Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Founders' Wisdom

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

  • The Founders' Wisdom

    Enjoyed reading this:

    The Founders' Wisdom

    Written by the same guy that was very critical of General Officers a couple years back.
    America doesn't deserve its military

    -Emma Sky

  • #2
    Originally posted by osage18 View Post
    Enjoyed reading this:

    The Founders' Wisdom

    Written by the same guy that was very critical of General Officers a couple years back.
    I disagree with him on the idea that an all-volunteer force is a bad thing.

    I also did not know the whole scenario he described with Casey's appointment, that sounded quite wrongly done.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

    Comment


    • #3
      From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with him about the role of Congress. However, I think he swings and misses in many respects. Congress voted for AUMF on Iraq because they were following the desires of their constituents. They vote for large defense spending because it brings money back to their district/state and helps them try to win re-election. Only about 1/4 of Congress members have military service, and so they makes them more likely to defer to OSD and uniformed leadership.

      The reality is that while the founders saw no need for a standing army, the reality is that they also didn't forsee the advent of technology that could bring war to our interests or possibly even our territory within hours/days. Given the reality of modern warfare, you have to have some size standing army to protect American interests. Thus, philosophy needs to take a back seat to pragmatism.

      Lastly, he overplays the privileged don't play and the best don't serve. A larger proportion of Congressional members have sons/daughters in the military than does the general public. There's plenty of talented officers (and that should increase once DADT is repealed and universities no longer have the fig leaf to hide beyond to deny ROTC on campus) and NCOs and enlisted. Furthermore, we can't even track our own officers skill sets well (you could be fluent in ten languages, but if you haven't tested for pay, big Army doesn't know this), so I don't see how we're going to be able to cull society for those with particular skill sets in a draft - if they wanted to serve, they already would be, and so the conclusion to draw is that they don't want to serve and thus will hide the presence of those skill sets.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        Conscription based on militarily relevant skills and attributes without waiver would provide the quality and quantity of manpower required to prosecute today’s wars. Conscripting gifted young people would embrace the fairest principle of all: To whom much is given, much is expected.
        This is a particularly telling quote. What he is suggesting is, essentially, to punish gifted people with military service. I know, it should not be viewed as a punishment, and neither do I view it as such.

        But this fairness principle during an extended war like the GWOT means you'll have people denying they know Pashto, Urdu and Arabic because they'd get drafted. It is not a novel concept. I'd rather have less people who want to be there rather than more that do not. Motivation and morale cannot be overlooked, it makes all the difference between successful and not-so-successful campaigns.

        He talks about how there are less protests than during Vietnam because of the disconnect between the public and military service. Public is not in danger of being drafted, so they care less. To extent, this may be true. But this is not a disadvantage that outweighs the overwhelming advantages of professionalization. Institutional learning with a conscript army flat-out sucks in comparison to a professionalized one. You end up sinking so much cost into training and get that person for one deployment, and their skills/experience afterwards perish. Obviously, I could go on.

        He fails to mention that the anti-war movement during Vietnam, regardless of the flower-children, was also partly funded and encouraged by the KGB. Some KGB defectors claim more money was spent on funding peace movements in the West than on material aid to the Viet Cong. It is not a simple black/white formula of the public keeping the executive's decision in check.

        Yes, I agree, the Constitution was designed very well. The truth is that it is a document that mostly adapts very well to the modern times. The Founders had the foresight for many a thing. But as Shek mentioned, not everything can be covered. While the standing army of today violates the direct wording of what the Constitution prescribed, I do not think it necessarily violates the spirit. The principle was to keep this country and its interests free of subjugation, while maintaining checks and balances to make sure authoritarian tendencies are not practiced against the people. We have that, its called the Posse Comitatus Act. The standing army in and of itself was not the issue, the issue was its potential use to stifle the liberty of the public domestically.
        In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
        The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

        Comment

        Working...
        X