There's no military in the world that can openly challenge the US, and continually acting as if there is leads directly to the kinds of messes we have now.
The US doesn't need more "grunt" level soldiers (which is the best you can hope for from conscripts), it needs more specialists. The only thing a draft does is make things more "fair" in terms of who goes to war, and that by no stretch of the imagination outweighs the crippling negatives.
OPENLY challenge. I read this to mean 'big ol' army vs. big ol' army, both meet on a battlefield, round 1, FIGHT!' In that sense, the US does not lose.
Iraq is not that sense. There are two basic types of armies: conventional and guerilla.
<Desrcipton of conventional vs guerilla>
You're preaching to the choir, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I was talking about conscript vs specialist soldiers.
A draft helps you win conventional wars. We don't have any problem whatsoever winning those. What a draft won't help you with at all is the type of wars we're going to be predominantly facing now that we're untouchable conventionally.
The only thing that helps us win guerrilla wars vs insurgencies is specialists. Highly trained, highly skilled soldiers that can work within the regional populations and that are the pinnacle of guerilla warfare. No amount of training in the world will turn more than a minuscule fraction of draftees into that type of soldier, which is why the idea of a draft is so archaic and useless for anything beyond ceremonial flag waving.
Ok. Look, just to keep you guys from your "USA the greatest" spiel, I am not doubting that in a battle, the US has the tools for the job. I am saying without troop numbers much higher than they are now, you have not got the troops you would need, to ensure a sensible result.
Your own pentagon says this.
Ask yourselves why Bush hasn't been allowed to simply have the Iranian nuke factories bombed flat. It would simply un-do all that corner of the world. And you don't have the troops to pick up the pieces.
Yes, you could right this minute knock out every sam site, every tank, and every ship Iran has. Which would all be pointless, because you would still not occupy the ground.
You beat the Iraq army in weeks, sure, but what good did that do without troops to occupy the ground?. (edit)
You could have rushed in, destroyed all the tools of war you could find, killed Saddam and rushed back out.
What good would have been done?. He would have been replaced by someone just like himself. And this looks to be set to happen ANYWAY, all because you didn't have enough people there all along, because you did not have enough people there to establish the rule of law over the whole country.
Which you would certainly have to do in Iran.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
But your whole argument rests on people being sane. Werehippy, mate, Afganistan got invaded because not only did the Government there support the Taliban and Al Quada that murdered 3000 people IN NEW YORK CITY, but when they were told "Give up this list of people instantly", they in fact challenged your military to do their worst.
No, my entire argument is based on the type of response needed to different threats. It doesn't matter if a country is sane or insane, the American people as a whole have statistically nothing to fear from any country or formal power on the planet, because there is no one (or nearly no combination of powers) that our conventional forces can not beat.
The only people that are a threat to the US are the smaller, craftier opponents that can't be beat with a standing army (the only thing a draft strengthens). And while we'll never be 100% safe for that type of enemy, the type of damage a small mobile opponent can do to US citizens is ultimately acceptable. 9/11 was tragic, but on a purely cold blooded, objective scale, the threat of a similar attack is minuscule. It ranks somewhere below the threat of being killed by the flu.
Terrorist threats aren't dealt with by bulking up your armed forces. They're dealt with by a small cadre of extremely skilled military professionals, intelligence gathering, and diplomacy. The fact that they will always be a threat isn't cause to increase our standing military exponentially.
That mook in Panama swung his sword about his head, and declared war on you.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about here? What mook in Panama, and if he doesn't present a big enough threat to even register with me (and I'm not completely oblivious), I can't say I see why we should bulk up our military to deal with him.
If Iran was to repeat the holding of hostages that they have already got away with against both YOUR embassy, and an embassy in London, you would have to use air power to punish them, because you simply don't have the soldiers to deal with IRAQ effectively, you can not hope to invade Iran.
Right now, you do NOT have sufficient soldiers to repeat the Iraq war, let alone the bigger one that Iran would swiftly become. A fact.
If Iran were to completely lose their minds and do something overt, they would quite simply cease to exist as they currently do. The percentage of military resources tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan vs the total forces at our disposal is something around 5% (133,000 vs 2,685,000).
The US would have no problem soundly defeating nearly any possible military threat. The problem that would follow, and that we face in Iraq, is simply a matter of political capital. We quite simply have no compelling reason to commit the manpower needed to pacify a hostile country over the long term, given our current military and political climate.
A draft doesn't do a single thing to change this. The problem we face in Iraq isn't that we don't have enough troops; it's that we don't have enough of the right kind, that our military strategy in the region is continually subsumed to political goals that have no basis in reality, and that the American people have no reason to be willing to commit the resources needed to do the job.
A draft won't effect a single facet of the problems we currently face, and would open a floodgate of other issues that would not only cripple our military, but could feasibly destabilize our government.
Ask yourselves why Bush hasn't been allowed to simply have the Iranian nuke factories bombed flat. It would simply un-do all that corner of the world. And you don't have the troops to pick up the pieces.
Yes, you could right this minute knock out every sam site, every tank, and every ship Iran has. Which would all be pointless, because you would still not occupy the ground.
This has NOTHING to do with the size of the US military, and everything to do with politics. The US has not be given a pressing enough reason to act unilaterally, so it hasn't. A possible nuclear threat in a decade does not justify a military commitment in the present.
Your mistake here is twofold. First, you act as if we have to change the country to remove an Iranian nuclear threat. A nuclear program is a delicate and massive undertaking. Unsubtly, bombing a country back to the stone age and removing the current government ends the threat as affectively as any sweeping changes. It would be decades more before the new government could rebuild the program we removed, and you assume they'd be willing and able to do so with the knowledge of just how easily their predecessors were removed hanging over their heads. The Iraq insurgency is a threat to us only because we're still there. If we left tomorrow, the odds they would threaten a single American life in the next 20 years (outside of people visiting/stationed in the region) is marginal.
The second mistake you keep making is thinking a draft would have the slightest positive effect on anything you've mentioned. If the US had another 5 million grunts, do you think that would change the political climate, making the American people willing to accept more casualties? Would it make a standing army any more effective against a guerrilla army?
At the end of the day, we already have more soldiers than we really need. What we don't have enough of is intelligence, career specialists, and a pressing reason to commit and risk what we do have.
It's the only thing I could think of, but that's not really a point in his favor. The US used Noriega as long as he was worth the effort, and when he went rogue we removed him.
We invaded immediately, lost 23 troops, trounced all opposition, and were done in a couple weeks. How do we need to increase our military by orders of magnitude to repeat the feat?
It's the only thing I could think of, but that's not really a point in his favor. The US used Noriega as long as he was worth the effort, and when he went rogue we removed him.
We invaded immediately, lost 23 troops, trounced all opposition, and were done in a couple weeks. How do we need to increase our military by orders of magnitude to repeat the feat?
If we had drafted everyone in the US between the ages of 18 and 30, we could have done it with only 22 lost troops.
But your whole argument rests on people being sane. Werehippy, mate, Afganistan got invaded because not only did the Government there support the Taliban and Al Quada that murdered 3000 people IN NEW YORK CITY, but when they were told "Give up this list of people instantly", they in fact challenged your military to do their worst.
That mook in Panama swung his sword about his head, and declared war on you.
If Iran was to repeat the holding of hostages that they have already got away with against both YOUR embassy, and an embassy in London, you would have to use air power to punish them, because you simply don't have the soldiers to deal with IRAQ effectively, you can not hope to invade Iran.
Right now, you do NOT have sufficent soldiers to repeat the Iraq war, let alone the bigger one that Iran would swiftly become. A fact.
You know what? GOOD. No nation should have the miltary resources to wages war on the entire world. I don't trust the US or any other nation with that kind fo power. Once someone, anyone, has the capability then diplomacy is completely fucking dead in the water.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
And I'm saying any belligerent action on part of Iran would not be met single-handedly by the United States.
Depends what belligerent action you're talking about, who they go after, and who makes the first response.
*If they just keep shit-talking, they can say virtually any damn thing and nobody outside the US, Iran and Israel will care. No actual action will be taken.
*If they announce they have nukes, but announce no intention to use them, the US will freak, Israel will freak more, but nobody else will care.
*If they announce they have nukes and the intention to use them, the US will pull some diplomats out of its ass. Not neccesarily GOOD diplomats, but diplomats. Israel will want to go in, but the US will talk them down. The rest of the world will split between Iran backers and Israel backers, many of the Iran backers being more like 'We're in favor of whatever's opposite of the US'.
*If they send troops into Iraq, the rest of the world's pretty much made their decision on that and will say 'Bushie, you're on your own on this one.' No new countries will enter Iraq, a few of America's remaining allies will take the opportunity to get the hell out.
*If they take military action against Israel, support will depend on who shit-talks Iran first: The US, Israel, or someone else. Whoever says something first sets the tone- the US or Israel leading will cause a consensus of 'you guys work this out amongst yourselves'; anyone else leading will cause a consensus of 'Okay, hang on, we're coming to help'.
Note the reactions get undermined by the world in general hating just about everyone involved, and any sort of assistance depending on Iran REALLY fucking up, and letting the world figure that out for itself.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
There is no point in continuing this discussion, if you are so ignorant of your own history, Werehippy. I said Mook in Panama to stress that we are talking about a world that contains illogical opponents for the USA that can't be expected to understand the result of an attack on you. I didn't expect to have to say Noriega to someone that lived through the events.
Historically the US has had a large armed forces, yes, but most by far of YOUR forces, are not front line, not army, not useful for an occupation. So you saying 2.1 million, is actually more proof that you are some kid talking tough. That figure includes coast guard and federal police services, air crew, navy, and the hundreds of thosands of people in your military bases in 42 countries, none of whom can be spared from their roles, so it was sort of just brag, meant nothing.
Let me repeat, for the dummy. I understand that you have the tools to destroy any target that pops up. Please stop boostering how wonderful and superduper the American toy bag is, I am not disputing that.
What you do not have, is troops to occupy the ground your machines would need to be supported and protected over. Don't believe me, read the public synopsis of the report just released by your Pentagon.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS FOR YOU PRESENT COMMITMENT, let alone any future threats.
And the proof of that, is the people being served with their third stop loss after their service protecting your interests in Iraq and Afganistan. If you have this massive pool of reserves of sutible soldiers, what need of stop loss papers?. ( if you feel compelled to spiel off again about how wrong I am, please, please, start here and prove me wrong, I will be happy to say "Oh, thats proof that I was wrong, wise werehippy", but that isn't going to happen, is it?. You will just ignore this for a third time, right?. )
The truth is, you have not got the men, and if tomorrow Iran did sweep into Al Basrah in a fit of insanity, you would instantly HAVE a draft, be forced to it. Better to do it as a plan, than be forced to do it.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
There is no point in continuing this discussion, if you are so ignorant of your own history, Werehippy. I said Mook in Panama to stress that we are talking about a world that contains illogical opponents for the USA that can't be expected to understand the result of an attack on you. I didn't expect to have to say Noriega to someone that lived through the events.
And I will break out the rarely used "Just because you say it like a condescending prick doesn't actually make you right".
You're "mook in Panama" point is the perfect goddam illustration of why you're an idiot. In the overwhelming majority of threats to the US, the US already has the military strength to dispose of the situation and move on. They came in, removed the offending government, and got the hell out of the way while things took their natural course.
It doesn't matter if the opponent is sane or insane, as I laid out for you step by excruciating step. There exist no formal power that is actually a threat to the US, and THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREATS A DRAFT HELPS DEAL WITH. Have you gotten the gist of why everyone is calling you an idiot yet, or would you like to cite another irrelevant example and then tell me I don't know history well enough?
Historically the US has had a large armed forces, yes, but most by far of YOUR forces, are not front line, not army, not useful for an occupation. So you saying 2.1 million, is actually more proof that you are some kid talking tough. That figure includes coast guard and federal police services, air crew, navy, and the hundreds of thosands of people in your military bases in 42 countries, none of whom can be spared from their roles, so it was sort of just brag, meant nothing.
Any particular reason you like occupation, or is it just because you jerk off to some assumed superiority to America? Yet again, your own goddam example proves occupation is a luxury, not a necessity. For christ sake, every single example you've provided proves you wrong.
Panama was dealt with in a few weeks, with minimal troops and no occupation. Any Iranian attack that actually involved frontline troops could be over just as quickly.
Occupation is a political luxury. Read it again, and make sure you understand before we move on. Occupation is a political luxury. Any reason we had for being in Iraq beyond the political is over. We could leave tomorrow and be as safe for the next two decades as if we threw an infinite amount of resources and bodies at the problem and built the perfect society. Once you remove the government and military might of a country, they stop being anything more than a regional threat, for a long long time.
Let me repeat, for the dummy. I understand that you have the tools to destroy any target that pops up. Please stop boostering how wonderful and superduper the American toy bag is, I am not disputing that.
What you do not have, is troops to occupy the ground your machines would need to be supported and protected over. Don't believe me, read the public synopsis of the report just released by your Pentagon.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS FOR YOU PRESENT COMMITMENT, let alone any future threats.
We don't need more troops for our present commitments, we need to have a reason to use more troops.
Again, and feel free to refer to any of the number of posts where I explain exactly why your asinine insistance that the US is screwed if anyone attacks is, well asinine, the only thing a draft can help with (fighting standing armies) we can already do in spades. The only thing we can't do well enough (fighting irregular armies) a draft is counterproductive for, providing the wrong kind of fighting force and destroying and political drive for the fight.
And the proof of that, is the people being served with their third stop loss after their service protecting your interests in Iraq and Afganistan. If you have this massive pool of reserves of sutible soldiers, what need of stop loss papers?. ( if you feel compelled to spiel off again about how wrong I am, please, please, start here and prove me wrong, I will be happy to say "Oh, thats proof that I was wrong, wise werehippy", but that isn't going to happen, is it?. You will just ignore this for a third time, right?.)
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to prove a point as opposed to just being a cock, so I just ignored you when you said something pointless and idiotic. Since you can't shut up about your irrelevant anecdotal evidence, the answer is:
The reason that it's better to keep a highly trained, specialized solider on for a third tour of duty in the region they just spent two tours, as opposed to shipping in a new recruit, is because the experienced solider is superior in every possible fashion.
The experienced solider represents a sunk cost in the millions, since only soldiers with extremely rare and valuable skillsets are kept on. The soldier is intimately familiar with their duties and the area, removing any gap in coverage due to inexperienced or unfamiliar troops taking over the role. And finally, the third tour soldier is a survivor. A hugely disproportionate number of the casualties occur among soldiers on their first tour, because they simply lack the practical knowledge and experience the area demands with no margin for error.
The truth is, you have not got the men, and if tomorrow Iran did sweep into Al Basrah in a fit of insanity, you would instantly HAVE a draft, be forced to it. Better to do it as a plan, than be forced to do it.
Again, before I stab myself in the goddam eye, you are staggeringly fucking retarded on this point. Should Iran ever be so fucking idiotic as to overtly attack US soldiers, the US government would cream itself for joy. The manpower exists in excess, the only thing lacking is the political capital, both domestically and internationally, to commit it and accept the inevitable loses.
An actual, direct attack on the US? Not only would the government be dancing in the streets about finally getting to use the standing army that's doing no good and burning political capital during an occupation, but the number of volunteers would explode so thoroughly any mention of a draft would be laughed out of the room.
edit: I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on a particular factoid, if I'm actually wrong. "You don't have enough troops to rule the world by force" is pretty fucking retarded argument for the draft thought, especially when that's all someone brings.
Listen, if you have no self restraint, you just look like a fool. You can be as correct with your facts as you like, once you start to swear and carry on like a child, you lose all credibility.
Swearing at me over the phone, doesn't do anything to me, but it does make you look foolish.
That said, and ignoring your abusive adjectives, you make a good point about the value that the trained and EXPERIENCED soldier has, as opposed to a trained replacement. However, that is NOT the rational behind the stop loss. Your own military, the government agencies, and even people that are UNDER the finger of Bush and his yes men, have admitted that the stop losses are because they have no alternative.
Gates is talking about 30 000 new troops, and was within days told that they don't know where they would come from.
And once they have forced the guys back a third time, where do they make their numbers up from then?. Eventually you need more troops simply to deal with Iraq, and as I pointed out, Iraq is now, you need a draft
For future threats of the potential equal magnitude.
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Being a condescending asshole = acting like an adult? You're giving him a fucking ultimatum?
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Have... have you read the comic to which this forum is attached? o_O
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Have... have you read the comic to which this forum is attached? o_O
I'm pretty sure that, unless a mod says otherwise, the official PA doctrine follows the lines of that lovely song: "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me." Neh?
Listen, if you have no self restraint, you just look like a fool. You can be as correct with your facts as you like, once you start to swear and carry on like a child, you lose all credibility.
Swearing at me over the phone, doesn't do anything to me, but it does make you look foolish.
Congratulations, you're an simultaneously condescending and a moron. A rare accomplishment, so feel free to take a minute and bask in your glory.
Done? Excellent. Now shut the hell up. Welcome to the D&D, the place where if you act like a vapid asshole, you'll be called such. The reason most of us are here is because you'll (occasionally, I seem to have no such luck in this particular thread) find intelligent debate without the attendant pomposity.
In the interim between when you decided to grace us all with your ever so brilliant radiance and when you get your head out of your ass and realize that you change your delivery to fit your audience, not the other way around, feel free to ruminate on the fact you've committed yet another debate sin, the ever pleasant ad hominem attack. HOW I tell you you're wrong and who I am has no relevance to how right what I say is. You take issue with my calling you a gibbering fucking retarded, feel free to PM me, don't waste the threads time crying about it and whining about how it devalues my opinion. Put up or shut up.
That said, and ignoring your abusive adjectives, you make a good point about the value that the trained and EXPERIENCED soldier has, as opposed to a trained replacement. However, that is NOT the rational behind the stop loss. Your own military, the government agencies, and even people that are UNDER the finger of Bush and his yes men, have admitted that the stop losses are because they have no alternative.
Gates is talking about 30 000 new troops, and was within days told that they don't know where they would come from.
Well, you DO seem to be a bastion of unbiased insight, but lets go ahead and cover the same territory for the half-dozenth time. THERE IS NO POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TROOPS AT RISK. Say it with me now.
30,000 new troops is 30,000 more potential casualties the American public has no reason to accept. The fact we WON'T add more bodies on the ground has nothing to do with whether we CAN'T add more. Yet again, your own asinine example proves exactly why the quasi-statistic you love to throw around (soldiers on third tours, oh noes!) is happening. The political reality is that we can only have X troops on the ground, so those X need to be the absolute best they can be, meaning sometime experienced soldiers must be held on long. It's not ideal, but it's the inevitable result of fighting a war no one cares about.
And once they have forced the guys back a third time, where do they make their numbers up from then?. Eventually you need more troops simply to deal with Iraq, and as I pointed out, Iraq is now, you need a draft
For future threats of the potential equal magnitude.
For the love of all that's holy, you really are fucking retarded. Once a soldier can't be sent over any more, they're replaced with any of the 1000s of new recruits that are incoming each year. The Army has been meeting it's recruitment goals for the last X years (6, 8 maybe, I don't really remember) and that more than covers casualty and enlistment loses.
And since you felt like acting like such a little cock when I ignored your "third enlistment crisis" (We'll ignore your little dig about admitting you're wrong when the actual reason is given, since you've pussied out) how about you try not to be a complete waste of oxygen and extend the same courtesy?
After the MULTIPLE explanations of how a draft isn't needed to maintain current numbers, which are more than sufficient for everything a standing army can be called on to do, and painstaking explanations of the uselessness of a conscript army in this situation and the universally crippling effects of a draft on the base society, how about you actually man up and explain exactly HOW everyone else is wrong and a draft would solve anything? We've already gone over in excruciating detail how throwing unwilling and untrained (in the specialist skills we actually do need more of) bodies at a problem is the stupidest fucking suggestion possible, so how about you do something other than act as if the answer is self evident and contribute something useful.
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Choke on a dick and die seems to be the most eloquent way to respond.
You've yet to provide the slightest hint you're worth my respect, and until you do I will gladly speak to you exactly how the spirit moves me, and it often moves me to be quite rude to pretentious pricks who try and cover smug ignorance with a veneer of vapid polish. You've already gotten more polite replies than you deserve for your idiocy, simple because you're new and most new members learn quickly enough when you enter a community you interact by their rules, not your own.
They should keep the selective service active. (I agree that women should be included in it.) Men were drafted into the army in World War II . . . If a crazy, genocidal, invading dictator isn't enough to get a sufficient number of volunteers, what is?
I understand the fear of being drafted into a stupid conflict like Iraq; yes, that WOULD suck. But when the army is made up entirely of volunteers, it's too easy for people who aren't in the military, who don't have family in the military, to shout "Rah troops!", slap a magnetic yellow ribbon on their car, and promptly put the whole thing out of their minds . . . except if one of those damn dirty commie peaceniks suggests that we pull out, of course. I question whether the invasion of Iraq would have initially been so popular (Bush's popularity jumped to over 70%) if everyone knew that they--or their son or daughter or grandkid--might be drafted at any moment. It seems to me that it would encourage people to think farther than, "Well, those army guys are all volunteers and Saddam is a meanie." It would also provide incentive not to elect a dumbass. TWICE.
IMO, it's not fair to send the same troops over to Iraq again and again and again. Sending over the National Guard was simply cruel considering they were led to expect they would be serving the traditional "one weekend a month, two weeks a year."
Wow. I've been reading this thread for twenty minutes and I've seen great arguments, both for and against the draft. However, I would like to point out the one simple fact that rendered the draft obsolete (in the U.S.) from Korea and Vietnam to the current era: you can't make someone fight. As a member of the combat forces, a serviceman has the right to conscientious objection, a fact which renders the draft null and void.
A little story for you. In the summer of '98, I was going through boot camp at MCRD San Diego. During one of our mandated classes on military history, an instructor came in and announced the (fake) news that Afghanistan had been invaded by Pakistan. My first thought was, "No fucking way, the Pakistani government isn't that stupid." The instructors said we would be accelerated through the training cycle and we'd be in combat in less than 2 months. Also bullshit.
When asked if any recruit was an objector, about 12% of the class stood up and asked to be assigned to a non-combat MOS. After the groans and hisses went away, the instructors let us in on the joke and we went about our day.
Moral of the story: when a volunteer military still has a substantial percentage of people harboring the conscript syndrome, then a draft will fall flat on it's face. Besides, people in combat MOS's don't want objectors next to them in the middle of a firefight; those guys will get you killed.
They should keep the selective service active. (I agree that women should be included in it.) Men were drafted into the army in World War II . . . If a crazy, genocidal, invading dictator isn't enough to get a sufficient number of volunteers, what is?
I understand the fear of being drafted into a stupid conflict like Iraq; yes, that WOULD suck. But when the army is made up entirely of volunteers, it's too easy for people who aren't in the military, who don't have family in the military, to shout "Rah troops!", slap a magnetic yellow ribbon on their car, and promptly put the whole thing out of their minds . . . except if one of those damn dirty commie peaceniks suggests that we pull out, of course. I question whether the invasion of Iraq would have initially been so popular (Bush's popularity jumped to over 70%) if everyone knew that they--or their son or daughter or grandkid--might be drafted at any moment. It seems to me that it would encourage people to think farther than, "Well, those army guys are all volunteers and Saddam is a meanie." It would also provide incentive not to elect a dumbass. TWICE.
IMO, it's not fair to send the same troops over to Iraq again and again and again. Sending over the National Guard was simply cruel considering they were led to expect they would be serving the traditional "one weekend a month, two weeks a year."
I think the solutoin there isn't a draft it's to stop electing cockbites who risk our troops lives for politcal gain
I think the solution there isn't a draft it's to stop electing cockbites who risk our troops lives for political gain
See, I'm torn between thinking that such a thing is impossible, and thinking it's never the case.
I honestly don't think there's a shadowy room of men deciding to spend lives for political points, I think it's simply a matter of differing views on how we need to interact with the rest of the world; and I'm not ready to write of an entire world view just because I disagree with it.
We got into Vietnam because of the domino theory, which represented the pinnacle of applied political science at the time. It was wrong, but it was thought up by geniuses doing the best they could for their country.
We got into Iraq with roughly the same thinking, and to be fair the school of thought behind it isn't NECESSARILY wrong, it's simply been executed shit poorly every time it's been tried.
I personally disagree with the thinking that the best way to head off politically troubled reasons is to use our military strength to change one country and build from there (I personally prefer economic and political pressure), but I also acknowledge as smart as I am I'm not informed enough or genius enough to say with any kind of certainty the theory is wrong.
Posts
You're preaching to the choir, and that's exactly what I'm talking about when I was talking about conscript vs specialist soldiers.
A draft helps you win conventional wars. We don't have any problem whatsoever winning those. What a draft won't help you with at all is the type of wars we're going to be predominantly facing now that we're untouchable conventionally.
The only thing that helps us win guerrilla wars vs insurgencies is specialists. Highly trained, highly skilled soldiers that can work within the regional populations and that are the pinnacle of guerilla warfare. No amount of training in the world will turn more than a minuscule fraction of draftees into that type of soldier, which is why the idea of a draft is so archaic and useless for anything beyond ceremonial flag waving.
Your own pentagon says this.
Ask yourselves why Bush hasn't been allowed to simply have the Iranian nuke factories bombed flat. It would simply un-do all that corner of the world. And you don't have the troops to pick up the pieces.
Yes, you could right this minute knock out every sam site, every tank, and every ship Iran has. Which would all be pointless, because you would still not occupy the ground.
You beat the Iraq army in weeks, sure, but what good did that do without troops to occupy the ground?. (edit)
You could have rushed in, destroyed all the tools of war you could find, killed Saddam and rushed back out.
What good would have been done?. He would have been replaced by someone just like himself. And this looks to be set to happen ANYWAY, all because you didn't have enough people there all along, because you did not have enough people there to establish the rule of law over the whole country.
Which you would certainly have to do in Iran.
Gibbon.
No, my entire argument is based on the type of response needed to different threats. It doesn't matter if a country is sane or insane, the American people as a whole have statistically nothing to fear from any country or formal power on the planet, because there is no one (or nearly no combination of powers) that our conventional forces can not beat.
The only people that are a threat to the US are the smaller, craftier opponents that can't be beat with a standing army (the only thing a draft strengthens). And while we'll never be 100% safe for that type of enemy, the type of damage a small mobile opponent can do to US citizens is ultimately acceptable. 9/11 was tragic, but on a purely cold blooded, objective scale, the threat of a similar attack is minuscule. It ranks somewhere below the threat of being killed by the flu.
Terrorist threats aren't dealt with by bulking up your armed forces. They're dealt with by a small cadre of extremely skilled military professionals, intelligence gathering, and diplomacy. The fact that they will always be a threat isn't cause to increase our standing military exponentially.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about here? What mook in Panama, and if he doesn't present a big enough threat to even register with me (and I'm not completely oblivious), I can't say I see why we should bulk up our military to deal with him.
If Iran were to completely lose their minds and do something overt, they would quite simply cease to exist as they currently do. The percentage of military resources tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan vs the total forces at our disposal is something around 5% (133,000 vs 2,685,000).
The US would have no problem soundly defeating nearly any possible military threat. The problem that would follow, and that we face in Iraq, is simply a matter of political capital. We quite simply have no compelling reason to commit the manpower needed to pacify a hostile country over the long term, given our current military and political climate.
A draft doesn't do a single thing to change this. The problem we face in Iraq isn't that we don't have enough troops; it's that we don't have enough of the right kind, that our military strategy in the region is continually subsumed to political goals that have no basis in reality, and that the American people have no reason to be willing to commit the resources needed to do the job.
A draft won't effect a single facet of the problems we currently face, and would open a floodgate of other issues that would not only cripple our military, but could feasibly destabilize our government.
In reference to Panama.
This has NOTHING to do with the size of the US military, and everything to do with politics. The US has not be given a pressing enough reason to act unilaterally, so it hasn't. A possible nuclear threat in a decade does not justify a military commitment in the present.
Your mistake here is twofold. First, you act as if we have to change the country to remove an Iranian nuclear threat. A nuclear program is a delicate and massive undertaking. Unsubtly, bombing a country back to the stone age and removing the current government ends the threat as affectively as any sweeping changes. It would be decades more before the new government could rebuild the program we removed, and you assume they'd be willing and able to do so with the knowledge of just how easily their predecessors were removed hanging over their heads. The Iraq insurgency is a threat to us only because we're still there. If we left tomorrow, the odds they would threaten a single American life in the next 20 years (outside of people visiting/stationed in the region) is marginal.
The second mistake you keep making is thinking a draft would have the slightest positive effect on anything you've mentioned. If the US had another 5 million grunts, do you think that would change the political climate, making the American people willing to accept more casualties? Would it make a standing army any more effective against a guerrilla army?
At the end of the day, we already have more soldiers than we really need. What we don't have enough of is intelligence, career specialists, and a pressing reason to commit and risk what we do have.
It's the only thing I could think of, but that's not really a point in his favor. The US used Noriega as long as he was worth the effort, and when he went rogue we removed him.
We invaded immediately, lost 23 troops, trounced all opposition, and were done in a couple weeks. How do we need to increase our military by orders of magnitude to repeat the feat?
If we had drafted everyone in the US between the ages of 18 and 30, we could have done it with only 22 lost troops.
You know what? GOOD. No nation should have the miltary resources to wages war on the entire world. I don't trust the US or any other nation with that kind fo power. Once someone, anyone, has the capability then diplomacy is completely fucking dead in the water.
*If they just keep shit-talking, they can say virtually any damn thing and nobody outside the US, Iran and Israel will care. No actual action will be taken.
*If they announce they have nukes, but announce no intention to use them, the US will freak, Israel will freak more, but nobody else will care.
*If they announce they have nukes and the intention to use them, the US will pull some diplomats out of its ass. Not neccesarily GOOD diplomats, but diplomats. Israel will want to go in, but the US will talk them down. The rest of the world will split between Iran backers and Israel backers, many of the Iran backers being more like 'We're in favor of whatever's opposite of the US'.
*If they send troops into Iraq, the rest of the world's pretty much made their decision on that and will say 'Bushie, you're on your own on this one.' No new countries will enter Iraq, a few of America's remaining allies will take the opportunity to get the hell out.
*If they take military action against Israel, support will depend on who shit-talks Iran first: The US, Israel, or someone else. Whoever says something first sets the tone- the US or Israel leading will cause a consensus of 'you guys work this out amongst yourselves'; anyone else leading will cause a consensus of 'Okay, hang on, we're coming to help'.
Note the reactions get undermined by the world in general hating just about everyone involved, and any sort of assistance depending on Iran REALLY fucking up, and letting the world figure that out for itself.
There is no point in continuing this discussion, if you are so ignorant of your own history, Werehippy. I said Mook in Panama to stress that we are talking about a world that contains illogical opponents for the USA that can't be expected to understand the result of an attack on you. I didn't expect to have to say Noriega to someone that lived through the events.
Historically the US has had a large armed forces, yes, but most by far of YOUR forces, are not front line, not army, not useful for an occupation. So you saying 2.1 million, is actually more proof that you are some kid talking tough. That figure includes coast guard and federal police services, air crew, navy, and the hundreds of thosands of people in your military bases in 42 countries, none of whom can be spared from their roles, so it was sort of just brag, meant nothing.
Let me repeat, for the dummy. I understand that you have the tools to destroy any target that pops up. Please stop boostering how wonderful and superduper the American toy bag is, I am not disputing that.
What you do not have, is troops to occupy the ground your machines would need to be supported and protected over. Don't believe me, read the public synopsis of the report just released by your Pentagon.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS FOR YOU PRESENT COMMITMENT, let alone any future threats.
And the proof of that, is the people being served with their third stop loss after their service protecting your interests in Iraq and Afganistan. If you have this massive pool of reserves of sutible soldiers, what need of stop loss papers?. ( if you feel compelled to spiel off again about how wrong I am, please, please, start here and prove me wrong, I will be happy to say "Oh, thats proof that I was wrong, wise werehippy", but that isn't going to happen, is it?. You will just ignore this for a third time, right?. )
The truth is, you have not got the men, and if tomorrow Iran did sweep into Al Basrah in a fit of insanity, you would instantly HAVE a draft, be forced to it. Better to do it as a plan, than be forced to do it.
Gibbon.
And I will break out the rarely used "Just because you say it like a condescending prick doesn't actually make you right".
You're "mook in Panama" point is the perfect goddam illustration of why you're an idiot. In the overwhelming majority of threats to the US, the US already has the military strength to dispose of the situation and move on. They came in, removed the offending government, and got the hell out of the way while things took their natural course.
It doesn't matter if the opponent is sane or insane, as I laid out for you step by excruciating step. There exist no formal power that is actually a threat to the US, and THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREATS A DRAFT HELPS DEAL WITH. Have you gotten the gist of why everyone is calling you an idiot yet, or would you like to cite another irrelevant example and then tell me I don't know history well enough?
Any particular reason you like occupation, or is it just because you jerk off to some assumed superiority to America? Yet again, your own goddam example proves occupation is a luxury, not a necessity. For christ sake, every single example you've provided proves you wrong.
Panama was dealt with in a few weeks, with minimal troops and no occupation. Any Iranian attack that actually involved frontline troops could be over just as quickly.
Occupation is a political luxury. Read it again, and make sure you understand before we move on. Occupation is a political luxury. Any reason we had for being in Iraq beyond the political is over. We could leave tomorrow and be as safe for the next two decades as if we threw an infinite amount of resources and bodies at the problem and built the perfect society. Once you remove the government and military might of a country, they stop being anything more than a regional threat, for a long long time.
We don't need more troops for our present commitments, we need to have a reason to use more troops.
Again, and feel free to refer to any of the number of posts where I explain exactly why your asinine insistance that the US is screwed if anyone attacks is, well asinine, the only thing a draft can help with (fighting standing armies) we can already do in spades. The only thing we can't do well enough (fighting irregular armies) a draft is counterproductive for, providing the wrong kind of fighting force and destroying and political drive for the fight.
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to prove a point as opposed to just being a cock, so I just ignored you when you said something pointless and idiotic. Since you can't shut up about your irrelevant anecdotal evidence, the answer is:
The reason that it's better to keep a highly trained, specialized solider on for a third tour of duty in the region they just spent two tours, as opposed to shipping in a new recruit, is because the experienced solider is superior in every possible fashion.
The experienced solider represents a sunk cost in the millions, since only soldiers with extremely rare and valuable skillsets are kept on. The soldier is intimately familiar with their duties and the area, removing any gap in coverage due to inexperienced or unfamiliar troops taking over the role. And finally, the third tour soldier is a survivor. A hugely disproportionate number of the casualties occur among soldiers on their first tour, because they simply lack the practical knowledge and experience the area demands with no margin for error.
Again, before I stab myself in the goddam eye, you are staggeringly fucking retarded on this point. Should Iran ever be so fucking idiotic as to overtly attack US soldiers, the US government would cream itself for joy. The manpower exists in excess, the only thing lacking is the political capital, both domestically and internationally, to commit it and accept the inevitable loses.
An actual, direct attack on the US? Not only would the government be dancing in the streets about finally getting to use the standing army that's doing no good and burning political capital during an occupation, but the number of volunteers would explode so thoroughly any mention of a draft would be laughed out of the room.
edit: I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on a particular factoid, if I'm actually wrong. "You don't have enough troops to rule the world by force" is pretty fucking retarded argument for the draft thought, especially when that's all someone brings.
Swearing at me over the phone, doesn't do anything to me, but it does make you look foolish.
That said, and ignoring your abusive adjectives, you make a good point about the value that the trained and EXPERIENCED soldier has, as opposed to a trained replacement. However, that is NOT the rational behind the stop loss. Your own military, the government agencies, and even people that are UNDER the finger of Bush and his yes men, have admitted that the stop losses are because they have no alternative.
Gates is talking about 30 000 new troops, and was within days told that they don't know where they would come from.
And once they have forced the guys back a third time, where do they make their numbers up from then?. Eventually you need more troops simply to deal with Iraq, and as I pointed out, Iraq is now, you need a draft
For future threats of the potential equal magnitude.
Look, Werehippy, if you can't resist your egotistical abusive language, let's agree that your next post can be say, 20 swear words, be my guest, I give you permission to make even more of a childish fool of yourself, but won't bother answering you.
Your choice, be an adult and disagree politely and make your points an have them listened to, or be a foul mouthed child and be ignored.
Gibbon.
I'm pretty sure that, unless a mod says otherwise, the official PA doctrine follows the lines of that lovely song: "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me." Neh?
Congratulations, you're an simultaneously condescending and a moron. A rare accomplishment, so feel free to take a minute and bask in your glory.
Done? Excellent. Now shut the hell up. Welcome to the D&D, the place where if you act like a vapid asshole, you'll be called such. The reason most of us are here is because you'll (occasionally, I seem to have no such luck in this particular thread) find intelligent debate without the attendant pomposity.
In the interim between when you decided to grace us all with your ever so brilliant radiance and when you get your head out of your ass and realize that you change your delivery to fit your audience, not the other way around, feel free to ruminate on the fact you've committed yet another debate sin, the ever pleasant ad hominem attack. HOW I tell you you're wrong and who I am has no relevance to how right what I say is. You take issue with my calling you a gibbering fucking retarded, feel free to PM me, don't waste the threads time crying about it and whining about how it devalues my opinion. Put up or shut up.
Well, you DO seem to be a bastion of unbiased insight, but lets go ahead and cover the same territory for the half-dozenth time. THERE IS NO POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TROOPS AT RISK. Say it with me now.
30,000 new troops is 30,000 more potential casualties the American public has no reason to accept. The fact we WON'T add more bodies on the ground has nothing to do with whether we CAN'T add more. Yet again, your own asinine example proves exactly why the quasi-statistic you love to throw around (soldiers on third tours, oh noes!) is happening. The political reality is that we can only have X troops on the ground, so those X need to be the absolute best they can be, meaning sometime experienced soldiers must be held on long. It's not ideal, but it's the inevitable result of fighting a war no one cares about.
For the love of all that's holy, you really are fucking retarded. Once a soldier can't be sent over any more, they're replaced with any of the 1000s of new recruits that are incoming each year. The Army has been meeting it's recruitment goals for the last X years (6, 8 maybe, I don't really remember) and that more than covers casualty and enlistment loses.
And since you felt like acting like such a little cock when I ignored your "third enlistment crisis" (We'll ignore your little dig about admitting you're wrong when the actual reason is given, since you've pussied out) how about you try not to be a complete waste of oxygen and extend the same courtesy?
After the MULTIPLE explanations of how a draft isn't needed to maintain current numbers, which are more than sufficient for everything a standing army can be called on to do, and painstaking explanations of the uselessness of a conscript army in this situation and the universally crippling effects of a draft on the base society, how about you actually man up and explain exactly HOW everyone else is wrong and a draft would solve anything? We've already gone over in excruciating detail how throwing unwilling and untrained (in the specialist skills we actually do need more of) bodies at a problem is the stupidest fucking suggestion possible, so how about you do something other than act as if the answer is self evident and contribute something useful.
Choke on a dick and die seems to be the most eloquent way to respond.
You've yet to provide the slightest hint you're worth my respect, and until you do I will gladly speak to you exactly how the spirit moves me, and it often moves me to be quite rude to pretentious pricks who try and cover smug ignorance with a veneer of vapid polish. You've already gotten more polite replies than you deserve for your idiocy, simple because you're new and most new members learn quickly enough when you enter a community you interact by their rules, not your own.
I understand the fear of being drafted into a stupid conflict like Iraq; yes, that WOULD suck. But when the army is made up entirely of volunteers, it's too easy for people who aren't in the military, who don't have family in the military, to shout "Rah troops!", slap a magnetic yellow ribbon on their car, and promptly put the whole thing out of their minds . . . except if one of those damn dirty commie peaceniks suggests that we pull out, of course. I question whether the invasion of Iraq would have initially been so popular (Bush's popularity jumped to over 70%) if everyone knew that they--or their son or daughter or grandkid--might be drafted at any moment. It seems to me that it would encourage people to think farther than, "Well, those army guys are all volunteers and Saddam is a meanie." It would also provide incentive not to elect a dumbass. TWICE.
IMO, it's not fair to send the same troops over to Iraq again and again and again. Sending over the National Guard was simply cruel considering they were led to expect they would be serving the traditional "one weekend a month, two weeks a year."
A little story for you. In the summer of '98, I was going through boot camp at MCRD San Diego. During one of our mandated classes on military history, an instructor came in and announced the (fake) news that Afghanistan had been invaded by Pakistan. My first thought was, "No fucking way, the Pakistani government isn't that stupid." The instructors said we would be accelerated through the training cycle and we'd be in combat in less than 2 months. Also bullshit.
When asked if any recruit was an objector, about 12% of the class stood up and asked to be assigned to a non-combat MOS. After the groans and hisses went away, the instructors let us in on the joke and we went about our day.
Moral of the story: when a volunteer military still has a substantial percentage of people harboring the conscript syndrome, then a draft will fall flat on it's face. Besides, people in combat MOS's don't want objectors next to them in the middle of a firefight; those guys will get you killed.
I think the solutoin there isn't a draft it's to stop electing cockbites who risk our troops lives for politcal gain
See, I'm torn between thinking that such a thing is impossible, and thinking it's never the case.
I honestly don't think there's a shadowy room of men deciding to spend lives for political points, I think it's simply a matter of differing views on how we need to interact with the rest of the world; and I'm not ready to write of an entire world view just because I disagree with it.
We got into Vietnam because of the domino theory, which represented the pinnacle of applied political science at the time. It was wrong, but it was thought up by geniuses doing the best they could for their country.
We got into Iraq with roughly the same thinking, and to be fair the school of thought behind it isn't NECESSARILY wrong, it's simply been executed shit poorly every time it's been tried.
I personally disagree with the thinking that the best way to head off politically troubled reasons is to use our military strength to change one country and build from there (I personally prefer economic and political pressure), but I also acknowledge as smart as I am I'm not informed enough or genius enough to say with any kind of certainty the theory is wrong.
FYI young Falstaff, they grant citizenship posthumously to fallen immigrant soldiers.