Return to Conscription??
RMiG17
inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere do a better job.
Also, with today's technologically advanced, and thus challenging, equipment,
it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have long-term experience.
Needless to say, a professional military tends to be more efficient all around.
But I am coming to have grave misgivings about an all-volunteer military. I am
seeing more of a "us vs. them" mentality vis-a-vis the military and civilians.
Amongst some members of the military community I have heard views that are
decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the views and values expressed in our
Constitution.
I would love to get feedback on this. . .is this only an aberrant minority, or
is there a trend in our military toward an elitist mentality hostile to the
civilian population and its values? Would a return to general conscription be
a step in the right direction, or a step backward?
Thanks for your ideas on this.
RMiG17
Vaughn Simon
civilian population (like myself). That should help for the civilian
population to better understand and identify with the military. How would
it work the other way?
A trustworthy, obedient military is one of the prime anchors of our
society, it is scary to think otherwise. More and more of our military are
not full time (reserves). Don't you think this helps to keep a "safe"
element of civilianization within the military?
Vaughn
"RMiG17" <rmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001126203037...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Ulf C
way to go, based solely on the fact that you get more proficient and more
engaged soldiers that way.
At least in my unit, a lot of people had the
"I-don't-need-to-remember-that-I'll-never-use-it"-mentality - that's not a
good thing. Also, morale was a bit low and it was all about counting days
until we were sent home.
Well, that's my experience with conscription, I'm not saying it's always
like that, but I really do think an all-volunteer force is the way to go.
--
Ulf
--Dulf at Yahoo dot Com
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military
> since its inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere
> do a better job.
As a member of the USAF during the transition from a draft-motivated
force (during VN) to an all-volunteer one, I have to disagree, in part.
Technically, the USAF drafted no one during that conflict - but a
huge proportion of enlistments were caused by this honorable means of
draft-dodging... myself included. (The USN and USCG benefitted as
well during this time.) Qualification standards for particular AFSCs
went UP during this period and enlistment waiting lists grew to a
year or more.)
We joined only because of the draft - and some of us found a
challenging and rewarding career there. We became true volunteers
only when we reenlisted - but the quality and dedication of our
work was the same as before.
> Also, with today's technologically advanced, and thus challenging,
> equipment, it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have
> long-term experience.
Again, I partially disagree. Certainly, experience is the best
teacher, and is invaluable to the military. But the relationship
between technological advances and the challenge presented to the
young enlisteds is actually the reverse of the way you present it.
The high-level decision to move from fully-capable technicians to
a "smart machine/dumb technician" mode of operation prompted most
of the changes. In a time when the supply of bright, energetic
and "professional" enlisteds was quickly dropping due to lack of the
draft motivation, the USAF committed itself to "dumbing down" the
equipment, making a policy that EVERYTHING should be maintainable
by a person with a ninth-grade reading level. It is this policy
which required the use of computer diagnostic equipment and so-called
"expert systems" for troubleshooting; the maintainer was simply
not as capable as in the past. (One field went from a hundred percent
of its members scoring in the 95th percentile in electronics - and
a minimum 90th percentile in all other areas during the late 1960s,
to the MINIMUM standard of the 80th percentile in electronics, and
nothing else. Along the way, their tech school training was gutted
by excluding most electronics fundamentals, and making the course
1/3rd the length of previous graduates. It was assumed they wouldn't
need these skills - the test station would act as substitute.)
It was not "high tech" driving the methods; it was the other way
around: the methods REQUIRED high-tech equipment, a massive increase
in the number of spares, and a parts pipeline that stretched back to
the factory - just to keep the thing maintainable with limited skills
available on the wrench-bender end.
And it is only the Chiefs, retiring with 30 years' service today,
who realize it - for only they have seen both sides.
Bring back the draft for quality military services - but make it
part of a "universal service" system. The military needs more of
those "best and brightest" again - the ones who are currently staying
away to pursue leadership in civilian life. If they are FORCED to
make a voluntary decision to enter (to avoid the alternative), some
will stay. And the service will be a better place because of them.
- John T.
produce a steady supply of
Ed Rasimus
>rmi...@aol.com (RMiG17) writes:
>
>> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military
>> since its inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere
>> do a better job.
>
>As a member of the USAF during the transition from a draft-motivated
>force (during VN) to an all-volunteer one, I have to disagree, in part.
>Technically, the USAF drafted no one during that conflict - but a
>huge proportion of enlistments were caused by this honorable means of
>draft-dodging... myself included.
You make an excellent case, from the point of view of service,
motivation and quality of personnel. I agree.
But, let me add another perspective in support. I've been teaching
political science at the local community college for about four years
now. I'm continually astonished at the lack of information that the
students display regarding the world around them. They don't read the
newspapers or watch TV news--and even if they occasionally do, they
are ill-prepared to interpret what the talking heads are spooning to
them.
I've regularly asked questions about the obligations of citizens of a
republic to provide some service in return for their benefits. Few
have ever considered it. I've asked if any have ever considered the
military as a career. Few have.
They, as a group, are uninvolved, uninformed and unconcerned. Someone
else will defend them. They are certain of it.
If we had a universal military service requirement (or "national"
service to deal with the non-combatant mentality), and if it were
truly universal with no exceptions or exemptions for the rich, the
white, the educated, the married, the parenting, etc. etc. we might
have greater concern for the foreign policy decisions of the
leadership. Certainly we don't have a requirement that everyone
serve--there just isn't a need for that large a military. However, if
everyone had the potential of being called, they certainly might spend
a bit more time learning where the Balkans are and which side to
support.
We would also gain an experience leadership with greater understanding
of international relations.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Carl Bergqvist
"Ulf C" <Lo...@standard.fancy.sig> wrote in message
news:4OqU5.7748$VR3.2...@news010.worldonline.dk...
Perhaps that is a generation issue, because I experienced my conscription
time much the opposite. Almost everyone in my battalion was very well
motivated. Even though, everyone counted the days left, there was still a
high spirit of doing something important.
What I think is best with conscription is that you get people with all kinds
of different qualities beside soldiering. At one exercise, two of my
platoon's apc drivers had master's degrees in technology (don't know if I'm
right, but I refer to the degree you get after about 4-5 years in college or
university). It is highly unlikely that such people would ever go into the
military as privates in an all-out volounteer army. And they were excellent
drivers might I add.
This was a PFP exercise an one of the platoon's in our company consisted
solely of conscripts that had done their basic training some 10-15 years
before. This was a test to see how people who hadn't been in the military
for some years would perform in international service. It took these guys
about 2 days to get them fully aquainted with the gear. After that they were
as good as we were or better, and we were somewhere between the middle and
the end of our training (about 7-8 months in).
By having soldiers with these kinds of different qualities you get a higher
average IQ among the soldiers and they can act more on their own initiative
and don't have to be guided or restricted all the time. There is no way you
can get guys like these in a professional army unless you pay them
accordingly - and that I think is very much impossible.
/Calle
BlackBeard
thund...@earthlink.net (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>rmi...@aol.com (RMiG17) writes:
>>
>>> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military
>>> since its inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere
>>> do a better job.
>>
>>As a member of the USAF during the transition from a draft-motivated
>>force (during VN) to an all-volunteer one, I have to disagree, in part.
>>Technically, the USAF drafted no one during that conflict - but a
>>huge proportion of enlistments were caused by this honorable means of
>>draft-dodging... myself included.
>
>You make an excellent case, from the point of view of service,
>motivation and quality of personnel. I agree.
>
>But, let me add another perspective in support. I've been teaching
>political science at the local community college for about four years
>now. I'm continually astonished at the lack of information that the
>
<snip of some very good stuff>
I've felt for many years that a national conscription would help the
country. Like Ed said, no exceptions or wealth or connections. In my
fantasy the 'National Service' conscription would include Peace Corps,
Conservation Corp or other similar organisations. If you don't want to
carry a rifle or serve on a ship, then help build homes and roads in the
backwoods of Virginia or work in a homeless shelter in the burroughs.
I think if everyone had to give two years or so to the country it would
benefit all.
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
" To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty; To find the best in others;
To leave the world a better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;
To know even one life has breathed easier because you lived.
This is to have succeeded".
r_kar...@my-deja.com
"Ulf C" <Lo...@standard.fancy.sig> wrote:
> Having served my conscription, I think an all-volunteer military is
the best
> way to go, based solely on the fact that you get more proficient and
more
> engaged soldiers that way.
> At least in my unit, a lot of people had the
> "I-don't-need-to-remember-that-I'll-never-use-it"-mentality - that's
not a
> good thing. Also, morale was a bit low and it was all about counting
days
> until we were sent home.
> Well, that's my experience with conscription, I'm not saying it's
always
> like that, but I really do think an all-volunteer force is the way to
go.
If you can get
1) enough people
2) the right people (i.e. suitable as soldiers. As you probably know,
many people who want to be soldiers are not that suitable for different
reasons).
> --
> Ulf
> --Dulf at Yahoo dot Com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ulf C
> time much the opposite. Almost everyone in my battalion was very well
> motivated. Even though, everyone counted the days left, there was still a
> high spirit of doing something important.
OK, that might be so, but I just thought of a good thing about it:
I've never met someone who served his time who I couldn't talk to about it -
there's plenty of stuff and stories about stupid superiors and mates to last
several hours.
Jeff Hill
regular army. We don't need a really big regular army, but a strong reserve
component would be very valuable, plus provide a counterbalance to the elitism that
you are worried about.
Dangerpig
"Ed Rasimus" <thund...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a227e92...@news.earthlink.net...
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> But, let me add another perspective in support. I've been teaching
> political science at the local community college for about four years
> now. I'm continually astonished at the lack of information that the
> students display regarding the world around them. They don't read the
> newspapers or watch TV news--and even if they occasionally do, they
> are ill-prepared to interpret what the talking heads are spooning to
> them.
Couldn't agree more. During the holliday, we were playing trivial persuit
with the family and my niece (who is in her 20's) got the question, "What
country outlawed the Bible, Koran and other religious books in the 1920's?"
When she missed the question and then was told the answer was Russia, she
said, "Then what kind of religion did they have?" This is from a young lady
who finished high school early and is currently enrolled in a major college.
> I've regularly asked questions about the obligations of citizens of a
> republic to provide some service in return for their benefits. Few
> have ever considered it. I've asked if any have ever considered the
> military as a career. Few have.
>
> They, as a group, are uninvolved, uninformed and unconcerned. Someone
> else will defend them. They are certain of it.
>
> If we had a universal military service requirement (or "national"
> service to deal with the non-combatant mentality), and if it were
> truly universal with no exceptions or exemptions for the rich, the
> white, the educated, the married, the parenting, etc. etc. we might
> have greater concern for the foreign policy decisions of the
> leadership. Certainly we don't have a requirement that everyone
> serve--there just isn't a need for that large a military. However, if
> everyone had the potential of being called, they certainly might spend
> a bit more time learning where the Balkans are and which side to
> support.
>
> We would also gain an experience leadership with greater understanding
> of international relations.
>
This is a great idea. Too bad the whiney, feel good, don't make people do
anything that they might not like and then I won't get re-elected folks
won't vote for it.
Dav1936531
>Message-id: <20001126203037...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
>
><snip>is this only an aberrant minority, or is there a trend in our military
toward an elitist mentality hostile to the civilian population and its values?
Would a return to general conscription be a step in the right direction, or a
An all volunteer military is a very dangerous animal in a society that demands
submission of the general staff to its civilian authority. Col. David Hackworth
(ret.) states as much in his book "About Face".
An all volunteer force creates conditions that can lead to conspiracy, mutiny,
and ultimately, marshall law. A brief look at history will show many examples
of military coups against civilian control of various militaries, some not
necessarily even all volunteer. A force with conscripts has embedded "whistle
blowers" that can nip these types of situations in the bud by alerting civilian
authorites to unusual circumstances, thus allowing the appropriate
reorganizations in command prior to the time that matters get beyond control.
Dave
Kerryn Offord
Among the problems with re-introducing conscription:
(1) Do we do away with the professional military and replace it with
conscription or is conscription in addition to regular recruitment?
(2) how do you choose who has to serve? And can they litigate to get out
of it?
(3) Where are you going to put all these new bodies?
(4) What are they going to do?
(5) A lot of people are goiing to be upset if suddenly a whole segment
of the population (say 18 yo's) suddenly doesn't enter the work force or
go on to further education.
(6) Are you looking to conscript males and females?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Among the problems with re-introducing conscription:
>
> (1) Do we do away with the professional military and replace it with
> conscription or is conscription in addition to regular recruitment?
Conscription (or preferably, "universal national service", which would
include non-military settings) has always been in addition to the
regulars, here.
> (2) how do you choose who has to serve? And can they litigate to
> get out of it?
Everyone serves, consistent with their capabilities. There's no
reason a wheelchair-bound person couldn't serve two years in a civil
capacity (desk job) where the government needs him, for example.
Even extraordinary physical specimens need not serve in the military
directly; there are plenty of opportunities in firefighting, coastal
life saving, etc. Some might even include flight training.
There would be no need to litigate to get out of it; but these 18-year
-olds might spend the rest of their lives flipping hamburgers without
a "discharge" from national service to show they are trustworthy
and have enough integrity to have completed their duty.
> (3) Where are you going to put all these new bodies?
If we can send a quarter of them off to college, another quarter off
to "find themselves" without work, and the remaining half to work,
surely we can find useful alternative things for all of them to do.
(e.g. - in addition to the military... home hospice care in locations
that have no such service; an emergency-service labor pool for natural
disaster recovery; the list is endless. If there is an unfilled need,
national service conscriptees can fill it.)
> (4) What are they going to do?
See above.
> (5) A lot of people are goiing to be upset if suddenly a whole segment
> of the population (say 18 yo's) suddenly doesn't enter the work force or
> go on to further education.
One very important point: entering the workforce (at any but the
completely-unskilled level) should be very difficult for someone who
has dodged their responsibility. The fast track to wealth (i.e. -
college entry and further education) should be absolutely barred to
anyone who has not fulfilled their obligations.
> (6) Are you looking to conscript males and females?
Of course. Equal responsibility for equal benefit.
- John T.
Vlad Polikarpov
Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:h32V5.5999$wA6....@news1.atl...
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: >
> > Among the problems with re-introducing conscription:
> >
> > (1) Do we do away with the professional military and replace it with
> > conscription or is conscription in addition to regular recruitment?
>
> Conscription (or preferably, "universal national service", which would
> include non-military settings) has always been in addition to the
> regulars, here.
>
> > (2) how do you choose who has to serve? And can they litigate to
> > get out of it?
>
> Everyone serves, consistent with their capabilities. There's no
> reason a wheelchair-bound person couldn't serve two years in a civil
> capacity (desk job) where the government needs him, for example.
> Even extraordinary physical specimens need not serve in the military
> directly; there are plenty of opportunities in firefighting, coastal
> life saving, etc. Some might even include flight training.
>
> There would be no need to litigate to get out of it; but these 18-year
> -olds might spend the rest of their lives flipping hamburgers without
> a "discharge" from national service to show they are trustworthy
> and have enough integrity to have completed their duty.
>
You think those civilians who do their job right do not fullfill their duty
to society? You were flying one of the better aicraft in the world, was it
designed and built by someone "civilian" ? You think "he" is truthworthy
enough? Or were you flying a broom?
Besides, you have no idea to what lenghts people will go to avoid something
they are being forced to do. Unless you change your Constitution, lawers
will sue any company pants off if they try to discriminate on the basis of
"discharge".
Then, as you try to find "use" for all kinds of people, the borders of your
compulsory service become fuzzy, with abundance of "gray areas". You will
need an army of burocrats just to enforce order there.
And this is all pretty much boils down to: creating more burocracy. Which
will be prone to corruption. O. people will pay to get a cozy volonteer
position that does not interfere with their lifestyle too much.
> > (3) Where are you going to put all these new bodies?
>
> If we can send a quarter of them off to college, another quarter off
> to "find themselves" without work, and the remaining half to work,
> surely we can find useful alternative things for all of them to do.
> (e.g. - in addition to the military... home hospice care in locations
> that have no such service; an emergency-service labor pool for natural
> disaster recovery; the list is endless. If there is an unfilled need,
> national service conscriptees can fill it.)
>
> > (4) What are they going to do?
>
> See above.
>
So you want a pool of free labor to take care of social ills? , and if there
any need for anything, send some there too.
Well, if you ever heard of word "volonteer" in civilian life as opposed to
"volonteer" to armed forces? You see, those people volonteer their time
without orders from General Staff. I would hate to have to deal with a
"volonteer" that hates his enforced status, how about you?
> > (5) A lot of people are goiing to be upset if suddenly a whole segment
> > of the population (say 18 yo's) suddenly doesn't enter the work force or
> > go on to further education.
>
> One very important point: entering the workforce (at any but the
> completely-unskilled level) should be very difficult for someone who
> has dodged their responsibility. The fast track to wealth (i.e. -
> college entry and further education) should be absolutely barred to
> anyone who has not fulfilled their obligations.
>
Maybe in your mind a higher education is a "fast track to wealth", ok,
forget it takes 5-7 years of study and living on hot dogs.
One thing I can assure you: for all the people I knew that had to go through
conscription service and then returned to college/university, they had
extremely hard time catching up; for many, those years were a loss, with no
benefit to them and dubious benefit to society. The bottom line is, for an
18 years olds, there is no time to loose if they whant to become something
in science or engineering.
> > (6) Are you looking to conscript males and females?
>
> Of course. Equal responsibility for equal benefit.
>
> - John T.
You know what, I just thought of alternative to this:
Have every university to offer a military specialty program that is
compulsory with some choices available, and have them to go for a camp time
during summer break. With options to join forces after graduation. How about
that?
Ed Rasimus
>Besides, you have no idea to what lenghts people will go to avoid something
>they are being forced to do. Unless you change your Constitution, lawers
>will sue any company pants off if they try to discriminate on the basis of
>"discharge".
You enter the argument from the position of someone who apparently
believes that service to one's country would be something strenuously
avoided. That, hopefully, would not be true under a system of
equitably administered conscription.
>
>Then, as you try to find "use" for all kinds of people, the borders of your
>compulsory service become fuzzy, with abundance of "gray areas". You will
>need an army of burocrats just to enforce order there.
>
>And this is all pretty much boils down to: creating more burocracy. Which
>will be prone to corruption. O. people will pay to get a cozy volonteer
>position that does not interfere with their lifestyle too much.
The idea would be a universal registration of 18 year olds, then
selection of a quantity based on needs. Everyone would register and
have an equal chance (risk) of selection. Many would not be called
upon to serve, however since all were subject to the same risk there
would be a national respect for those who served. It could be done
similarly to the draft lottery that was conducted during the late
'60s, but WITHOUT all of the various exemptions and alternatives to
protect those with means.
>
>So you want a pool of free labor to take care of social ills? , and if there
>any need for anything, send some there too.
I don't think a free labor pool to cure social ills is appropriate.
Certainly there is potential to attack some social problems with
national service conscripts (see Clinton's programs), but that would
certainly not be the primary raison d'etre.
>
>Well, if you ever heard of word "volonteer" in civilian life as opposed to
>"volonteer" to armed forces? You see, those people volonteer their time
>without orders from General Staff. I would hate to have to deal with a
>"volonteer" that hates his enforced status, how about you?
Again you enter from the assumption that service would be something to
be avoided and detested. If everyone were equally vulnerable to
service selection and after a short period virtually all families
would have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, cousins, etc. who had
served, there would be an evolution of service into a respected
occupation. One might also consider that a bit of time in a structured
organization might be maturing and serve as excellent preparation for
a position in industry.
>
>Maybe in your mind a higher education is a "fast track to wealth", ok,
>forget it takes 5-7 years of study and living on hot dogs.
>
>One thing I can assure you: for all the people I knew that had to go through
>conscription service and then returned to college/university, they had
>extremely hard time catching up; for many, those years were a loss, with no
>benefit to them and dubious benefit to society. The bottom line is, for an
>18 years olds, there is no time to loose if they whant to become something
>in science or engineering.
Actually, as a teacher at a local college, I'm fairly comfortable in
suggesting that a couple of years maturing before tackling advanced
education can be quite beneficial. The best performing students I
encounter are those returning to school after a couple of years at
entry level in the work force and those on active duty in the military
that are taking advantage of career advancement opportunities at Ft.
Carson, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB and USAFA.
There is plenty of time "to loose" before continuing one's education.
I got my first master's degree at age 35 after 12 years of active duty
and my second at 38.
For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
transferrable to civilian society.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Ed Rasimus schrieb:
>
<snip>
> For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
> the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
> dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
> ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
> travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
> transferrable to civilian society.
And gives you some more time to decide what you really want to do
(study/learn/work) after leaving school. (At least that's what you can notice
here in Germany)
Jörg
qnca...@my-deja.com
it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents
from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in
which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"
-- Daniel Webster
Ed Rasimus [Fighter Pilot (ret)]:
....you took a solemn oath to support & defend the U.S. Constitution;
where do you see specific authority for the government to forcibly
conscript citizens. If you somehow discern such authority in the
Constitution, what are its limits (e.g., could the government legally
conscript citizens for a 25-year term, if it so chose?).
--
Quinn R. Casey
Vlad Polikarpov
> "Vlad Polikarpov" <vlad...@nospam.cae.ca> wrote:
>
> >Besides, you have no idea to what lenghts people will go to avoid
something
> >they are being forced to do. Unless you change your Constitution, lawers
> >will sue any company pants off if they try to discriminate on the basis
of
> >"discharge".
>
> You enter the argument from the position of someone who apparently
> believes that service to one's country would be something strenuously
> avoided. That, hopefully, would not be true under a system of
> equitably administered conscription.
For what Mr. Dweezil proposed, there will be many that will try to avoid it.
> >
> >Then, as you try to find "use" for all kinds of people, the borders of
your
> >compulsory service become fuzzy, with abundance of "gray areas". You will
> >need an army of burocrats just to enforce order there.
> >
> >And this is all pretty much boils down to: creating more burocracy. Which
> >will be prone to corruption. O. people will pay to get a cozy volonteer
> >position that does not interfere with their lifestyle too much.
>
> The idea would be a universal registration of 18 year olds, then
> selection of a quantity based on needs. Everyone would register and
> have an equal chance (risk) of selection. Many would not be called
> upon to serve, however since all were subject to the same risk there
> would be a national respect for those who served. It could be done
> similarly to the draft lottery that was conducted during the late
> '60s, but WITHOUT all of the various exemptions and alternatives to
> protect those with means.
Ok, this seems something quite different from what I picked up in DD's post:
his departing point was that everyone should do the service, so from there
his ideas of how to employ that legion.
> >
> >So you want a pool of free labor to take care of social ills? , and if
there
> >any need for anything, send some there too.
>
> I don't think a free labor pool to cure social ills is appropriate.
> Certainly there is potential to attack some social problems with
> national service conscripts (see Clinton's programs), but that would
> certainly not be the primary raison d'etre.
This is, btw, a danger point with conscription, the appetites can grow to
use this as a labor pool for "great causes". But anything can be abused.
The point I feel strongly against is that he proposes to use everyone for
anything. Personally I have no problem with serving in Armed Forces if so
required, but if you don't need me for that, don't send me to paint walls
for subsidized housing instead of studying.
> >
> >Well, if you ever heard of word "volonteer" in civilian life as opposed
to
> >"volonteer" to armed forces? You see, those people volonteer their time
> >without orders from General Staff. I would hate to have to deal with a
> >"volonteer" that hates his enforced status, how about you?
>
> Again you enter from the assumption that service would be something to
> be avoided and detested. If everyone were equally vulnerable to
> service selection and after a short period virtually all families
> would have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, cousins, etc. who had
> served, there would be an evolution of service into a respected
> occupation.
No doubt,Ed. However, the selection process should be very careful one,
although everyone could be conscripted, not any individual should be. There
must be some guidelines of selecting those who will bring respect to the
serving in the Forces.
My disagreement with grabbing just everyone of age, and THERE will you have
"avoidance and detest".
> One might also consider that a bit of time in a structured
> organization might be maturing and serve as excellent preparation for
> a position in industry.
> >
Maybe, but it is rather case per case scenario.
>
> >Maybe in your mind a higher education is a "fast track to wealth", ok,
> >forget it takes 5-7 years of study and living on hot dogs.
> >
> >One thing I can assure you: for all the people I knew that had to go
through
> >conscription service and then returned to college/university, they had
> >extremely hard time catching up; for many, those years were a loss, with
no
> >benefit to them and dubious benefit to society. The bottom line is, for
an
> >18 years olds, there is no time to loose if they whant to become
something
> >in science or engineering.
>
> Actually, as a teacher at a local college, I'm fairly comfortable in
> suggesting that a couple of years maturing before tackling advanced
> education can be quite beneficial. The best performing students I
> encounter are those returning to school after a couple of years at
> entry level in the work force and those on active duty in the military
> that are taking advantage of career advancement opportunities at Ft.
> Carson, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB and USAFA.
>
> There is plenty of time "to loose" before continuing one's education.
> I got my first master's degree at age 35 after 12 years of active duty
> and my second at 38.
Ed, I am no teacher, but I was a student for some years, and no matter how
great a carrier advancement programs in the Forces are, they can not compete
with full time university programs. Period. And not in every field, and not
on every job, you can afford to postpone your masters till 35.
>
> For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
> the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
> dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
> ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
> travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
> transferrable to civilian society.
> >
Ok, maturing, work ethics, and travel. Profession. All are good and highly
desirable, but you know what, once you hit your first project at real job,
you get matured or else. At least I can speak for myself. Armed Forces is
excellent school of maturity, but not the only one. Same goes for
profession. I know mature people who never had to wear uniform. Quite a
professionals too.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Regards,
Vlad
Carl Bergqvist
"Ulf C" <Lo...@standard.fancy.sig> wrote in message
Yeah, I'm sure there is in every service in every country.
/Calle
Ed Rasimus
>"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is
>it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents
>from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in
>which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"
>
> -- Daniel Webster
My favorite is:
"War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things; the
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own
personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being
free, unless made and kept so by better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
1806-1873
>....you took a solemn oath to support & defend the U.S. Constitution;
>where do you see specific authority for the government to forcibly
>conscript citizens. If you somehow discern such authority in the
>Constitution, what are its limits (e.g., could the government legally
>conscript citizens for a 25-year term, if it so chose?).
Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to....provide
for the common defense..."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: "To raise and support Armies..."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13: "To provide and maintain a Navy."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14: "To make rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval forces."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the
militia (you'll recall that as being every able-bodied male over the
age of 18.)...."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming
and DISCIPLINING (emphasis added) the militia..."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: "To make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...."
And, of course we could go on into the provisions of Article II, which
gives the President authority to carry out these directives as
Commander-in-Chief.
So, what authority don't you find in these statements?
Pete Zaitcev
> > of the population (say 18 yo's) suddenly doesn't enter the work force or
> > go on to further education.
>
> One very important point: entering the workforce (at any but the
> completely-unskilled level) should be very difficult for someone who
> has dodged their responsibility. The fast track to wealth (i.e. -
> college entry and further education) should be absolutely barred to
> anyone who has not fulfilled their obligations.
This is a good way to check the immigration of skilled workforce. :)
In fact I can see some folks continuing their education in
different countries.
--Pete
Pete Zaitcev
> For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
> the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
> dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
> ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
> travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
> transferrable to civilian society.
>
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
I would say the view expressed by Ed is quite common among
older folks. They see their service expirience through rose
colored glasses because they were younger at than time and
everything was better.
Vlad, on the other hand, is a walking monument to the common
hatred of army service instilled into genes of educated Russians.
AFAIK, similar opinions were common in the U.S. during the Vietnam
era. When conscripted you get beaten up, hunger to death like
Kurilian cadets, become hooked on smoking, drugs, and alchhol,
and perhaps will be captured then used as a slave in a Muslim
country somewhere. And you do that for the rich people of your
country to become fitlhy rich on the oil trade (it is called
"strategic national interests").
The reality swings freely between these two poles.
--Pete
Vlad Polikarpov
Pete Zaitcev <zai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn929k5f....@js006.zaitcev.lan...
> >[...]
>
> Vlad, on the other hand, is a walking monument to the common
> hatred of army service instilled into genes of educated Russians.
Thanks, Pete, but I am not a "walking monument". Let's not exaggerate here.
;)
My personal experiences with service in forces was not quite typical either.
Mary Shafer
be served at least 500 miles from where the person entered the
service. That way, young people will get to see that there's more
than one way to live.
I guess I'd also make the only way a kid could get out of serving is
to be so severely handicapped that a special environment, like a
custodial home, is the only way the kid can live. This doesn't mean
staying at home with mom because the kid has a minor problem, but it
does mean that someone with severe mental or physical disorders is
exempt. But then other kids, doing their national service, might be
providing some of the care for such kids, just as they might be
working in nursing homes, picking up litter in parks and on the roads,
tutoring little kids in reading and math, and so on. There are a lot
of jobs that don't get done in the US because there's no money to pay
for them, but surely the country could afford to provide housing and
food, plus an allowance, to every kid for a year, particularly when
everyone gets something, even if it's just clean streets, out of the
deal.
Maybe I'd let them volunteer for the military in place of doing these
other jobs for the domestic good, but they'd have to spend more than a
year because otherwise it's not worth training them. Six months of
training for six months of work is too expensive; make it a year after
training. That way, people who are assigned to unskilled-labor jobs
in the military (the "warm body" sort of job) won't be punished for
not getting much training, while people who get training that they can
cash in on, like being an A&P, pay society for part of the cost of the
training.
Oh, yeah, and everyone goes to something like basic training, military
or not. Only difference is that the physical training emphasis for
the non-military conscripts is on something they can do all their life
to stay in good shape, like tennis or swimming or running.
I guess I've got more than just one thing, but they're all
interrelated, at least.
--
Mary Shafer Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
Kerryn Offord
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: >
<SNIP>
>>(2) how do you choose who has to serve? And can they litigate to
> > get out of it?
>
<SNIP>
> There would be no need to litigate to get out of it; but these 18-year
> -olds might spend the rest of their lives flipping hamburgers without
> a "discharge" from national service to show they are trustworthy
> and have enough integrity to have completed their duty.
Is this the way the Israeli defence force works? (Compulsory military
service with employment problems for those without a "discharge")
Asking because I seem to remember reading something along these lines.
Carl Bergqvist
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Zaitcev" <zai...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Return to Conscription??
> >[...]
> > For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
> > the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
> > dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
> > ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
> > travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
> > transferrable to civilian society.
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (ret)
>
> I would say the view expressed by Ed is quite common among
> older folks. They see their service expirience through rose
> colored glasses because they were younger at than time and
> everything was better.
>
> Vlad, on the other hand, is a walking monument to the common
> hatred of army service instilled into genes of educated Russians.
> AFAIK, similar opinions were common in the U.S. during the Vietnam
> era. When conscripted you get beaten up, hunger to death like
> Kurilian cadets, become hooked on smoking, drugs, and alchhol,
> and perhaps will be captured then used as a slave in a Muslim
> country somewhere. And you do that for the rich people of your
> country to become fitlhy rich on the oil trade (it is called
> "strategic national interests").
>
> The reality swings freely between these two poles.
>
> --Pete
WOW! You really drew a dark picture of conscription there. I think the main
difference between types of conscription is whether you are to maintain
armed forces that should be able to fight abroad. I have never heard of
problems like the ones you mention in the Scandinavian countries, nor many
of the European.
I think one thing is really interesting - here in Sweden, a Swedish system
of all-out volounteer armed forces is considered to be a threat to
democracy. But in Russia, there's no talk of that when discussing the
upcoming transition from conscription to a professional armed forces.
Funny...
/Calle
Dangerpig
military and I believe that for a majority of young people some time in a
structured environment be it military or some other like program would do
them a lot of good. Too many youngsters in today's society are without the
same discipline and structure that many older people grew up with.
As for people being behind the 8 ball having gone to the military and then
returned to school. My brother was drafted at the end of the Vietnam
conflict after he had dropped out of college. When he got out of the Army
he returned to school and got his degree in Engineering. I can assure you
he is quite successful despite his break from school.
"Pete Zaitcev" <zai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn929k5f....@js006.zaitcev.lan...
Dennis Jensen
Ed Rasimus wrote in message <3a252a4c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>"Vlad Polikarpov" <vlad...@nospam.cae.ca> wrote:
>
>>Besides, you have no idea to what lenghts people will go to avoid
something
>>they are being forced to do. Unless you change your Constitution, lawers
>>will sue any company pants off if they try to discriminate on the basis of
>>"discharge".
>
>You enter the argument from the position of someone who apparently
>believes that service to one's country would be something strenuously
>avoided. That, hopefully, would not be true under a system of
>equitably administered conscription.
Ed, I am afraid you really are not looking at human nature here. You will
have a lot of people who believe that they have the right to determine their
own future, and will not like a military sword of manmoclese hanging over
their head. I know-I managed to avoid conscription in South Africa. The only
thing worse than being forced into something is being forced into something
you don't believe in.
>>
>>Then, as you try to find "use" for all kinds of people, the borders of
your
>>compulsory service become fuzzy, with abundance of "gray areas". You will
>>need an army of burocrats just to enforce order there.
>>
>>And this is all pretty much boils down to: creating more burocracy. Which
>>will be prone to corruption. O. people will pay to get a cozy volonteer
>>position that does not interfere with their lifestyle too much.
>
>The idea would be a universal registration of 18 year olds, then
>selection of a quantity based on needs. Everyone would register and
>have an equal chance (risk) of selection. Many would not be called
>upon to serve, however since all were subject to the same risk there
>would be a national respect for those who served. It could be done
>similarly to the draft lottery that was conducted during the late
>'60s, but WITHOUT all of the various exemptions and alternatives to
>protect those with means.
However you cut and shut it, this is NOT fair. You may be exposed to the
same risk, but those who are not called to serve will obviously be
advantaged over those that do. Take college education-those that serve will
be a couple of years behind, and then, depending on the nature of
employment, a couple of years behind in seniority. Not fair in my eyes.
>>
>>So you want a pool of free labor to take care of social ills? , and if
there
>>any need for anything, send some there too.
>
>I don't think a free labor pool to cure social ills is appropriate.
>Certainly there is potential to attack some social problems with
>national service conscripts (see Clinton's programs), but that would
>certainly not be the primary raison d'etre.
>>
>>Well, if you ever heard of word "volonteer" in civilian life as opposed to
>>"volonteer" to armed forces? You see, those people volonteer their time
>>without orders from General Staff. I would hate to have to deal with a
>>"volonteer" that hates his enforced status, how about you?
>
>Again you enter from the assumption that service would be something to
>be avoided and detested. If everyone were equally vulnerable to
>service selection and after a short period virtually all families
>would have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, cousins, etc. who had
>served, there would be an evolution of service into a respected
>occupation. One might also consider that a bit of time in a structured
>organization might be maturing and serve as excellent preparation for
>a position in industry.
As I have mentioned, there will be many who do not see it as fair.
Furthermore, there will be a loss of time/seniority compared to those who do
not serve.
>>
>
>>Maybe in your mind a higher education is a "fast track to wealth", ok,
>>forget it takes 5-7 years of study and living on hot dogs.
>>
>>One thing I can assure you: for all the people I knew that had to go
through
>>conscription service and then returned to college/university, they had
>>extremely hard time catching up; for many, those years were a loss, with
no
>>benefit to them and dubious benefit to society. The bottom line is, for an
>>18 years olds, there is no time to loose if they whant to become something
>>in science or engineering.
>
>Actually, as a teacher at a local college, I'm fairly comfortable in
>suggesting that a couple of years maturing before tackling advanced
>education can be quite beneficial. The best performing students I
>encounter are those returning to school after a couple of years at
>entry level in the work force and those on active duty in the military
>that are taking advantage of career advancement opportunities at Ft.
>Carson, Peterson AFB, Falcon AFB and USAFA.
>
>There is plenty of time "to loose" before continuing one's education.
>I got my first master's degree at age 35 after 12 years of active duty
>and my second at 38.
>
I certainly don't disagree with older students often doing better, Ed. I
enetered tertiary study at age 24, and did MSc and PhD after that. I
certainly benefitted from the maturing process. However, that was MY choice.
Some do quite well straight from school.
>For most who serve time in the military immediately after high school,
>the service is definitely NOT "a loss, with no benefit to them and
>dubious benefit to society." Their military service instills a work
>ethic, provides opportunity for maturing, often allows for world
>travel and always involves training in a profession that is highly
>transferrable to civilian society.
>>
>
Ed, I agree with the issue of work ethic, but there certainly is loss. (See
seniority). You CHOSE a military carrer path, and that had benefits
including management experience and graduate and postgraduate education. But
don't overlook the fact that most conscripts will gain no real benefit.
About the best thing that conscription would do is let some of those who
come from enormously priviledged backgrounds see how some people really live
and operate.
Dennis
Dennis
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
Dennis Jensen
Dangerpig wrote in message ...
>I wouldn't consider myself "one of the older folks", I am still in the
>military and I believe that for a majority of young people some time in a
>structured environment be it military or some other like program would do
>them a lot of good. Too many youngsters in today's society are without the
>same discipline and structure that many older people grew up with.
>
Dangerpig, this goes back to Ancient Greece with "the problem with today's
youth..." In short, there really is no problem with today's youth (no, at 38
I just WISH I was today's youth:), but people inherently do not like change.
I would rather people learned rigour of thought and logic, and questioned
everything, and had self-discipline, rather than relied on external
discipline.
Having a free society is not easy, and, in effect, I believe that a return
to conscription would mark a partial return to a less free society, and is,
in effect, a form of social engineering.
Dennis
John Keeney
<qnca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:903bkp$4eb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is
> it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents
> from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in
> which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"
>
> -- Daniel Webster
>
>
>
> ....you took a solemn oath to support & defend the U.S. Constitution;
> where do you see specific authority for the government to forcibly
> conscript citizens. If you somehow discern such authority in the
> Constitution, what are its limits (e.g., could the government legally
> conscript citizens for a 25-year term, if it so chose?).
If you have the Constitution online, do a search on "militia" and
you will find a bit about being able to call forth such parts as
nessary.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Well, since I am now an "old fart" of 52, I rarely consider anyone
under about 35 or so as "skilled" or "experienced". I would imagine
that skilled immigrants would be beyond normal conscription age.
You're right about draft-dodgers heading for overseas educations,
though. I can think of one famous American who spent his draft-
dodging time in England, visiting Moscow, etc. In fact - old Bill
finally came back from 'Nam just a week or so ago...
- John T.
Ranger One Five
rmi...@aol.com (RMiG17) wrote:
> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military
since its
> inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere do a better
job.
> Also, with today's technologically advanced, and thus challenging,
equipment,
> it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have long-term
experience.
> Needless to say, a professional military tends to be more efficient
all around.
>
> But I am coming to have grave misgivings about an all-volunteer
military. I am
> seeing more of a "us vs. them" mentality vis-a-vis the military and
civilians.
> Amongst some members of the military community I have heard views that
are
> decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the views and values
expressed in our
> Constitution.
>
minority, or
> is there a trend in our military toward an elitist mentality hostile
to the
> civilian population and its values? Would a return to general
conscription be
> a step in the right direction, or a step backward?
>
>
> RMiG17
>
I was against conscription until after I had combat experience.
Conscripts generally made better soldiers.
But this is a different world. Most soldiers intend to evade combat as
successfully as their Commander In Chief, or either of the potential
replacements. And the vast majority of civilians intend to evade any
military service altogether. The holy warriors ranged against the U.S.
have an exceptionallyfavorable kill ratio. And most US soldiers are
nominally members of religious sects that would require them to be
conscientious objectors to killing for the relatively new Constitutional
right to "choice." We are liable to see a real soldier replace the next
elected Commander In Chief. And most of the current generation is
liable to accept imperialism with a small professional army as gladly as
did the Romans.
--
Kit Carson Scouts of 75th Ranger Regiment are not
properly accounted for. Apparent betrayals of them,
or their families, will make LRPs more difficult.
Harry Miller D/75 312-787-0565
Boyan Brezinsky
> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military since its
> inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere do a better job.
> Also, with today's technologically advanced, and thus challenging, equipment,
> it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have long-term experience.
> Needless to say, a professional military tends to be more efficient all around.
>
> But I am coming to have grave misgivings about an all-volunteer military. I am
> seeing more of a "us vs. them" mentality vis-a-vis the military and civilians.
> Amongst some members of the military community I have heard views that are
> decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the views and values expressed in our
> Constitution.
>
> I would love to get feedback on this. . .is this only an aberrant minority, or
> is there a trend in our military toward an elitist mentality hostile to the
> civilian population and its values? Would a return to general conscription be
> a step in the right direction, or a step backward?
>
> Thanks for your ideas on this.
>
> RMiG17
>
the value of conscription really depends on the environment. IMHO, if
you have "an enemy", then you can safely introduce conscription and
people will be happy to enlist and go to the army to defend their
country. Check every war in history. If there is no enemy, then
conscription is morally degrading. Check all socialist countries and
most of the western countries as well. I think I can safely assume that
in the socialist countries, since people in general had their doubts
about the system, the compulsory military service was so unpopular. It
became even more unpopular now, when NATO and the west are no longer the
enemy. Seems to me that the lack of motivation is plaguing western
armies as well. Since they don't have a real threats (in the
"neighborhood" and in the near future), then the draftees don't see how
they can contribute to their country's security. On the other hand, the
volunteers are (hopefully) people who join the army with the idea to
serve their country in this way (I really hope that there is a very
little number of people who get there not because they want, but because
they can't find a job).
With the evergrowing isolacionist tendencies in the US, I really don't
see how you can justify a conscription to the public. The main question
will be - who is going to attack us? Canada or Mexico? And if it is
China or South Korea, then our strategic defence will knock down their
missiles, and they are not capable of crossing the Pacific. The main
problem is in the short-term thinking that is inherent to the people. As
it was shown in the WWII, it takes at least 2 to 3 years for a country
to start rolling on war conditions. The US war badly beaten by Japan the
first one or two years of the war, the same happened with the USSR.
Because right now there are no short-term threats, nobody is willing to
accept (myself included) the need of a big army.
And I too believe that "folks that WANT to be somewhere do a better
job". It's just that in times of danger to the country a lot of people
want to be in the army, and in peaceful times this number drops
dramatically.
Oh well, my $0.02...
--
Boyan Brezinsky
Vaughn Simon
"Dangerpig" <dng...@vvm.com> wrote in message
news:FGiV5.67255$DG3.1...@news2.giganews.com...
> I wouldn't consider myself "one of the older folks", I am still in the
> military and I believe that for a majority of young people some time in a
> structured environment be it military or some other like program would do
> them a lot of good. Too many youngsters in today's society are without
the
> same discipline and structure that many older people grew up with.
>
> As for people being behind the 8 ball having gone to the military and then
> returned to school. My brother was drafted at the end of the Vietnam
> conflict after he had dropped out of college. When he got out of the Army
> he returned to school and got his degree in Engineering. I can assure you
> he is quite successful despite his break from school.
>
a 15-year break. I always did well compared to younger students. I had a
particular advantage compared to the rest of my class in any writing
assignment. Writing becomes more and more important as you progress past a
two-year degree. The more life you have experienced, the more you have to
write about. The more you have to write about the better you will do.
In short; there is nothing about living that makes you dumb.
Vaughn
Ranger One Five
Boyan Brezinsky <bo...@numberonemm.com> wrote:
> In article from 27 Nov 2000 01:30:37 GMT, RMiG17 says...
> > I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer
> > --
> . . . .
> __
> Boyan Brezinsky
>
Imans of Allah have already declared you their enemy. And their Holy
Warriors have successfully killed hundreds of Marines, Airmen, Soldiers
and Sailors of your all volunteer armed forces with not even a dozen
losses of their heroes. And they have dozens of would-be martyrs among
your citizenry anxious to more successfully carry off feats such as the
World Trade Center bombing.
As your all volunteer armed forces prove their meddle, Mexicans will
reconsider loss of New Mexico to the U.S. Southwest. And there are
"Native" American rights to contend with as well ethnicities of growing
importance within the citizens of emmigrant history.
Getting heroicly killed is the only job your volunteers succeed at.
Your homeland is already infiltrated by mortal enemies who fail
only through individual acts of stupidity. Most of them are
preparing very professionally for assignments from their
leaders in war against their Great Satin.
"Professional" militaries throughout history have invariably
become complacently incompetent, often fatally for their nations,
but usually proving they must be replaced by conscript armies
when war must be sucessfully waged.
Your danger is that the majority of perverts who voted for Bush or Gore
etc. this year will be very comfortable with a small,
PROPERLY COMPENSATED, and all professional armed force. But they might
not be willing to properly pay them. You will get whatever
they pay for. A professional armed force will probably keep
America well enough for more than a century. But kiss meaningful
citizenship good-bye if you don't go back to conscription.
The holy war you are already committed to by your enemies
is going to be nasty business. And painfully few of the
soldiers of professional standard who will be able to successfully
prosecute it are now serving in your all volunteer armed forces.
Those who do effectively serve in your crusade will require
not less than the respect due to citizen-soldiers; status
of people loyally serving William Jefferson Clinton
is not going to do.
Jim Carriere
...
> leaders in war against their Great Satin.
Great _Satin_??? Just a "cotton" picking minute here, somebody's pulled
the "wool" over your eyes, thanks for the laugh.
Ed Rasimus
This is an aviation news group--maybe he meant Santini??
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
archebu...@my-deja.com
scandinavian countries.Conscription works in scandinavia because they
have a high standard of living along with a large social welfare type
society,so most 18 year olds are willing to give up a year of their
life for the benefit of society.In most other countries like the
US,military enlistment provides needed employment for those from low
income backgrounds,so conscription isnt needed.There is however a
growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
flying jets.The only 2 options is to make the entire airforce a reserve
force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
Ed Rasimus
>The people in this thread who like the idea of conscription are from
>scandinavian countries.
Sorry, I'm in support of a return to compulsory national service and
I'm not from a Scaninavian country. Strictly U.S.A.
>Conscription works in scandinavia because they
>have a high standard of living along with a large social welfare type
>society,so most 18 year olds are willing to give up a year of their
>life for the benefit of society.
Your final clause may be correct, but it doesn't follow from the
beginning of the sentence. High standard of living can just as easily
lead to satisfaction and the expectation that someone else will take
care of things for you at no inconvenience to yourself. The choice of
a social welfare state is not necessarily related to any willingness
to military service. In fact, in the U.S., the recipients of and
supporters of the majority of social welfare programs begrudge every
dollar relegated to defense as one less for the welfare queens.
>In most other countries like the
>US,military enlistment provides needed employment for those from low
>income backgrounds,so conscription isnt needed.
Maybe you haven't looked at unemployment rates in the U.S. recently.
There is no shortage of employment for anyone seeking work. In fact,
the exact opposite is true--there's a shortage of qualified or willing
workers. And, wouldn't it be detrimental to the society at large to
create a privileged class dependent upon a socially deprived
under-class for their defense. Sounds like the decadent period of the
Roman empire in which the Germanic mercenaries did the fighting.
>There is however a
>growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
>australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
>difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
>flying jets.
Yeah, what a dirty thankless job. But, someone has to do it.
>The only 2 options is to make the entire airforce a reserve
>force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
>pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
Starting with the presumption that there are only 2 options means
you've got a foregone conclusion. Having the entire AF be a reserve
force so pilots can work in civilian life is not an option--you
restrict the available training time for skill development in complex
weapons systems and you virtually insure vulnerability of the nation's
transportation system in an emergency when you suddenly have to grab
the entire commercial pilot force to go to war.
And, why should enlisted "men" (I assume you accept the equality of
women), be any more willing to spend five years flying jets? If giving
up the five years is the issue, rank shouldn't effect the willingness.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Ed Rasimus
Jim Carriere
> archebu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >Conscription works in scandinavia because they
> >have a high standard of living along with a large social welfare type
> >society,so most 18 year olds are willing to give up a year of their
> >life for the benefit of society.
>
> Your final clause may be correct, but it doesn't follow from the
> beginning of the sentence. High standard of living can just as easily
> lead to satisfaction and the expectation that someone else will take
I interpreted it as "higher minimum standard of living" (the poorest
people aren't as poor) and the implication that the citizens' belief in
the system is more universal in Scandanavian countries.
Then again, thinking of everything I've ever learned about human nature,
this begins to sound like the "grass is greener," and leads me to a
different theory- people, in Scandanavian countries, who support
conscription, mainly do so because they accept it, just like most people
in English speaking countries support professional volunteer militaries
because they have grown to accept that system instead.
Not gonna get into the social welfare part of the debate :)
As for officer pilots vs enlisted pilots, one of my opinions is the US
Army's use of warrant officer pilots has a lot of merit. Warrant
officers, and pilots, are both, by definition, technical specialists...
hmmm!
Paul J. Adam
writes
>There is however a
>growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
>australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
>difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
>force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
>pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
How about allowing thirty-year-olds with excellent (corrected) vision to
fly? I'm game...
--
There are four kinds of homicide: praiseworthy, justifiable, excusable and
felonious...
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
L'acrobat
<archebu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90b8kv$ctu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>.The only 2 options is to make the entire airforce a reserve
> force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
> pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
Just out of curiosity why do you think that enlisted pilots would be of
lower quality than commissioned pilots?
A commission is only an indication of rank, not a benediction from god.
BTW would enlisted pilots get better if we commissioned them?
Brash
--
Bring on the herbivores, I'm hungry.
<archebu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90b8kv$ctu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The people in this thread who like the idea of conscription are from
> scandinavian countries.Conscription works in scandinavia because they
> have a high standard of living along with a large social welfare type
> society,so most 18 year olds are willing to give up a year of their
> life for the benefit of society.In most other countries like the
> US,military enlistment provides needed employment for those from low
> income backgrounds,so conscription isnt needed.There is however a
> growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
> australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
> difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
> flying jets.The only 2 options is to make the entire airforce a reserve
> force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
> pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
>
>
Walt Shiel
news:90b8kv$ctu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The people in this thread who like the idea of conscription are from
> scandinavian countries.
I've been in favor of returning to the draft in the US for a long time now,
and I'm American not Scandinavian, although I do know some Scandinavians --
does that count?
A draft, although it has always been imperfectly realized with respect to
equity and uniformity (in other words, the rich can usually find an avenue
for exemptions), would make it more difficult politically for the
"leadership" of this country to send our troops all over the world and leave
them in no-exit-strategy situations for years.
Otherwise, as a Libertarian, I am opposed to the involuntary servitude
aspects of a draft. In today's circumstances, the gains outweigh that
particular negative.
> There is however a
> growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
> australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
> difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
> flying jets.
5 years? Not in the US. Hasn't been 5 years for quite some time. I think
it is currently 9 years, with plans afoot to increase it to 10.
The only thing such shortsighted Pentagon policies will do is ensure reduced
motivation for the last few years among those who want out. When the
commitment was 5 years, a pilot could decide to leave before it seriously
affected his morale. I think part of the morale problem today is the long
commitment; making it longer will merely exacerbate the problem. Even
throwing more money at them in the form of large bonuses for longer
contracts merely makes the force more of a mercenary force and could result
in lower morale, or at least mixed emotions, among those who sign up for
them. Anyone solely motivated by money is less likely to be dedicated to
the difficult and demanding (even life-threatening) tasks they might be
assigned.
Walt
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
http://www.CessnaWarbirds.com
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal History
of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
--"A true military aviation enthusiast's delight." - Airpower Journal
BUY IT: http://www.writeshiel.com/cw-order.html
------
Free Newsletter: The Warbird eXpress mailto:TWX-su...@egroups.com
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
news:3a29c235$0$19435$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
Excellent idea! Let's just commission everyone and revel in the resulting
high quality of our forces!!!
Clifford D. Statum
<bo...@numberonemm.com> wrote:
>In article from 27 Nov 2000 01:30:37 GMT, RMiG17 says...
>> I have been an advocate of our professional, all-volunteer military since its
>> inception, believing that folks that WANT to be somewhere do a better job.
>> Also, with today's technologically advanced, and thus challenging, equipment,
>> it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have long-term experience.
>> Needless to say, a professional military tends to be more efficient all around.
>>
>> But I am coming to have grave misgivings about an all-volunteer military. I am
>> seeing more of a "us vs. them" mentality vis-a-vis the military and civilians.
>> Amongst some members of the military community I have heard views that are
>> decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the views and values expressed in our
>> Constitution.
My server doesn't have the original post by RMiG17, so I'll jump in
here.
To what 'anti-democratic' views do you refer ?
>> I would love to get feedback on this. . .is this only an aberrant minority, or
>> is there a trend in our military toward an elitist mentality hostile to the
>> civilian population and its values? Would a return to general conscription be
>> a step in the right direction, or a step backward?
[[edit]]
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> "L'acrobat" <hus...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote
> > Just out of curiosity why do you think that enlisted pilots would be of
> > lower quality than commissioned pilots?
> >
> > A commission is only an indication of rank, not a benediction from god.
> >
> > BTW would enlisted pilots get better if we commissioned them?
>
> Excellent idea! Let's just commission everyone and revel in the resulting
> high quality of our forces!!!
No thanks. As a former enlisted swine, it would seem to me that the
true route to improving the force would be to make them all enlisted.
When you take an idiot and send him to college for four years, you end
up with an educated idiot. Put some butter bars on his shoulder, and
you often end up with an INSUFFERABLE educated idiot.
(Most of them mellow out by the time they make Major, though...)
- John T.
Ranger One Five
>> military since its inception, believing that folks that WANT
>> to be somewhere do a better job. Also, with today's
>> technologically advanced, and thus challenging, equipment,
>> it seems advisable to have folks operating it that have
>> long-term experience.
>> Needless to say, a professional military tends to be
>> more efficient all around.
>>
>> But I am coming to have grave misgivings about an all-volunteer
>> military. I am seeing more of a "us vs. them" mentality
>> vis-a-vis the military and civilians.
>> Amongst some members of the military community I have heard
>> views that are decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the
>> views and values expressed in our Constitution.
>>
minority, or
>> is there a trend in our military toward an elitist mentality
>> hostile to the
>> civilian population and its values? Would a return to
>> general conscription be
>> a step in the right direction, or a step backward?
>>
>>
>> RMiG17
In article <3a2ac581...@news.netdoor.com>,
clif...@netdoor.com (Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:52:14 +0200, Boyan Brezinsky
> <bo...@numberonemm.com> wrote:
> >> . . . .
> >> Needless to say, a professional military tends
> >> to be more efficient all around.
> >> But . . . .
> >> decidedly anti-democratic and contrary to the views
> >> and values expressed in our Constitution.
>
In article <3a2ac581...@news.netdoor.com>,
clif...@netdoor.com (Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
>
> My server doesn't have the original post by RMiG17,
> so I'll jump in here.
> To what 'anti-democratic' views do you refer ?
>
Some of the posters have noticed members of the "all volunteer" armed
forces are not as dumb as their government and fellow citizens think
they are. Yet some posters believe that gentlemen by act of Congress
are superior creatures.
The enlisted pilot comments are interesting. Though now considered to
be elite, pilots of the first military aircraft were considered to be
nothing but chauffeurs. But, during WWI, the colonial powers discovered
their militrary servants were expendable and some of the best aerial
pilot-gunners available. The Israelis used fact that high school
children without proper engineering backgrounds made best use of short
lived aircraft because of their superior reflexes and eyesight. Yet
some of the posters seem to believe a pilot wearing glasses will be able
to shift visual fields rapidly enough to survive aerial combat.
What is advised is aceptance of belief men required to put their lives
on line will have very low regard for civilians unwilling to accept
actual military service. Officers of Commanders-In-Chief who have
evaded or falsified military experience might have some credibility
problems when blood flows. And the U.S. is going to get what it pays
for.
--
Kit Carson Scouts of 75th Ranger Regiment are not
properly accounted for. Apparent betrayals of them,
or their families, will make LRPs more difficult.
Harry Miller D/75 312-787-0565
Ed Rasimus
>(Most of them mellow out by the time they make Major, though...)
Thanks, I needed that. But, you forget to mention that they then
regain their insufferability as they make full colonel and leave the
cockpit. I think it has to do with the weight of the rank insignia
pulling down on the collar, squeezing the carotid artery and starving
the brain for blood.
Clifford D. Statum
wrote:
>(Most of them mellow out by the time they make Major, though...)
>
>- John T.
Behind every 2nd Lt is an NCO, making sure the Lootenant
makes it back from the latrine with his hands dry and nothing
of value caught in the zipper.
r_kar...@my-deja.com
> have a high standard of living along with a large social welfare type
> society,so most 18 year olds are willing to give up a year of their
> life for the benefit of society.In most other countries like the
> US,military enlistment provides needed employment for those from low
> income backgrounds,so conscription isnt needed.
A few thoughts from one of those Scandinavians on why the attitudes on
conscription may be different in Scandinavia and the US.
1. At least during the cold war, there was a major risk that the
Scandinavian countries would be invaded. Such risks, I'm quite sure,
make people more positive towards conscription.
Noone could possibly even try to invade the US, due to the geopolitical
situation. (Neither Canada, Mexico or Cuba were ever likely to try,
were they?) The only real threat towards the territory of the US is
intercontinental nuclear missiles and the only thing one can do about
them is to have an ABM system.
2. The Scandinavian countries only use volunteers for overseas service,
while the US, when it had conscription, send conscripts to fight all
over the world.
It is very likely that people are more willing to be conscripted if
they know they will only have to fight for the very existance of their
country.
>There is however a
> growing problem of pilot shortages in the airforces of
> australia,canada,england and south africa because its increasingly
> difficult to find collage graduates to spend 5 years of there life
> flying jets.The only 2 options is to make the entire airforce a
reserve
> force so pilots can work in civilian life,or allow enlisted men to be
> pilots and except the resulting lack of quality.
>
Ed Rasimus
>Behind every 2nd Lt is an NCO, making sure the Lootenant
>makes it back from the latrine with his hands dry and nothing
>of value caught in the zipper.
>
That's a wonderful old cliche, but it doesn't work in the aviator
career field of the USAF. A 2/lt goes to pilot training for the first
year of his career followed by operational training in a weapons
system which will usually run beyond the time the gold turns to
silver. During that period the 2/lt pilot candidate will encounter few
NCO's except possibly in the cashier line at the BX. Encounters on the
flight line with the maintainers will inevitably be filtered through
the accompanying instructor pilots and during those solo missions
there will be little of the mentoring from experienced NCO's that is
so valuable to non-rated 2/lts who are thrust into positions of
"leadership" (please note the quotes as an indication of sarcasm).
Yeff
r_kar...@my-deja.com<r_kar...@my-deja.com> wrote in
rec.aviation.military:
> Noone could possibly even try to invade the US, due to the geopolitical
> situation. (Neither Canada, Mexico or Cuba were ever likely to try,
> were they?)
Methinks you've never gotten a good look at
a Canadian hockey team, have you?
Given enough lubricant (beer), one of their
teams could slash and burn their way to the
Whitehouse within a few short days!
Our military is woefully unprepared for such
a contingency... ;-)
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Jack
> Behind every 2nd Lt is an NCO, making sure the Lootenant
> makes it back from the latrine with his hands dry and nothing
> of value caught in the zipper.
Of course, so why would we want to risk those valuable NCOs by putting them at
the pointy end?
--
Jack
------
http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mettetalairport1d2
r_kar...@my-deja.com
"Walt Shiel" <wa...@writeshiel.com> wrote:
<snipsky>
> Excellent idea! Let's just commission everyone and revel in the
resulting
> high quality of our forces!!!
Well, that's what they did here in Sweden 20-25 or so years ago. All
full-time employed NCOs were promoted to become commissioned officers.
The sergeant-majors became captains, the master sergeants became 1st
lieutenants etc. So nowadays all permanently employed personnel are
officers; all NCOs and privates being conscripts.
The main reason for this reform was that it was considered unfair that
the senior NCOs which had perhaps a couple of decades of service behind
them, and often very qualified positions, would be outranked by and be
less paid than the 'new' lieutenants.
Jim Herring
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >(Most of them mellow out by the time they make Major, though...)
>
> Thanks, I needed that. But, you forget to mention that they then
> regain their insufferability as they make full colonel and leave the
> cockpit. I think it has to do with the weight of the rank insignia
> pulling down on the collar, squeezing the carotid artery and starving
> the brain for blood.
>
This seems to be carried on into the civilian world. Very few retired
bird colonels that I've meet didn't have a chip on their shoulders for
not making general. Then the generals couldn't separate military life
from civilian.
--
Jim
carry on
Clifford D. Statum
Rasimus) wrote:
>clif...@netdoor.com (Clifford D. Statum) wrote:
>
>>Behind every 2nd Lt is an NCO, making sure the Lootenant
>>makes it back from the latrine with his hands dry and nothing
>>of value caught in the zipper.
>>
>That's a wonderful old cliche, but it doesn't work in the aviator
>career field of the USAF. A 2/lt goes to pilot training for the first
>year of his career followed by operational training in a weapons
>system which will usually run beyond the time the gold turns to
>silver. During that period the 2/lt pilot candidate will encounter few
>NCO's except possibly in the cashier line at the BX. Encounters on the
>flight line with the maintainers will inevitably be filtered through
>the accompanying instructor pilots and during those solo missions
>there will be little of the mentoring from experienced NCO's that is
>so valuable to non-rated 2/lts who are thrust into positions of
>"leadership" (please note the quotes as an indication of sarcasm).
Mea culpa. All that we were subjected to were the non-rated types.
Your point regarding the flight training for rated officers is well
put.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
The US did almost the opposite in the mid 1970s - at least as far as
pay rates were concerned. Prior to that, an E-5 with six years of
service made more than a second lieutenant. This was reversed, so
that a new lieutenant made more than all but the oldest E-9s.
However, the USAF always gave quite a bit of responsibility to the
senior NCOs. (Perhaps because there are no Warrant Officers, and
a very high proportion of officer slots are taken up by flying types.)
- John T.
Dick Latshaw
Jim Herring <mus...@bga.com> wrote:
> This seems to be carried on into the civilian world. Very few retired
> bird colonels that I've meet didn't have a chip on their shoulders for
> not making general. Then the generals couldn't separate military life
> from civilian.
Got that right. The retired Army Lt. Gen. that I worked for in DC a few
years back thought we were all 'on duty' 24x7. Like to drop by at 4PM
on Friday and lay on a requirement for a presentation to be ready for
dry run at 10AM Saturday. Got away from him as quickly as possible.
--
Regards,
Dick
Merlin Dorfman
: Behind every 2nd Lt is an NCO, making sure the Lootenant
: makes it back from the latrine with his hands dry and nothing
: of value caught in the zipper.
No 2nd. Lt. has anything of value, especially not in the
vicinity of his zipper.