war leading is great.

Maybe in today's PC Military there might be a difference between a draftee and a volunteer, but I doubt it. Just because somebody saw a Chuck Norris movie or something and decided he wanted to go be a badass isn't any kind of indication they're going to be any more qualified or competent, or won't get washed out or get all butt hurt after he finds out how decidedly 'unglamorous' military life is and lose their Gung Ho 'motivation' in the first 4 hours of basic, and the odds are just as good for somebody who is drafted but decides he likes the experience after doing it a while, not to mention with computer tech and information access we have today the military can be more selective and target some skills sets a lot easier than just hoping somebody shows up at a recruiting office with the needed backgrounds, like basic literacy, a problem my brothers had as XO's when the New Volunteer Army' came along after VN and the Iranian attack on American soil.

So no, I don't buy the argument that a volunteer is automatically better than a draftee, especially with the current fad of offering bribes and bennies to attract 'volunteers' who just can't find jobs that pay anything any more thanks to off-shoring and criminal illegal immigration making more people desperate for just about any kind of income.

As for 'lack of motivation' all branches of the military had a vast array of excellent 'motivational tools' at their disposal, and a DI could definitely inspire and effectively teach even the grunt with the brains of a potato what he needed to know ...

 

Yes, but some allowance should be made for more than a little of that was due to wanting to have some choice in which branch of service they served in; volunteers had a wider set of options, and re WW I there were a hell of a lot of 1st and 2nd generation European immigrants here, who had direct personal interests in a Europe-wide war as well, especially eastern euros and Germans and Italians.

 

I blame alliances personally. Ww1 and 2 didn't really have to involve most of us.

 

World War One you have a point.

But if the U.S. had actively avoided fighting in World War Two it would've led to Japan dominating the western Pacific and more ominously, the Soviet Union overrunning all of continental Europe.

 

Oh but we had to fight Japan directly. Actually I don't think Japan would have started up if Germany didn't. They seemed to take their lead.

We could have left the 3rd Reich as a bulwark against the Soviets. I honestly think the third Reich would have beaten the Soviet union if it hadn't first gotten in a fight with the West. It's entirely possible Germany would have left Western Europe alone if they didn't have to secure the continent against Churchill. I'm pretty sure Hitler was a Zion sympathizer at that point. An article on this forum said the British were blocking them from Palestine by the start of the war. I don't know where they were supposed to go? No way they could stay in Germany. The hostility must have been unbearable. For anyone that cares.

Personally, I just wish we had a world with less ideologies. That's the way I like to rewrite war history, without communism, or political correctness, the Christian Right and too much Islam.

 

The time when number of soldiers, as well number of tanks, planes, helicopters and so on are really in account, are over. Today is training of the personal, as well the technique the key to win. Simple example: One M1A1/A2 is able to fight off how many M60A3? I don't know for sure, but I think about 1 dozen or more. Same is given with all other things too, because superior technology replaces as elsewhere older technology in a ratio of 1.

Sure, I understand your opinion ... if for example an enemy has millions of soldiers etc. But in fact any draftee can't be taught like a volunteer / professional soldier. On one hand you have only a time limit with any draftee to train him until he leaves Armed Forces back to civilian live and on the other hand are draftees always in majority low motivated for the duty they are forced to serve for. As told, they count more the days until the damned thing is over and have often no real understanding that it is necessary to serve.
In Germany was in the past draft until it was ended a few years ago. At my time I entered German Army as conscript and later signed for 6 years with final rank of 1st Sargent. Draftees had there to serve 12 months and this was later shortened to 9 months. What will you teach during this time ... and even then when they are ready for combat and more or less well trained, then they leave service.

 

My Dad was drafted in WW2. They line up the recruits against the wall and a man would walk down pointing...
Army, Army, Army, Marine, Army, Army, Marine

This was in 1944 and both the Pacific and European theater of operations needed replacements...infantry replacements. There was plenty of clerk typists and support personnel already but both the Marine and Army infantry needed to bolster their ranks.

Unless this country is in dire need, literally under attack...no one should be forced into combat against their will. These young men who stood alongside my Dad, were cannon fodder. From the moment this man went down the line and pointed out their fate...within a year they would be toe to toe...in combat. Someone was looking to kill them, someone they never met, a complete stranger...was going to try to kill them..and in some cases succeeded.

That's a lot to ask and to absorb for an 18 or 19 year old. I think it's obscene a country would do this to one of their citizens.

Only those that choose to volunteer for combat should be sent into combat. Draftees should provide the support elements.

Anyway, probably not a very popular opinon , but that's my thoughts on conscription. If it must happen, don't draft for combat personnel unless the country is literally at risk of annihilation.

 

At that time it might be already to late, manpower is needed sometimes to regain initiative at crucial points in war. not when you already lost and start getting desperate. The Germans should have mobilized all their population, and went on total war footing prior to Invading Russia, not after losing in Stalingrad.

 

Once again, you show your shallow and almost non-existant knowledge of history and instead insert mistaken personal belief.

Yea, that might make sense, if more serious WWII scholars do not consider WWII actually started in 1937, when Japan invaded China.

Or the thousands of battles between the Japan and the Soviet Union as they tried to exand into the Soviet Union.

Or how about the 1931 invasion of Manchuria, which created the puppet state of Manchuko?

Yea, the problem with your claim is that if anything, it is bass ackwards. Japan had been expanding already for years before joining either the Anti-Comintern Pact, or the Tripartite Pact.

That entire paragraph makes almost no sense at all. "Secure the continent against Churchill". Yea, that is why they invaded Poland, they were so worried about a relatively minor political figure from England, who had spent most of the last 10 years in a self-imposed political exile after his party collapsed. Yea, he was so worried about this individual that he attacked a nation on the opposite side of the contienent then the country this former politician belonged to.

Tell you what, try reading and learning some real history, instead of whatever it is you have been learning.

Ahhh, I see. And that is why you fail. Re-writing history to those like me that know it well is always a fail. Stop trying to re-write anything, and simply accept how things were and live with it.

 

Just about every German General and field commander mentioned this when they were being debriefed by British and Americans after the war. "Why do you think Germany lost the war" ?

 

The support elements make up the vast majority of people in an army.

And they are not immune from danger. Far from it.

 

The Army Ground Forces during WW2 sustained about 80% of the U.S. Army casualties. Its mission was to provide ground force units properly organized, trained and equipped for combat operations.

In any war the combat arms take the brunt of the casualty burden, even in wars with no clear delineation of a front line.

In WW2, draftees and volunteers merged to create combat divisions.

Combat support personnel who get deployed to hazardous duty areas are at risk of course, but it's a statistically far less risk than the combat arms.

As an example...the war in Iraq

The Marine Corps had a death rate of 8.48 per 1,000 deployed while the Air Force was 0.40 per 1,000 deployed. As a Marine was more likely to be in the combat arms, even in an area of conflict with no clear delineation of a front line...those engaged in combat units suffered far higher casualties than those in combat support.

This is not to dismiss the support role as free of risk, but statistically in any war, those involved in direct combat operations suffer the magnitude of the casualties.

Drafting someone into these high risk occupations significantly increases the liklihood they will be be killed or injured. Statistics will bear this out, even with the acknowledgment there is no such thing as zero risk in terms of any personnel being deployed to an area designated as hazardous duty. Even a processing clerk stood the chance of getting a mortar dropped on his lap, or encountering an IED just for being in Iraq. Again this is more about the probability of encountering combat, and the risk is far higher in the combat arms.

 

The rough ratio for support personnel compared to fighters was roughly 15 to 1 in WWII. That means for every 1 person trained as an Infantryman, there were another 15 trained for such jobs as Supply, Cook, Mechanic, Medic, and everything else from clerk-typist to aircraft mechanic. ANd I have been trying to puzzle how Herk could have forgotten this very basic fact.

The difference between WWII and most other wars we have been in is that in that war unlike most we had to take those personnel into the front lines with us. Remember Saving Private Ryan, where they had to grab a clerk for the patrol because they needed somebody with the language skills. And we were moving entire Corps from place to place, with all of their respective Divisions and other units, from Quartermaster Brigades setting up supply dumps, to entire Field Hospitals, with all of their required personnel (from tasks like "Laundry and Bath" to Water Purification). All of these personnel were generally within 100 miles of the front lines, within easy reach of the enemy.

Plus Herk is forgetting the most important part of WWII and the Draft. After early 1942, everybody was a draftee, no enlistments were accepted. By that time, "enlisting" only guaranteed that you would be placed into the Service of your choice (Navy, Army, Marine Corps) instead of being assigned into a branch "at the needs of the Military".

So if by July 1942 you wanted to join the Marines and did not have a skill they critically needed at that time (pilot, language expert, etc), you were signed up and sent home to wait until your number was called in the draft.

During the war, one of my grandfathers was picked up in the general draft, and drafted from North Dakota into the Army as an MP. The other was from Long Beach and enlisted in the Navy, entering service 6 months later as a Machinest. And interestingly enough, of the 2 only one of them "saw action". My paternal grandfather spent most of his time in Europe supporting the Redball Express, and never saw combat.

My maternal grandfather served on the USS Suwannee (CVE-27), joining her just after she returned from serving in the Invasion of Africa. He was aboard for many major engagements in WWII, including the Battle of the Philippines (where he lost his best friend when the ship was hit by a kamakaze), and the ship was repaired in time for them to participate in the Battle of Okinawa.

My "cannon-fodder" Army grandfather served his entire time and left the Army with his "I was there" awards. My other one had 2 Purple Hearts and other awards, and he was in a "support position". So forgive me if I take more then a little offense at the implication that people were "drafted for cannon fodder", and those in support elements are "safe".

Heck, our more recent conflicts should be a perfect example. The most dangerous job in Afghanistan was not to the 11B Infantrymen, but the 88M Motor Transportation soldiers. We lost more of those "support element" individuals then we did "grunts" for several years. To the point where they were having to take individuals from other MOS (like PATRIOT) and send them over because the Army was literally running out of trained heavy vehicle operators.

 

Definition failure here.

"Army Ground Forces" was simply everybody who was on the foot side of the Army. Everybody, from cooks and the guys trained to operate trucks to the Infantry, medics, and veternarians. Those were the "Ground Forces".

As opposed to the Army Air Forces, more formerly known as the Army Air Corps, now the US Air Force.

But everybody in the Army in Europe, who was not in the Air Forces were in the Ground Forces.

 

I disagree.

A draftee receives the same training as the volunteer.

Now a proffessional soldier or Marine who has six or more years of training under his belt may have an advantage and the more you sweat during peace time training for combat will likely mean the less you will bleed on the battlefield. But combat is OJT, on the job training.

Except for the first units that arrived in-country during the Vietnam War in 1965 and 66, what you started seeing were soldiers and Marines entering the country with only six months in service be they volunteers or draftees.

It's my opinion you can't train someone for combat kin just six months from the time he enters basic training to when he finds himself on the battlefield.

Look at the Vietnam War Memorial, the "Wall." 1/2 of the names on the wall of those who were killed "in-action" were killed with in the first 90 days of being "in-country." What does that tell you ?

I graduated from Marine Corps boot camp as a PFC mostly because I qualified as a rifle expert scoring five points less than Carlos Hathcock did on the 500 yard KD range.

I graduated top of my class from the Naval Gunfire School at Coronado Naval Amphibious Base and was meritoriously promoted to a Lance Corporal. From there it was to Staging Battalion then off to Vietnam. When I got off that Cathay Pacific 707 at the Da Nang air base I was L/Cpl but a FNG a "cherry." And I didn't feel I was properly trained for combat. The first six months was more like on the job training. If you made it through the first three months, your survival rate had increased by 50%

When I was assigned to the ANGLICO Platoon at Hoi An, I was TAD a couple times to some Army infantry companies of the Americal Division. Those Army grunt units had a lot of draftees and I couldn't distinguish who was a draftee or who was a volunteer.

Don't get me wrong, the all volunteer military has been a complete success. It was the liberals who wanted the all volunteer military so they wouldn't have to fight in a war in the future. But most Republicans and the military brass opposed the all volunteer military. They wanted to continue the American tradition of the "Citizen Soldier" that worked well for almost two hundred years. A professional Officers Corps and professional NCO Corps.

The left got their all volunteer military and they were warned that an all volunteer military would be expensive. What nobody saw coming was that the all volunteer military would become a married military and a married military is really expensive to maintain. Now nobody want's to pay for it.

 

In the latter stages of WW2, draftees went straight in the infantry as replacements.

Not cooks, not truck drivers...infantryman.

My comment was, that I'm aganst taking any draftee and putting them on the front lines when they have made no voluntary choice to do so. This is not to say a cook or truck driver was a safe occupation, because in any war, there is no such thing as a safe occupation if you're actually in the war zone.

I can assure you had my father been offered a choice he probably would have picked something other than infrantryman. At the time it was all about the needs of the Army and they needed infantryman more than anything else as the infantryman were the ones getting killed and injured therefore had a higher need for being replaced.

No one should be forced into the combat arms without volunteering to so was my only comment. I never stated anything about combat support being easy duty or risk free...but if someone wants to argue that it's equivalent risk, historical fact says otherwise.

 

I disagree.

In 2009 there were 106,380 personnel in the army; 98 died as a result of their posting to Afghanistan. 71 of these deaths were from one part of the army - the infantry.

Over the course of the war in Afghanistan, the risk of death in the infantry was six times that in the rest of the army and seven times that in the rest of the armed forces. This is because the infantry were more likely to be involved in close combat and be nearer to enemy forces in general.

On the other hand, apart from the infantry, the mortality rate in the armed forces is similar to that in the population as a whole.

 

Call me from Missouri, but I would love to see a reference for that. And not just "one part of the Army - the Infantry", but them actually having an MOS code of 11B. Because otherwise, they are simply personnel attached to an Infantry unit.

I myself am attached to a medical unit, but that does not make me a medic.

The majority of casualties I see for 2009 are caused by "hostile fire - IED attack", which is used for any IED attack. No breakdown of MOS though. Do you have one that gives their MOS so we can actually see what their job was?

http://icasualties.org/oef/Fatalities.aspx

 

I don't have a chart listing casualties by MOS. Historically I would argue the most dangerous job, consistently, throughout all the conflicts the United States has ever been involved in, is an infantryman. The guys on the ground, kicking down the doors and aggressively seeking out and engaging the enemy. Support personnel may see the peripheral effects of this, depending on what they do, for example Medics...however pound for pound I find it difficult to believe that there has ever been a more dangerous job stretching out the timeline of all the conflicts we've been involved in.

You could argue a ball turret gunner in a B-17 was statistically as dangerous, but that's an isolated part of history...we've had rifleman from day one since America's inception. A rifleman has died in probably every single conflict the U.S. has ever been involved in that incurred casualties, from small wars to World wars.

I think being an infantryman should be voluntary. We shouldn't draft them. i don't see how stating that is a slight against other occupations and specialities as I can think of none that are equivalent as we look at the historical record...certainly in World War 2 which was my original reference point.

We had 89,500 casualties including 19,000 KIA in the Battle of the Bulge...a great many of these were drafted infantryman..around 19 years old and essentially cannon fodder used to thwart the German offensive. No combat experience, drafted, trained, and thrown into battle. A find that unforgivable for a nation to do this. This was the basis of my original comment...and for some reason that's "offensive."

Can you imagine today, taking a 19 year old against his will, and telling his parents, in less than a year he will be an infantryman and participating in the largest battle in the history of the United States. They would look at you like you're nuts. This is exactly what happened until the draft finally ended. Now folks want to bring it back and the same exact thing will happen again.

 

I should add, when personnel are deployed to a hazardous duty area no job is without some risk. About 75% of those deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq had come under rocket/mortar/artillery attack.

Ideally, a draftee shouldn't even deploy, let them hold the fort down State side..but if this is impossible because of manpower needs, at least keep them in support roles peripheral to the combat arms. This doesn't negate all the risk but it certainly minimizes it. Maximizing the risk incurred should involve a voluntary decision.

If a government fails to convince the citizenry a war is worth fighting and subsequently achieve an adequate voluntary force...the war is not worth fighting. Though we had to cut some corners, this was achieved in fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. No one who didn't volunteer was sent into harm's way in any capacity.

Why fix what isn't broken. By all means, if you want to bring the draft back, be prepared for either yourself or your first born male offspring to be taken against their will, trained and thrown into combat as part of a direct combat unit. If you have no issue with this, then reinstating the draft has some merit.

Either fight, flee or go to jail courtesy of Uncle Sam.

 

Sounds like you have little respect for draftees ?

From the stats above 9.7% of my generation served in-country in the RVN while around 40% of my generation served in the military during the Vietnam War.

Each generation is different, since most of my generation fathers had served during WW ll it was more like it was expected of us to serve, duty to country. Over the decades it would keep changing why did you enlist or why did you show up for basic after you got your induction orders ? During the 70's those who enlisted in the Navy or Air Force did so to learn a technical trade. During the 80's after Reagan became President, duty to country. During the 1990's the number one reason why people enlisted was to earn money for a college education. Right after 9-11-01 it went back to duty to country.

Since most of my generation fathers served during WW ll there was a phrase used back then if you were in the military, "Don't volunteer for any thing." So I'm sure there were many who figured if their nation needed them, they would wait for those induction orders to show up in the mail.

If a draftee showed up at the induction center after getting drafted, he probably showed up because duty to country.

It was real easy to avoid the draft back then, the easiest way was just to tell the draft board you don't like girls.

Also, most Americans and especially the WW ll vets didn't look at the war in Vietnam just like Korean war as being real wars. The Korean War was called a police action. My father who served in the Pacific during WW ll didn't look at the war in Vietnam as a real war until 1972 over a year after I was discharged.

 

Actually, probably not. Infantry are mostly operating in protected defensive positions, with many direct and indirect weapons at their disposal. While a great many other jobs involve people in what is presumed to be "safe" positions. An Infantryman in the front lines in the modern era mostly only worries about small arms fire.

In the rear though, everybody is in dange due to IEDs, rockets, artillery, mortars, and infiltration attacks. Plus you have things like convoys, which are primarily done by non-infantry personnel.

And do you know what branch of service in WWII had the most deaths? The Army, when combined with the Army Air Corps of the time totaled over 318,000 dead or missing. The Marine Corps, which was primarily only Infantry divisions and involved in some of the most brutal fighting in the war only came to just over 24,000 dead and missing. That figure is dwarfed by the over 62,000 dead and missing of the Navy.

People in the modern era tend to forget traditionally how dangerous the Navy is. The complement of a single Nimitz class carrier is over 5,000 personel. Loosing one with most of it's personnel would kill more people then are in an Infantry Brigade/Regiment. Before the USS Indinapolis (CA-35) went down it had a crew of 1,196. That is roughly a Division and a half. When the sailors were rescued, only 317 were left alive, barely enough to make a Battalion.

 

Did you actually read my mission statement.

It isn't a question of "respect." It is a question of ethics. What right does the government have to threaten with imprisonment any member of the citizenry with forcible military service. I realize the Supreme Court already decided it's Constitutional, but because it is Constitutional does not mean it is ethical. Anyone deployed into harm's way should be voluntarily making the decision. Do you think a memorial makes up for the fact the government got them killed, coerced them into a life or death, kill or be killed situation? It's obscene, as I stated on my first reply...essentially presenting the mission statement.

Only individuals voluntarily making the decision to enlist, to be commissioned...to serve and be sent into harm's way...should be sent into harm's way; not someone coerced with the threat of imprisonment. If the government has failed to make the case for war to motivate enough volunteers, and quotas are so low that conscription is necessary...the war itself is unnecessary.

Can you say with a clear conscience that the Vietnam war accomplished it's stated goal? Preventing communism from taking over South Vietnam?

Over 58,000 American service personnel died for essentially nothing. I don't know the precise number of draftees in that figure, but they were among those KIA I'm sure. At least those who served subsequent to the Vietnam war did so voluntarily and not under duress.

In a nutshell, here is the government's position. Either obey the draft order and be at the mercy of the needs of Uncle Sam's armed forces or you will go to prison. Your prison record as a draft evader will follow you for the rest of your life. You will never have any sort of good paying job because who will hire an ex-con and "coward" who chose jail over forced military service. The government essentially is putting young able bodied males in a vice grip. Their punishment for being born male, physically fit enough and young enough to meet the needs of the military.

I'll say again, and as I stated in my mission statement it's not a popular popular opinion, but it's OBSCENE to me what the government did. No wonder no one trusts them and deservedly so. Getting rid of the draft was a huge step forward, and now some want it back.

You may get the draft back, but not without a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) fight is all I have to say about it.

 

I see where your coming from, you have a legitimate argument.

After I was discharged from the Corps I went back to college. I think it was in 1972 I was walking across the campus at UCLB. Back then the SDS was all over the place, there were anti Vietnam war booths, anti draft booths, LSD booths, CPUSA booth, women libs booth, just about every radical leftist group had a booth. I think even the Viet Cong had a booth on campus.

But I noticed one booth that was displaying the American flag then a noticed someone that I use to see surfing in the South Bay, at the Bluff in PV and Huntington Beach for years. Never talked to the guy while wating for a wave to catch but I said to my self, I know that guy.

So I walked over to the booth and said "I know you." It was Dana Rohrabacher, known as the Republican surfing Congressman from Orange County. Better known as a Libertarian Republican today.

There was a banner on the booth that read, "Young Americans for Freedom." Dana tried to recruit me and gave me the run down on the organization. They were conservatives, they supported the American soldiers who were still on the battlefields of Vietnam. They supported the war effort, supported stopping communist expansion but they opposed the draft.

Dana pointed out across the campus to the SDS booth (Students for a Democrat Society) a Marxist splinter group of CPUSA and said they were the enemy. They would become the leaders of the "New Left" along with the splinter group of the SDS, Obama's buddies Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn the the terrorist group the Weathermen aka Weather Underground.

But what about the "Young Americans for Freedom" (YAF) ? Many of the original members of the YAF founded what is known as today, the Libertarian Party.