The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How to break a volunteer army...
mcdermott
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, this guy is getting some attention, for alluding to the draft more positively than any non-crazy person has in a while. I've seen his quotes taken way out of context suggesting he's straight-up saying we should start pulling numbers next month, which isn't the case. He claims that our all-volunteer system is working excellently at the moment (or some such, and I disagree) but that in the future the draft should never be disregarded as an option.
Anyway, we're seriously short on soldiers. IIRC, our own doctrine recommends a 1:50 ratio for counterinsurgency occupations (EDIT: this would be, and would always have been, 500,000 troops in Iraq), and even assuming you should count every IA/ING soldier I think we come up short. We certainly didn't have what we needed going in (which at least one guy pointed out, and was shouted down). He also said something I think applies right about now: ""Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."
Yeah, I think our strategy at the moment is really ignoring the actual size of our military.
So we're coming up to a crossroads pretty soon. The 15-month tours of many units will be coming to an end, at which point to maintain the same force level we have now (is it still a "surge" if it's indefinite?) we're looking at either increasing tour length (18 months?) or decreasing dwell time (8 months?). We're probably also looking at another round of National Guard deployments, since regardless of whether it continues the "surge" has overextended the active duty forces. There is, IIRC, already one brigade that has done two deployments in only four years...expect a few more (including possibly mine) to be in this same position by '09. This is an insane optempo for reservists, who are expected to maintain civilian careers...after all, upon returning from combat they're kicked to the curb to fend for themselves. At least they get to draw unemployment.
Anyway, I'll try to avoid tangents. What the fuck can we do here? Increasing the size of our military (both active and reserve) seems like it might be a sound plan. Of course, that requires a larger pool of willing recruits than we have now (we're already, for instance, throwing $15K bonuses at reservists for re-enlistment just to maintain current strength). A draft is generally dismissed, and largely for good reason (full disclosure: I believe we are at the point now that, if we're going to have a selective service system at all, it's time to use it). Which leaves only a drastic reduction of forces in Iraq, like yesterday. We simply cannot maintain 100K+ soldiers there without subjecting our forces to an unacceptable optempo.
Who says it's unacceptable? The Pentagon, for one. Their goal is, and has been, to have active units doing 12-month deployments with two years as home, and reservists doing 9-month deployments (with three train-up...compared to the 12/4 we do now) once every six years. They point to combat stress, which is reaching unacceptable levels...particularly in the Army...leading to issues both at home and on the battlefield.
The gist of this? Our all-volunteer force, despite what General Lute thinks, really isn't working at the moment. The problem? Even if we "expanded" our forces, we don't have enough volunteers to fill them. Military service is seen by a majority of the population nowadays as "somebody else's" job. Able-bodied men (and women) who vehemently support military action would never even consider darkening a recruiter's door. Society isn't suggesting they do it (except the occasional disgruntled vet), and our government certainly isn't either. So a tiny fraction of the population continues to bear the brunt of a policy that a vast majority at one point agreed with (invasion), and a large majority still agree with (anything but immediate withdrawal).
Oh, and before people start comparing sacrifices and service, what I'm talking about (the brunt being borne): spending more time in the desert than at home, for years on end, and then all too often losing an arm or a leg (or a life) on your second or third tour. Police don't face anything near this, nor do wilderness firefighters, soup kitchen workers, or your local elected representative.
My suggestion? Ideally, we somewhat expand our standing military (ground forces specifically) and largely expand our reserve forces (particularly the Guard, which for those who don't know is where the "combat" troops in the reserves mostly come from...the Reserves are mostly support units), and try to change the attitudes of the average American that military service is just something those other guys do.
Of course, that takes some time...and 18-month tours or 8-month dwell times are just around the corner. So plan B? Start pulling numbers. Like, a division or two worth. Yes, I realize that nobody likes plan B. But honestly, I don't trust the last two generations or so to get on board with plan A, either.
TL;DR: The tiny sliver of our population silly enough to still consider military service is getting fucked...hard. In order to stop this (and prevent it in the future) we need to expand our military and you (yes, you, not the non-existent guy behind you) need to actually consider joining and stop coming up with excuses. That or we need to stop our foreign expeditions, including the current one that you (yes, you, not the guy behind you) likely supported at the outset and you (yes, you, not the guy behind you) probably at least lukewarmly support continuing until some fuzzy date into the future. By stop, I mean reduce troop strength to a fraction (like, 1/something) of its current size...and next rotation, not "someday." That, or a draft. And we all love that idea, right?
STL;SDR: You may not realize it, but soldiers nowadays are getting fucked. Hard. So fucking take five minutes out of your day to go fucking read it...it's the least you can do. Then go back to drinking your latte or whatever.
Disclaimer: both because I'm busy today and because this subject turns me into a gigantic asshole, I'll try not to be the driving force behind any discussion here. Go wild, kids.
Anyway, we're seriously short on soldiers. IIRC, our own doctrine recommends a 1:50 ratio for counterinsurgency occupations (EDIT: this would be, and would always have been, 500,000 troops in Iraq), and even assuming you should count every IA/ING soldier I think we come up short. We certainly didn't have what we needed going in (which at least one guy pointed out, and was shouted down). He also said something I think applies right about now: ""Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."
Yeah, I think our strategy at the moment is really ignoring the actual size of our military.
So we're coming up to a crossroads pretty soon. The 15-month tours of many units will be coming to an end, at which point to maintain the same force level we have now (is it still a "surge" if it's indefinite?) we're looking at either increasing tour length (18 months?) or decreasing dwell time (8 months?). We're probably also looking at another round of National Guard deployments, since regardless of whether it continues the "surge" has overextended the active duty forces. There is, IIRC, already one brigade that has done two deployments in only four years...expect a few more (including possibly mine) to be in this same position by '09. This is an insane optempo for reservists, who are expected to maintain civilian careers...after all, upon returning from combat they're kicked to the curb to fend for themselves. At least they get to draw unemployment.
Anyway, I'll try to avoid tangents. What the fuck can we do here? Increasing the size of our military (both active and reserve) seems like it might be a sound plan. Of course, that requires a larger pool of willing recruits than we have now (we're already, for instance, throwing $15K bonuses at reservists for re-enlistment just to maintain current strength). A draft is generally dismissed, and largely for good reason (full disclosure: I believe we are at the point now that, if we're going to have a selective service system at all, it's time to use it). Which leaves only a drastic reduction of forces in Iraq, like yesterday. We simply cannot maintain 100K+ soldiers there without subjecting our forces to an unacceptable optempo.
Who says it's unacceptable? The Pentagon, for one. Their goal is, and has been, to have active units doing 12-month deployments with two years as home, and reservists doing 9-month deployments (with three train-up...compared to the 12/4 we do now) once every six years. They point to combat stress, which is reaching unacceptable levels...particularly in the Army...leading to issues both at home and on the battlefield.
The gist of this? Our all-volunteer force, despite what General Lute thinks, really isn't working at the moment. The problem? Even if we "expanded" our forces, we don't have enough volunteers to fill them. Military service is seen by a majority of the population nowadays as "somebody else's" job. Able-bodied men (and women) who vehemently support military action would never even consider darkening a recruiter's door. Society isn't suggesting they do it (except the occasional disgruntled vet), and our government certainly isn't either. So a tiny fraction of the population continues to bear the brunt of a policy that a vast majority at one point agreed with (invasion), and a large majority still agree with (anything but immediate withdrawal).
Oh, and before people start comparing sacrifices and service, what I'm talking about (the brunt being borne): spending more time in the desert than at home, for years on end, and then all too often losing an arm or a leg (or a life) on your second or third tour. Police don't face anything near this, nor do wilderness firefighters, soup kitchen workers, or your local elected representative.
My suggestion? Ideally, we somewhat expand our standing military (ground forces specifically) and largely expand our reserve forces (particularly the Guard, which for those who don't know is where the "combat" troops in the reserves mostly come from...the Reserves are mostly support units), and try to change the attitudes of the average American that military service is just something those other guys do.
Of course, that takes some time...and 18-month tours or 8-month dwell times are just around the corner. So plan B? Start pulling numbers. Like, a division or two worth. Yes, I realize that nobody likes plan B. But honestly, I don't trust the last two generations or so to get on board with plan A, either.
TL;DR: The tiny sliver of our population silly enough to still consider military service is getting fucked...hard. In order to stop this (and prevent it in the future) we need to expand our military and you (yes, you, not the non-existent guy behind you) need to actually consider joining and stop coming up with excuses. That or we need to stop our foreign expeditions, including the current one that you (yes, you, not the guy behind you) likely supported at the outset and you (yes, you, not the guy behind you) probably at least lukewarmly support continuing until some fuzzy date into the future. By stop, I mean reduce troop strength to a fraction (like, 1/something) of its current size...and next rotation, not "someday." That, or a draft. And we all love that idea, right?
STL;SDR: You may not realize it, but soldiers nowadays are getting fucked. Hard. So fucking take five minutes out of your day to go fucking read it...it's the least you can do. Then go back to drinking your latte or whatever.
Disclaimer: both because I'm busy today and because this subject turns me into a gigantic asshole, I'll try not to be the driving force behind any discussion here. Go wild, kids.
mcdermott on
0
Posts
My understanding of voluntary military service was that you willingly trade away your life for personal gains (or for your country, or whatever honorable illusions people may have about it), and you don't get to bitch and complain about it.
But maybe there is something about the word "voluntary" that I'm missing here.
Just because a person supported an invasion does not place any obligation on them, moral or otherwise, to go join the military to share those guys' burden.
You are definitely missing a lot. Voluntary military service doesn't mean that the guys in charge get to repeatedly throw you into the meat grinder so that you come out a blubbering mess with post-traumatic stress syndrome and no skills to take you beyond your military career.
I thought that you were going to be pulling out starting in Septemeber?
I have never in any way, shape, or form supported the War in Iraq. From the beginning I thought the war was unjust and immoral. Asking me to kill or die in order to continue a war I find immoral is absolutely ridiculous and, frankly, offensive. You might as well ask me to murder someone in cold blood. The solution to this problem is not and never was to throw more troops at it, voluntary or otherwise. The catastrophe in Iraq arose from deeply flawed policies and a complete lack of foresight from the top down; it was a doomed enterprise from the outset. More volunteers are not the answer and a draft is not the answer; the answer is complete withdrawal.
Most people don't want to go into the military while there's a war. Simple psychology.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Well, yeah. My point about more troops being a bad idea stands.
*As a computer engineer.*
That's something I'm in full favor of doing. We based going in on false information, we set no solid goals or deadlines for leaving, we're stretched beyond belief. And trying to institute a draft in the US today would go over like a lead balloon.
Then as long as that's the case there will never be a successful draft.
But I agree, we will avoid discussing this topic.
Anyway, would military service be a learning experience in the US? Do you join the army as a boy and become a man (hurr)(tm)?
And yeah, what about the other gender? Would that go over well? Does the gubment have a few billion lying around to make the army less threatening to women?
*edit: to clarify: how the fuck is the government going to justify a draft in this place and time without coming off as sexist or as a killing machine for our boys?
Oh, and the problems that we're going to have in the future thanks to now incredibly lax recruiting standards are going to be REAL fun. Imagine urban gangs trained in small unit tactics. Yes, you should feel your spine shiver. Not to mention the problems here at home that the overextention is causing - I'm watching my home state go up in smoke literally because we don't have the Guard available for firefighting.
You don't seem really convinced, for a draft to happen there must be something out there making it worth it. A good pay? Respect from your family? Saving your country? Higher chance of getting a decent job afterwards? Getting laid? Anything?
The sandbox we so dearly call Iraq offers none of this.
For as far as I am aware only the health insurance is decent for US standards. I doubt there would be much support for a draft, not from the age group getting shafted by this, but also not from their parents.
That's the stuff you need to get a volunteer force to work
to have a draft you just need a really bad military situation, an army that isn't big enough, and copious amounts of state power.
I think it's a sort of circular loop. I would actually enlist were I certain I could do a short active tour (ie <2-4 years) and then be out, but I've watched friends on active duty and in the reserves get called up over and over again, typically because of a high-demand MOS, and basically get boned in civilian life because of it. Right now, everyone knows if they join the guard or reserves, they might as well be going active duty, so they don't.
I host a podcast about movies.
Um, no. You're getting shitted on, and I want it to stop. And I bet I'm not the only person who thinks so.
And I really, really don't like what that assumes about the motives of people who did join the military.
I look at the military and I see a bunch of kids getting shot at
while I sit and do my thing.
I mean, I don't care if you support a given war or not.
If you're an able-bodied male human being and you look at news footage of a 20 year old girl who will not be returning to her volleyball career because she stepped on a landmine, you had better feel like a pussy.
Does that make sense?
It doesn't have too, because its just a description of an emotion, but does it make sense? Or is it at least echoed?
I host a podcast about movies.
I feel bad, but the presence of people who, by hook or by crook, have ended up serving in Iraq is not a good reason for others to join them voluntarily. If the government can essentially hold members of the military hostage in order to guilt more people into joining... let's just say that policy could have some disastrous consequences.
You know, if I felt a war was unjust, but felt that my country's leadership was basically able and had made good decisions in the past, there's a good chance I would enlist. If I felt a war was just but my country was in it for the wrong reasons, I still might enlist. But feeling like my country is run by thieves intent on ruining my future for their own sake (massive debt, environmental disasters, government power all out of whack) while asking me to voluntarily help them do it by sacrificing my health and livelihood... Fuck that.
Provided there is an administration elected in '08 that I feel I can trust (which is retarded to say about anything relating to politics) I could see myself joining the armed forces. Service to country is very important in my mind (and that doesn't necessarily mean joining the armed forces.) So who knows, after 2 more years of teaching maybe I'll be fighting for Uncle Sam. *shrug*
I was saying that I didn't like the assumption, on the part of those who do not support the war, that those who enlisted supported the war.
And it wasn't that it was a girl, in my example, in particular (that happened to be an actual item I saw on the news a few days ago is all). It's that it's well...a kid. 18-20 year old kids in the army, while blowhards in their 30s and 40s who've already fucking squandered their youth and beauty go on about how "we should just nuke the whole motherfucker man fuck that liberal ass glen beck, no what ah mean?"
That's what pisses me off.
That and "I can't do anything about the government (which is going to roll over every few years no matter what) so I am so overcome with nihlism that I won't consider enlistment"
That doesn't change the fact that if we didn't have a volunteer army, every single casualty would have a random chance of being you.
So no matter how you feel, if you have the decency to appreciate at least that facet of military service, you might give thought to enlisting if your lifestyle permits it.
Also, I have to address the person who said our relaxed enlistment policies might lead to street gangs with small unit tactics skills: Dude, it might also lead to ex-gangmembers with good jobs. IF we decide to start taking care of our vets.
I host a podcast about movies.
Were we invaded by viet nam in your alternative history?
I host a podcast about movies.
Remember how mad "the american public" got over two buildings?
I mean, granted, prime real estate, but people were bent, man. You destroy LA or New York or even a hole like Flint and America will come with the thunder.
I host a podcast about movies.
Yep.