Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conscription?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conscription?

    First, congrats on getting your own forum, I know we've had a few differences over the past few years but you put in an informed opnion (even if I don't agree with it somteimes, then again this forum has changed some of my views a little) on just about everything and that's more than can be said for most.
    Now, down to business, do you, and your Military bretheren, feel that Conscription is actually worth it? I'm led to believe that conscripts are, on average, less capable than volunteer soldiers, and maintaining a system to conscript soldiers must be expensive. Then of course there's the ethical considerations of sending people into war zones when they may be completely opposed to the conflict.
    Anyways, the trend seems to be towards professional Militaries these days, is that for the best, or do Military Forces benefit from the extra recruits?

  • #2
    To say conscripts are less capable is an insult to the veterans of WWI and WWII.

    The move to professional military forces is not new. The turn of the 19th to the 20th Centuries saw the exact same kind of situation. The Regiments of the British Empire were all volunteers and they represented the best military forces the world has seen to that point.

    The main problem, however, these forces were so well designed for the wars that they were fighting that they were ill prepared to fight the War they were not designed for. The example I keep pointing out is the Boer War and the American Civil War. There is no doubt that the Boer War Regiments could kill the combined armies of the North and South on any battle field.

    But the lessons of WWI was not derived from the Boer War. They were a repetition of the American Civil War.

    So, to answer your question short and sweet. If any war (and I mean war, not an insurgency) lasts less than 6 months, then professional military forces are the ways to achieve those goals. If it lasts more than 6 months, then, it's a war of attrition and you have to replace your losses one way or the other.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry I should have picked my words more carefully. I meant that conscripted soldiers who are FORCED to fight can be less committed, and may not recieve the same standards of training.
      And I understand the differences between a war of attrition and an insugrency so it's not an entirely valid example, but you're right that prolonged combat ops can make it hard to find new recruits, and the recent recruiting troubles the US Military has had might be an example of that. I guess it's not always possible to rely on patriotism.

      Comment


      • #4
        Spoonman,

        If you are FORCED, then it is obvious that there is hardly any motivation. Therefore, naturally such soldiers and officers may not perform optimally.

        That said, such soldiers who are conscripted, with good training and if they are in a unit where there is camaraderie, the motivation to fight for the fair name of the unit, if for nothing else, develops. In such a scenario, the difference between the conscripted soldiers or volunteer soldier blurs.

        That is the simplest way I could put it. However, it is a subject that is very vast and there is much to debate about.

        In third world countries, many take up the military service since jobs (worthwhile in monetary or prestige terms) are not that easy to come by. Therefore, it becomes a God given opportunity to be selected for the armed forces. They may not be motivated to have taken up soldiering as a calling and instead they take it up as a good career that provides creature comforts and some recognition in society. Hence, such people while are volunteers, may not be motivated adequately and thus they are hardly better than the general impression of conscripted soldiers!


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ray
          Spoonman,

          If you are FORCED, then it is obvious that there is hardly any motivation. Therefore, naturally such soldiers and officers may not perform optimally.

          That said, such soldiers who are conscripted, with good training and if they are in a unit where there is camaraderie, the motivation to fight for the fair name of the unit, if for nothing else, develops. In such a scenario, the difference between the conscripted soldiers or volunteer soldier blurs.

          That is the simplest way I could put it. However, it is a subject that is very vast and there is much to debate about.

          In third world countries, many take up the military service since jobs (worthwhile in monetary or prestige terms) are not that easy to come by. Therefore, it becomes a God given opportunity to be selected for the armed forces. They may not be motivated to have taken up soldiering as a calling and instead they take it up as a good career that provides creature comforts and some recognition in society. Hence, such people while are volunteers, may not be motivated adequately and thus they are hardly better than the general impression of conscripted soldiers!

          Point taken, I guess you have to join the Military for the right reasons. I think there is a problem with people joining the Military thiking they can get a non-combat position. Apparently that was Jessia Lynch's plan, only problem is, sometimes things go wrong and people not prepared for combat wind up in combat. That may not have been the best example I know, since the whole Jessica Lynch story has gotten pretty murking thanks to those damn PR spin doctors.

          Comment


          • #6
            Col, but are'nt conscripts given less training then the regulars? I mean these are men are ususally more capable at picking up a a spade/pitchfork then a sowrd/musket/rifle. In the American Civil War in the early year the difference was quite apparent; see Battle of Gaines Mill. Grant, even mentions this specifically in his memoirs, "the value of military education."

            And in WWI and II did'nt the British and I believe the American trained the recurits and conscripts along regular army lines rather then the short training period they usually have.
            "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
              Point taken, I guess you have to join the Military for the right reasons. I think there is a problem with people joining the Military thiking they can get a non-combat position. Apparently that was Jessia Lynch's plan, only problem is, sometimes things go wrong and people not prepared for combat wind up in combat. That may not have been the best example I know, since the whole Jessica Lynch story has gotten pretty murking thanks to those damn PR spin doctors.
              Jessica Lynch is female. The only way she could get into a combat arms MOS is if she went aviation. I'd still like to know what happened to the security element in her convoy (which should have been combat arms). Transport companies don't exactly consist of the most motivated soldiers.... and that will remain true as long as people are relatively free to pick their MOS. A necessity of having a volunteer army (I know I sure as hell wouldn't have joined if it had been likely that I would be assigned to transportation or something like that).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lwarmonger
                Jessica Lynch is female. The only way she could get into a combat arms MOS is if she went aviation. I'd still like to know what happened to the security element in her convoy (which should have been combat arms). Transport companies don't exactly consist of the most motivated soldiers.... and that will remain true as long as people are relatively free to pick their MOS. A necessity of having a volunteer army (I know I sure as hell wouldn't have joined if it had been likely that I would be assigned to transportation or something like that).
                True enough, but there is no such thing as a non-combat soldier, sooner or later if things get bad enough anyone in uniform can and should be eligable for frontline duty. Seems kinda evident by the fact that you all have to know how to shoot a gun. And in an insurgency, the frontline is everywhere, and IEDs dont care what they blow up, so everyone going to Iraq, for example, had better be ready to fight.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That is valid.

                  Even a Cook is a soldier first and then a cook.


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ray
                    That is valid.

                    Even a Cook is a soldier first and then a cook.
                    That is true sir, and I agree with you... however certain truths remain. Non-combat MOS's like transportation aren't going to have the most motivated soldiers in them because either they picked transportation (which speaks for itself), or they got stuck with it because their ASVAB score wasn't very high. Personally, I feel that this is the largest drawback of having an all volunteer army.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ray
                      That is valid.

                      Even a Cook is a soldier first and then a cook.
                      Sir,

                      We're in alot of trouble if we asked our cooks to hump a full kit into battle ... unless of course we send them to cook for the enemy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        IMHO conscription is flat out slavery. It is best left to the socialists, communists and facists...
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                          Sir,

                          We're in alot of trouble if we asked our cooks to hump a full kit into battle ... unless of course we send them to cook for the enemy.
                          I see the IDF lowered conscription time from 3 to 2 years...hmm.
                          Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                          (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                            True enough, but there is no such thing as a non-combat soldier, sooner or later if things get bad enough anyone in uniform can and should be eligable for frontline duty.
                            Absolutely true IMO.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                              Sir,

                              We're in alot of trouble if we asked our cooks to hump a full kit into battle ... unless of course we send them to cook for the enemy.

                              We may need that mess platoon to hold a critical pass or road juncture some day(The battle of the bulge being a perfect historical example), and it is quite normal for a cook to drive a supply truck in a combat zone, therefore it is a good idea that the cook be proficient at basic combat soldiering skills.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X