As you know, Russia is reforming its military and Russians are discussing not only the ways but also the principles along which such reform should be carried out.

What are your thoughts on this particular point of view?

"Liberals favourite thesis: "Let those who want serve ". The authors of the thesis can not (or will not) understand that those who want to serve, already do so ... But most of the rank and file that join the army formed exclusively through contract recruiting, join it for the money and benefits.

It would be better to remember this thesis: "One can kill for money, but one can’t die for money." There are many professions that imply a higher probability of death (the miners, pilots, rescue workers, fire-fighters, etc.), but only the military profession implies a duty to die. This is fundamental difference between the military profession and other high-risk professions. And there are no riches for which one would be prepared to die, after all one can’t take money to the grave. One would be prepared to die only for an idea: religious faith, Tsar, Fatherland, communism, democracy, and nation. One can die in the name of revenge (another idea), but not for money.

For money you can go to serve in the prestigious, highly paid, non-belligerent army; or in an army engaged in a war with minimal losses which is almost impossible despite technological progress. But if you must die - the motivation is changing fundamentally.

Very good example is the U.S. war against Iraq, which began in 2003. If at the beginning of the campaign American losses were low, successes unquestionable and the soldiers believed that the Iraqis see them as liberators (they fought for the idea of democracy and freedom), the motivation among soldiers was high enough. When the loss increased, and it became clear that a large part of Iraqis don’t feel gratitude towards the American troops the motivation for U.S. soldiers disappeared. It disappeared because the idea was lost, leaving only money, which people do not die. And this is in the United States, where the rank and file get really good money and significant benefits, where they have excellent conditions of service, where the command is seriously concerned about minimizing losses, and where the propaganda machine is constantly telling the military that they are not mercenaries, but the pride of the nation, patriots and defenders of freedom and democracy (Americans do understand how much the Army needs the idea). However, the problem of new recruits already became significant in the second year of the war and the quality of newly recruited fell catastrophically.

In a real war against a powerful enemy the mercenary army is not capable of defending a country. This was demonstrated during the war in Kuwait, whose army offered no resistance to aggression by Iraq in August 1990. Kuwait was awash with oil money and the salaries of soldiers were no problem, they were excellent as was combat training, and military equipment... But at the start of the Iraqi aggression the army of Kuwait simply "evaporated". "Well-paid and well-trained professionals" have not shown the slightest desire to die, that was not what they joined the army for. If anything, civilians showed more resistance to the aggressors.

......
Increased prosperity and the erosion of values led to the fact that in most Western countries conscription becomes impossible in principle (society rejects it). .....Motivation of armed forces is such that maintaining anything like a serious war becomes impossible; people simply don’t join the army. ...

Under these circumstances then salvation comes from another category of people for whom the war is indeed a calling. This category is small in number and very specific. It is an ideological mercenaries (soldiers of fortune "," wild geese ", etc.). They like extreme risk. They are so interesting in killing for money, that they are ready to even die for it. By their mentality these people differ little from criminals, they simply legalize their murderous inclinations.

Contingent of ideological mercenaries - is a real professional army. It consists of professional killers. These armies existed throughout the history of mankind, but in the last 300-400 years, with the advent of state monopoly on armed violence, it became much marginalized, yet did not disappear, because the service of ideological mercenaries has always been in demand.

Now, when in many Western countries army become purely symbolic, the use of mercenary thugs became a very attractive idea. Moreover, the loss of state monopoly on violence is happening on the other side. Guerrilla and terrorist groups are now more likely to become the subject of fighting than normal regular army."

First of all I don't discuss the rest of your post, as it's based on too many false judgements and ideas about professional armies and the American military in particular.

Anyway now towards my own view on a conscript vs. "professional" military.

I'm in strong favour of a conscript army, as in my view only citizens willing/asked to defend and die for their holy fatherland/freedom, truely deserve to live and be called citizens of it.

Apart from that, there are things in life, which one shouldn't "outsource" as a society, no matter how hard or inconvenient they might be for the majority of lazy, hedonistic bastards; the military is one of 'em.

Anyway given the horrible reputation of the Russian forces, I truely wouldn't want to serve in that force myself, but I doubt that these problems would change by a switch towards a no draft military.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

professional is best so I hope you go conscription.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I think some form of national service is good for a young person as they learn the value of sacrifice and teamwork, and that there is some honor in serving more than just yourself. However, the military is not for everybody. I think the best thing is a choice - either 2 years military service, or 3 years civilian service.

__________________
"I am no Martin Luther King or Ghandi motherfucker. I have no idea what those guys were talking about. You spit on my ass, I will knock you out. No motherfucking marching and singing in the street for me." - Jim Brown, NFL Hall-of-Famer and Cleveland Browns running back, 1957-1965

I agree that choice is best because, like you said, the service isn't for everyone. While my daughter would have probably done well, she wasn't really raised that women should be in the military and is more "old-fashioned" like me. She's a great wife, mother and student and no doubt will make a great school teacher but in everything, her husband and children are first in her life and I fully approve of her choice. My grandson's mother, on the other hand, chose the military and while I'm very proud of her, I'm also sad that she had to leave her three children (ten and under) with her parents while she's in Iraq. Is it really fair to her parents or her children? (My son could have taken my grandson but he would have had to change schools so they decided it might be best to leave him with his younger brothers.)
My son thought about joining when he turned 18 but with his back problems, it's doubtful he would have made it. I would have supported him had he enlisted but would have fought my daughter all the way.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Someone who thinks that people join the military "for the money" is someone who doesn't know the first thing about the military...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Agreed.

And as anyone who is professional military will confirm, the last thing we need is anyone who does not want to be there. I do not want anyone watching the back of their brothers in arms who is not 100% commited to them.

Serving your country is great but leave the military to those who view defending this country as an honor, not a quick way to tick the 'service' box.

__________________
We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000

"On my signal, unleash hell"

"I don't want to go" [In the military, that is]

Tough s..., you're called up...you WILL go.

"What are my options?"

You don't want to know.

Option One: A blimish on your record indicating rejection of lawful military service. A "discharge" would not be in order since the conscript never appeared for induction. Penalty for refusal is one year in prison, [military stockade]. If at any time during that one year of incarceration the prisoner can recant, be inducted and serve his 2 year [minimum] obligation. All the normal deferrals will be honored.

Option Two: Man up and serve your obligation. It may be that life is what you were cut out for thereby doing 20 to 30 years in the American Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard. Years ago I had a buddy in high school who did nothing but talk about being a marine or a "gyrine." We all thought he would grow out of it but not so. He enlisted after high school then served for 27 years retiring as a Command Sgt. Maj. of the US Marines. He fulfilled his boyhood dream. Married his high school sweetheart and they are still married after all these years. His little brother stayed in the Marines for 32 years retiring as a Lt. Col.

Option Three: Be inducted then along the way, "wimp out" and whine for a discharge. There has always been cry babies in the military as well as other misfits...best to cleanse the ranks. Get rid of them.

I favor a renewed draft system. Every able man [females are excluded] should be inducted, go through the rigors of boot camp, get his noggin shaved, run his ass off, get up at unGodly hours, be rousted out of bed in the dead of night, fall out with full packs and weapons and run a few miles.

We'd start in the "hood," then in the "barrio," every illegal who has water on his back will be given the opportunity for a path to citizenship. It will begin by being inducted. The bros in the 'hood' can work toward expunging their records [misdemeanors] by joining and serving with honor and faithfulness. All the civilian gang BS will be driven out of their minds and bodies. If he quits along the way he would be classified as a 'bitch.' The "home boy" mentality would be revised, every company would be a collage of ethnic groups. Whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc.

We need a ready trained military contingent of millions.

Let the inductions begin.....

What ethnic group in America comprise the majority of "special forces?" And why should one ethnic group have a majority of representation?

88% are white.

"These special-operations forces are the best-trained units in America' s arsenal. Using guns, knives and explosives is second nature. All are experienced paratroopers. Many speak a foreign language.
And nearly all are white...Only about one in eight commandos is a soldier, sailor or airman of color, compared with one in three militarywide."

"Special-operations units have the least racial diversity in military"

SignOnSanDiego Military -- The Color of Commandos

True?

False?

If true...why?

If false...why?

Should America be more "militarized?"

Yes.

No.

I have to agree with Stapo here. Most of Alma's post isn't worth responding to.


All that being said I must disagree with his pro-conscription stance. To me, a sense of national pride and servitude cannot be forced on someone. Forcing a person removes all sense of sacrifice, because sacrifice by its definition implies that it is done willingly. Also, in a fight between conscripts and professionals, I'll put money on the professionals every day.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Sounds like a plan until the chips are down and manpower is needed NOW. The patriotic duty of every male member of the republic is to be ready to serve his nation in some capacity...militarily. This "civilian service" bit is'nt going to make the cut.

There are far more jobs [MO's] or billets for "support units" than trigger pullers but that is not to say the support units are not trained to enter combat if necessary.

The draft system called up many young men, during training many were "inivited" to return to civilian life. Many others found it to be their pasage to manhood.

I favor the draft. I believe it should be reinstituted. Further, an emphasis on military service, patriotism, high school, college, university OCS opportunities is a wise addition to the draft system.

A ready, trained and intelligent military force is necessary in these times. In an time really.

A volunteer army has its limitations. We [the nation] is just in requiring its young men to be available for induction as the need arises. So far they tell us the "quotas" are being met...so in that case a need has not arisen. That would not and should not eliminate a "season of training" for all able American males...say from 18 to 28 from induction, boot camp, a six month tour and then out into reserves.

If a nation cannot rally its people to national service in a time of need without conscription then that nation and its people do not deserve to remain.

What you are talking about isn't patriotism or a sense of sacrifice; its forced servitute and asking people to fight and die for something they don't deem worth it.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Greetings and Felicitations,

So. The fact that I am unwilling to kill people makes me unpatriotic.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Sounds good but the reality is...we need conscription in time of need. Not all citizens are patriots. Those who are less motivated can drive trucks, sling SOS at the steam table, work in the laundry, PX...etc.

If we need you...we're gonna get ya...and we have an agreement with Canada.

"Involuntary servitude?"

How about a hardy BS on that one.

Have a good day.

Thats it? That is really all you have?

The reality is that we do not need conscription to win wars, even the ones where the mainland is threatened. Again, if we get to the point were we need to force citizens to fight then we have lost the right to remain. We have become decedent and weak.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance