We lose something with an all volunteer army. Sure, we gain efficiency and a few other intangibles, but we lose something a little more dear. We have an all volunteer army, and it seems that we send them out anytime we want to. Contrast this against having an army made up of people doing their duty, and the government sending them out when we ought to.
Why is it the case that Congress would never think of instituting the draft? What has serving in the armed forces become so that drafting is inappropriate?
I do think that if we had a drafted army, we would be a little more serious in these deliberations. And look, if I were going to war instead of Bean Counter, Jar Head, and Blackfox, be sure that I'd have a lot more to say about the situation, and I would make sure I was be heard. You all are taking it like champs, I'd go to Iraq, but not before I right a few strong invectives against this administration.
What are the virtues of an all volunteer army? How has taking up arms for the country become a matter of choice? What sense does this make?
[ November 09, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Someone who is compelled to do a job does so far less effectively than someone who volunteered to be there.
It's the difference between me telling my son to go empty the dishwasher and him asking me if there's anything he can do to help around the house (there's a thought worth fainting over ). In the two situations, which is more likely to produce broken dishes?
I'd much rather have someone defending my freedom who chose to be there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Besides, if the general impression is that we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam, then the draft didn't play that role back then.
Is there something different about America now that would make things different? I don't know that there is.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The advantages of having an all volunteer army is a guaranteed amount of profesionalism and ability. There are also concerns about motivation. Furthermore, the people who sign up are more likely to end up remaining in the military for a longer period of time than would be mandatory in most countries with mandatory service. The effectiveness is very important because more training can be given to someone who is in the service longer. It also reduces causualties.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You can't compell someone to do something that they already understand that they are supposed to do. I don't know if we understand this anymore, maybe we do understand this with respect to marriage.
It's not a matter of compulsion if you expect your husband to be faithful. It's a matter of expecting your husband to understand what it is to be a husband in a marriage.
The same could be said about the draft. ________________________________________________
I agree, it's not very efficient, but when we as a nation are sending people to go kill other people, as a matter of course, I don't think that efficiency should be the highest virtue. We don't go into Iraq because it is efficient. We don't go into Afghanistan because it is efficient. Efficiency shouldn't have stopped us from looking in to the Sudan.
There are other concerns. Heck, if we had downgraded efficiency, it's possible that we wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, and maybe we would have done some better work in Afghanistan and the Sudan.
There is something wrong with the way we choose to go to war, and I think it has to do with understanding what we commit when we choose to go to war. There is something wrong with the way we talk about this, but I can't put my finger on it.
[ November 09, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Fall of the RomanEmpire" syndrome: some folk (like Dubya, Limbaugh, etc) think that they're too good to serve in the military. Might consider that the next time they claim to view the military as something other than expendible "bread&circus" entertainment.
[ November 09, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
We don't act based on efficiency, but when we do act we want as few Americans to die as possible. Would you rather have the people targeting downtown Baghdad during the initial days of the conflict to be experts who will hit the building they aim at or people who've been in the service for a few months and might hit a school as easily as Saddam's palace?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
War had been committed with a drafted Army more often than with an all volenteer Army, so you point is non-existant.
Also, anyone who has been in the service will tell you that all your words about "being heard" and about speaking against war if YOU ewere in the service is crap. If you did that they would court-marshall you faster than you can move your mouth.
By insinuating that YOU would do a better job than those who have volenteered you are being arrogant wherther you realize it or not. You ingnorance of the situation you would be in speaks volumes.
Also, there is one other thing...no Army is ever all drafted....they accept volenteers as well, so Black Fox, BC, and I would all still be serving.
I would rather have people who signed up for this doing the job than Joe Shmoe from Pocono being handed a rifle for the first time in his life, and then shipping him off as soon as he can shoot it. Not only are the casualties much smaller this way but the efficiancy is much higher regarding the tasks that need to be done.
Also, an all volenteer Army is much more in keeping with the principles of this country......respecting individual freedoms.
And anyone who says that they would give the brass a peice of their mind first has obviously never served a day in their life.
Kwea
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the non-volunteer army will fundamentally change for the better, the run-up to the war. Once the bullets start flying, I agree, efficiency rules.
quote: Also, anyone who has been in the service will tell you that all your words about "being heard" and about speaking against war if YOU ewere in the service is crap. If you did that they would court-marshall you faster than you can move your mouth.
I wouldn't do a better job of fighting, I'd do a better job of mouthing off before I went. For very good reasons, I'd make a mediocre to horrible soldier. But there is a difference between sending people who volunteer to go, and sending people who are only going out of duty to the country. And the people who are in the latter group are going to be quicker to hold the government accountable. Their loyalty isn't to the government, as it is, it's to the government as it ought to be. These second group of folks go to war out of an ideal, and if the government doesn't live up to their share of the ideal, they are coming back mad as hell. I imagine some reservists who feel like their have been drafted, feel the same way. There is a virtue in a draft, for no other reason than it takes everyone's wants out of the picture, and puts the focus squarely on the reasons why we went go war.
quote:And anyone who says that they would give the brass a peice of their mind first has obviously never served a day in their life.
That's the thing. That's the danger in self-selecting pool.
[ November 09, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Inefficiency could make us lose. We don't want to lose.
But more importantly, an all-volunteer army has the advantage of not violating our rights. We are a nation that believes in freedom. To use force to enslave innocent people in way that will risk their lives, even for a short sentence, is not consistent with the notion of liberty.
I don't believe some idea that a draft will discourage war is sufficient reason to justify taking away the right to liberty and forcing innocents to go die for America against their will.
[ November 09, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Except that whole stop-loss policy going on at the moment.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm not saying that this will make a better army. I think it'll make it less efficient. I have no doubt about this, but I think we need to put individual rights in perspective.
This notion of choice with respect to who we invade/capture/kill, and who does the killing/capturing/killing is fascinating. How is any of this a matter of preference? And should it be?
[ November 09, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey aspectre, can you stop beating that drum? Try these cynbals instead
-Bok
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I view a draft as morally equivalent to slavery, and slavery is generally a bad thing. If I thought my life was in danger, I would enslave people if I had any reason to believe it would help.
If I were drafted, my loyalty would be only to myself and any friends or family. As long as my own interests were in line with what they told me to do, I would obey. That would probably be the case in most situations. If a situation arose where my interests were contrary to my orders, I would choose them. If I had volunteered, I would be interested in keeping my word, and that would supercede the others, so I would follow orders.
If I had been forced to marry at gunpoint, I would not feel obligated to keep any marriage vows I made.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, isn't what you're suggesting really mandatory military service rather than a draft? You, if I'm understanding you correctly, are suggesting that with American mandatory military service, the President would be under that much more pressure to keep us out of combat situations. This is with the assumption that with that many angry mothers, he'd have to be nuts to get us into a war.
Is that correct?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Hawaiian Man Sues Army for Ordering Him to Duty, 13 Years After Being Discharged From Active Duty HONOLULU Nov 7, 2004 ,AP— A veteran of the first Persian Gulf War is suing the Army after it ordered him to report for duty 13 years after he was honorably discharged from active duty and eight years after he left the reserves.
Kauai resident David Miyasato received word of his reactivation in September, but says he believes he completed his eight-year obligation to the Army long ago.
"I was shocked," Miyasato said Friday. "I never expected to see something like that after being out of the service for 13 years
edit:BTW, to join the debate, I think the volunteer army is a great idea. The draft in this country has had it's day, hopefully. The volunteer forces, with out unsurmountable technological advantages, suffice to defend America. But they are streched thin when used more aggresively.
Until recently, the armed services haven't had trouble enlisting sufficient troops to defend America. But I think stop-loss and other policies will back-fire in the long term. Some folks may hesitate to sign up if it's not a finite term enlistment but rather open-ended on the government's terms.
[ November 09, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the problem is how we frame it: it's the difference between obligate and oblige.
An obligation is a voluntary commitment. It's a matter of choice or preference whose bonds you enter into. Marriage or a car pool or something like that.
When you are obliged, it's a relation of who are you, as you are. If someone leaves a baby on your porch on a rainy night, rings the doorbell, and runs away. It's not a matter of choice, whether you take the baby in and call the cops/social welfare. The problem is that some of the obliges are controversial. And since good people can have an honest debate about which one of these obliges are true and are false, we tend to throw the entire catagory out. The funny thing is, we do it in the name of efficiency.
Once we throw about the sense of "oblige," we are left with obligations. And then it just becomes a matter of someone's taste. Whether to serve in the military becomes morally equivalent to deciding which ice cream flavor to pick. ________________________________________________
Jeni, I don't know.
quote:the President would be under that much more pressure to keep us out of combat situations.
I don't want the President to be under pressure to keep us out of combat situations. Thinking about the draft as a form of pressure already assumes an obligation that you have a choice about.
I'd rather that the President kept us out of the wrong combat situations. Right now, I'm not so sure he has to think about it. From what I gather, right or wrong, this Army is going to support the President. The thing is, I think that this President sees it as a matter of obligation, that is, choice and convenience. Invading Iraq is ultimately efficient, even if their weren't any WMDs.
I imagine mandatory military service would be appropriate, but do we really need that many people?
[ November 09, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I confess to not understanding at all what you are suggesting then, Irami. I'm sorry.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I guess this could be changed, but one problem I see is that the tour of duty for non-volunteer army is only two years, while volunteer tours of duty is 4 years. I understand it takes approximately 1.5 years in our modern army to train our soldiers sufficiently to the technology. It isn't economically sound. That is why the Pentagon wouldn't want it right now.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm not being clear. In the current army:
The army is all volunteer. These volunteers are committed to the President. The President chooses military targets based on preference and efficiency.
There are two alternatives:
1) The army is a draft army. Half the people want to be there, half are forced to be there. Half are committed to the President no matter what, half resent the government for making them serve. The President chooses military targets based on preference and efficiency.
2) The army is one of mandatory service. (You were right) The soldiers understand that it doesn't matter what they want, part of what it is to be an American is serving in this army. They are not loyal to the President, just because he is the President. They understand what it is to be 18 years old and in America. They will fight when America calls, but they do not need any gag orders and we do not expect them to be happy about it. They aren't forced there under penalty of law, but through an understanding of what it is to be an American. They also don't volunteer for it, because they don't particularly like it or think that it's going to do them any good.
The President chooses military targets with the same sense of understanding, not with respect to efficiency or perspective or economy. _________________________________________________
In this third scenario, choice is taken out of the equation. Choice on the citizen's part and choice on the President's part. Instead of choice, there is understanding. This understanding is not a function of efficiency, preference, or profit. It is strictly moral.
This requires in incredible amount of debate, and of course, and a general ethos change, from a culture where the individuals believe they can do what they want when they want to, to a culture where the individuals feel that when something matters, it's not an issue of what they want.
As a result, I think we would have more thoughtful military campaigns with clear objectives and fewer surprises.
[ November 09, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: We lose something with an all volunteer army. Sure, we gain efficiency and a few other intangibles, but we lose something a little more dear. We have an all volunteer army, and it seems that we send them out anytime we want to. Contrast this against having an army made up of people doing their duty, and the government sending them out when we ought to.
Perhaps you have not noticed that the duration of wars since the removal of the Draft has decreased significantly. Along with this, when you have a war that involves an all-volunteer army, it's fairly safe to say that a good percentage (especially the number that joined after the war started) of the military will support that war, and as a result, fight harder to bring it to a successful conclusion. This isn't so with a Draft Army. Even during WWII there was a HUGE percentage of draftees that opposed the war. Draftees in every war have been considered little more than cannon fodder, at least to the really hi-ups. It hasn't been until recently that we've started worrying about the individual soldier. This, I think, is due in great part to the fact that officers in the military have greater respect for the person who just states it out loud, "Send me, I'll do it," than for the person who was "dragged" into the military. Of course I have nothing but my own (likely flawed) logic to back me up...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This, I think, is due in great part to the fact that officers in the military have greater respect for the person who just states it out loud, "Send me, I'll do it," than for the person who was "dragged" into the military.
Boris, a person who says, "Send me, I'll do it," may not be discriminating enough. The same person who will do anything for his CO should not be the same person who decides what the country should do. I fear this is what happens with an all volunteer army. ____________
I think we are in this problem in Iraq because the President didn't take the problem of invading Iraq seriously enough. The President didn't take Iraq seriously enough because the American people didn't take it seriously enough. The American people didn't take it seriously enough because, well, we don't care. And for the the most part, the President likes it that we don't care. Even if we only killed/captured one terrorist, it's worth it. We don't lose anything, we get defense contract jobs, heck, we can just pay for it on the credit card.
This war has been so incredibly convenient, and you know what, it has to be, because if it ever became inconvenient, the people who wouldn't volunteer to go fight would be up in arms. Bush didn't ask us to do anything to support the war, accept vote for him, and all that is real suspicious.
I think Jeni understood my point better than I did: mandatory service would force the public to make a considered judgement about the war, including the politicians. Instead, we have a large group of people who say, "Sure, it's not like I have to do anything," and the only people who are doing something, wanted to do it in the first place.
[ November 09, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I wouldn't do a better job of fighting, I'd do a better job of mouthing off before I went. For very good reasons, I'd make a mediocre to horrible soldier. But there is a difference between sending people who volunteer to go, and sending people who are only going out of duty to the country. And the people who are in the latter group are going to be quicker to hold the government accountable. Their loyalty isn't to the government, as it is, it's to the government as it ought to be. These second group of folks go to war out of an ideal, and if the government doesn't live up to their share of the ideal, they are coming back mad as hell. I imagine some reservists who feel like their have been drafted, feel the same way. There is a virtue in a draft, for no other reason than it takes everyone's wants out of the picture, and puts the focus squarely on the reasons why we went go war.
Once again you prove that you don't understand how the military works.
They wouldn't let you mouth off, and that is their right under the UCMJ. It would be insabordination, and if you did it more than once you would not have any options left.
The problem with allowing your idea to go forth is that you have NO idea what such service requires, and no idea why it needs those requirements.
I wasn't a very good soldier, but I was a very good EMT/Medic. Even with that, and serving in peacetime, I had problems with the brass.
You still havn't proven that it would be any more effective in preventing the actions you dislike, other than saying that you think it would. Most people throughout the history of warfare were not volenteers...most were conscripts, and they didn't fight well. Also, the draft didn't prevent Vietnam from happening, ir costing more American lives.
It diesn't sound like you have thought this through.
How about we draft your son to fight in a less effective Army...but don't cry to us when he dies due to some "ineffeciency" that you think would be acceptable right now.
Kwea
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, they really sucked in WWII.
I like the idea of National Service. While I think the Congressman's kid would get out of a draft (Bush, Clinton,) if everyone had to serve, I think they would be a lot more careful with choosing which war to get involved in. I wonder how helpful having a teen-aged son would help future president hopefuls chances of being elected.
(The whole "rich kids evading the draft" thing is what bothers me about Charles Rangel's discussion about the draft. People don't believe that having a draft would significantly change the socio-economic or racial make-up of the Army.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No they didn't but they were in a far different climate...ask anyone who knows.
There is a huge difference between even a grunts life now and one then. Also, by any comparason this volenteer Army is FAR more efficient than any in history....even WW II.
And that war didn't cause any public outcry against it once we were into the war, did it? And that wasn't mandatory service. Many people volenteered, and weren't maligined for it...quite the contrary.
My Uncle died there, on Omaha beach, because of the Army's ineffeciency in landing the troops....something our all volenteer Army does quite well now.
I should know, my Aunt was the Marine expert on rapid mobilization for Desert Storm.
Back to my main point...it wouldn't work as a deterant to war.
Thank you for making my point so easy to prove.
Kwea
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm just floating the idea.
There is something fishy about the government not asking us to give up anything during a time of war. All we have to do is vote Republican. We even get a tax break. What am I not getting?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Compared to now, yeah, pretty much (If anyone want's to break it down, we had 60000+ deaths per year in WWII, 6000+ per year in Korea, and 5000+ per year in Vietnam, from declaration to withdrawal. Compare that with 298 deaths from Desert Shield/Storm and the 1139 deaths in a year and a half since the Iraq invasion started, and I'd say our military is a little safer without the Draft.)
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: There is something fishy about the government not asking us to give up anything during a time of war. All we have to do is vote Republican. We even get a tax break. What am I not getting?
What, you WANT to get drafted now? (If that's not what you meant to say, sorry, that's what it looks to me like you're saying)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Once we throw about the sense of "oblige," we are left with obligations. And then it just becomes a matter of someone's taste. Whether to serve in the military becomes morally equivalent to deciding which ice cream flavor to pick.
This is called freedom, but it is not the equivalent to a matter of taste. It is placing the question of right and wrong into the hands of the individual, rather than the hands of the government.
As much as the government might like to force military service on everyone, it still amounts to life-risking slavery if done so against the will against those serving. It would be wrong and dangerous to say anyone is "obliged" to anything of the sort.
quote:I think we are in this problem in Iraq because the President didn't take the problem of invading Iraq seriously enough. The President didn't take Iraq seriously enough because the American people didn't take it seriously enough. The American people didn't take it seriously enough because, well, we don't care.
Except this is dead wrong - people DID care. 9/11 and terrorism and all that... they cared a lot.
The problem with Iraq was not a failure to care - it was a failure to understand. America failed to understand what the war on terror was all about and how we could go about winning it. We thought eliminating Saddam would help significantly, and we were wrong.
[ November 09, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What, you WANT to get drafted now? (If that's not what you meant to say, sorry, that's what it looks to me like you're saying)
Maybe. I feel like I'm part of some big syndicate, like I've invested in a pyramid scam, or maybe minor accountant who works for Enron. Something is going on.
[ November 09, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
For one I will say that Irami is very very correct and the rest of you are dead wrong, I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but it is simply the truth and I will state quite a few reasons why this is so.
Recently I read a book by a Colonel ( I believe he just made his first star) in the army called "Death Ground, Today's American Infantry in Battle. It takes first hand accounts from all modern day infantry engagements ( some I hadn't even heard of ) and ties it in with the authors proffesional experience as an infantry officer and certain modern trends in the army. For one I honestly want everyone in hatrack to read this so that they will understand something about their nations military.
As of 1998 the United States Military had a total of 91 Infantry battalions in the military as a whole ( this includes Marine infantry). Just to give you a comparison here the Military in 1968 had 200 Infantry battalions. Basically besides Armor battalions ( which there aren't nearly as many as infantry batts) the infantry is the part of our military that actually prosecutes war on foreign and domestic soil. That comes out that about 100,000 out of all those soldiers in the Army and Marine corp are actually trained and able trigger pullers. During the Vietnam war 15% of the soldiers in theater were actual infantry, about 80,000 for you number crunchers out there. Now the reasons that things are this way is that even during WWII Americans fought in a way that tried to minimize time fought between ground troops. Americans are all about the call for fire ( indirect fire supper, CAS, etc.)
For this reason during WWII America fielded at the most 95 divisions ( 67 infantry, 16 armored, 6 Marine, 5 Airborne, and one mountain). At 1944 in comparison the USSR had 500 Rifle divisions, in the same year Germany fielded 284 divisions. The way we have always fought is that we used a small front line force and backed it up with amazing firepower ( artillery etc.) Even in the Korean war we used this same sort of fighting, Vietnam as well. Fact is that this style has always worked to keep American casualties low. The thing is for this reason the American draft, and even now in the volunteer system to a point, the stupidest soldier always gets sent to be a grunt. Why you say? Well the fact was that the infantry wasn't the one killing the enemy back then, the infantry simply fixed the enemy for field artillery to finish them off. The only units who had the elite men to handle assaults and fierce ground combat were the Airbone and Marine divisions ( ranger battalions as well) of WWI as they were all volunteer. Basically they received the persons who wanted to fight, they wanted to kill. For this very reason guess which units in WWII you didn't want to be captured by if you were German/Japanese
Basically todays infantry battalions are man by man the best infantry units that have been fielded in the history of the world. Even compared to those fierce WWII soldiers the men in the infantry of our day and time our elite compared ot them in their standards of training and their fierocity. But here is the thing that sort of a proffesional division is bad to have in a nation. not to mention it leads to an incomplete destruction of the enemy. We still believe in bringing the firepower, not the manpower. This was exhibited to an extreme during OIF as the Army and Marine units rolling in had no problems destroying the Iraqi units, but an amazing problem prosecuting war and also holding ground in a civil fashion. It led to unproffesional soldiers being put in numerous positions without guidance because they were reserves and grave misjudgements were made. The proffesional volunteer American soldier is a great amazing warrior, but he is honestly not the answer once the enemy has been crushed.
The fact is that a part of our military should always be volunteer, the airborne units, Marines, the elite units of the military. The problem is when all you have is a handfull of amazing killers this leads to the thought that hey I can beat him 100,000 soldiers, but hey unless I pull my entire military at once I can't really properly garrison the conquered nation. The fact is we need some sort of a reserve at the very least which is partly constructed of draftees. The reason being is Americans are much more careful thinkers when they know that hey a lot of our people will die if we do this. We'll win, but we will pay as well. That and I do believe higher education should not be a reason to exempt yourself from the draft, there should be nothing but pure physical inability and certain societal situations ( only son stuff etc.) that should keep a man from being put in the military. That and I've noticed that in general soldiers I serve with care a great deal about what is happening in the world. Everyone I know here watches the news, reads newspapers etc. That and how can an army be a "citizen" military when everyone who doesn't want to serve doesn't have to. How is the military any showing of what America is? Year after year the gap between ordinary America and the military grows more but people do not care to notice. I care not to see what happens in fifty to a hundred years if the current situation is not remedied. I care not to be an American in a nation which does not wish to uphold its long upstanding tradition goodness and kindness on the battle field. During WWII there were towns, cities, etc. that wanted to surrender to the Americans instead of the Brits etc. because of the kinder treatment they would receive. The German POWS in America that were held in the area of Fort Campbell actually had their own little store, movie theater etc. Now look at how we treat prisoners????? How is that America, how is that being conservative??? How is that espousing the ideas of my forefathers. People talk about how we need to go back to the values of those that became before us, perhaps its time that our own soldiers began that trend.
[ November 09, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
In all fairness WWII isn't a valid example and if the US was in a similar situation today we would need to institute the draft again. Vietnam and Korea are better examples regarding effectiveness.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
we had the draft instituted during both those conflicts. That and I disagree I think that WWII is an excellent example of force structure discipline etc.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That and if you look at those conflicts we only actually won WWII, Korea was fought to a cease-fire and Vietnam was an obvious loss.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:How is the military any showing of what America is?
It's capitalism, pure and simple. Is there a better way to describe America?
I think making military service mandatory would take something away from the institution. There's no way that every person in the country would subject themselves to the conformity and structure of the current military. The result would be a loosening of standards, I think, and decreased effectiveness.
In other words, wasted manpower. What on Earth would we need that many green soldiers for, anyway? Money that would be wasted on policing the world with our moral superiority, even moreso than now if we had a bunch of extra bodies eating up paychecks, could be better spent solving problems on a national level and researching how to solve them globally.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Again I disagree, the golden standards that soldiers how set themselves to are draftees!!! Who does a soldier in my division respect, WWII vets, Korean war vets, Vietnam vets. We don't really think much of people who were in the first gulf war. That and the fact is what all do you think that a private does!!! I tell him what do to and he exectures. My only job is teaching poorly educated persons on how to survive and excel in combat and life. What you have to really worry about is the quality of comissioned and non-commissioned officers.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That and because of our problems in getting new recruits, my unit is way under strength at the moment, we have to keep complete dirtbags and worthless soldiers because we do need another body. IF we got draftees we can always chapter out the complete dirtbags or just put them on extra duty. Believe me we have ways of making people complient that don't violate anyones civil rights. Right now we have to keep the incompetetents to keep numbers up.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Fox, you're forgetting human rights and freedom. No matter how much the military may or may not want a bunch of draftees, the point remains that it is a direct violation of our most fundamental rights. In this nation, you are supposed to not lose your right to freedom unless you commit a crime. Sending innocent civilians across the globe to risk their lives against their will is the most extreme violation of that principle imaginable, short of just going out and shooting random people on the street.
Would we go out and shoot random innocents on the street if we thought it could further our war effort? I hope not, at least not except for the far most extreme circumstances. I don't see the draft as being any more justified than that.
...
Now, if we want to talk about discouraging unneccessary wars, I have a better plan: Let's dissolve the peacetime military.
In all truthfulness, if we can't show enough restraint to avoid starting wars that we don't need, we should not allow ourselves to have the chance. It would mean the international community would have to take a much larger share of the world policing, but it would probably have avoided this whole terrorism war altogether (since it has been our military actions in the Middle East that initiated the anger), and saved us trillions of dollars to boot.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:No matter how much the military may or may not want a bunch of draftees, the point remains that it is a direct violation of our most fundamental rights. In this nation, you are supposed to not lose your right to freedom unless you commit a crime. Sending innocent civilians across the globe to risk their lives against their will is the most extreme violation of that principle imaginable, short of just going out and shooting random people on the street.
I think this misunderstands freedom, or else the entire idea of taxes or jury duty would be an affront to freedom. Freedom isn't a factor of getting to do what you want when you want it. In Australia, they have mandatory voting. If you don't vote, you get fined. If you keep on not voting, they take away your drivers license.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That, and we'd be completely vulnerable.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
We already ARE completely vulnerable... remember 9/11? Or, for that matter, remember all those nukes that could wipe us out at any moment that Russia or China chooses?
In the meanwhile, there are plenty of countries all over the world with little-to-no military force. Are they out getting conquered as we speak? Nope. In fact, for the most part, they've probably been attacked FEWER times than we have in recent history, even with all we spend on our military.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So I guess places like Finland, Norway, and Israel all don't have freedom. The Social Contract basically says that in return for protection and other services, the government has the right to limit your freedoms and rights. That's why taxation is justified.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That is my problem. I've been in instances were a taxi cab and a young child were basically butchered because someone "thought" they saw someone with a weapon and off of his actions the rest of the squad opened up. Not to mention the same man that made this observation then fired into a crowded resteraunt way out of the target area.
Its because I've turned in prisoners to the brigade cage who we couldn't ident because there faces were that smashed. Because of all the instances of a lack of morality and ethicas in the military. It is a few that are doing it, but the fact that it all goes unpunished.
That and Basic and AIT for an infantry soldier is a total of 14 weeks and they get shipped off to their units. That and the reason it can take so long to train a soldier is because of all the garrison/paperwork that we have to do when we aren't in the field.
That and you all honestly don't have any clue how many little ways we have of getting a soldier to fall in line. How many of the soldiers I have in my fireteam like the army or want to reenlist when there term expires. 0% They hate the military, they hate the constant supervision etc. They have liked me as their team leader due to my certain leadership styles, but still I have to get on their cases all the time because they don't want to be there. The fact is most soldiers who finally get to their unit really don't want to be there anymore they are simply locked into their contracts and its a lot more painful to get out early rather than serve your time and get out with an honorable discharge and all your benefits. If I get a soldier who starts being a discipline problem first I'll just smoke him, verbally counsel him. Then I put it on paper and make him serve the kind of corrective training I can implement. If that fails whenever I get a third strike on someone ( which has only happened once) I just get the commander to do admin action. Thats stuff like loss of drinking privledges, loss of civilian dress privledge, loss of off-post and pass privledges. Loss of Driving privledges on post. Things of that nature in which I don't have to adminster even an ounce of UCMJ. Then under an Article 15 you can restrict them to the battalion/brigade area and take some of their money away and have them on extra duty. Which is the equivalent of them only being able to work , eat, and sleep. Then if they keep on messing up at the higher levels you can get them to do hard labour ( which is allowed to be cruel and demeaning unlike extra duty)
The fact is the only way the draft decreases the effectiveness of the military isn't their willingness to fight ( thats what we as NCOs implement in them) its the type of persons who are allowed in. If Draft standards are high enough you'll be fine.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:We don't really think much of people who were in the first gulf war.
I hope teenagers in future wars give you the same respect.
quote:the entire idea of taxes or jury duty would be an affront to freedom.
Amen!
A tax on a product that goes directly towards making that product available to you wouldn't be, a la road tolls. But income tax? I think so.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:That and you all honestly don't have any clue how many little ways we have of getting a soldier to fall in line.
"101 Ways to Break the Human Spirit", tonight at 11.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So I guess places like Finland, Norway, and Israel all don't have freedom. The Social Contract basically says that in return for protection and other services, the government has the right to limit your freedoms and rights. That's why taxation is justified.
Finland, Norway, and Israel violate their citizens' rights severely when they do what they do - but those are not nations built on freedom in the way America is.
The government only has a LIMITED right to limit our freedoms and rights. When it gets down to violating the fundamental rights like life and liberty, the government has less and less right to limit our freedoms. After all, if the government wants to go out and shoot random people on the street, they can't just say "Well, that's part of the social contract."
quote:Freedom isn't a factor of getting to do what you want when you want it.
Yes, but Draft is not a mere matter of people not getting what they want. A Draft is much closer to sending people into slavery, or sentencing them to death. Taxes and jury duty are minor inconveniences - they don't have the potential to destroy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Xaospert the reason most of those nations don't have a large standing military is the fact that for the most part the larger military forces in the international community would crush them if they didn't. That and for the most part the only parts of the world that have smaller/weaker military forces also tend to have a great deal of political turmoil in the recent past ( South America, Central America, Africa). Besides that most of the world is pretty stocked up, even our peaceful little Switzerland has a good stock of weaponry.
That and the reason we deal with a lot of this stuff is basically because we have easily the largest economy in the world, we're where the moneys at. For that reason we have a great deal of political and social impact on the world becauser we have so much capital. Even if we didn't spend more of a percentage on the military than everyone else we would still have a bigger military just for the fact that we do draw so much money. That and btw how would you like the world right now if Saddam Hussein had taken Saudi and Kuwait. Then maybe have even gotten lucky and finally taken Iran. I bet our economy and you personally would be doing great with some rather expensive Gasoline etc.
That and no offense Sept 11th is nothing compared to what could occur if we were not vigilant. That and you speak of freedom and rights, well the fact is that the people pay the greatest price of liberty. You deal with the fact that your neighbor is free, he could if he wanted to probably walk over and kill your whole family, probably going to happen, but it could easily happen if he desired so. For your freedom and rights innocent blood might be shed, but we should not savagely waste the lives of other peoples in the world for our sole economical or political benefit.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Frisco as a few sergeants I'm friends with said of their time in the first gulf war, we sat around and trained like mad and then moved in for some light fighting and then it was over with. He said the thing that sucked the most was the plain suck factor of being in NBC gear and high alert for so long. The soldiers in Iraq right now get more respect from me then I think I deserve. We had it easier in Mosul than a lot of soldiers in different places. Now I could go on about how we made it easier on ourselves, but thats for a different post.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Fox, what do you think about those 19 cats who decided that they weren't going to go on their mission?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:That and no offense Sept 11th is nothing compared to what could occur if we were not vigilant. That and you speak of freedom and rights, well the fact is that the people pay the greatest price of liberty. You deal with the fact that your neighbor is free, he could if he wanted to probably walk over and kill your whole family, probably going to happen, but it could easily happen if he desired so. For your freedom and rights innocent blood might be shed, but we should not savagely waste the lives of other peoples in the world for our sole economical or political benefit.
It has nothing to do with our economic or political benefit. Irami is not suggesting we start a draft for our personal economic benefit. He is saying we should have a draft so we are more serious in our deliberations on going to war - so we won't go to war unneccessarily.
My point is that, if we are going to war wrongly, a better tactic would be to simply have no military at all. If the cost is us having to TRUST other nations a bit to not let the world collapse, and if the benefit is we stop unjustly and wrongly invading sovereign nations, then I think the benefit is worth the cost. It's not like everyone else in the world is going to stand by as someone like Saddam conquers everything.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Fox, I disagree with the whole premise of that argument. I don't think that a draft would raise standards, although it would give you more bodies to work with. In a draft, or in mandatory service requirements, almost everyone serves when called upon to do so....all the people who aren't interested in serving at all, as well a all the people who would eventually end up in jail. It's not like you would only get the best and the brightest with a draft.
I also think that disbanding the peacetime military would be a horrible idea, and that anyone who seriously thinks that is an option is ridiculous. We are suppose to trust other nations not to attack us if we disarm? Even with the worlds strongest military we were targets...that isn't a reason to get rid of all safety percausions, it's reason to strengthen them wherever possible, within the limits of our personal liberties. Even outside of them if necessary....but I don't think it is necessary at this point. A draft IS legal, but only in certain circumstances, and I don;t think we have reached that point yet.
Kwea
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
When military service is mandatory, people are looking for the most curious ways out. The smarter ones go to school. Others get medical certificates. The less lucky ones get into the army for 2 years. They *might* learn something useful that would help them in the future, like get a free driving license for trucks. Mostly, it's the 2 years by which their life is postponed. Some don't take the military life well. Every now and then, we get news of boys who were drafted though they shouldn't have, and commit suicide cause they can't take it any longer. The stronger ones get through the first year and then revenge themselves on their younger colleagues. I sincerely doubt if many of them would make good soldiers if the war actually came.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Many of my thoughts on the benefits of the all-volunteer force are addressed well above. To summarize:
1. Professionalism / quality: we base the amount of training and education we're willing to invest in an individual on the length of time they're going to serve.
2. Motivation: To my mind this is the strongest part of the all-volunteer force. Any time you give someone at least some control over the direction of his or her life you get better performance.
Irami, after reviewing all of your posts above I think that you're not espousing a draft so much as mandatory service. Although you go back a forth a few times, I think that the benefit you see from the draft is in "socialization". I may be missing the mark on your position.
The difference between the two, as I see it, is in purpose. To my mind, the purpose of the draft is to conscript a great number of troops quickly. It is used with the recognition that the skill level of the resulting draftees will not be particularly high, but that sheer numbers will offset that low skill level. The corollary is that casualties will be high as these troops are used. Thus, the draft should only be used when the nation is under a grave threat. It should be used when the only way to defend the nation is to spend our most precious resource, our own flesh and blood, or face the destruction of the nation. Put bluntly, I believe that the draft is the use of men and women as weapons, and we must use that fact when making decisions about when and weather to use it.
Mandatory service, on the other hand, though also conscription, and also entails relatively low training levels for the troops, would exist in times of peace and conflict. The conscripted troops might or might not be used in a particular conflict based on the same criteria above. However, everyone would serve and be socialized by the experience. The "benefit" of such a system is that every citizen has a stake in the defense of the nation. The downside, as I see it, is that you really don’t plan to use those troops. The extreme cases that would merit their use are very unlikely. In fact, due to the high cost of maintaining that system, you might feel pressure to use the troops in situations that don’t meet the criteria I posed above.
So the long and the short of it is that I prefer the all-volunteer force. I enjoyed Black Fox post concerning force composition. I can see how the way we’ve designed the infantry has set us up for being highly successful at the “charge” but less successful after the battle has been won. However I don’t see this a reason to go away from the all-volunteer force, but rather as a need to examine and change the force structure of the infantry. Of course, this is balanced by the reality of motivating the troops in every specialty.
Oh, one last thing. Why, if you were really trying to win a fight (battle or war) would you go into the ring with one hand tied behind your back? Irami, when you stated that the inefficiencies of a draft might help us by making the military a less potent entity I though you were misguided.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Again you make the error in my opinion that casualties are an effective indicator of military prowess. It is to a point, but as I see you missed my earlier point see it as this. Only 100,000 soldiers out of the military are really trained and supposed to close with and destroy the enemy. Its very hard to take losses if all you do is send artillery and air strikes. The fact is that I can kill a larger percentage of the enemy then he killed of me and still lose the battle, not to mention the war. It is all about what is accomplished through your force, not just sheer killing. America has simply fallen into the thought that if we aren't dying then we're winning the war.
That and you say that most people with ability or skill will get out of the draft, I personally find that problem more than easily fixed. That and as I tried to point out later the problem with the draft is that they used to send combat arms some of the least worthwhile draftees. That and the army used to have something called a category 4 ( I think thats what it was called) which was simply a person that scored around the bottom 35 percentile or so in the militaries tests. Those were what generally got given to the infantry. If remember correctly Schwarzkopf ( when he was a cadet ) was behind an early effort to get some of the higher ranking ( class rank in sense of GPA) West Point cadets to go infantry as they had generally gone engineer and many times the last West Point cadet to choose ( the one with the lowest GPA) would end up with Infantry as his choice. That has changed, but on to other things.
That and I'm not saying the draft would higher standards of tactical/technical competance. I do however believe that it will raise the morality and ethics of conduct within the military over time.
That and you worry over the ability of our military to conduct war due to a draft. No worries believe me the military will have no problems doing so. That and soldiers still volunteer for 2 and three year stints. I myself enlisted for three years on my first enlistment.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Black Fox, let me see if I have got this:
Right now, part of our difficulty is that in our current infantry units, everyone is at least trained to levels that would have been considered elite in other historical armies. (I say trained, rather than is, elite.)
Basically, our infantry divisions, from light infrantry to mechanized infantry to airborne and other units, is trained as an assault force by the standards of traditional armies. And that it hasn't left the garrison forces of old -- the non-elite soldiers who held conquered ground and weren't taught much more than general soldiering.
Traditionally, those garrison forces were conscriptees and new recruits, while the assault forces were created from the most motivated and best trained. The garrison forces followed behind the assault units and held the ground, often passifying the conquered area just by their presence alone. Not assault trained, these soldiers did not live by the "close with the enemy and impose your will upon him" rule so much as they did the values they held while they were civilians. Those civilian attitudes, however, showed more of the American ideal of how to treat a conquered enemy and served, in a way, as good public relations.
Am I even close to understanding what you were saying? That we may need conscripted forces to hold territory because they would be less trained for assault and would deal better with the populace?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:We are suppose to trust other nations not to attack us if we disarm?
And why not? Nations all over the world have militaries weaker than ours, and they trust us not to attack them - and they all continue to survive, except a couple whose own wrongful actions led to their downfall. Why don't we extend the same trust to the world? Are we paranoid?
quote:Even with the worlds strongest military we were targets...that isn't a reason to get rid of all safety percausions, it's reason to strengthen them wherever possible, within the limits of our personal liberties.
We were targets precisely BECAUSE we had the world's strongest military, and we used it to intervene in the Middle East. If we had not done so, we'd not likely be targets.
Furthermore, you are talking about terrorists, not nations. Our military can't stop terrorism anyway. It's other militaries they can stop - but no other military has been planning to invade the U.S., and aside from some rather weak rogue nations, none have any good reason to want to invade us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: except a couple whose own wrongful actions led to their downfall.
You mean like Tibet and Kuwait?
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Kuwait was not conquered. It is still alive today - because the world stopped Saddam. Given how important the U.S. is to the global economy, it is absurd to think the world would not do the same if our destruction was possible.
Tibet was conquered during the Cold War, many decades ago. Nobody was capable of stopping China then. If China did the same today, they would not get away with it, unless the world let them.
Furthermore, Tibet is a very small power next to a very aggressive one, so the world might wrongly let China get away with invading it (but again, that is our decision to do so). The U.S. is in precisely the opposite situation.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Given how important the U.S. is to the global economy, it is absurd to think the world would not do the same if our destruction was possible.
I couldn't disagree with you more strongly on this. Even if they had some economic problems themselves, I think the general attitude of the non-north american populace would be laughing at how the high and mighty have fallen, and looking at is as an opportunity for their own country to press forward.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kuwait was not conquered. It is still alive today - because the world stopped Saddam.
It was conquered. It was then liberated. By us and a lot of other nations whose combined forces did not equal ours. It was liberated because we had the military you advocated getting rid of.
And whether or not OUR military would have stopped China's invasion of Tibet, it's a clear example of a nation with a military far weaker than ours which did NOT survive, but whose loss was not due to their wrongful actions.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Even if they had some economic problems themselves, I think the general attitude of the non-north american populace would be laughing at how the high and mighty have fallen, and looking at is as an opportunity for their own country to press forward.
Not unless they were downright foolish nations... Their own economies would collapse if America fell. Heck, stock markets around the world crashed just because of 9/11.
quote:By us and a lot of other nations whose combined forces did not equal ours. It was liberated because we had the military you advocated getting rid of.
It was liberated because the world cared - if we had not had the military we do, it would still have been liberated. It just would have been liberated by an army with a higher percentage of Europeans and a lower percentage of Americans. Saddam was not so powerful that the world as a whole can't stop him rather easily.
quote:And whether or not OUR military would have stopped China's invasion of Tibet, it's a clear example of a nation with a military far weaker than ours which did NOT survive, but whose loss was not due to their wrongful actions.
Yes, but there are countless examples of that happening prior to the end of the Cold War. That was a time when it WAS to certain nations' benefit to conquer others. We are no longer in that time. A global economy with a global community of nations makes that issue somewhat obsolete.
[ November 10, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am SO glad you don't have meaningful input on our foreign policy.
Are you saying no one will invade another country now that the cold war is over? I'd be interested in your evidence on such a claim.
Kuwait was invaded after the cold war. Had Kuwait not had oil, or had the world not feared Sadaam continuing into Saudi territory, it's very possible no one would have helped.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, I am just saying the risk of the U.S. needing to defend itself against a military invasion in the modern era are ridiculously low. If you can imagine any reasonable scenario in which we would get invaded, aside from because we keep invading other nations, I might be inclined to think otherwise. But I cannot. No major power has an interest in ruining us, because it would ruin them. No minor power has the ability to occupy a nation as big as ours. And even if one of these were wrong, the world as a whole would not let an invasion of America happen, because it would devastate the stability of everyone.
It's like saying I should be afraid my neighbor will kill me because he, in theory, could. Such a fear is unwarranted paranoia if my neighbor has no good reason to kill me - and as far as the world goes today, no significant power in the world has any good reason to try and destroy/conquer America (except, perhaps, out of fear that we would misuse our military.)
It's not that a military wouldn't be useful. All things equal, I'd rather have a military option, but Irami has set up the following choice, in which all things are not equal:
1. Have a volunteer standing army, and be unable to show the restraint needed to avoid wrongly invading nations and bringing retaliation upon ourselves 2. Have a mandatory military service, and put a type of slavery upon young men (and maybe women) in America.
If the choice is between these two, I think the solution is:
3. Have no military, taking an ever-so-slight risk that someone could invade us before we had time to mobilize and that the world would let it happen, but ensuring we do not wrongly invade someone, we do not bring retaliation upon ourselves, and we do not violate the fundamental rights of Americans.
It's a cost-benefit analysis. The third option is the best, because the danger is the lowest. (Had we taken this strategy in the past, for instance, 9/11 would likely not have happened. )
The ideal would be to have a military but use it wisely, but as parents like to say, if you can't place nice, you don't get to play at all. If we truly are incapable of wisely using our military might and showing restraint (as Bush has failed to do), then it is best for us to not use it at all.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
...
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Xaposert,
It is probably just my background speaking, but to my thinking you've got it backwards. I think that the biggest reason that more countries aren't invading each other is that the US has such a strong military, and has shown that it is willing to use it to protect the sovereignty of other nations. I'm convinced that if you removed that stabilizing force that the "good" use of US military protection applies to the world stage we would see much more aggression, not less.
[ November 10, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Except many other countries have powerful militaries and have shown an equal willingness to use their forces to protect other nations from invasion. It is not like the U.S. is alone out there protecting everyone. The stabilizing force you speak of would not disappear without us, unless the rest of the world just didn't care to keep things stable.
Should we believe that only Americans care about global stability?
[ November 10, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I think the reason that more countries aren't invading each other is because there is rarely a need to invade other countries.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Xaposert,
No, I don’t think that only the US cares about global stability. I think that the US is the only actor on the world stage that has the capability and will to act militarily to protect other nations sovereignty. I don’t think that other countries have shown an equal willingness to use their forces to protect other nation from invasion. I think that other countries have been willing to cooperate in a coalition including the US to protect other nations from invasion. In addition, although there are a few other countries with sufficient military might to accomplish such defensive actions for other countries, few, if any, of those countries would be trusted by the global community to accomplish it in good faith. As it is, the US is currently not trusted to be acting in good faith in Iraq. Only history will tell if the global community is right in that case.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
kaioshin00,
I think that North Korea is itching for an excuse. I don't think that the last 100 years of human history support your optimism.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Hey I said rarely Doesn't that got me covered in any situation? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: No, I am just saying the risk of the U.S. needing to defend itself against a military invasion in the modern era are ridiculously low.
You are so wrong...the reason we don't have that to fear is the very military you are now arguing to disband. With our current forces, plus the added forces in the homeland if we were invaded (think anyone with a gun) no nation could possibly attack and hold ground here. Without the military that wouldn't be true.
quote: No major power has an interest in ruining us, because it would ruin them. No minor power has the ability to occupy a nation as big as ours. And even if one of these were wrong, the world as a whole would not let an invasion of America happen, because it would devastate the stability of everyone.
Think again. Not every country has the forsight to figure that out. Most of the educated elite could, but those aren't the people we would be fighting.
And plenty of people want us to fail.
quote: It's a cost-benefit analysis. The third option is the best, because the danger is the lowest. (Had we taken this strategy in the past, for instance, 9/11 would likely not have happened. )
I don't think you actually know the cost of what you are suggesting, or the value of what you are suggesting we leave unguarded.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). In the two situations, which is more likely to produce broken dishes?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)