Just in case these bozos could see reality if it whapped them across the face with a mackerel, here’s a list of the tricks we’ve been pulling to keep the volunteer army afloat in the face of the demands of Iraq, Afghanistan, and our other commitments around the world:
Suffice it to say that if all was half as well with the volunteer army as Beland and Gilroy suggest, we wouldn’t need to be resorting to this really quite impressive arsenal of gimmicks to make ends meet for the volunteer army.
Things are NOT well with the volunteer army. Whatever the design specs of that army might be, our current set of wars has easily exceeded them. It was not designed to fight this big a war for this long, even with the help of the Reserves and the National Guard. Period, end of sentence.
Dunno what these guys were smoking, but I hope they pass the pipe this way.
So, because we are having manpower problems the volunteer army as a concept is a failure? I’m really not sure what point you’re making. Yeah, there have been manpower shortages, I’m not sure that the Washington Post article denied that, it just recognized the fact that we are fielding a volunteer Army in multiple theatres around the world.
We aren’t fielding it perfectly, or without issue, but point to a major war that was clean and without mess.
What are you advocating, that we start the draft back up? As a retired Army officer I’ll tell you right now, most people who are responsible for leading men in battle do not want conscripts to be serving under them. The modern military is tough, technical work, forcing people to be there who do not want to be is an incredible way to get the least efficient use out of your men as possible.
And what’s the issue with taking people who have a checkered past in the military? The military isn’t finishing school, and many “gang bangers” are products of their environment, raise them in the suburbs and they are just as nice and polite as your buttoned-down suburban “good boy” who sings in the choir and mows his grandmother’s lawn.
IQ is also not an important metric when recruiting someone in to the military. Recruits take the ASVAB, and have to perform to a certain degree of proficiency to be accepted. IQ is a metric that is not uniformly defined nor even accepted as a good strict-test for intelligence by most anyone, and not one that is uniformly accepted or measured, in any case.
Not to detract from your usual shopworn anti-everything-Bush-related tirades, and you’ve pointed out some good instances of bad people joining, but what beef do you have with raising the enlistment age? If someone really wants to join up for whatever reason, and they pass the physical/mental tests and such, why not let them join at 42? I know some damn fit 40 year-olds who could kick the ass of a lot of 20 year-olds. Mind you I’m talking voluntary, not that one dumbshit Rangel’s suggestion to raise the draft to 42.
If they’re so shopworn, I’m sure you can poke holes in them with ease.
OTOH, it might be that Bush is easily the worst President this nation’s ever had, so we’re in an era where anti-Bush Pit threads should flow like water.
No beef at all - if 40 year olds want to enlist, I agree that their age shouldn’t be a barrier.
But it wouldn’t have even been considered in the first place, had the volunteer army been sustaining its strength to begin with. It’s one thing we can and should keep doing, but we’re doing it only because of the unusual need.
That the volunteer army, as presently constituted, isn’t up to this set of wars. It should have already given way to a draft, if this Administration really wants to maintain its current troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This Administration has taken the volunteer army well beyond its design specs, and as a result, the volunteer army is predictably in some trouble, just the way anything taken beyond its design specs might be.
I haven’t looked through all your cites but I have some big problems with the “elite training unit” one. For one thing they are not “elite” (I would reserve that for units such as Special Forces or even the Rangers). They are regular soldiers who happen to be assigned to Fort Irwin. They kick ass in force on force because they train in the same small box week after week. They know every nook and cranny. They were there to train large armor forces to fight other armor forces. Since that is not the thrust of training now it makes sense to use them in a combat role and use a guard unit that works closely with them as the OPFOR. The article does not say that the type of training that is needed in NTC now is not the kind that has been going on there for years. The 11th was learning as it went and was no more perpared then any other unit would be to take that role.
The article also states that the “Black Horse” volunteered to fight during Desert Storm but was turned down. It implies that the army didn’t want to take them out of their OPFOR status at that time but they do now. In 1991 the 11th ACR was headquartered out of Fulda in Germany. They were the tripwire unit for V corp.
Generally it worked the way it was supposed to. An active duty unit in a non-combat role is sent to combat and a guard unit takes it’s place. Not a good example of what is “wrong” with the all volunteer force.
Well, jsgoddess, just based on this quote from the OP:
I don’t see any mention of the things you allege. The article correctly states the the U.S. military is sustaining combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, that isn’t an issue up for debate, it is fact. How well you may feel those combat operations are being conducted is a completely separate, unrelated issue.
I don’t see, at least in the OP, any claim from the Washington Post that “everything is peachy keen.” Saying that the volunteer Army is a success is not remotely synonymous to saying it is completely without problems.
Do you have any reasonable evidence that the current military is in such a state as to require a draft?
I guess guys like General John Abizaid, who have said we do not need more American troops in Iraq are lying, or possibly too stupid to understand the issue? I guess those professional military leaders are unfortunately unable to correctly assess the needs, while the military expert RTFirefly not only can correctly assess the needs better than the professionals, he already has a solution cooked up to meet those needs.
The entire doctrine of the U.S. military after the Gulf War was to design a force that was capable of operating two Gulf War sized conflicts simultaneously, with that being the design goal, I don’t really think you can argue engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan “exceed the design specs.”
There’s certainly trouble I just fail to see how that trouble is somehow related to the “volunteer military.” And I also am just going to bring to the forefront the issue of the military draft, which is what most people who bitch about the “volunteer military” seem to advocate. The military leadership has quite openly said we do not need more American troops in Iraq, and since our current troop levels allow us to maintain troop presences around the world, I fail to see how there is a problem with the volunteer aspect of the military.
What pressing manpower need is there that would justify a military draft? And if there is no pressing issue such that would justify a draft, can we really say there is a problem with the volunteer military?
I’ll also throw out the little accepted concept that a draft doesn’t really solve manpower issues in a modern military like it does in one from 30 or 40 years ago.
No, actually, they shouldn’t. Or that is, they don’t need to. The purpose of the SDMB is not to be an anti-Bush, or anti-anyone, anger blog.
You have every right to make your thread. And I have every right to say that, unfortunately, when I see the name “RTFirefly”, the only thing that pops into my head is “guy that hates Bush.” That may not mean anything coming from me, but maybe you should consider it if you start to hear it from other people as well.
Rephrasing: it’s a good idea, but really a bad one since it happened under the current situation under Bush? One might ask what Clinton had against people over 35, and why he felt like shorting healthy folks age 40 who wanted to serve their country. But that would be pointless.
You made some good points in your OP, and gave some good examples of enlistment dumbassery. I freely admit that and agree with you. This isn’t a good example, however.
Seems to me the OP missed the point of that OpEd piece. That’s the part snipped out at the end, if anyone is wondering. The only issue they are really adderssing is the notion that an all volunteer military falls disproportionately on the lower income classes-- one of the two key themes that Rangel offered for why we need a draft. And they offer an argument, with data, as to why that theme is incorrect.
The other key thime that Rangel offers-- that a draft would lessen the likelihood of war-- is something that I think few people would dispute. He did throw in another possible sub-theme about needing the increased manpower if we are going to “challenge” Iran and NK. But unless “challenge” = invade, that’s a bunch of nonsense. We are not going to invade either of those countries, and if he thinks Bush wants to, well… the Dems control both houses of Congress now, so do your fucking job and don’t vote for any new AUMFs. And of course, if the draft is supposed to lessen the likelihood of war, why is he even making an argument that we need it to make sure we do have more wars.
Rangel is an idiot for proposing this, and the guys in the linked OpEd piece are simply pointing out one reason. Good for them.
We’re not talking about history-- we’re talking about the US in the modern era. For most of history, aggressive war was considered a legitimate tactic for any state. That’s no longer so. And the types of wars that a draft would minimize are preciesly like the war in Iraq-- wars of choice, not of necessity.
Of course not. But if someone’s doing a lot of Pittable stuff, is it any surprise that they get Pitted a lot?
I’d love it if Bush would shape up, but he won’t. So I’ll probably be Pitting him again.
Anyway, here I’m not Pitting Bush; I’m Pitting the Post and the two ditzbrains who think everything’s just peachy with the volunteer army right now.
Well, I’m tired of him messing up this country. I hate some of the things he does. I hate that many thousands of people are now dead who, absent his choices, would likely be alive and well. It is meet and right that I should hate that.
But I don’t hate him. If he and Cheney agreed to resign their positions on January 4, I’d be happy to just forget about them both.
OK try this: suppose the military suddenly put out the welcome mat for gays, and abandoned don’t-ask-don’t-tell. That wouldn’t just be good; it would be great news. But would it be one more indication of their desperation? Of course it would. If you only come around to doing something good because you find yourself in a pickle where you have to, the fact that you did the right thing doesn’t negate the fact that it’s a sign of desperation.
Here, if it’s not desperation, it’s at the very least unusual need that appears to have driven all these changes, some good, mostly bad.
Una - I was gonna say thanks for what you said in that last quote box, whether or not you see my point about desperation. Since I hit ‘submit’ too soon, here it is. Thanks.
If they had simply rebutted Rangel and left it at that, I’d have no problem with that.
But they had to go beyond that, to say the volunteer army is doing a terrific job all around, and to leave the impression that the issue Rangel raises is the most serious question that’s been raised concerning the success of the all-volunteer army in its present situation.
What they say is, in effect, Rangel’s wrong, so everything’s great.
Which is bullshit. The rightness or wrongness of what Rangel says is almost irrelevant. Just because they can beat up on his claims doesn’t in the least justify their happy talk about the volunteer army’s overall state.
Back in the winter of 2003, the main organizer of antiwar protests was a group called International ANSWER, and the less said about them, the better. But just because anyone here could beat up on their antiwar arguments, did it mean the war was justified? Of course not. Same here.
Whom I would characterize as elite combat units. At any rate, the characterization of the Blackhorse unit as "elite training troops " isn’t mine: it’s one that was used in all the stories I’ve seen about the decision to send them to Iraq, including the one at the link.
In this, I expect you’re right - sounds like you know more about this than I do.
BUT (see my response to Una) would they have made that move if the army wasn’t in the least bit stretched thin? It may indeed make perfect sense to use them in Iraq, just the way finding ways to use airmen and sailors on the ground in Iraq to free up more Army troops for combat makes sense in this situation.
But there’s a pattern here where they’re doing very unusual things, some good, some bad, but in all cases as a response to unusual need.
At the end of the day, though, there are only so many rabbits they can pull out of the hat. Increasing the enlistment age to 42 - good. Using the Blackhorse Cavalry in Iraq - makes sense too, now that you’ve explained it. Using airmen and sailors in Iraq - that too. But as a group, they’re responses to overload. And while some of them can (and some should) be sustained indefinitely, some (like sending the Blackhorse Cavalry over) are a one-shot deal, while others (like using the Navy as ground troops) aren’t ones you’d want to continue into peacetime, and others (like rotating troops back to Iraq on short rest) are ones you’d prefer not to have to do even in the current situation.
So when the volunteer army is doing a whole bunch of things to respond to being overloaded - some good, some OK, some questionable, and some downright bad - I think I’m standing on solid ground in saying that a fluff piece filled with happy talk about how wonderfully the volunteer army is doing while fighting two wars, etc., is quite the wrong picture.