As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Conscripted vs Standing Army
MalaysianShrew
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I've been hearing more about drafts the longer the Iraq War continues on. I believe that some crazy Democrat Congressman was even trying to get support for a draft in congress so that the public would have a large enough outcry to end the war. Now, while this sounds crazy to me, it did get me thinking about how having a conscripted army as opposed to a standing army affects a nations view on war.
Historically, it seems that nations generally create standing armies because of a recognized need for trained, experienced soldiers at the ready in case of a military emergency. In Rome, the Marian reforms were enacted after the failings of conscripted armies depleted the citizenry who were able to afford their own arms and to speed up the reaction time of the nation after war was declared. Other nations kept smaller standing armies of elite soldiers, usually as a reliable security force for the ruling class, as the conscripted armies were drafted from the often unhappy peasants. Egypt in the middle ages kept a force of mamluks, or turkish nomads, that they trained from boyhood to serve as the elite guard for the egyptian crown. (note that the mamluks overthrew the egyptians in a military coup and created the ottoman empire/turkey) Wiki informs me that the Ottoman Janissaries, christian soldiers who were also trained from boyhood, were the first "modern" standing army, whatever that means, but they too were an elite guard and the ottomans did still use conscripted armies for major wars. Later, sometime in the high middle ages, standing, professional armies appeared in Europe. As standing armies are expensive to mantain and only worth the money if you are going to use them, the Italian city-states were some of the first to adopt professional armies, being the rich trading centers that they were. These were the times of Machiavelli, when minor warfare was rampant between the city states over small bits of nothing. Of course, these weren't exactly effective standing armies, because they weren't tempered with any sort of nationalist feelings and so might be better called mercenaries as they only fought for the dollar. France soon conquered much of northern Italy with it's conscripted armies full of conviction because of the italians mercenary armies.
Finally, we come to the US. Our first army, the Continental Army, was a conscripted and volunteer army. This worked until the states no longer had a common, "tyrannical" enemy, and the volunteers stopped volunteering and the states stopped conscripting their citizens for use in a national army. The nation went back to having numerous state militias of various strengths but through the fledgling central government's desire to have military strength of it's own, it managed to create a new US Army. Over our history it has had flucuating strengths depending on our nation's temperment towards getting involved, but since then we've always had a standing, professional army.
Now, I question the wisdom of this choice. We live in a democracy. Or at least a republic. Our leaders have to make decisions that keep us content(not happy) in order to keep their jobs. Removing the affects of a war from most of the country creates the ability to engage in military actions that the country would perhaps not allow if the soldiers required for the action needed to be conscripted from the country. It detachs war from the citizens which has the affect of creating less outcry when war begins. This I see as capital B Bad. Wars are never good things, even if we can get by with only a few causalities on our side as in the Gulf War pt 1, the other side is still dying and war always affects the people living in the battefield. That said, a democratic nation in which the citizens are detached from the affects of war is a threat to human life. I do not trust anyone in power with the ability to make war without the population of the nation to keep them in check.
People are terrified of the word draft since Vietnam, and they should be if we continue to live in a nation that is able to get us into wars without us noticing. However, if we lived in a nation that did not have the means to start a war without affecting an evenly spread percentage of the citizenry, we would not have to fear policitians declaring war without consent because the backlash against them would be so great as to assure them a lost reelection bid. This is why things like this terrify me so much. A nation's detachment from war is much more dangerous than a teenager's detachment from violence or sex.
The problem is that no one would ever wish this themselves because it might mean that they would have to be drafted, and people are terrified of the word. So long as it's some other parent's kids getting killed and maimed, no one is going to care enough.
tl;dr
I don't think a draft is a good way to end a war, but a drafted army is a good way to prevent unnescessary wars.
Historically, it seems that nations generally create standing armies because of a recognized need for trained, experienced soldiers at the ready in case of a military emergency. In Rome, the Marian reforms were enacted after the failings of conscripted armies depleted the citizenry who were able to afford their own arms and to speed up the reaction time of the nation after war was declared. Other nations kept smaller standing armies of elite soldiers, usually as a reliable security force for the ruling class, as the conscripted armies were drafted from the often unhappy peasants. Egypt in the middle ages kept a force of mamluks, or turkish nomads, that they trained from boyhood to serve as the elite guard for the egyptian crown. (note that the mamluks overthrew the egyptians in a military coup and created the ottoman empire/turkey) Wiki informs me that the Ottoman Janissaries, christian soldiers who were also trained from boyhood, were the first "modern" standing army, whatever that means, but they too were an elite guard and the ottomans did still use conscripted armies for major wars. Later, sometime in the high middle ages, standing, professional armies appeared in Europe. As standing armies are expensive to mantain and only worth the money if you are going to use them, the Italian city-states were some of the first to adopt professional armies, being the rich trading centers that they were. These were the times of Machiavelli, when minor warfare was rampant between the city states over small bits of nothing. Of course, these weren't exactly effective standing armies, because they weren't tempered with any sort of nationalist feelings and so might be better called mercenaries as they only fought for the dollar. France soon conquered much of northern Italy with it's conscripted armies full of conviction because of the italians mercenary armies.
Finally, we come to the US. Our first army, the Continental Army, was a conscripted and volunteer army. This worked until the states no longer had a common, "tyrannical" enemy, and the volunteers stopped volunteering and the states stopped conscripting their citizens for use in a national army. The nation went back to having numerous state militias of various strengths but through the fledgling central government's desire to have military strength of it's own, it managed to create a new US Army. Over our history it has had flucuating strengths depending on our nation's temperment towards getting involved, but since then we've always had a standing, professional army.
Now, I question the wisdom of this choice. We live in a democracy. Or at least a republic. Our leaders have to make decisions that keep us content(not happy) in order to keep their jobs. Removing the affects of a war from most of the country creates the ability to engage in military actions that the country would perhaps not allow if the soldiers required for the action needed to be conscripted from the country. It detachs war from the citizens which has the affect of creating less outcry when war begins. This I see as capital B Bad. Wars are never good things, even if we can get by with only a few causalities on our side as in the Gulf War pt 1, the other side is still dying and war always affects the people living in the battefield. That said, a democratic nation in which the citizens are detached from the affects of war is a threat to human life. I do not trust anyone in power with the ability to make war without the population of the nation to keep them in check.
People are terrified of the word draft since Vietnam, and they should be if we continue to live in a nation that is able to get us into wars without us noticing. However, if we lived in a nation that did not have the means to start a war without affecting an evenly spread percentage of the citizenry, we would not have to fear policitians declaring war without consent because the backlash against them would be so great as to assure them a lost reelection bid. This is why things like this terrify me so much. A nation's detachment from war is much more dangerous than a teenager's detachment from violence or sex.
The problem is that no one would ever wish this themselves because it might mean that they would have to be drafted, and people are terrified of the word. So long as it's some other parent's kids getting killed and maimed, no one is going to care enough.
tl;dr
I don't think a draft is a good way to end a war, but a drafted army is a good way to prevent unnescessary wars.
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
MalaysianShrew on
0
Posts
It is also interesting to look at how conscripts are treated in other western countries. Just before the conscription was called off in the Netherlands, the conscripts were only stationed at home and any peace missions were dealt with by the professional army.
This is mostly a selfish argument, I don't want to loose a year of my life to the state.
I don't have time to point out all the errors in your OP, but I noticed a few, I'm sure someone else will. <_< *skitters off to do more work*
I am well aware this sounds like a bunch of patriotic bullshit from a dumb redneck soldier, but I just wanted you to realize that nothing is one sided. Yes the war in Iraq is a horrible thing, but some of the most amazing and beautiful stories have come out of that country of people finally realizing what it is like to not be terrorized. Despite that I did enjoy your take on the situation, it is certainly a fresh perspective and deserves a little more looking into. I know I get a lot of the "We are proud of you" deal, but sometimes you wonder if they are just happy they don't have to do it themselves...
If a war is bad - unnecessary, evil, misguided - then that is the only reason we should need to make the decision to oppose it. So if a nation decides it can finance and maintain a standing army, it's not for us to prevent it from doing so in order to create a built-in disincentive to war. Besides, the first thing the nation will do when it perceives a need is eliminate those artificial roadblocks anyway, so the exercise would be futile.
I'd love for the public to be more vocal and active in its opposition to war, but I also think they need to base that opposition on the actual problems with those wars, and not ones we've created in order to manipulate their response.
I also realise that the war against Saddam Hussein was a dandy thing, if only because Saddam was an asshole who was hurting a whole lot of people (pardon my simplified language, just trying to get the point across).
However, don't tell me you signed up for the army so that someone else didn't have to fight for your country. You signed up because you wanted to.
Wrong. A majority of soldiers serving in Iraq (at least with the Army) aren't operating anything more complicated than a radio handset and an M16. A draft would likely have been used to get our forces up to a level at which they'd have had a better chance of providing decent security...which would likely have meant more combat troops, and again people handling such complicated equipment as a radio, rifle, or humvee.
Don't let the Army commercials fool you; most soldiers aren't playing with cool and expensive looking equipment with lots of flashing lights and buttons. The average farmboy or student could most definitely handle the job.
Also, I think the level of training the average soldier over in Iraq has is being greatly exaggerated in your mind as well. Yeah, there are plenty of lifers and guys on second tours...there are also plenty of privates no more than six months out of basic and Guardsmen for whom the bulk of their time in uniform was 17 weeks of basic training and their four-month pre-deployment train-up.
There are plenty of other arguments against the draft, but this whole "conscripts couldn't handle all that complicated Army stuff" is definitely not one of them.
Actually, let's be honest with ourselves. A lot of people sign up for the US Army because they really didn't have a lot of other economically viable options. Less so nowadays, since college isn't really worth paying an arm and a leg for...but don't confuse "not wanting to end up poor and/or in jail" with "wanting to join the army."
As for the ease of our job, you could not be more wrong. I'm not trying to buff up my position here, but that "guy with a radio and M16" is a qualified marksman, which is a never ending amount of training, he is effective and knowledgeable with every ground weapon and familiar with every US vehicle. If they are mounted, they know more about that vehicle than any car you have ever owned. What do you think the regular Army does in our down time? It is constant, daily training. That is only for a Private level grunt. Imagine someone with a "skilled" job or a squad leader in charge of every detail of 8 men's lives. We truely are a very professional Army. We work hard to be good at what we do, and that takes more than just pulling a trigger.
McDermott came back from a tour in Iraq a few months ago.
You are stationed in Germany.
Given that, I lean toward McDermott's assessment of the situation.
(damnit, i really don't have the time to discuss with y'all. >_<)
Edit: Nah, actually I won't qualify that. I'd support a draft.
I'm definitely *not* down with the whole draft thing. I'll happily sign up to kill motherfuckers that come after me or mine, but I'm sure as shit not up for wandering around in the desert waiting to get shot.
edit: to put it another way, if there aren't enough people willing to sign up for your war to risk their own lives, chances are, it's not a just war.
oh wait damn im still in the draftable age set
*scurries away
That's sort of their position, but not really.
Charles Rangle's position is that we shouldn't be engaged in something as serious as a war if people aren't ready to do something as serious as being drafted to fight it.
Edit: What is the draftable age set anyway?
Last I knew it was like 18-35?
edit: nevermind, 18-25.
I fail to see how actually fighting the war themselves instead of using 18-20 year olds who have been tricked into joining up(not volunteering, I hate saying "volunteer army") by promising them payments that our government doesn't come through with is somehow "artificial".
It's like this:
Do we, as a nation, want to organize our young people to fight this war?
or
Do we, as a nation, want to send these volunteers to fight this war?
One sounds much more palatable to the average American.
If our government can't get enough people to want to fight a war and drafting would cause a huge outcry, then isn't that democracy saying our government shouldn't start the war?
Ah, the subtle nuance of a philosopher.
This is my point right here. There wouldn't be a war if people thought that there was a chance that they might have to actually be involved in a way that isn't paying income tax. Why should you be going to college while some other guy is getting his face blown off? He was probably just doing it to pay for college anyway.
My belief is that we wouldn't be getting into shitty, unjustified wars if the voters had to fight the war themselves. It's like the saying, it's always easy to spend someone elses money, except instead of money, it's lives.
If you want public sentiment to be considered "anti-war" then public sentiment has to actually address that war and be against that war because of problems endemic to that war (or war in general.) If we said "Let's attack Iraq, oh and btw we'll have a draft," then the public would probably be pretty against that. Similarly, if we said "Let's attack Iraq, and also I personally will take a crap in the mailbox of everyone in the country," the public would be against that as well. But in both those cases, they're not necessarily against their country attacking Iraq; they don't understand the specific problems with that war, or why it is less just than any other. They're just annoyed because we have - on purpose - added some clause to the war measure to provoke their annoyance.
The biggest problem with the lack of a draft is that you're having a society being formed where there's a definite sense of those who've done their part, and those who have not. The NPR news bit had the guy being interviewed described it as the "formation of a warrior class", which I use here in a non ironic sense, and has had major historical ramifications. I've also made a point of this in the entire "private armies" thread, since military skills don't have the same common value they used to, and security firms are snapping people up right and left.
So generally, draft thumbs up. The reason you'll see a lot of military types speaking out against the draft is twofold:
- Harder to do stupid shit when you don't have someone with a vested interest in keeping the military culture of silence going.
- And this segues into people calling their congresscritters, newspapers, whatever, to make sure people know what's going on back home. If you're looking to do your 20, you'll shut your mouth, but if you've only got a year tour and then you go home? You have very little stopping you.
In case you're wondering, my experience comes from my time on active duty as a 19K (armor crewman), as well as my time in the guard as a 25U (signal support). Deployed as the latter with an infantry battalion.
I'm not saying the average retard could manage what we do (in either of my MOS's, or yours)...just that I do honestly think that the average farmboy/student could function quite well, with training of course, in a vast majority of the MOS's that make up the bulk of our combat forces in Iraq.
Yeah, it takes some time to learn your way around pretty much any vehicle (be it a HMMWV or an M1 tank). Yes, marksmanship requires a bit of training (depending on prior familiarity with weapons), and that training never ends. But the idea that you couldn't pluck the average kid straight out of high school or out of college and train him to be just as effective as any other private not long out of basic...yeah, not buying it.
You'd have serious morale problems, to be sure...but as far as technical proficiency goes there are a lot of MOS's in the Army that you quite simply don't need to be a rocket scientist to handle. What's the minimum ASVAB score? Something like 30ish? Yeah, I scored a 98 too. Most people I know scored 90+. I cannot imagine how you could score that low...yet we take in people that do.
I was talking to some of the guys training us on ODS Bradleys while we were at Fort Bliss pre-deployment...they said they had been giving the same training to a unit from the Kansas National Guard, and they actually ran into some soldier that were straight-up illiterate. They had to read the tests to them, and have them answer orally. No shit. And you really want to claim a majority of the people in this country couldn't manage the job if conscripted? I mean, it's not like it's flipping burgers...there is some training and skill involved. But it ain't rocket surgery either.
That last one is huge to me. Personally, I'd probably have joined the Army anyway...after all, I re-enlisted in the Guard even though it offered little monetary benefit, and I'm hoping to take my degree back into the military as well (though changing branches). But based on what I've seen in both the Army and to a greater extent in the Guard, there are a lot of motherfuckers who are only there because they needed the money and/or a way out of bad circumstances. I've heard plenty of people refer to the Guard as "welfare with pride." If you don't think that a fair percentage of our military, especially the Army, is filled by what amounts to a socioeconomic draft then you're kidding yourself.
Fuck, I'd almost settle for making the voters pay taxes for the war, rather then letting them put it on their tab to be payed at some later date. But really, I'd rather see them have to pull a few counter-IED patrols...AKA recon by detonation.
Though really, that only applies to people that actually support the war...if you're out protesting, it's all good. In fact, that's probably about the fairest way I can think of to institute it...do a fake poll, and if somebody answers that they support going to war then BAM!, they're in.
I also love asking anybody here on campus who claims to still support the war why they haven't gone ahead and enlisted. I've had a couple responses involving actual medical conditions barring them from doing so...and hey, can't argue with that. But generally the response is just a whole bucket of indignation.
Yeah, the military couldn't get away with nearly as much shit if it had a fuckload of people coming and going who had little to lose...either in talking to the press or in dropping dimes to Congress.
Personally, I'd be fine with an all-volunteer military...just as soon as we beef up our social programs and institute free college education for everybody so that nobody is pressured to enlist due to poverty/lack of upward social mobility. As it stands we have an "all-volunteer" military where some people have just a little more incentive to volunteer than others.
But another side of the debate is what about the disabled who cannot have the opportunity for the benefits of the military, wouldn't that be wrong?
However, the other things you learn in the army are less nice, you would be teaching everyone in this country how to work with guns. It is already ridiculously easy to get a gun in your country, teaching everyone how to effectively kill someone else with it is frightening.
Yes, Switzerland is a scary, scary place. In fact from the French Revolution to the end of WWII you could hardly pick your nose in contenental Europe without some highly trained killing machine showing off by shooting the booger off your finger.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm sure that if Switzerland had the same social problems as the US and just as easy access to guns, there would have been a lot more reports of people shooting others.
I'm basing this off my experience in Coast Guard & Army basic training. In the Army you learn to respect your rifle and you shoot so much that I didn't want to see another weapon again. You also learn respect and team work in Army Basic too. Yeah, I know it sounds like a recruiting commercial but its true. When I graduated I was standing straight for the first time as I always slouched.
I think this could be an argument against the draft. If a draft was initiated, there would be a lot of tension between draftees, who have no obligation or vested interest to remain silent about the kind of bullshit the military pulls off what seems like on a regular basis, and volunteers, whose entire career depends on that silence. This would further reduce the effectiveness of the military.
The main reason I am against the draft however is that, besides personal reasons, I think overall it is a pretty fucking dumb idea to take working/producing citizens away from their education/jobs and send them overseas to fight wars of questionable nature. Fighting necessary wars (like WWII) is one thing, fighting illegal wars (like Iraq) is another. You could argue that if citizens had their own lives at stake they would be more willing to speak out and vote against such illegal wars, but I don't think the effect would be that great.
In my eyes a draft is justified only as a last resort; i.e. your country is being invaded and is losing the war.
When I joined the Army I was very skinny actually at 5'8" and 140 pounds. After eating a lot and doing all the physical activities in Basic Training I gained 10 pounds and looked much healthier when I graduated. Currently I'm 165 pounds and fit thankfully to a good diet and working out four times a week.
What would be better for our crime problem than giving teenagers combat training?
If what you are saying is that the existence of a large number of people with military training is irrelevent to the problem of gun violence, then I agree.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Number_of_guns_in_circulation
Is what I am thinking. Certainly, gun violence is a big problem either way, but don't tell me that giving everyone free combat training is going to do much good in this respect.
So how do you explain the reserves? Yeah, volunteers and all...but was I not taken away from my job/education for a couple years? Could I not have been contributing more to the economy either as an electrical engineer (seeing as I'd finish my degree two years earlier) or even as a register jockey (which I would have been doing part time instead of babysitting Iraqis)?