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

Originally Posted by Skull6

& all, or even most, are armed, trained killers?

None of them are engineers, over there to help rebuild the Iraqis' infrastructure? None of them are in administrative positions, assisting the Iraqis' in documenting & keeping track of such things as payroll, rations, etc?

Guess the old adage comes back to haunt us--"Do all liars figure, or do all figures lie?"

ok fair enough
what would the realistic number of armed, trained killers be?
keep in mind they don,t come from us alone, as article states(don,t know if it is the truth, may be you can debunk it) from about 100 countries.

I don't understand how bringing back the draft will result in better equipment or reduce casualties. In fact, having a bunch of conscripts who aren't as well trained and motivated like our professional force might result in higher body count.

As for vehicles resistant to IEDs, I've been asking that question since 2003 when our convoys were hit by RPGs. We were, and still are, using essentially jeeps as armored vehicles. The army has Abrams => Bradleys => Humvees. There's nothing between a 30 ton tracked infantry fighting vehicle and a jeep. Now we have the Stryker, but it's still fairly big and heavy. It looks more like an assault vehicle rather than something used for convoy. But at least that's a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by lazybastard

I think Skull6 was being sarcastic back there.

DOOOH, I am often sarcastically deaf.

Originally Posted by astralis

Why We Need a Draft: A Marine's Lament - Newsweek The War in Iraq - MSNBC.com

I don’t favor a Vietnam-style draft, where men like the current vice president could get five deferments. I am talking about a World War II draft, with the brothers and sons of future and former presidents answering the call (and, unfortunately, dying, as a Roosevelt and a Kennedy once did) on the front line. That is when the war effort is maximized. Quite simply, the military cannot be a faceless horde to those pulling the purse strings of our great economy.

Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr who's rank I do not know and Selected Major General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr both are interesting men and great role models for all Americans. Both men share a profound commonality which shines like a beacon in their military careers. They were truly selfless volunteers in heart and deed.
Cpl. Mark Finelli is I feel trying to that which which has frustrated so many Marines before him, Get the rest of the nation to march in step. I wish him luck but suspect he will find it easier to put wheels on a miscarriage and I do not believe his plan would bear the fruit he desires.

Originally Posted by Skull6
Part of what those dirty, rotten, stinking individuals comprising this "shadow Army" that Omon posted about are doing is the administrative & "non-line" functions, allowing more Soldiers to actually do actual combat functions.

Originally Posted by Grim

Sir, Sounds like you have a personal dog in this fight. Mind telling us why you feel such strong animosity for men who are risking their lives while helping the USA in this situation?

NPR : Private Contractors Die in Iraqi Helicopter Attack

Enraged Mob in Falluja Kills 4 American Contractors

That's still a good point. How many of the contractors over there are normal working class people like many of the soldiers in our army.

As long as the Chief has control over how wars are conducted, then it is in his interest to get the job done as efficiently as possible with the funds received from Congress.

So, this is essentially one massive purchase made by the government, with the sales tax being the men in uniform, to keep the whole transaction legal, isn't it? In the end, a quarter is worth five nickels is worth x contracted security personnel, yeah?

And a few externalities in the form of citizens.

All a draft does, according to the marine, would make warmaking safer for those involved. We are logistically disadvantaged without a draft. Perfectly understandable coming from a marine, and of course the US should make sure the people on its front lines are the best equipped in the world, if it chooses to send them to war.

The question for the dove movement becomes, does the "if" get more conditional or less conditional when indeed the military is "brighter" and thus more effective at warring, with a draft, than warring when warmaking is an industry.

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.