Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[Fred III]

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I am an advocate of the draft, but if you want a hot-button topic, that's the one to choose. Can you imagine this panty-waist Congress and the furor a draft proposal would stir? You'd have every swingin' Richard among them screaming bloody blue murder and running for cover. As for the "military," don't make me laugh. The military was flat-out, dead-set against the all-volunteer force... dead-set against it! And don't let anybody tell you different; they have short memories. And I don't believe this "qualitative" drop-off with a conscription army. You remember the old saw, right, we won every battle in Vietnam. Well, if that's so (and it is), then why did we lose the war? We lost the war because the same guys who convinced us the "professional," volunteer army was the way to go, were the ones deciding the strategy, tactics, and troop deployments (read, manpower!) for Vietnam.

I don't believe the WWII German army was all volunteer, and we paid hell beating those turkeys, even the fourth-tier troops manning the Atlantic Wall, and the tired, worn-out veterans chasing our butts all over hedgerow country.

Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[marct]

Hi WM,

I'm not sure that these guys actually need to have served in order to be a littel closer to the issues on which they are either legislating or advising the legislators. I'm not calling for verstehen a la Dilthey or Weber here. I just want a better state of erkenntnis. (I'm sure MarcT or Rex will correct me if I have gotten the distinction wrong. )

erkennen - distinctions right, spellings wrong

I suspect they can gain that insight without going the basic, AIT, etc. route. More to the point is one's willingness to be open-minded and well-informed, I suspect.

I would agree with that. Then again, how likely are we to see those [desirable] characteristics required of politicians????

Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Hi Fred - it would definitely be a challenge! The only times we (Canada) ever had it, it was an unmitigated disaster and not something I would like to see repeated. I have a pretty strong feeling, although I couldn't prove it, that an attempt to bring it back in the US would also be an unmitigated disaster both politically and militarily.

I think that you definitely could introduce some form of "national service" (loosely construed) that contained components of military training and discipline but also led to non-military service. Of course, to do it properly, it couldn't be a lottery - it would have to be universal.

Marc