• muckpar said on Oct 09, 2007....

  What we are seeing is the inherrent weakness of the all volunteer armed forces.  But manpower shortaages will continue because Americans would never stand for a draft because it would inconvience too many.  I knew it would catch up with us some day.

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2007....

  I think the all volunteer army is fine. The reason that it's failing isn't because it's a volunteer force, it's because we are in a war that we shouldn't be in. If the war were just and worthwhile I don't think we'd have recruitment problems as bad as we are.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

   

  I dunno bloc, history seems to show that Americans are particularly likely to support wars, even World Wars weren't particularly popular until you know, we were winning.  So I doubt that even if this were a just war that it would have much effect.  I mean sure enlistment went up for a few months after 9/11 (as magically did patriotism) but it was long before Iraq started that things started to die down.

   

  A volunteer military is pretty much by definition smaller (unless it has really good pay or something) but that doesn't matter ours is more than large enough to handle most problems.  Thing is here we are sorta double booked which is unbelievably stupid.  Saddam wasn't doing anything that required our immediate attention and he should have been left along until Afghanistan was finished.

   

  I am still and 100% against a draft unless it is something where we NEED soldiers to defend US soil or major allies.  I could for instance justify a draft to defend England from Germany (aren't they like twenty years over due to start some shit?)

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2007....

  you may be right, we really don't have a good test set. I think an all volunteer army would be sufficient if a few things are true.
  
  1. our way of life is truly at stake (not bullshit like vietnam or iraq)
  2. our country is still worth defending
  
  If these are true I believe a volunteer army is sufficient, but we don't have any good test cases to test my theory. The increase in recruitment after 9/11 reinforces my idea, but surely doesn't prove it.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

  Honestly I think our military is sufficient for what it needs to do.  Just what Bush wants it to do is above and beyond what is plausible under these terms.  Which seems like something he recognized and thus all the mercs we have running about there.

• lioneljay said on Oct 09, 2007....

  Quote Sean Renaud: "I dunno bloc, history seems to show that Americans are particularly likely to support wars, even World Wars weren't particularly popular until you know, we were winning.  So I doubt that even if this were a just war that it would have much effect. "
  
  Not at all true. Volunteers poured into recruitment stations within days of the attack on Pearl Harbor. How could you possibly account for the million-plus population of the American armed forces between 1941 and 1944 except for a belief that being in that war was the right thing to do? We weren't "winning" for the first two and a half years of the war.
  
  Recruitment is down now for one single reason: there is not enough belief that our mission in Iraq is worthy of our service. I think it's also instructive to see that recruitment levels among young black men and women is lower than ever before. I wonder if this might be due, at least in part, to the perception that Iraq is not America's war but George Bush's war, and George Bush has been the least black-friendly president in decades.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

  And recruiting surged around 9/11 as well.  How well did this keep up?  Not to mention that was Pearl Fucking Harbor!  The Japanesse and the Germans had been running rampant for years while we sat back and said it wasn't our problem until somebody made it our problem!

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2007....

  "And recruiting surged around 9/11 as well.  How well did this keep up?"
  
  But this bolsters my point. It makes sense for it to have fallen during the lead up to Iraq.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

  I'd have to see if I could dig up the numbers but as I recall it was long before Iraq started up that recruitment numbers started returning to normal. 

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2007....

  but you'd also have to show that our military wasn't sufficient at that point to deal with terrorism intelligently. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

  That would be extremely difficult if not impossible.  I mean it's like letting me look at your budget and tell you that you can't afford X.  Intelligently putting your resources to work can accomplish great things.

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2007....

  Correct, but my assertion is that troops levels of a volunteer force are sufficient for defending the nation. A recruitment decrease a while after 9/11 doesn't show contradict that assertion directly. 

• TinSoldier said on Oct 09, 2007....

  This has been a liberal trope for a long time now and it really pisses me off!
  
  I already fucking did volunteer! Twice, goddamn it! How much more do I have to give and still be allowed to support the war? (Sorry -- once for Gulf War I and once for the current war).
  
  Sorry, it's just one of those things that pisses me off. I understand that a lot of those in the higher echelons of government and the architects of our current foreign and military policies have never served in the military. But that was a trend long before Iraq and 9/11. And many supporters of the war have been in the military and/or have had family members in the military.
  
  I certainly have a personal preference for military veterans where it comes to making such decisions, but it's not a litmus test for me.
  
  One thing that I think was absurd at the time it was formulated not long after the first Gulf War, was that the US military could fight in two major theaters at a time. That has been proven mostly untrue, I believe.
  
  Sure, we took on two second- or third-rate countries and toppled their governments. That's normally the definition of success in a war, even a "critical success" as the President famously quipped. However, as we've seen time and time again, there's so much more to it than that after those governments have fallen. And that is where we've failed in Iraq and we are on the verge of failing in Afghanistan.
  
  Oh, and sean is right -- there was a bump in voluntary enlistments at the beginning of most of the US' major wars but then again, they mostly had the draft to fall back upon once those voluntary enlistments slacked off. The Civil War is a good example.
  

• lioneljay said on Oct 09, 2007....

  TS, I don't think this would have become much of a liberal trope if the "he never served and was a draft dodger" line hadn't been used so mercilessly and relentlessly to attempt to degrade President Clinton.

• TinSoldier said on Oct 09, 2007....

  bloc -- I apologize for my anger and language in the previous post. It's just that I've seen the same sentiment so much and it really does make me angry.
  
  I mean, I think there are at least as many veterans of this war and previous conflicts who support this as there are who are against it.
  
  I also need to admit that I was a pogue in the first conflict spending my entire eight months in Saudi Arabia and I was only in Iraq for three months during the current conflict. And while people were still being killed while I was there it certainly increased quite a bit after my unit left the theater. I don't think that it lessens my own sacrifices any though.
  
  Edit: lioneljay, you are probably correct.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2007....

  There is a difference between thinking that the war is just and believing that it has been well executed.  There is also a difference between thinking that this war is worth our time and that the war is/was just.
   
  I can't really claim that I volunteered I went to boot camp 9/10/01 BEFORE 9/11 and well before Iraq.  I didn't volunteer to fight in Iraq, I just happened to be around for it.  And I'm gonna be honest, you pretty much couldn't have volunteered twice.  The war has been going on for 4 years, so unless you ended up with two two year enlistments you didn't volunteer twice, once tops.
   
  Honestly the right answer to how many times to need to volunteer is until the damned thing is over if you truly feel it is worth while.  Or until you are no longer able.
   
  Also it's spelled POG not pogue.  It's an acronym.  Personell Other than Grunt.  There is nothing wrong with being a Pog, you are just as important as any of the grunts are and thanks to road side bombs and other crap you are still likely to die.  While I'm not going to claim that the news is completely accurate if there is any truth to it at all there are more people killed by roadside bombs and suicide bombers than are shot.  Making us Pogs in every bit the same danger as the grunts.
   
   

• TinSoldier said on Oct 09, 2007....

  Heh. Sean -- I meant that I volunteered for the military before the first Gulf War (which I mentioned in my post) and I volunteered again after 9/11 after having been out for seven years. Obviously I didn't volunteer to fight against Iraq either time but I ended up doing so both times.
  
  Yes, I know what pogue stands for -- I just spell it the way it sounds. Sorry about that -- that's also the way I've seen it written. I don't want to be confused with those little cardboard circles that kids used to play with.
  
  I've probably told the story before, but I met a guy in Kuwait not in my unit, he had been a grunt in Viet Nam and was a driver in the National Guard when I met him. He said he had seen more action in Iraq on that deployment as a driver than he had in Viet Nam as a grunt.
  
  YMMV, of course.
  
  Oh, and I agree with your first paragraph -- I certainly think that the war was just but that it has been so phenomenally mishandled as to be ridiculous.
  

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2007....

  I think this is a legit sentiment. Our military can't sustain the current troops levels. That is simple fact. If people, like d6 here on SC, believe that this war is so important then what is the solution? We can't continue as we are, it's not sustainable unless more people enlist! Who better to enlist than the people that think this war is necessary and important.
  
  We shouldn't abuse our volunteer soldiers, but that's what we are doing now with 15 month deployments and less time at home than in Iraq. Something has to change and I'm all ears for recommendations.
  

• kelly said on Oct 12, 2007....

  "This has been a liberal trope for a long time now and it really pisses me off!
  I already fucking did volunteer! Twice, goddamn it! How much more do I have to give and still be allowed to support the war? (Sorry -- once for Gulf War I and once for the current war)."
  
  I think bloc was referring to the armchair generals and young republicans who, when asked if they'd be enlisting, suddenly had so many medical excuses you'd think you were in the ward of a hospital. But they were 100% behind our troops. Forward, they cried from the rear....

Comment on "It's time for war supporters to enlist"

Currently tagged	volunteer army politics iraq draft bush volunteer (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment