Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Bring back the Draft

[Vagrant0]

I still think its stupid. :D

You kill your enemies, and new ones will just pop up. There's a saying "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". That's kinda what the value is in this. War is actually easier when you know where your enemies are, have a good idea of their capabilities, and have contacts within their membership who may be inclined to let information slip that helps their own motivations. In the real world, there is nothing ever so clear cut as good and evil, just relationships and motivations that can be exploited for one cause or another.

 

Running around like a dog chasing cars in the street and launching armed strikes to eradicate everyone who might hold some sentiments of hostility also usually ends up costing more resources and lives than any alternative as you'll never run out of opponents, and eventually they will be more dug in, or start using your tenacity to walk blindly into traps or to take out their own enemies or to just make you upset even more people to further their own cause. It's just horribly bad tactics.

[dazzerfong]

I think we're all drawing a line too fine between 'cannon fodder' and 'expendability.' Whereas 'cannon fodder' is used to refer to troops being purposely wasted for, say, a diversion, 'expendability' refers more to the soldier's unintended (or unguaranteed) death.

 

As for the wars involving air superiority, if the other side has tanks, go ahead. Otherwise, you're limited to FAC's and CAS, which is not being deployed to its potential.

[Aurielius]

"In the real world, there is nothing ever so clear cut as good and evil, just relationships and motivations that can be exploited for one cause or another."

There is no such thing as evil? Kindly explain away the Third Reich.

 

"keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"

The mafia metaphor is inapplicable to actual modern warfare. It makes me wonder just how you think battlefield intel is really acquired....satellites, aerial observation, communication intercepts and espionage assets (when available) mainly...but primarily the first three.

 

'Running around like a dog chasing cars in the street and launching armed strikes to eradicate everyone who might hold some sentiments of hostility also usually ends up costing more resources and lives than any alternative as you'll never run out of opponents, and eventually they will be more dug in, or start using your tenacity to walk blindly into traps or to take out their own enemies or to just make you upset even more people to further their own cause. It's just horribly bad tactics."

 

Your strategic analysis is flawed, it presumes a lack of discretion in the pursuit of a tactical objective or the selectivity of targeting an enemy which is how actual modern warfare is conducted. A submission of this theory would not get a passing grade for any first year plebe at any of the three academies that train our officer corps.

[Vagrant0]

"In the real world, there is nothing ever so clear cut as good and evil, just relationships and motivations that can be exploited for one cause or another."

There is no such thing as evil? Kindly explain away the Third Reich.

The Third Reich is an indefensible argument because the related sentiments are quite deep, and it is quite easy to paint anyone who might think differently as some sort of Nazi sympathizer, or part of some sort of racist group. Those within the Nazi machine felt that they were doing what was right for their country and their race, and felt it was their position to lead the world, and given their status as a master race, all other life was deemed inconsequential. There were certainly atrocities done, scores of people killed, lands taken, but all of that is really just part of how humanity is. Arguably the West could be seen as Evil to those of extremest Muslim beliefs because of the differences in our cultures and how our standard practices are against their belief of what is good and proper. If it is in service of everything you are lead to believe, and everything you are, naturally it will be seen as good in your mind until something comes along to challenge your beliefs. Up until Pearl Harbor, and even after, most of America really couldn't be bothered to care about what was happening in Europe. That opinion really only changed once the propaganda machine went into full swing to try and demonize the Axis powers. As far as atrocities went, Stalin was doing a fair number of his own, but he ended up being turned into an ally, so those were downplayed. At this time America was doing its own share of Eugenics, corning up native people into small tracts of useless land, taking property and confining those of Asian nationality in the name of National Security. The only reason why we didn't employ work camps and genocide was that we weren't dealing with as large of a population, and it might not be as well received publicly. Most of the German people were not aware of what was happening in Concentration Camps either. Unless you buy into all the mystical theories regarding Hitler, Alister Crowley, and the Illuminati, or whatever, what it really boils down to is a group of people, confident in their own supremacy, trying to conquer the world under their order by those means that they are most able to employ. It's no different than any other country with aims of expansion, beyond the disregard for human life. American soldiers have committed their own sorts of human atrocities in the name of freedom and justice, or are you forgetting about the cases of villages being raped, pillaged, burned, mutilated in Vietnam because Vietcong were also once regarded as being worthy of extreme cruelty. Or Gitmo. It's only good and right from where you happen to be standing. It is not to say that the Third Reich were doing good things, but that it is a bit conceited to call them evil when we weren't doing much differently.

 

Your strategic analysis is flawed, it presumes a lack of discretion in the pursuit of a tactical objective or the selectivity of targeting an enemy which is how actual modern warfare is conducted. A submission of this theory would not get a passing grade for any first year plebe at any of the three academies that train our officer corps.

Which is exactly why you can't run around killing everyone that you might possibly regard as an enemy, or which might harbor hostility towards your side. You have to target those who are of immediate threat, those who you cannot negotiate with, and those who you can turn against your other enemies. Sometimes that means making deals with those that might harm you in the future, but that is usually seen as an acceptable risk, ignoring the fact that it is actually what lead to the Taliban even getting control (since they were fighting Soviets at the time). It is just simply part of our foreign affairs, was, and still is standard practice when trying to deal with areas of conflict as a means of turning that conflict in our favor. Our history is filled with instances where civil wars were backed by foreign interests, some successful, some not as much. Even before America was a country, France was using us in a similar way to go against the British. Even before that Rome was using the Huns against the Goths, the Greeks using the Spartans against the Persians. The instances where this sort of thing has been used are far too numerous to mention, and is simply part of how one group relates and influences another. Sometimes alliances build and hold, other times the plan fails and you have another enemy to deal with in the future.

[Aurielius]

@vagrant

Your apologeticia for the Third Reich will not wash. I could go point by point but that will derail this thread into the prototypical Nazi debate. I am sorry but the cross analogy's of reprehensible actions by other governments does nothing to assuage the guilt of the most heinous government in world history. Simply put, you made an original sweeping statement that there is no such thing as real good or evil and paragraphs later you still have not disproved my classic example of evil. By and large the world is shades of gray but there are examples of utter black and denying their existence considering the documentation is futile. The judgment of history is already in on this one, you might as well concede the point gracefully.

 

What you are describing as tactics / strategy is not military theory but political theory. As military theory it is nebulous and promotes only inaction, as political theory it then has the validity of being your opinion which at least can be true for you or supporters of the same. I was not being sarcastic in saying that it would fail any middie or plebe that tried to offer it up in class because it holds no proactive element to it. What you are contending is not military tactics ( when you really should be calling it strategy) it is closer to geopolitics and not one that has a course of action, doing nothing is the best prescription for allowing the initiative to fall to the enemy by default.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Aurielius

[Beriallord]

I would absolutely refuse to fight for this country unless we are being directly invaded by a foreign military. They can send me to jail. Neither are there any "supposed" allies I'd lift a finger to help. There isn't a single war being fought currently that is worth the single life of one of our soldiers. Using the patriotism of citizens as a recruiting tool to further the aggressive foreign policy of this country, which isn't going to benefit the best interests of the American citizens is a villainous act. Initiating a draft to fight such wars is grounds for treason.

 

Its looking like things are going to get ugly with Iran in the near future, and if they are looking for meat shields to defend Israel, they can count me out of that one.

 

We should be spending more time utilizing the untapped resources we got here in the US instead of playing geopolitics with oil resources in the Middle East, and getting involved in Israel's disputes. I don't see any reason why we couldn't just forget about that entire region. What are they going to do attack us from the other side of the world? Don't think so. They can talk all the smack they want. The demand for petroleum is going to have a limited life span, its not going to last forever. And the countries who have economies dependent on oil exports will cease to become threats once their income sources are no longer as profitable. Risking so much for a resource we probably aren't going to be using much of 100 years from now isn't very wise.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Beriallord

[HeyYou]

I would absolutely refuse to fight for this country unless we are being directly invaded by a foreign military. They can send me to jail. Neither are there any "supposed" allies I'd lift a finger to help. There isn't a single war being fought currently that is worth the single life of one of our soldiers. Using the patriotism of citizens as a recruiting tool to further the aggressive foreign policy of this country, which isn't going to benefit the best interests of the American citizens is a villainous act. Initiating a draft to fight such wars is grounds for treason.

 

Its looking like things are going to get ugly with Iran in the near future, and if they are looking for meat shields to defend Israel, they can count me out of that one.

 

We should be spending more time utilizing the untapped resources we got here in the US instead of playing geopolitics with oil resources in the Middle East, and getting involved in Israel's disputes. I don't see any reason why we couldn't just forget about that entire region. What are they going to do attack us from the other side of the world? Don't think so. They can talk all the smack they want. The demand for petroleum is going to have a limited life span, its not going to last forever. And the countries who have economies dependent on oil exports will cease to become threats once their income sources are no longer as profitable. Risking so much for a resource we probably aren't going to be using much of 100 years from now isn't very wise.

 

You are giving too much credit to politicians for "forward thinking".... They don't do that trick.

 

I would also contend that when the demand for oil wanes, and all those countries whose very societies depend on that income start feeling the crunch, things are gonna get ugly as they start competing for the few remaining resources left.....

 

I DO agree that we need to find alternatives to our oil-based economy...... unfortunately, our biggest demand for oil is in the transportation sector, and there just isn't a good alternative yet.

[antonkr]

As an American, a draft into the United States military would be in the longterm, one of the best things we can do.

It will teach beyond what any classroom can.

All Americans will learn lifelong essential skills, such as communication, marksmanship, fitness, and most importantly leadership.

A trained 'fit-for-service' type of Army would make it possible to cut down on the costs of our military right now.

It can transform whiny, obese teenagers, who will be sitting their *** on welfare into adults America needs.

Finer details

>6 month training, including these skills, and of course skills needed to defend the Constitution of The United States of America.

>Upon completing the training, and background checks, you will receive your military, current standard issue rifle. (if needed only semi-automatic)

>For the next 2 years you must report to a military outpost, monthly for equipment, rifle condition check.

>Yearly retraining, to adapt to new military platforms.

>upon two years of service you keep all your equipment, and the rifle, provided you went to all the mandatory check ups, and after a post-service background check.

 

Also

>as a draftee you are never to be deployed outside of the United States.

>There is still the usual non-draftee army for actually being deployed, just less of them

Edited July 21, 2012 by antonkr

[HeyYou]

As an American, a draft into the United States military would be in the longterm, one of the best things we can do.

It will teach beyond what any classroom can.

All Americans will learn lifelong essential skills, such as communication, marksmanship, fitness, and most importantly leadership.

A trained 'fit-for-service' type of Army would make it possible to cut down on the costs of our military right now.

It can transform whiny, obese teenagers, who will be sitting their *** on welfare into adults America needs.

Finer details

>6 month training, including these skills, and of course skills needed to defend the Constitution of The United States of America.

>Upon completing the training, and background checks, you will receive your military, current standard issue rifle. (if needed only semi-automatic)

>For the next 2 years you must report to a military outpost, monthly for equipment, rifle condition check.

>Yearly retraining, to adapt to new military platforms.

>upon two years of service you keep all your equipment, and the rifle, provided you went to all the mandatory check ups, and after a post-service background check.

 

Also

>as a draftee you are never to be deployed outside of the United States.

>There is still the usual non-draftee army for actually being deployed, just less of them

 

Won't work. With our all-volunteer military we have now, we are still running short on soldiers for the field. Programs like "Stop-Loss", and extended tours of duty in warzones was the result. Our soldiers are already suffering from long, multiple deployments, and if we had fewer volunteer soldiers, and the draftee's were not to be deployed overseas.... it would only make the problem worse.

[antonkr]

*SNIP*

 

Won't work. With our all-volunteer military we have now, we are still running short on soldiers for the field. Programs like "Stop-Loss", and extended tours of duty in warzones was the result. Our soldiers are already suffering from long, multiple deployments, and if we had fewer volunteer soldiers, and the draftee's were not to be deployed overseas.... it would only make the problem worse.

Then why don't we stop deploying, minus the international US military bases we have, which is considered US territory.