Thread: Why We Need a Draft: A Marine’s Lament

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

Bluesman, I respect your opinion and knowledge and can understand how you may get frustrated in getting your point across but it's easier to believe you when you are not so angry and personally insulting.

NOTE this well: truong and I were discussing it, and I'm still available to him if he'd like to keep it rollin'. But that OTHER clown had to make himself a horse's ass, and HE was who got shot.

No worries my man just trying to keep it nice in here.

I hope that you don't roast me like that when I put my foot in it and I will I'm sure.

Bluesman;

Still open?

During the 1980s the SADF used MRAPs (Casspir/Buffel) on their operations in Namibia and Angola to move light infantry in both CI and cross border raids along with regular conventional action. While the vehicles don't have the firepower of an IFV they did prove of solid use against infantry even in conventional fire fights and with chopped support from other units (tanks and armored cars) saw use in large scale battles. Yeah with our large amount of heavy forces we would probably not be placed into a situation that we would deploy them to stem the red tides.

The ADF uses the Bushmaster as a IMV for light infantry which is not a replacement for the LAV-25/LAV-PCs or M-113s but are better then the light trucks units would have. India and Nepal have picked them up for CI work as well.

So I see vehicles like this as making light units more effective in operations.

Tech has improved making vehicles better protected and the Israeli Golan even offers RPG resistant tech. So one gets a survivable vehicle to move rifle squads on the rather deadly roads along with patrolling and route work.

As for earlier in the thread when you put mines off as being a loser weapon, I will have to disagree. In CI conflicts it is often the weapon of the weaker side (or of nasty regular forces - Sudan, Russia, Rhodesia etc...) but they have an effect which adds up over time. Most of our losses in this war have been due to IEDs/Mines. In Mozambique the Portuguese paid a higher reward for captured mines then for rifles for a reason. The enemy no doubt can come up with ways to kill anything but even looking to the last/current threat is a better course then the UAH.

=====================
At the end of the day sharing ideas is great as it is always good to hear an opposing viewpoint but people don't need to walk away changing their viewpoint to have a good discussion.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

But that OTHER clown had to make himself a horse's ass, and HE was who got shot.

Stop being delusional : personal attacks don't add anything to the discussion, except discredit to whoever launches them.

Originally Posted by omon

driveshaft, and axles are too exposed,

No they need to be that way. Gives the blast energy a easy way out. Path of least resistance that directs the blast away from the crew compartment.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

ROTC is already federally funded. What I am saying is it needs to be on every campus. ROTC scholarships already exist. The government would only fund the number needed for an adequate number of officers over and above the number the academies produce. For the record, full ROTC scholarships at even the most expensive colleges and universities are about 1/4 the cost of education at one of the service academies. If we were being truely cost conscious, we would close the academies and transfer those officer candidates to the public and private universities. So no it is not rather expensive.

Originally Posted by Skull6

There IS a difference between going to a military academy for 4 years & attending a "normal" college under a ROTC scholarship. (Note that I said "difference," not necessarily "better") If cost is the ONLY factor, then you may have a point.

I can't speak to the other service academies, but doing an analysis of expenses between the United States Military Academy (West Point) and Army ROTC programs is a misleading analysis, which is what I think you were getting at Skull6.

Before I continue, I'll throw out there that I think you need diverse commissioning sources, and so there is absolutely a role for ROTC and OCS, and so I'd oppose any move to try and consolidate USMA as the only commissioning source just as much as I would any move to remove USMA as a commissioning source.

That being said, the first thing I'd start out with is the fact that you have two graduating classes every year. The first one is the cadets who are graduating and getting commissioned as second lieutenants. The second one is the junior rotating faculty who have completed their 2-3 year assignment as instructors and are returning back to the field force. With them, they bring the 2-3 years worth of knowledge gained during graduate school as well as the 2-3 years worth of knowledge gained while teaching. For some, this may not be all that applicable to the field force, but for many, it is a tremendous advantage.

As an example, would GEN Petraeus be GEN Petraeus today if he hadn't spent three years at Princeton in the International Relations PhD program and written his dissertation on the US Army's performance in Vietnam and then taught both international relations and economics during his two years at West Point, an experience he cites as being the reason for his success in Mosul as a division commander and then in future jobs in Iraq? Would COL HR McMaster had executed the best brigade COIN campaign in Tall Afar had he not gotten a PhD in history and then written a book about Vietnam during the course of his teaching at USMA? While both of these officers are also USMA grads, that is not a requirement for being selected to the faculty. Would LTG Chiarelli, a ROTC grad, who taught an economics class on command economies been as successful as the 1CAV DIV commander in Baghdad, having to try to jump start an economy that was based on a command economy structure?

If the Army were to completely "outsource" the undergraduate education of all its officers, you'd lose this second "graduating" class whose performance has been among the best in Iraq. This "graduating" class is counted as a cost to graduate a USMA cadet, but the benefit is frequently overlooked.

A second issue to look at is the quality of candidates that USMA attracts. Because of the brand name of a USMA degree, you attact some very talented folks that might not otherwise have considered joining the Army. For example, USMA had 15 cadets win major graduate scholarships last year (Fulbright, Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, etc.). I don't have the stats for ROTC graduates, but my guess is that the numbers probably don't match. This isn't to say that that aren't talented ROTC graduates, but I'm sure that removing USMA as a commissioning source would dilute some of the talent. Additionally, graduates who do attend these scholarship programs actually have a higher than average retention rate - their motivation for wanting the scholarships is a drive to learn as much as possible to be better servants to the nation.

There are more arguments that could be made, but it is a dangerous game to look at solely the cost of graduating a cadet without thinking through the implications of the costs of removing USMA as a commissioning source. I'm not sure if that was the argument being made, but I did want to throw out the benefits that aren't always considered.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

NO DRAFT. Conscript armies are what professional volunteers beat up on. I want nothing to do with any armed force made up of unwilling people that think they have no stake in the outcome.

It is NOT money that keeps our forces from riding around in super-deluxe mine-resistant vehicles, because the economics of blown-up troops and crappy vehicles is WAY more expensive than if they had managed to survive an IED in their mine-proof limo. The problem is very simply that the vehicle that the Marine wants is NOT SUITABLE for what the country wants him to do: it's not a combat vehicle, it's a defend-against-mines vehicle, and if he were equipped with THAT, that would make the US Marine Corps in Iraq a well-protected trucking company.

As much as nobody wants to hear it and as tone-deaf as it was when he said it, Rumsfeld was absolutely correct: you go to the war you're given with the force you have. The REASON IEDs/EFPs have become the weapon of choice for our enemies is because they're all they've got that are even somewhat effective. The reason that this is so is because of the equipment choices that the US has made in the years prior, and the reason that equipment was chosen is because it was what was needed to counteract the threat systems then.

So, bottom line is this: we choose what we think we need, the enemy tries different combinations of weapons and tactics, until he hits on something that may work better than everything else he's tried up until then. We'll try to make better equipment choices that shut off that threat, but the enemy, seeking to find something that works against THAT choice, will eventually hit on something else that will defeat what we've done to defeat what USED to work well.

The old question goes, 'Why does everybody insist on fighting the last war?' The answer is simple: because human beings engaged in the most serious business on the planet - warfare - are ADAPTABLE, and like air that seeks a way into a void, will ALWAYS be searching for a better method of finding the weak spot.

And here's the secret of American power that the Marine just doesn't seem to get: the United States of America has managed to become so absolutely superior in methodology and equipment that there is no conceivable combination of Powers against whom she may have to contend that could defeat her forces. IEDs/EFPs may seem scary and omnipotent to somebody on patrol through Baghdad or Ramadi...but they're the weapons of LOSERS. They cannot keep us from fulfilling our mission, going wherever the hell we want, destroying whatever we may designate for destruction. They BARELY work, most 'attacks' by this lame-ass weapon are ineffective, and it cannot accomplish anything but a few deaths/wounds here-and-there to us in a most haphazard, unpredictable manner. In absolute terms, these weapons are CRAP.

And here's the thing: if the Marine gets that pimped-out mine-defeater he wants, his effectiveness goes DOWN, and I guarantee you, the next enemy we face will have a better solution to defeating Marines in anti-mine vehicles than mines. They'll go through an extremely painful, costly search through their weapons and tactics until they come across the best way to make THAT generation's Marine write a painfully-tunnel-visionary article to the news organ that wants the American people to believe that this new enemy weapons/tactics combo has our pore boys on the ropes and that they're just set-up targets that the enemy can just knock down at will.

Like I said before, I bet it looks a lot different at street-level on patrol in Iraq, but the fact is, IEDs/EFPs are NOT war-winners. They're simply the only thing - and a dam' DESPERATE thing - that the enemy can use to get to us in any way. If they had a good air force, they'd be dropping bombs on our FOBs from the edge of the stratosphere, because THAT is weapon winners use, and then WE would have to seek a way to avoid enemy power, and OUR guys would place mines in the road under cover of night.

You see my point? Newsweek has NO sense of perspective, but they DO have an AGENDA. And their point with this story is: 'We're powerless to stop the mighty IED, and the powers-that-be are WAY more interested in money that the lives of our troops.' Both halves of that statement are CRAP.

And it has nothing to do with the draft, either.

Hmmm,heh that is the funny way to put it but I do agree with what was written above.
The logic that the Marine uses, by my opinion is this:
If the draft is re introduced, it will bring more troops to the battlefield. Also it will bring war closer to the larger population and than population would get more realistic picture of war. That would make population more aware of the situation and force the population to use more brains when it goes to the voting place. So basically the war would educate population. This is a mistake.
This man, faced with the reality of war is, at least angry. Question is, why he is angry?
He is a professional soldier right? What professional soldiers do when war breaks out? They go to war and fight. And yes, they die too. So did anyone made him to become a marine at gun point? No. He did that on his free will. It was his choice. Introducing a draft is forcing people to go to war and it is a path to more deaths and problems. Rich kids will never be drafted and drafted US soldiers whom are sent to the battlefield will not be efficient as professional soldiers. The only logic in his cry for draft, that I can think of, is that in Iraq, US military is engaged with the untrained extremist elements,so drafted and somewhat less trained US troops would be enough to get the job done. It is replacing quality with quantity type of deal. But that would mean only more graves at the cemetery.

His experience with the IED is real and should not be underestimated or over looked. The IED threat is not the weapon of losers, Blue, it is a weapon of choice, evolved from the experience as you noticed. Just cause it doesn't have triple laser beam, microwave range finder combined with digital processing unit and plasma trigger, doesn't make it less effective. Actually it's simplicity is its biggest danger, since anyone can make it and it can make in a million ways.
Since the threat from IED's comes from it's simplicity and diversity, the adequate counter measure is hard to find. Armored vehicles can reduce the damage but they can't provide 100% safety. The thing that will happen than is that IED's will be more powerful in order to take out the armor. During the insurgency in Kosovo, we used rubber and steal plates for our truck protection. It served well till the KLA started to place IED's higher so that the blast could kill the driver. Evolution again.

Originally Posted by omon

something else i found,



As if having them run around Iraq like loose cannons wasn't bad enough, Blackwater is building an Air Force. Via Scholars & Rogues:


Security company Blackwater U.S.A. is buying Super Tucano light combat aircraft from the Brazilian manufacturer Embraer. These five ton, single engine, single seat aircraft are built for pilot training, but also perform quite well for counter-insurgency work.... The bubble canopy provides excellent visibility. This, coupled with its slow speed (versus jets), makes it an excellent ground attack aircraft.


Now why would the good patriots at Blackwater need airplanes that "can carry up to 1.5 tons of weapons, including 12.7mm machine-guns, bombs and missiles"? For their missions in Iraq, of course. Because, you know, the world's largest military merely owning everything that flies over a third-world country isn't enough in the way of air superiority.


My first thought was that this had to do with the Administration's almost promised plans to invade Iran. (Please please please please please please please PLEASE don't do that! I can hope, can't I?) How else are we supposed to keep Iraq's friendly skies safe while we're shocking and aweing the mullahs? But there's an even more awful prospect for these "excellent ground attack aircrafts." Here's Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater expert and biographer:


Blackwater's been in negotiations with several state governments in the United States. Blackwater met recently with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about doing disaster response in California. They're opening up a new private military base in San Diego. Another one is in Mount Carroll, Illinois. They have applied for operating licenses in every coastal U.S. state.


That's right, folks: the U.S. military whose expenditures are almost half of the total military spending worldwide needs private military bases in the United States for some reason.


What might that reason be? Perhaps it has something to do with National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51, which lays out exactly how the Executive Branch would run the entire government in the event of a "Catastrophic Emergency," which could be anything from a terrorist attack to the next Katrina, as far as the ambiguous wording of the directive is concerned:


"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions


Meanwhile, the clergy is being enlisted to keep citizens in line in the event of a declaration of martial law, and Is it really a coincidence that a private company with close ties to the GOP is arming itself with attack planes just at the moment when the President is laying the groundwork for extraordinary wartime powers? The calmer side of me says, "hold judgment." I just can't help but see a mercenary force of palace guards looming in the not-too-distant future.


Should it come to that, I hope Machiavelli's thoughts on mercenaries will prove valid:


Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.


Aw, but who am I kidding? If we've learned anything from the Iraq War it's that we can be robbed by mercenaries in war as well.

Decline and Fall: Coming To A State Near You: Blackwater Air Force

So something is coming...Question is, what?

Can you define Blackwater as a mercenary force?

One of the criteria that defines a mercenary is one who takes part in the general hostilities for personal gain.

Blackwater's people are certainly in it for the money, but they are working as security guards, not as soldiers on one side of the conlict.

The Geneva convention outlaws the use of mercenaries and when captured does not recognize them as POWs, classifying them instead as unlawful combatents.

Blackwater, it would seem is aiming to become a global security force, not an army for hire.

That said, they are not doing the US any favors with their trigger happy exploits in Iraq. They need to be held accountable for their actions just as the US military is.

Originally Posted by Versus

His experience with the IED is real and should not be underestimated or over looked.

I do neither; I respect his experience. It's got to be a terrible thing.

The IED threat is not the weapon of losers, Blue, it is a weapon of choice, evolved from the experience as you noticed.

No, that's what it is, alright. If it were any dam' good, WE would use 'em. If it were anything but a weapon to use when all else had failed, it would be the first choice to forces that HAVE choices.

No, it's the last-ditch, barely-effective weapon that has neither offensive ability, nor certainty of effect. No force commander may base any plan on it, nor calculate its effect on his enemy. He's basically manacled by it's limitations, and the ONLY reason it's chosen is because it is incrementally better than every other choice.

Just cause it doesn't have triple laser beam, microwave range finder combined with digital processing unit and plasma trigger, doesn't make it less effective.

It most certainly DOES mean that. I assert that it is BARELY effective, and if it were brought to the peak of efficiency and effectiveness, no force will be able to use it to kill enemies that don't come within 50 meters of it, and even then...not reliably.

So, WHY is it chosen? Because fighting our tanks with tanks of their own is impossible, they not having any, and if they HAD some, we'd kill 'em all off right quick.

But if THEY had M1A1's and a world-class air force, they'd never use another IED.

Actually it's simplicity is its biggest danger, since anyone can make it and it can make in a million ways.

No, its biggest dangers are blast and frag. One of its ATTRIBUTES is simplicity and relative ease of manufacture.

Since the threat from IED's comes from it's simplicity and diversity, the adequate counter measure is hard to find.

Well, actually, its numerous weaknesses provide various countermeasures. Diversity of type DOES present challenges to a universal countermeasure, but so do those same limitations provide even GREATER challenges to the employment of the IED. We have the better deal, I assure you.

Armored vehicles can reduce the damage but they can't provide 100% safety. The thing that will happen than is that IED's will be more powerful in order to take out the armor.

And doing that ain't easy. They'll be bigger, more expensive, harder to conceal, emplace, transport, make, and design.

But I'll concede this: the newest versions, the EFPs, are REALLY scary, and a BIG leap forward. I spent a lot of time with one of the components of the High-Value Individuals Branch when I worked in that Branch at CENTCOM through this past June, the AWDIT: Asymmetrical Weapons Defeat Intelligence Team. This is exactly what they did: any- and everything the do with IEDs/EFPs. And they educated me on the threat these new generation weapons posed, and it is not insignificant, mainly because of the power of the weapon.

During the insurgency in Kosovo, we used rubber and steal plates for our truck protection. It served well till the KLA started to place IED's higher so that the blast could kill the driver. Evolution again.

This is my point: the reason this weapon has become widely used is because this is all that's left that can give our enemies their ONLY production. But it is NOT the weapon of a winner.

EFP's have a rudimentary trajectory, maybe they will be easier to deflect...I don't know, try rubber than, it proved to be quite effective with RPG's, maybe it can help with this too.

Marine chief worries force growing heavy

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press WriterMon Oct 15, 5:43 PM ET

Commandant Gen. James Conway said Monday he is concerned about the Marines Corps' ability to respond to security flare-ups around the world on short notice because of the demands put on it by the Iraq war.

In recent years, the Marine Corps has emerged as a "second land Army" tasked with securing Iraq and must buy heavy equipment, including a fleet of 3,700 mine-resistant vehicles, to protect its personnel from roadside bombs, Conway said.

"I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor. ... We are much heavier than ever before," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Center for New American Security.

Conway's comments come amid discussion at the Pentagon that the Marines pull its forces from Iraq and send them instead to Afghanistan to take the lead combat role there.

On Monday, Conway declined to comment because he said he had not yet briefed Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates recently told reporters that he was aware of the suggestion, but had not seen a plan.

"My understanding is that it's, at this point, extremely preliminary thinking on the part of perhaps the staff in the Marine Corps," Gates said. "But I don't think at this point it has any stature."

On a separate issue, Conway said Monday he agreed with recent assessments that al-Qaida in Iraq is significantly crippled by recent U.S. efforts. But, he added, the terrorist network has shown previously an "amazing ability to regenerate." Conway cautioned his view was restricted to the western Anbar province, where Marines have control.

"Are they crippled? Yeah," he said. "Are they still dangerous? Absolutely."
Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/...5QZefByNcD5gcF

============
This is on Blues point but sorta opens up another line of thinking...