Gen. Stanley McChrystal: Bring back the Draft

[Vagrant0]

I think that what everyone might be missing here is that armed insertion has come a long way since WWII, and that it is unlikely in the current era that we would have to use troops in any similar manner. In these days, air superiority allows for troops to be landed anywhere without heavy losses. Even if we were put against China or some other significant superpower, most of the initial stages of the war would boil down to air superiority and bombing the hell out of any fortifications near where we were landing. Technologically, we even have drones and similar to act as decoys or gain entry into areas of high hostility. Even if a large footprint occupation was something that worked well these days, we have many alternatives to ordering squads to sacrifice themselves, or forcing them into an opposed landing.

[mizdarby]

I think that what everyone might be missing here is that armed insertion has come a long way since WWII, and that it is unlikely in the current era that we would have to use troops in any similar manner. In these days, air superiority allows for troops to be landed anywhere without heavy losses. Even if we were put against China or some other significant superpower, most of the initial stages of the war would boil down to air superiority and bombing the hell out of any fortifications near where we were landing. Technologically, we even have drones and similar to act as decoys or gain entry into areas of high hostility. Even if a large footprint occupation was something that worked well these days, we have many alternatives to ordering squads to sacrifice themselves, or forcing them into an opposed landing.

Absolutely agree that air superiority is the edge in modern warfare, and in that respect the USA most likely has the edge over potential threats/ invasion targets. I suspect, based mostly on the Iraq/Afghan experiences though, that air superiority might well get troops into combat zones, with relative ease, but as Afghan/Iraq has taught us all, thats when the real fighting begins, and those troops gotten into the combat zones, will spend years/decades fighting things such as ied's, where air superiority is of next to no value. It's this long drawn out tail-end of war, where troops on the ground is the key.

[Vagrant0]

Absolutely agree that air superiority is the edge in modern warfare, and in that respect the USA most likely has the edge over potential threats/ invasion targets. I suspect, based mostly on the Iraq/Afghan experiences though, that air superiority might well get troops into combat zones, with relative ease, but as Afghan/Iraq has taught us all, thats when the real fighting begins, and those troops gotten into the combat zones, will spend years/decades fighting things such as ied's, where air superiority is of next to no value. It's this long drawn out tail-end of war, where troops on the ground is the key.

What you're forgetting is that the Middle East conflicts aren't ones with clear objectives. There's no government power left to fight, no regular soldiers, no front lines, just the hearts and minds of the people in that country. This is one of the reasons why we havn't really had much success there, and why the draft (adding more firepower) wouldn't actually accomplish anything. About the most that the forces on the ground are doing is giving the local government time and resources to defend themselves from groups who's ideals are contrary to ours. Adding more soldiers in that situation would actually lower the capability of that mission succeeding since higher troop presence would lead to a feeling of oppression. This is why we're having more success in the invisible war in Iran than the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, because there is almost no troop presence in Iran other than drones, many of them being controlled or directed by Iranian military with our unofficial cooperation.

 

The old way of war just doesn't work in in these sorts of situations.

[HeyYou]

In the middle east, the definition of "ally" is rather mutable as well...... some of our allies are also our enemies... saves time keeping track of them that way I suppose. Not to mention that we are PAYING our enemies not to attack our convoys, so that our supplies can get thru...... and of course, they use that money to purchase more weapons with which to fight us....... How is that in any way a good idea??

[HeyYou]

That's fine that you prefer wikipedia over the Oxford English Dictionary. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on what is more "apt".

 

Quite frankly, in this day and age, the wiki definition is more accurate...... Today, NO troops are considered "merely material" in any sense. War has progressed far beyond that. NONE of the high tech machinery we use today would be worth a tinkers dam without the men to run it. You can TAKE territory with air power, but, in order to HOLD it, you need boots on the ground. Without the foot soldier, war would be simply senseless slaughter.

[Ghogiel]

I have no problem with either definition. Unless soldiers are never considered as resources and are never considered to be expendable both definitions are accurate.

[HeyYou]

I have no problem with either definition. Unless soldiers are never considered as resources and are never considered to be expendable both definitions are accurate.

 

Soldiers ARE resources, and a precious one at that. One that should be conserved whenever possible. It just isn't always possible. One of the rules of war is: Men Die.

[Vagrant0]

How is that in any way a good idea??

Because the world is a screwed up place and sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils and make a cost benefit analysis of a situation. In this situation, they are only a threat if they can be bothered enough to spend the resources to change the deal, meanwhile there is the immediate gain of accomplishing some objectives which helps foster additional report, and lines of communication. It's not like they purchase those weapons only to fight us... They have their own internal power struggles and such usually. The US has been doing stuff like this almost since the day it was founded, and most of Europe was doing it long before.

 

It's like taking an anti-depressant that has a low chance of giving you explosive diarrhea... The benefit usually outweighs the risk of needing new underwear.

[HeyYou]

And here I thought the idea was to Kill Your Enemies.... not provide them with necessary revenue so they can continue to fight you, in the hopes that they will use some of that ordinance on their own folks.....

 

I still think its stupid. :D

[Aurielius]

I have no problem with either definition. Unless soldiers are never considered as resources and are never considered to be expendable both definitions are accurate.

Soldiers ARE resources, and a precious one at that. One that should be conserved whenever possible. It just isn't always possible. One of the rules of war is: Men Die.

It's always easy to consider men as expendable resources when it's not your ass on the line. People who have never been closer to war than their monitors can afford the hubris of intellectual detachment, viewing war as it some sort of 'chess' game with expendable pawns. Not so the participants.... that 'expendable resource' was once closer to you than family. Command requires that you ask men to risk their lives but not to throw them away. The day a commander in the field sees his men as expendable pawns, is the day he should resign his commission.