Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
What I mean I guess is would a volunteer unit meant specifically for Afghanistan have to match the full range and level of training of a regular unit?
The Regular force there now is not doing all that well. I think that answers your question. If they need more and better training, then throwing together a crew of volunteers with less training -- that's a given; there will be no volunteers for the duration, never have been and training takes time out of their term so it has to be minimized.

Part of the Regular force problem is tours -- we haven't been in Afghanistan 11 years, we've been there eleven one year tours -- but part of it is turnover and level of training. The bottom line is what you suggest we do can be done but it almost certainly would be even less effective and would likely have a higher casualty ratio.

History is good, it is important but it also can breed dangerous illusions because too much of it is slanted to make ideological, political or military points. I mention that only to suggest that any sociological benefits from such Volunteer units may or may not appear. The US of today is quite different than the US in which I was a schoolkid and even more different than it was in the early 20th Century.

Also, I've talked to several who were USV in various units. Typical is the Father of a good friend who served in the 2d Georgia in Mexico looking For P. Villa. He later went to France with the 2d Georgia -- by then the 121st Inf, GA ArNG. When activated to go to Texas and then Mexico, they were initially USV, then they were mustered into Federal service and training began. His contention was that training was a lifesaver both in Mexico and later.