure what the answer is.

P.S. True confession. I was a draft dodger myself -- joined the Army before my draft board figured out that I had graduated from HS and lost my 2S.

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

[Tom Odom]

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

Be happy you have a mane...I just have silver briar patches called ears these days

tom

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by Old Eagle,

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

I read an pro-draft argument not too long ago on the value of service as a kind of citizenship program - but as Old Eagle stated, its a huge burden and at odds with creating and maintaining a professional force capable of expeditionary type requirements, not to mention drawing away funds for material needs. Using public service in this manner also invites "experimentation" - something to consider.

Since a draft is not an option which meets our security needs, what is? I think there are a several ways to appeal to the public to serve. The first couple, we already do, and may get you an initial 4 year tour - these are usully "leap frog" options where service is used as a stepping stone to some other career - could be a technical job or politics, or many others. Some will serve based off of traditions, or desire for adventrue. However, as these service members take on additional responsibilities, they take on "quality of life" requirements that the public service may be at odds with since the public as represented by the government may be unable or unwilling to make. At that point they (public servants) have to choose between conflicting responsibilities. As they rationalize where their loyalties are, they start with their perception of loyalty shown to them. Stay (for 20 or 30), or leave and find employment elsewhere in a market that covets the skills public service has developed in them.

I think we need to re-evaluate public service on the premise of "value" and how much we are willing to pay public servants for their talent and sacrifices the majority of the population is unwilling/unable to make. By creating an "incentive to serve" perception that is proportional to the level of sacrifice, you create an organization(s) in which people are willing to endure the hardships associated with it. If your only doing it for a small pecentage of the population - then it becomes a question of how much you can afford vs. the cost of doing without (or in this case an inferior public service required to meet the needs of national security).

We pay hefty prices for professional sports tickets, pay per view, starbucks brews, Internet Service Providers, cltohes etc, that we know are over priced, but we (those aquainted with some flavor of public service are exempted) don't spend very much time thinking about the value of soldier, teacher, fireman, police officer, etc.). Remember Sen. Kerry's gaffe? Why does congress vote itself a raise? Because no one else will (or because it can).

My answer to make public service attractive would be to take a long reaching approach. While bonuses may attract the 19 year old and the first termer, the more mature folks we want to retain require the type of stability that allows them to plan for the long run. They require good medical and dental for their families and housing that their spouses feel good about because they can raise their families in a good environment. They require access to good schools that meet the special needs of families where one of the parents is constantly deployed. They require day care and extra curricular activities for their children that help the families cope with deployment stress while husbands and wives take on the burden of the nation ( and I mean the spouses who are left to run the household. You have to build an organization where loyalty is more then a flash in the pan, and establishes a reputation for success in the public from which it recruits. It has to be worth it. It has to compete. The last one sounds contrary to "public service", but is it given what we are asking? My thoughts are that the burdens of public service on the individual and his family are only going to increase.

Any Human Resourcing Strategy for public service has to be more then just filling pot holes.

[carl]

I contend the American people DO have the will to contend with whatever sacrifices are needed. The American elites, politcal, academic and media DO NOT. The flyover people man the current military, provide the much maligned contract truck drivers and provide what small courtisies (sic) can be given to troops in transit. Do a periodical search and see. One of the States (Texas maybe?) just started a program where the remains of slain soldiers are met at the airport and escorted to their burial site.

The "greatest generation" was great but they were responding to direct and sustained attack. During the Vietnam the Americans put up with years and years of no real strategy in a place of no immediate consequence before we pulled the plug. During Reagan's time we spent what was required until the job was done. In the buildup to this war, no one objected too, in fact everyone expected, the commitment of 400,000 men. The elites were the ones who couldn't stand the thought. Rumsfeld and company cut the force, not some mass letter writing campaign.

I think we (I say this as an always was civilian) will do whatever is asked of us. What we can't do is spontaneously and en-masse create a wise strategy and see it through. The elites are the ones who do that and they aren't up to it.

[Tom Odom]

I would not dismiss the draft as unsuitable or flawed or even unable to sustain an expeditionary force. We did--quite successfully--use the draft in repeated wars requiring large sustained mobilizations. Where the draft became fatally flawed was in its manipulation over time, especially as what became viewed as acceptable behavior in seeking deferments --or using the Guard as a sanctuary--changed.

Secondly when you discuss the draft, it does not have to be an all or nothing approach. The military would NOT become all draftee below a certain rank. It still had regulars in past wars and it would in the future as well.

Third and in line with the second point is to look at the draft as a much needed tool to mobilize RESERVES because that is what the draft does best. If you scheduled a draft to flesh out reserve force structure and then brought them onto active duty as needed that would provide a stair step approach to manpower escalation rather than what we have now, which is beat the regulars to death and then really screw over the reserves (and Guard) that we have already. Consider for a moment had we had such a system in place in 2002 that would have allowed a limited draft of manpower to surge end strength, say for a duration of 6 years based on 2 cycles of three-years service (because as Old Eagle points out short draft terms are dysfunctional).

Fourth in regard to discussions of strategic mobility, flexibility, ad nauseum, I would again say that there is a definitive benefit to strategic pause when it comes to making sure you really want to go jump into a particular briar patch. This forum is about Small Wars that are fought in distant lands by smaller deploying forces largely under the radar of the media or the public. Those operations tend to be doable. Where we go astray is when we are not willing to pay the costs and hash out the strategy to support a large deployment and sustain it over time. That strategic pause inherent in a Desert Shield type scenario gives us time to answer the magic questions "Do we really understand what we are about to do? And if so, do we still want to do it?"

Best

Tom

[120mm]

My idea is to impose a draft into a strategic reserve. Minimal military training, and basic exposure to military life for a very short period of time. During the training period, individuals could be recruited for an active duty military career based on aptitude/interest.

One of the biggest obstacles to military service, imo, is the fear of the unknown which prevents people who would be happy in the military from joining.

[Stan]

120,
You could even say your idea has been proven and works. Estonia's military has been doing just that for nearly a decade.

My idea is to impose a draft into a strategic reserve. Minimal military training, and basic exposure to military life for a very short period of time. During the training period, individuals could be recruited for an active duty military career based on aptitude/interest.

9 months minimum and based on many factors, 11 months maximum (which includes primary leadership courses). There's more typical basic military training, but Estonia's DoD structure is very different from ours and, more than half of all the draftees stay on and make a career out of the military.

One of the biggest obstacles to military service, imo, is the fear of the unknown which prevents people who would be happy in the military from joining.

There was a time when the Chief of Staff actually traveled around the country with an NCO telling families that their sons would be in good hands and no harm would come to them (these were not draft dodgers, the parents were actually hiding their sons).

It was late in the 1930s when the Estonian President even drafted foreigners living in Estonia. He said: You are eating our bread, you have obligations to the State.

I think every American should experience military service.

[marct]

Hi Carl,

I contend the American people DO have the will to contend with whatever sacrifices are needed. The American elites, politcal, academic and media DO NOT.

I think that you have raised a very important point, and one that goes to the heart of the overall question. Let me recast this in a couple of questions:

1. Who are the "elites" and why are they "elite"?
2. What is "public service" and who defines it?
3. What is the American concept of "personal honour" and how does this relate to the concept of "sacrifice"?

Let's start with the first one. One of the enduring effects of the English Civil War was to break the Aristocracy and Gentry's belief in the Great Chain of Being (GCB; i.e. that there was a divinely inspired ordering in the world and society - a basic position of RC theology at the time). After all, regicide for cause certainly does force a society to reconsider its ordering, and the "new" ordering under Cromwell was much more "Protestant".

That said, in a rather round about way, the meme that replaced the GCB was that elites were "elite" because they were "better" but, unlike the GCB, they had to continually show it (this is tied in with the concept of "dis-covering" salvation by evidence of God's grace - see Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism for a really detailed analysis). This somewhat curious blending of "blood right" (Weber's Herrenschaft for those who are interested) with a de facto requirement for merit led to several things, including an increased ability for class mobility through superior merit (e.g. the 1792 expansion in the House of Lords).

For the Colonial elites in North America, you had varying expressions of this, but in most cases it came down to a situation of if you wanted to claim elite status, you had to act as if you were an "elite". By this, I don't mean the social manners, I mean the clear and visible signs of being "superior" in some field of endevour. After your Revolution, the lines of social legitimacy changed: in Canada, we retained the Crown as the ultimate arbiter of elite status whereas in the US that shifted to abstract "social actors" (e.g. the Constitution, economic success, etc.). This shift was picked up by de Tocqueville in Democracy in America when he made the following observations:

While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that of the former is narrowed. In a short time the one will require nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other stands in need of science, and almost of genius, to ensure success. This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast empire; that man, a brute.

The master and the workman have then here no similarity, and their differences increase every day. They are connected only like the two rings at the extremities of a long chain. Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?

But in a democracy where the poor may become rich and the rich may become poor, there is little social and cultural pressure on them since they are not a class in and of themselves. Again, from de Tocqueville,

The territorial aristocracy of former ages was either bound by law, or thought itself bound by usage, to come to the relief of its serving-men and to relieve their distress. But the manufacturing aristocracy of our age first impoverishes and debases the men who serve it and then abandons them to be supported by the charity of the public. This is a natural consequence of what has been said before. Between the workman and the master there are frequent relations, but no real association.

While there have been periods when local manufacturing aristocracies in the US have created certain "usages" (e.g. the public works status markers of libraries, schools, etc pushed by the Carnagies, et alii), I suspect that Lou Dobbs would agree with most of what de Tocqueville said .

So, back to that question: who are the elites and why are they "elite"? Also, I would ask "What do the 'elites' owe to the State by virtue of their status as 'elites'?" I think this starts to touch on the other questions.

Back in the Roman Republic and, later,the Empire, there was a direct military responsibility of a member of the two "elite" classes to the state. This led to the development of the cursus honorum that was a very well laid out path, including military service, followed by elite children before they could gain any political office. As with the Brits post ECW, you had to prove that, at the individual level, you actually were 'better' (or at least met certain minimum standards).

One of the things that truly gets my goat these days is that the concept of the cursus honorum seems to be alive and well in the non-elite 'classes' of both Canada and the US, but pretty conspicuously absent from most of the 'elite' classes (with some notable exceptions). As Carl notes:

I think we (I say this as an always was civilian) will do whatever is asked of us. What we can't do is spontaneously and en-masse create a wise strategy and see it through. The elites are the ones who do that and they aren't up to it.

In a lot of ways, this strikes me as a generally valid observation and one that cuts to the core of the social contract that is the United States.

Marc

ps. I'll get out of lecture mode now

[Old Eagle]

As I mentioned before, regardless of any perceived benefits, universal conscription is not sustainable.

The last draft failed because the mode of "selection" in "selective service" was deemed grossly unfair. Mind you, this was a political/emotional judgement, not a quantifiable statistic. The only way to overcome this flaw is to have a lottery-type draft, redrawn every year, with almost ZERO exemptions. This will still not solve the male/female issue, but I don't want to go there.

A coupla us took the Army through the last transition and it was butt ugly. My first draft-age platoon contained one trooper with an MS in biology and another who functioned at the third grade level. The -10 manuals for his track meant nothing because he couldn't begin to understand the words, let alone the meaning. The remainder of the platoon fell somewhere in between on the spectrum. Communicating at a level that everyone understood and providing motivation that spanned that broad a spectrum was a huge challenge.

My post-draft platoon, which still had a coupla draftees, was much more homogenous, with most soldiers functioning at the 9-10th grade level. It was ugly for other reasons -- drugs, race problems, etc., but it was less of a leadership challenge in the long run.

By the time I commanded an infantry company, virtually all my soldiers were HS grads with high ASVAB scores. Several had a coupla years of college. Command was truly enjoyable by that time.

I would still like to see more inclusive public service programs, but primarily driven by mechanisms other than a draft.

[selil]

2 years minimum service, military or civil servant options, no public services unless the invidual or spouse serves.

[goesh]

The Public isn't much buying into the notion of military service and boots on the ground, regardless of mission and intent, regardless of COIN applications or more traditional operations. Send a robot, send a drone, you don't need me. This isn't as much an issue of personal will and character uniting and morphing into a collective mechanism of action as it is a philosophy of more high tech is better than more manpower. Go to any mall on any given Saturday and see the wonderous cell phones people have, then note that is all many of them have and ever will have.

[Rob Thornton]

Oringinally posted by Goesh

The Public isn't much buying into the notion of military service and boots on the ground, regardless of mission and intent, regardless of COIN applications or more traditional operations. Send a robot, send a drone, you don't need me. This isn't as much an issue of personal will and character uniting and morphing into a collective mechanism of action as it is a philosophy of more high tech is better than more manpower. Go to any mall on any given Saturday and see the wonderous cell phones people have, then note that is all many of them have and ever will have.

Goesh - you bring up some great questions about what motivates us and influences how public treasure is spent

How do you overcome the majority's (public) cultural predisposition in favor of the minority's (those wrestling directly with the COIN problems) perceived reality or human requirements?

Is this a failure of the military's and our political structure to inform the public of what is at risk? Most Americans under 40 cannot conceive of the burdens and problems lack of the current professional military and public servants would create - The closest things I can remember myself are the ATC strike under President Reagan and the Metro Police Department in Nashville - both back in the 80s.

Do we maintain current perceptions out of ignorance or for other reasons such as funding for systems which may influence political districts and Industry?

How would we change the dynamics and what is at risk?

Is our HR strategy reactive or proactive? Talking with RTK this morning and he told me about the 20 grand for CPTs over 3 but under 8 - which may have been timely 3 years ago, but now we have an 04 and 05 problem - In a COIN environment where experience and maturity matter a great deal - are we targeting the right folks - goes back to building a strategic HR plan that builds longevity not band-aids.

[Stan]

Hi Old Eagle !

A coupla us took the Army through the last transition and it was butt ugly. My first draft-age platoon contained one trooper with an MS in biology and another who functioned at the third grade level. The -10 manuals for his track meant nothing because he couldn't begin to understand the words, let alone the meaning. The remainder of the platoon fell somewhere in between on the spectrum. Communicating at a level that everyone understood and providing motivation that spanned that broad a spectrum was a huge challenge.

I totally agree. We need set standards, even for the draftees. My time in the 70's was horrific. Tests were based on D.C. 'standards' and a 70 percentile was barely 8th grade. They forced most in the 80s to retake the test and several ended up with lower scores than they had at basic service entry.
Still, that weeded out what would end up being needed to reduce the Army's overall end strength.

I indeed do not want to see gang members, drug and racial problems, so some means of setting the benchmark are in order, but bring on the draft anyway and let those folks see "independence at a price".

Regards, Stan

[goesh]

Mr. Thornton, I don't think the Public's perception alluded to in your first question can ever be altered. Even after 9/11, the will to fight wore off long before Iraq became the long term haul it is and we knew it would be. I think there is serious debate occuring in the upper echelons of the jihadist/AQ camp as to whether or not America even needs another 9/11 type attack. It's come down to that I'm afraid. There is an ancient fear over men of action taking control and remaining in control that keeps the Public on the curb waving flags on Memorial Day but prevents them from fully engaging with warriors once the parade is done. It simply is safer and easier to keep at a distance because civilization has about completely dulled the hunting instinct in human beings and technology enables that need. That's my 'long' view of it. Warriors pretty much exist to kill enemies and the view of warriors as other than that is a tough sell to the species in general. One would think the Liberal camp would embrace COIN but that is not the case.

I don't think the military is really capable of informing the Public of the need to commit and ultimately fight and impliment COIN and traditonal tactics because necessarily the need for death quickly rears its ugly head and technology instantly presents images of collateral damage and weeping civilians. How many mothers would literally shield the eyes of a child from the image of dead jihadis on tv, when indeed these same jihadis would slit the throats of their children? Who wants Sonny and Sissy to grow up to be hunters?

I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return. Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.

Your comment about people under 40 not realizing the necessity of government and defense is spot on but two things come to mind when the needs of dire necessity crop up and we are faced with bitter necessity. In the first flood I ever helped fight, I took my place in the sandbag line and when I turned to heave a bag into the arms of the person to my right, it was a scrawny woman. I said, "Where did you come from!?" and she responded, "I'm a Librarian" and she lasted in line almost as long as me. In the first brush fire I ever fought in, we were on the line doing what little we could with what little we had and all of a sudden this little kid comes running up with a damn squirt gun and starts squirting the flames. You should have heard the roars and cheers that went up on the line when he took his place with us. Somehow it's there when needed but don't ask me how.

[RTK]

I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return. Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.

Rob and I spent a good deal of time in the gym talking about this a few hours ago when we should have been getting in shape.

The problem, IMHO, isn't recruiting - It's retaining what we have. A year ago many of us saw our peers leaving in droves. The response of others who should have been in the know was something akin to Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing on the street corner shouting "All is well!"

We all knew better. Now it's a problem.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

You know, you remind me a lot of a good friend, drinking buddy and fellow PhD (12 years in the Canadian Navy). His nickname is "Crusty" .

There is an ancient fear over men of action taking control and remaining in control that keeps the Public on the curb waving flags on Memorial Day but prevents them from fully engaging with warriors once the parade is done.

Of course here is a fear of this happening! Societies controlled by their militaries have, historically, been amongst the most repressive, abusive and stagnant regimes in existence. At the same time, societies that do not have a fairly heavy component of ex-military people involved in their governance end up getting run over by barbarians, either internal or external.

It simply is safer and easier to keep at a distance because civilization has about completely dulled the hunting instinct in human beings and technology enables that need. That's my 'long' view of it. Warriors pretty much exist to kill enemies and the view of warriors as other than that is a tough sell to the species in general. One would think the Liberal camp would embrace COIN but that is not the case.

The Liberal camp, at least in it's US incarnation, is unlikely to embrace COIN unless it is "sold" to them as a moral imperative from a Liberal, ideological perspective. My wife, who describes herself as an old style, Yankee Democrat Liberal (and also says she would never have married me if she knew my political views beforehand ) has come around to the point where she views COIN ops, and the current surge, as such a moral imperative. It's been an interesting transformation on her part...

I don't think the military is really capable of informing the Public of the need to commit and ultimately fight and impliment COIN and traditonal tactics...

I agree but, respectfully, why in the Hades is it the militaries responsibility to do so? This is supposed to be the job of the politicians and the press.

I think the current military recruiting strategies are simply excellant. Those Ads on tv are spot on in which service is requested based on the need for serious, intelligent people willing to learn and develop and commit to the military for a few years in return.

I'd be interested in what you, and Rob, think about the Canadian Forces latest ad campaign. Personally, I think it's brilliant given the Canadian audience.

Incidentally, this forum is about as innovative as you can get, breeching the gap between civilian and military/defense and generating interplay.

Gotta agree with that !

Your comment about people under 40 not realizing the necessity of government and defense is spot on but two things come to mind when the needs of dire necessity crop up and we are faced with bitter necessity....

I've seen similar things myself, and this is one of the reasons I am ore likely to say that the responsibility of getting the message out is the job of the politicians and the media, not the military. I must say, that I have been heartened immeasurably by a number of my students asking really hard hitting questions about the Long War (aka GWOT) and what they can do. Many of them are Left wingers, but they show a good an understanding of the corrosive effects on our society of a long, drawn out war and they want to limit those effects by winning the war.

Marc

[goesh]

Battle fatigue/shell shock/ PTSD is going to factor into attrition significantly in light of the active, 2 front war and all the negativity attached to it , for which in case of the latter factor the military doesn't traditionally have much defensive capability. I doubt a miraculous turnaround on either front would impact attrition either and you face a Congress whose political bent is historically stingy in giving warriors much money. Does this sense of urgency flow clearly to the top? I'm not sure if it does. Do you have Admin on the desks on the home front as gung-ho and as competent as General P. is in the field? God knows we civilians can't provide any assistance with that need for equitable balance. (Marct, I attempted to PM you about that canadian video but that probably didn't succeed either given my 1950s tech ability and hardware)