- This topic has 5 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Earlier this evening I was involved in a heated discussion about citizen responsibilities relative to the defense of a nation. Three positions emerged and as we plan to continue this on Friday night, I thought that this forum would be a good place to get some ammunition stored for the upcoming debate. Essentially there were threepositions that emerged:1.. All able citizens have a responsibility to defend their country. Those that argued this were in favor of a kind of service to the nation in peace and war, armed forces or civilian service. We have discussed this in the past and I wonder if anyone is in favor of this plan. Patriotism is assumed to be a motivator at least in some cases.2. The second position was that in the world of today we do not want or need the big multi-division army of essentially conscripts or volunteers. This group argued that a smaller, better equipped, better trained better paid and better motivated soldiers, sailors and marines could do the job more efficaciously with fewer personnel problems and less public outcry when the body bags come home. Essentially this group argued for the status quo with better benefits and more money to attract better people. Here too Patriotism plays a role, perhaps smaller, but it is still present.3. The third group was a bit more radical. They felt that to depend on patriotism is not the way to recruit and argued that contract soldiers--privatized warriors--were a better proposition as it was just a job for them and being killed was an understood risk--like miners they said. They dismissed patriotism as a real motivator as they saw it as essentially fraudulent and emotional and liable to evaporate when the mortar shells are falling. My perception was Blackwater grunts with Service officers was the desired business plan.Now the reason I ask for your assistance is because I never was in combat. I spent a short time in the Army and a much longer time in the Navy, but except for some awkward bar encounters, I never perceived that mylife was on the line. Being in Naval Intelligence (please hold jokes) had its advantages. See pic. at the endof the post. I would appreciate some bullets for next Friday's return bout and I will try to dream up a few of my own. I thank you in advance for any advice you might see fit to provide to expand my arguments. Iheld to no position and was sort of a gadfly. Next Friday, with your help, I shall try to carve out a betterposition with which I feel comfortable.Thanking you in advance:WillyD
# 2. Draftees are little better than cannon fodder and private contractors are only loyal so long as they get paid.
# 2. Draftees are little better than cannon fodder and private contractors are only loyal so long as they get paid.
But if we pay them--they are really good--are they not?Most people working a job expect to be paid.One might argue that their very presence depends on some sort of payment.
Our country has always had a fear of a large, professional, standing army… think of the British Army in colonial times. But we also have a tradition of patriotism and honor, valuing service to the country. We realize the importance of skilled and highly trained (and otherwise educated) officershence the service academies. All this makes Scout's reply very logical and practical.
Our country has always had a fear of a large, professional, standing army... think of the British Army in colonial times. But we also have a tradition of patriotism and honor, valuing service to the country. We realize the importance of skilled and highly trained (and otherwise educated) officershence the service academies. All this makes Scout's reply very logical and practical.
If it is true that we have a tradition of patriotism, honor and value service to the nation, why did we ever have to conscript people? It would seem to me that if we take your statement as written, the necessity to threatenpeople with prison if they refuse to serve in the military (some exceptions of course) would not be necessary.Would we be able to have conduct the Civil War, WWI, WWII the Cold War or Viet Nam without the draft or at least the threat of the scoop grabbing you?I am referring to the grunts, not the officer Corps.
The tradition I refer to is (was) more pronounced in the past to be sure and then in the south… consider D. H. Fischer's book Albion's Seed for a good treatment of this idea.
The problem with mercenaries is that their ONLY loyalty is to their bank account.Draftees are only bullet traps, good for cover and soaking up rounds but not much else. In today's world it takes about $200,000 or so and anywhere from 4-8 months to turn a civilian into a reasonably competent soldier that wont die in his first firefight because he did something dumb. It takes about 3-4 years to turn them into an outstanding soldier.I can perfectly understand the arguments in 19th century Europe about the various 3 and 4 year conscription laws. You want to keep them longer because under a 2 years law they get out right when they are becoming worthwhile assets. That being said, i think conscription should only be used sparingly.The current volunteer army is the best army we have ever fielded and part of what makes it so goo is that everyone is a volunteer. They want to be soldiers and you get more dedication out of troops like that than you get out of conscripts.
The problem with mercenaries is that their ONLY loyalty is to their bank account.Draftees are only bullet traps, good for cover and soaking up rounds but not much else. In today's world it takes about $200,000 or so and anywhere from 4-8 months to turn a civilian into a reasonably competent soldier that wont die in his first firefight because he did something dumb. It takes about 3-4 years to turn them into an outstanding soldier.I can perfectly understand the arguments in 19th century Europe about the various 3 and 4 year conscription laws. You want to keep them longer because under a 2 years law they get out right when they are becoming worthwhile assets. That being said, i think conscription should only be used sparingly.The current volunteer army is the best army we have ever fielded and part of what makes it so goo is that everyone is a volunteer. They want to be soldiers and you get more dedication out of troops like that than you get out of conscripts.
I agree.Just remember American and French revolutions.
The trolley problem (or Moral Conundrum)- Case one: A runaway tram is heading towards five people tied to tracks. You are a bystander. Would you flick a switch so it turned down a line where one person was tied to the tracks?- Case two: Same problem, but you are watching from a footbridge. You could push a fat man next to you off the bridge, and his bulk would stop the tram. Would you do it?Interesting dilemma with trainee soldiers studying philosophy at the West Point military academy in New York state.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9006784.stm
The trolley problem (or Moral Conundrum)- Case one: A runaway tram is heading towards five people tied to tracks. You are a bystander. Would you flick a switch so it turned down a line where one person was tied to the tracks?- Case two: Same problem, but you are watching from a footbridge. You could push a fat man next to you off the bridge, and his bulk would stop the tram. Would you do it?Interesting dilemma with trainee soldiers studying philosophy at the West Point military academy in New York state.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9006784.stm
Or you can choose the Captain Kirk option and change the conditions of the test and thus avoiding the Kobiyashi Maru scenario. 🙂
