The Modern Volunteer Army

Nixon nixed the draft. It was the sensible thing to do. Not just because the Dick wanted to appeal to the new younger voter (the 18 year old vote was then a new element in the democratic process) but also because everything was coming unhinged. Everything was happening at once. Free speech, civl rights, anti-war movements, hippes, drugs, and war. It was like the entire nation had been spiked with a combination of acid and speed, chased by a few shots of Heradura, and then handed the keys to the car. No one was following the white lines anymore. Personally, it's hard to blame anyone for what happened then. But the effect of the sixties profoundly disturbed anyone who had anything remotely to do with the American dream. Which is why we have the divisions we have today - because some people just can't take a joke.

General Westmoreland certainly had problems with Vietnam. When he got home he commanded a study to be done on what went wrong. And according to this study, (which was published as On Strategy by Col. Harry Summers), in case you hadn't figured it out yet, we screwed up just about everything.

Westmoreland was replaced by Abrams, who, after Vietnam, designed the Modern Volunteer Army. One of the things Abrams did was reduce the active duty army, while maintaining a larger military reserve and National Guard units. An idea behind this wasn't just to save money, but to avoid another quagmire like Vietnam. The problem with the draft was that the average 19 year old draftee had no voice and would not be missed; whereas a reservist or a National Guard member was more likely to be older and therefore a greater asset to his community, and would be missed. The idea being that, say, we get involved in another lengthy protracted dragged out big muddy these good people would indeed be missed by a concerned society. And society would demand positive action on part of our government to resolve said quagmire.

Is it working?

Way back when, our Drill sergeant at B-2-3, down there at Fort Ord, this Cajan bastard, told us that draftee's generally made better soldiers than the R.A.'s. I don't know if that was true or not, but the deserters I knew were R.A.'s. Except for this guy named Gray, who had been drafted, and ended up spending, all told, about four years in the army making up all his bad time.

I know one guy who thinks we should have a draft. He says it's good for both America and the individual. Builds character. He never served, though. Like Deadeye Dick Cheney he had other priorities. I don't know, myself. Should there be a draft?

If the Vietnam War proved anything, it was that the DRAFT was not popular in America. Therefore, the new and improved VOLUNTEER MILITARY. Personally, if they UPPED the money they could get PROFESSIONAL MERCENARIES to take care of business with a hell of a lot less of THEM than RAW KIDDOS.

Just One Opinion.

Dave

From what I understand there is a significant proportion of people in Iraq right now that are mercs, through Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc. This could be seen as another aspect of volunteering. But, a siginifcant difference, they're there for defensive purposes, guarding dignitaries, providing security at sites, not actively seeking and attacking the insurgency. Might be interesting if we see a siginifcant shift in that.

As far as the traditional volunteer army, its interesting just how many people sign up into the military, just because they figure its a steady job with decent pay. In a lot of places in the US, its one of the 'better' options for some people.

THe military is definitly upping the ante with really huge sign-on bonuses now. I know one kid that got something like a 20k signing bonus, so thats in addition to the regular pay! Also, within the military, there are bonuses and extra pays for taking on special service, like ranger, sf, jumps, etc.

Well, the problem with the "contract" players is that they aren't quite as responsible to the laws concerning war as your basic individual grunt. Are they governed by military law or by civillian? Who supervises them? Are they there merely to provide sercurity for Halliburton or do they get to do the deeds the U.S. military is not allowed to? Since Vietnam we've had all sorts of cowboys on the loose and it would certainly behoove us to know who they are and what they're up to. Why can't our military do these jobs?

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
Well, the problem with the "contract" players is that they aren't quite as responsible to the laws concerning war as your basic individual grunt. Are they governed by military law or by civillian?

They'd be governed by civilian law, excepting possibly the ones that are contracted through the Pentagon.

Who supervises them?

They'd be supervised by their supervisors, rather than the military.

Are they there merely to provide sercurity for Halliburton or do they get to do the deeds the U.S. military is not allowed to?

As far as anyone's been able to show, they've only been providing security for people and places, like diplomats, celebrities, refineries, processing centers, training schools, etc. I beleive that some of them are also training the iraqi police/iraqi military.

Since Vietnam we've had all sorts of cowboys on the loose and it would certainly behoove us to know who they are and what they're up to.
We're not responsible for them, excluding the ones that are contracted through the pentagon. If an iraqi diplomat wants private security, why should any one of us be really responsible if the guy is a brute?

Why can't our military do these jobs?

I beleive its actually illegal, or at least against policy, for the US military to be used to provide personal protection for an individual, like a bodyguard. Also, consider the mess of having the US military literally physically protecting an oil companies refineries, patroling its fences, etc. The public would, at the least, ask why their tax money is being used to provide private security.

The draft has been resurrected; check out this house Bill; sure sounds like the draft to me....



HR4752IH

If this bill is passed, men and women between 18 and 42 can be called into
national service.

Funny how the MSM has convientely ignored this news.

If someone wants to research this and present it to ATSNN, be my guest. I don't care.

The recent draft laws have all been, apparently, proposed by Chuck Rangell from New York, a Democrat. This illustrates nicely why parties are so meaningless now.

Rangell wants to have a draft so that everyone has to serve during wartime. The bill was shot down resoundingly by the republicans last time. Rangell re-worked it and re-introduced it again, and its going to be shot down again.

The media isn't reporting on it so much because its not much of a story, really. It has zero chance of becomming law. Anyone that voted for it and it became law, would be voted out of office by those subject to the draft.

Thats why the Servicemen and women deserve so much respect, btw. They're choosing to do what some people can't even be compelled to do by the law.

Not that it adds much to the conversation, but after WWII Kurt Vonnegut said that the soldiers who opposed the war seemed to be the ones who fought it the hardest.

As I recall, Rangell's proposal for a draft was intended as a tool to expose the right's insincerity in supporting the Bush Gang's war in Iraq. Our military is stretched thin and stressed out over Iraq and Afghanistan. Military enlistments and reenlistments are down. And Bush has vowed to stay the course, whatever that may be. Rangell, with his bill, is just pricking the balloon.

Chuck Norris is an amazing man. I think that same feat was what done in Bruce Lee.

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
As I recall, Rangell's proposal for a draft was intended as a tool to expose the right's insincerity in supporting the Bush Gang's war in Iraq.

?
I had taken it as 'all you yahoos who support this war, do ya support it now that you're the ones going' and such. Or to also have Vietnam era style protests over the draft and thus stop the war.

Our military is stretched thin and stressed out over Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not so sure about that. There are a large number of active combat brigades, and the vast majority of them aren't stationed in iraq or afghanistan, and there is a large number that aren't even stationed overseas. There's a definite warmaking capacity left.

Originally posted by KimWHoffman
... to avoid another quagmire like Vietnam. The problem with the draft was that the average 19 year old draftee had no voice and would not be missed; whereas a reservist or a National Guard member was more likely to be older and therefore a greater asset to his community, and would be missed. The idea being that, say, we get involved in another lengthy protracted dragged out big muddy these good people would indeed be missed by a concerned society. And society would demand positive action on part of our government to resolve said quagmire.

Is it working?

I remember reading this reason a few years ago. Good plan, but obviously not working, or maybe it is. I think what has happened relates to a cutthroat business/industry idea called brinkmanship, along with being able to find loopholes. Adam's plan was sound, until someone like Rumsfeld practices brinkmanship and weasels through loopholes. I remember the Guard being called out to fight fires, floods, etc; and, yes, the Guard was where you went to get out of serving in Vietnam.

Support for invading Iraq would have tanked, if the American public thought it involved even the remote possibility of a draft. Instead, they were made to feel like the war would be over soon. Americans watched Shock & Awe in much the same way citizens picnicked on lawns to watch the first shots of the Civil War. So, too, as in 1861, the war stretched on.

Let's see...I'm unrolling my map. Ooh, Kuwait is small, first Gulf War over a half million troops and we left. Hmmmm, Iraq is much bigger, 150,000 troops and mission not accomplished. Dear Jesus, look at the size of Iran ok, lets just bomb it, no troops...da da da underweaer gnomes, underweaer gnomes...we're saved! OK, on to North Korea...oh boy looks smaller, but, wait, they've got over a million troops...da da da...

...... it is well documented that an Army of VOLUNTEERS is vastly superior to an ARMY of DRAFTEES. If my conversations with the Iraq 12 (all current military in Iraq) tells me anything.... is that they ALL went into Iraq with the HOPE of doing something good for the Iraq people. The Draftees of the Vietnam era.... just wanted to survive a year...... and THAT makes a huge difference on how a war is conducted and viewed.

Just one opinion.

Dave

Im in the army and let me tell you I really hope that they do not reinstate the draft ill go looking for the link but the army reported that the selective service system was tested recently and I really really don't want the draft coming back because how am I suposed to enforce the rules and regs on a man or woman who does not want to be there? ill tell you like we did in the 60's tough love so to speek and I really don't want that I want to know that the person next to me has my back because he or she chose to have it not because they were forced Ill fight to my last breath for any soldger any ware any time becuase I chose to not becuase I have to.


(Sorry for the spelling and the gramer I know its bad but hey I got my batchlers I sware)

Published on Friday, December 22, 2006 by the Associated Press
Agency to Test Military Draft Machinery
by Kasie Hunt

The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.

The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.

The Selective Service "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.

"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf" until needed, Campbell said. "Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."

The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.

A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.

The unpopular war in Iraq, where more than 2,950 American troops have already died, complicates the task of finding more recruits and retaining current troops _ to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.

In remarks to reporters in New York, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels. He said the draft "does bring people from all quarters of our society together in the common purpose of serving."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has said minorities and the poor share an unfair burden of the war, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that reinstating the draft would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list, and the White House said Thursday that no draft proposal is being considered.

Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn't because of funding constraints.

Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.

The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.

Associated Press writers Sara Kugler in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Associated Press

(www.commondreams.org...)

By its nature and the tasks it does all volunteer military have a degree of trouble meeting there manpower requirements. At present an all volunteer military seems to meet New Zealand defence and foreign policy goals. Due to its small size the NZDF really only makes token deployments outside of its backyard.

reply to post by Dave Rabbit


I got your professional right here.

The "Modern Volunteer Army" of course goes in direct opposition to everything I posted here on this thread :

Desensitizing American Youth Via Video Games, Going To Corporate Armies Bypassing Government

What if this is the set-up for the ultimate "False Flag Operation" between a "Volunteer Army" and a "Corporate Army", or even several throughout the many world governments? This just keep getting deeper and deeper and more and more interesting and in depth and complex.

I love it!!!

No, I don't celebrate war, or love war, contrary to My avatar being the "Master Chief" I am a man of peace. To understand how to wage peace you must first understand how to wage war.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Okay so are we talking a direct conflict or an indirect conflict here? A "False Flag Operation" is of course a covert operation. So, if the covert operation is itself totally covert except to those in the know, or those who figure it out, is it a covert operation still?