my thoughts on this 1 he’s right to a point .my dads friends who still are in the army complain they’re not doing basic training, is a fat camp that teaches people how to shoot and march anymore
Also, a lot of today’s kids have parents or relatives that have PTSD and all of the resultant side effects and decided it’s not worth it no matter how many commercials they have trying to make it look like an FPS from a game system
and the army became spoiled also since ww2 (and WW1 to a point)at one time it attracted the uneducated illiterate dregs of society I’ve read some of the accounts from the 1840s up to WW1 and some of the higher-ups were fearful of the “commons” that they locked up all the guns and tossed the barracks like the state pen on a regular basis and tried to make the forts as self-sufficient as possible so they didn’t have to “inflict” the local towns
As for the latter, for those who know what war is really like, it should be an understatement. Maybe teenagers no longer read All Quiet on the Western Front, as I did, most have likely seen horrific war movies and drawn reasonable personal conclusions.
I’m for conscription as a less bad alternative to rich men’s wars fought by the poor.
Vietnam was fought by the American poor because upper class conscripts were given safer military occupations (unless they volunteered for combat, as John Kerry did).
But World War II wasn’t done that way. And in the unlikely event conscription again comes to the U.S., the history of the Vietnam War would, I think, be consulted to avoid the error.
The American system of draft has never been a true National Service a-la Switzerland or Israel, where everyone serves at something and then is placed in reserves, but historically has been a contingency to fill out the slots not filled by volunteers or career professionals during a wartime expansion(*), and always rife with exceptions, exemptions and deferrals and workarounds (in the Civil War you could actually pay someone to serve for you). And if you were really falling short of quota you’d cut corners on qualification and aptitude anyway to mobilize cannon fodder (“McNamara’s Morons”).
In WW2 you had the closest thing we ever had to universal service because of (a) global total war, requiring virtually every able adult male either in uniform or in war production and (b) high motivation to serve meaning many of the privileged gladly went into harm’s way (e.g. the Kennedys, George Bush Senior)
(* The draft of the 50s and 60s was an anomaly insofar as happening when there was no declared war happening)
So a draft under current social conditions would mean… draftees “too fat or too criminal” to serve… and who don’t want or care to be there.
I was never in the military but my understanding is that modern warfare needs fewer people than in the past but the people do need to be highly skilled and trained. I don’t think that works well with conscription.
(Similarly, agriculture and manufacturing need fewer people than they once did but the people need to be highly skilled.)
Armies are MUCH smaller than they used to be. It’s simply not possible or necessary to field armies as large as they once were; you couldn’t afford to, because weapons systems are so expensive now (even after adjusting for inflation) and the speed and lethality of weapons and weapons platforms is just off the charts.
Is that so for the US Army? It wasn’t for the British - the middle and upper classes who made up the junior officer ranks suffered proportionally greater losses, as they were the ones leading the men over the top.
Do you have some sort of cite for this assertion? Many poorer people ended up being drafted for a number of reasons, one of which was the lack of a college deferment or not being employed in a critical occupation of some sort (school teachers, for example). Also, there are simply far fewer rich people than there are those from other income groups. I would suspect that even if all the wealthier draftees had gone to combat, the poorer ones would still have done the vast majority of the fighting.
It is funny that part of the complaint is that Americans are too fat. IIRC, around the time of WWI, American military complained that the people were too skinny and weak to be effective soldiers. I believe that is where the school lunch program got its start - making sure more children got a nutritious diet so they could be better soldiers down the line.
Hasn’t basic training always been to get the recruits into shape and to teach them how to shoot and march? I thought that was the whole point. What are they supposed to be doing that they’re leaving out now?
Here’s an idea - cancel college sports. All those fit, energetic young high school athletes will have nothing to do with their lives, and will join the Army instead!
(OK, maybe not. But the I do believe that the American sports obsession is unintentionally diverting many of those most suitable to combat arms away from the military. Which is ironic, as team sports were originally designed in part to prepare teenagers for military service.).
That’s because most people in the IDF or in any other army don’t do much physical work during their service - the majority of soldiers serve behind a desk, not inside a tank. So combine that with a mess hall that lets you take as much (mediocre at best) food as you want, a cheap commissary and too much disposable income, and yeah, soldiers, on average, are going to gain weight.
It appears that that book is more about people with influence avoiding military service of any kind (which I already knew) than it is about rich people somehow avoiding being sent to Nam after being drafted (which is how I read PhillyGuy’s post). It’s two completely different scenarios.
Well, in which category would you count getting a stateside national guard posting, or the like? I think that whether the privileged are avoiding all service, or doing only nominal service, is an irrelevant distinction: The point is that they’re getting out of the part that everyone wanted to get out of.