Better soldiers are ready to sign up

americanthinker.com ^ | Frank Friday

[arthurus]

Tech training comes after basic and AIT. There would certainly be more available personnel for tech training and employment due to everyone already having the basic training behind him and especially the familiarity with the whole concept. We don't give tech training in basic now. My son, ̃ years in the army, says, too, that the tech training instead of AIT is a loss for most but necessary because of the short duration of too many enlistments. The type of Draft I see as the best would obviate all that. We would have both a universal draft and a fully volunteer military.

[Sine_Pari]

As on who has been there and did that for over 30 yrs, both as a Non-Commissioned and Commissioned officer, I disagree with your idea.

Providing basic training and individual combat techniques (whatever that is for Airmen and Sailors) to every citizen and later give them the choice to stay or go back to civilian life I think, at worst, could make more efficient criminals. Reasons are:
— Basic is by many young peoples’ opinion hell to leave and never return; you would likely not retain many assuming basic is what it should be (military indoctrination);
— Many troops do not learn camaraderie and love of service (the glue that holds people together in combat) until they reach their permanent duty station and units;
— Will not address pay since if you love what you do, pay is not a major motivator.

If you are to conscript citizens at all, do it for at least a year. Give the young troop a chance to learn to appreciate and love the mission and the history of the units they serve with in the field.

One of my old platoon sergeants used to say, “Serving is like a driver’s license, a privilege not a right which is why the military discriminate at MEPS stations.” You want top recruits and a strong military, stop the radical liberal social experimentation. The military exists to dissuade potential adversaries through strength, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat (kill their troops and destroy their wares). This is a job too important to allow any meddling with its core ethos.

Regards.

[A Navy Vet]

"Tech training comes after basic and AIT. There would certainly be more available personnel for tech training and employment due to everyone already having the basic training behind him and especially the familiarity with the whole concept. We don't give tech training in basic now."

I know that. I just don't get going through 3 month basic training would prepare or create incentives for the many that hate Boot.

"My son, ̃ years in the army, says, too, that the tech training instead of AIT is a loss for most but necessary because of the short duration of too many enlistments."

So, your son is saying why bother to train the Basic graduates in logistics and tech support, even if only for a 2 year enlistment when those MOS's are needed for the warrior guys?

I guess this old salt is not getting your gist. Unless strictly infantry grunts, there are countless tech/logistics positions needed for various billets within all the branches. So your saying 3-6 months draft in basically a tough summer camp just to acclimate our youth would make them more inclined to enlist?

"The type of Draft I see as the best would obviate all that. We would have both a universal draft and a fully volunteer military."

Hardly a universal draft according to your standards. It would be nothing more than a "Tough Love" regimen that many juvenile delinquents endure and learn to hate and drop out. Even Marines quit or fail Boot because they hate the physical and psyche problems. I haven't even mention the re-trained or new type of Drill Instructor costs, not to mention re-training Recruiters. Sometimes thinking outside the box is not always the best answer.

I repeat, I have no problem with a draft for Reserves of at least 2 years for 18 year olds that includes tech/logistics training. Another reason I'm opposed to your idea is that NAVY and AIR FORCE are highly technical branches. Yes, the Army and Marines have their pilots, crew members, ground mechs and other tech/logistics supporting billets. However, every Marine is rifle carrying warrior first and have the most difficult Basic training. Does you idea include them?

Your idea is unworkable. 3-6 months basic and you think they would enlist without having the experience in the air, ground, and sea comraderie? They would get some in a 3-6 month Boot, and then leave it behind. Kick it around with other military and Veterans. I've been known to be wrong.

[DoodleDawg]

We can call it the American Foreign Legion.

[A Navy Vet]

"During the intra-war period, they were considered America’s most elite infantrymen."

BS. Although Philippine soldiers were courageous during WWII, they didn't compare with American Airborne, Frogmen, and British elite. Where were they in Pusan or Da Nang or Desert Storm or? American Airborne, Rangers, Delta Force, and now especially SEAL's lead the way. The Philippines has a huge Muslim problem they can't seem to control.

This said from a sailor who had a couple close Philippine friends on his first ship back in 75 where they worked their ass off. Then the dumb ass government kick us out of Subic Bay. Now they want our help again and I hear they are negotiating to bring our protective Naval umbrella back.

Although, gotta admit I loved their "hostesses" on Olongapo. Adult Disneyland at its finest with beautiful go-go dancers, great bands, cheap beer. Yeah, I'm an ex-sleezy Sailor - so what? Got my bullets on the way home so all was good. LOL.

[A Navy Vet]

"Now the Army has a foolish new policy of enlisting even more mentally challenged soldiers."

Where are you getting this "mentally challenged"? Show some citations. Show me where the ASVAB scores have been lowered and then I might agree. However, I do agree the social engineering of the services certainly hasn't helped.

"We spend a staggering amount of money on TV commercials and other recruiting efforts."

DOD has always spent a lot of money on recruiting since the volunteer service. I was a Recruiter in 1986. The new one to me is seeing the Air Force commercials. What's that about? They used to be the first service potential recruits would talk to in a multi-service recruiting office. Because of not meeting very high AF standards, the potentials would then go to the Army cubicle and then the Marines.

Navy was last because so many afraid of the water, with no where to go if getting torpedoed. The youngsters thought they were invulnerable against bullets or duck or hide from them, not so when the ship is going down. Again that was 1986. Recruiting standards ARE probably lower.

[arthurus]

Many would hate it but far more would be going through it. Far more would be ready for tech training and be more likely to stay with it beyond a single enlistment if they already had the Basic and enlistment was then voluntary. I am talking about universal male draft, not hit or miss and easy to get out of whith an agreeable doctor or a college enrolment. The ones who hate it wouldn't go back. Period. They are not terribly valuable to the military in the long run anyway because they leave after one enlistment and all that tech training goes for a year or perhaps two on station. A universal male draft also gives the whole population some sense of participating in the Nation and would make for much better voting behaviour as well as giving the young deadbeats and wannabe gangsters some taste of regular incomes not related to drugs. I have seen that sort of thing work out in real life in a shipyard.

With such a draft the nation suddenly faced with war has a ready pool of potential recruits and a much diminished time period to make them ready for the battlefield and high probability that requisite number of recruits will volunteer immediately. The left's arguments against things military and things American will have a much diminished effect.

[arthurus]

Some. Many. yes. But they would be weeded out of actually serving by the process and would get a much better sense of citizenship into the deal. There would also be a much larger pool of competent and willing people who would volunteer. Many do not join who should for their own benefit and satisfaction because the whole concept is, at all economic and social levels, just foreign to them. We all know some misfits and some weaklings who just can't hack it. It is better to cull them previous to their being in the actual Military getting expensive post grad, so to speak, training that they will use for a few months and probably not long enough to become good.

[arthurus]

You can’t see that the approach is actually different. You are trying to paste the system you are familiar with onto a new and much more efficacious system. That advanced training is not useful for the army or much for the recruits if they are going to leave after one enlistment to get back to the real world. The U-Draft would change the paradigm and the military would become part of the real world for everyone, including for the women who would NOT be drafted.

[pluvmantelo]

If it was good enough for the Justice Department...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/22/memo-reveals-dept-of-justice-directed-to-hire-people-with-intellectual-disabilities

[RoosterRedux]

Where are you getting this "mentally challenged"? Show some citations.

I didn't write the article.

But that said, here's a citation...Army lifting ban on bipolar, self-mutilating recruits 'a red flag'

[Sine_Pari]

“But they would be weeded out of actually serving by the process...We all know some misfits and some weaklings who just can’t hack it. It is better to cull them previous to their being in the actual Military getting expensive post grad, so to speak, training that they will use for a few months and probably not long enough to become good.” — we already can do this from day one of basic training up to the last day of commitment, no need to employ your proposal to meet this.

“and would get a much better sense of citizenship into the deal.” — I doubt this could happen in any significant numbers; I f you have not learned and practice the basics of American citizenship by age 18 then you are likely against what it stands.

“There would also be a much larger pool of competent and willing people who would volunteer” — you assume their experience through basic training (military indoctrination) did not sour these young people from taking a larger dose of what they just have been through; highly improbable based on my 30 plus plus of military service dealing with young troops.

“Many do not join who should for their own benefit and satisfaction because the whole concept is, at all economic and social levels, just foreign to them.” — Where to start here. I think nobody should join the military for their own benefit (who is the authority for this decision). Granted there are few exceptions who were told the military or jail then went on to be superb soldiers. Additionally, I think the great majority of young people out there know what it is like. Lots of discipline, uniformity, and following orders for the sake of being ready to go to war and defend the country; these are not as foreign, as you may think, to much of the native born American youth.

I would support, however, all males conscripted into an organization like the non-PC Boy Scouts of old. Then you would have a large pool of potential volunteers.

As interesting as your proposal is, I think there are more negatives than possible positives and the cost of failure to great. In knuckle dragging terms...the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Regards.