military service - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

should countries have military service and why

1: yes, every country should be able to defend itself
13
31%
2 yes, youth is to soft nowadays and this would harden them.(could aslo count in the long run for better parenting)
11
26%
3 yes, it would improve the economy
No votes
0%
4 no, any way of violence is bad
No votes
0%
5 no, dangerous to give this knowledge to the 'simple' man, they might use it badly in public( eg with rise of extremism)
2
5%
6 no, bad for economy, waste of money
1
2%
7 no, shouldn'be country wise, butunion wise( EU,arabic union, etc)
No votes
0%
8 yes, but for other reason( please exolain)
1
2%
9 no, but for other reason( please explain)
6
14%
10 Other
8
19%
#15066197
@The Mariner

Regardless of whether an army is all volunteer or whether it introduces compulsory service; invariably, the burdens of service in the army, especially during war time, will fall on the less privileged and unwanted members of society. That being said, the all volunteer army is more professional, more efficient and more members of the all volunteer army want to be there. I have seen where some members received some serious wounds, get prosthetic limbs and then return to combat on prosthetic limbs after proving they could pass physical fitness tests even though they didn't have to.

The dark side to the all volunteer army is that the burdens of national defense are shouldered by a very tiny fraction of the population and depending on how serious the threat of the enemy is, the civilian population won't have any "skin in the game" or face any hardship or real sacrifice that a tiny fraction of the population who are in the all volunteer force are taking on, on behalf of the nation. The plus side to compulsory service is that more members (though they will invariably be the less privileged members of society too) of the civilian population will share in the burden of national defense and a tiny fraction of the population won't have to shoulder as great of a burden (We have had one guy literally go on 15 combat tours starting in 2001 before he was killed in action on his last tour and I don't believe that is healthy for somebody to go on that many combat tours in a lifetime much less in that period of time).

Civilian populations who are exposed to compulsory service, I think, are more apt to put the best interests of the country first in some cases than their own selfish interests and are also more apt to compromise with opposing political parties given that they were required to give something and sacrifice something for something that is much more larger than themselves. They thus have more "skin in the game" and will thus have more "skin in the game" in assuring the best interests of the country as civilians rather than solely and strictly their own selfish interests. You see that a lot with the World War II generation who faced conscription on a mass scale to fight mankind's most bloodiest and most devastating war in history.
#15066198
Politics_Observer wrote:Civilian populations who are exposed to compulsory service, I think, are more apt to put the best interests of the country first in some cases than their own selfish interests...


If by "exposed to compulsory service" you mean "get drafted", I couldn't disagree more with that.

When you have to draft people, that's as bad as it gets, simply because you're putting a uniform on someone who, had they got to make the choice, wouldn't be there. They don't want to be there and they don't want to serve. If they did, there'd be no reason to draft them.
#15066200
@The Mariner

The Mariner wrote:If by "exposed to compulsory service" you mean "get drafted", I couldn't disagree more with that.

When you have to draft people, that's as bad as it gets, simply because you're putting a uniform on someone who, had they got to make the choice, wouldn't be there. They don't want to be there and they don't want to serve. If they did, there'd be no reason to draft them.


Yeah, but you are a citizen of a country and countries need defending sometimes. Citizen comes with responsibility and if citizens aren't willing to assume the responsibilities of citizenship then it is just a matter of time before that country will no longer exist given that their is no "skin in the game." One of the things I have noticed with the all volunteer army is the growth of executive power here in the United States. This growth of executive power can threaten and destroy a republic. I guess so long as people don't mind eventually living under a dictatorship by not assuming any responsibility of citizenship then I guess all volunteer army is fine.

But one shouldn't complain about living in a dictatorship though given they were not willing to assume the responsibilities of citizenship beforehand. You will not get your cake and ice cream both. There are trade offs to everything in life. During Vietnam, we had compulsory service even though the vast majority of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers. However, because of the fact we had compulsory service, it also acted as an effective check on executive authority during war time and prevented it's growth. This also helped to assure that a republic remained intact and was not threatened by unchecked executive power that can accumulate during war time, especially with an all volunteer army.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 10 Feb 2020 23:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15066201
@The Mariner

An acceptable alternative to compulsory military service during war time, might be compulsory voting (both during war time and peace time). That way a nation can keep the efficiencies of an all volunteer army while safeguarding it's republic. Australia has traditionally had an all volunteer army to the best of my knowledge and have a good grip on the practice of maintaining and keeping a representative government. Part of this reason I think is because they have compulsory voting. We don't have that here in the US. We don't have compulsory voting or compulsory military service so some sort of other unwanted trade off seems inevitable to have to be made.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15066219
The dark side to the all volunteer army is that the burdens of national defense are shouldered by a very tiny fraction of the population and depending on how serious the threat of the enemy is, the civilian population won't have any "skin in the game" or face any hardship or real sacrifice that a tiny fraction of the population who are in the all volunteer force are taking on, on behalf of the nation.


This is why, as the all volunteer army was being imagined, some very smart generals transferred much of the Army's combat arms force to the national guard. Their idea was that the decision to go to war is much harder when the combat formations are activated and moved from their communities en masse.

As for the quality of draftees. I am sorry to say Mr. Mariner that you have that part wrong. I served in an Army peopled with a great many draftees. They fought just as well as volunteers during the Vietnam war. In fact, if you look at the quality of draftees versus volunteers, the draftees were more educated and smarter after the college deferments were eliminated.

The change in personnel quality in the all volunteer army did not come until 1979 (long after the draft ended) when a general named Maxwell Thrumond assumed command of the US Army Recruiting Command. He became interested in just why his command had to recruit so many people. It was determined that the attrition rate of non high school graduates and those with lower test scores was so high that replacing them with High School Graduates who score over 50 on the ASVAB would cut the average recruiter's quota from 4 per month to one per month. (That is NOT 50% and a score of 50 puts the candidate in the college bound group.) So.

On leaving USAREC and becoming Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Thrumond raised the requirements to join the army to a High School Diploma (GEDs and adult school diplomas did not count) and a score of 50 on the ASVAB. It worked to reduce the recruiter quotas but it had an even more important benefit to the Army. These new, higher quality soldiers could be trained to do more, in less time, and to enable the army to embrace higher levels of technology with greater lethality than ever before. In just a very few years the army became better at its job by several orders of magnitude.

So that is what happened. It was not the end of the draft that made the army better. It was the end of accepting substandard soldiers in great numbers.

But the argument was made that these soldiers were not motivated to join. This is not true. What is true is that in order to retain these people the military had to pay much better, treat people better and provide upward mobility. That is why right now a mid grade sergeant's pay and benefits package is in the $100K+ range. Taking into account the army's retirement package, an enlisted career in the military has become one of the highest paid available.

Please refrain from questioning my numbers. I get that you can google base pay but unless you understand the whole package you will make a fool of yourself and I really don't feel like giving explaining it to everyone. It would be very tedious.
#15066221
@Drlee

I am assuming you were addressing me and not Mr. Mariner. I will take your word on it the quality of how well the draftees fought in comparison to those who volunteered for Vietnam. I never served in Vietnam (Vietnam was WAYY before my time) so I wasn't there and don't have first hand knowledge. I have heard though from one Nam veteran who served with my generation on deployment to the Balkans before 9/11 that he felt we were better trained and more professional though I am sure it is debatable. That was just one Nam veteran and I can't be sure what his experiences were. I have also read on some forums where other Nam veterans said that draftees fought quite well in Vietnam.

I was National Guard myself and the vast majority of those who fought in these recent wars were not regular army but National Guardsman. Honestly, I was not a fan of the career military fellows because many were simply looking to get promoted and would sometimes take un-necessary risks in Afghanistan. Personally, I actually volunteered to serve in Afghanistan because I wanted to do my time in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so I wanted to be there. I thought my unit of National Guardsmen fought quite well in Afghanistan and honestly, felt we did much better than the regular army units. We were much older, more wiser, had more life experience and more education too plus we were your run of the mill average joe American. I honestly wasn't motivated by pay or benefits when I joined. But, I do feel Uncle Sam has treated me well and I got some unexpected benefits as the result of my military service later on in life after my honorable discharge.
#15066231
Politics_Observer wrote:@The Mariner

Yeah, but you are a citizen of a country and countries need defending sometimes. Citizen comes with responsibility and if citizens aren't willing to assume the responsibilities of citizenship then it is just a matter of time before that country will no longer exist given that their is no "skin in the game." One of the things I have noticed with the all volunteer army is the growth of executive power here in the United States. This growth of executive power can threaten and destroy a republic. I guess so long as people don't mind eventually living under a dictatorship by not assuming any responsibility of citizenship then I guess all volunteer army is fine.


I think you're probably getting a bit more worried than you need to. I don't see a dictatorship on the horizon, not to mention a dictatorship coming because we don't have a draft.

But one shouldn't complain about living in a dictatorship though given they were not willing to assume the responsibilities of citizenship beforehand. You will not get your cake and ice cream both. There are trade offs to everything in life.


I haven't been here long enough to complain about anything and, if I did, it wouldn't be about living in a dictatorship.

During Vietnam, we had compulsory service even though the vast majority of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers. However, because of the fact we had compulsory service, it also acted as an effective check on executive authority during war time and prevented it's growth.


I don't understand any of that. How did it do that?

This also helped to assure that a republic remained intact and was not threatened by unchecked executive power that can accumulate during war time, especially with an all volunteer army.


Again, I have to ask: How?
#15067474
@The Mariner

Your response reminds me of an Army cadence song that was created by my generation of war veterans. It's about the civilian and military divide that sometimes exists and how many civilians don't have "skin in the game." If you had "skin the game" would civilians would be so quick to throw our republic under the bus in favor of establishing a dictatorship under Donald Trump? I know Trump has some military supporters, but if more civilians had to serve and make some serious sacrifices for our republic, would they just throw it away for a dictator?

@Drlee

I wanted to include you in on this post because I know you are a Nam vet and I thought you might enjoy hearing a cadence song that was created by the newest generation of war veterans:



Here is another cadence you might enjoy @Drlee from my generation. It sings about the reason why we volunteered, which is to fight for our home:

User avatar
By Big Steve-2
#15067583
Politics_Observer wrote:@The Mariner If you had "skin the game" would civilians would be so quick to throw our republic under the bus in favor of establishing a dictatorship under Donald Trump?


If that's the premise of your argument, then we can just end this conversation now, because that's not going to happen.

If you'd like to discuss the merits of an all-volunteer force over a draft, or vice versa, I'm good with that. But I won't entertain some ridiculous fantasy scenario where we become a dictatorship.
By Subliminal
#15070957
smoke40 wrote:even though im somewhat of a pacifist, i dont think military service is a bad thing in itself. however, at least in my country it's handled very poorly. my brother had a back problem in mil service, and his doctor told him to rest and not do anything physical. well they put him to dig a ditch, which caused him permanent back problems and a temporal paralyzation iirc.
personally, i'm not going to military, instead i will do civil service.


I don’t get it why someone who is a) a pacifist and has b) a brother who has really suffered during and after his military service comes to the conclusion that it it would not (!) br “a bad thin in itself”.
#15083117
I voted 10.
The reason is that this matter differs from country to country. Israel has different problems than germany and germany has different problems than turkey.
It really depends on what a nation has to cope with.
Israel for examble needs an extended military service for its citizens, because israels own existance is at stake every day.
Germany, who doesnt face any kind of threat towards their own lands, could settle on using a smaller elit force of professional soldiers to defend its interests abroad (thus only a 4 or 6 month military service just so tbe citizens learn a few basic training in case anything happens could be great).
On the other hand turkey which isnt in the same situation as israel but she isnt as safe politically and economically strong as germany is, in their situation id suggest a special system. Residents of regions that face danger everyday (van, iskederun, osmaniye etc) should have like a 2 or 3 or even a 5 years military service to be ready to face kurdish attacks or other threats to turkey. On the other hand residenta of the regions that dont face such a threat (izmit, kastamonu, ankara etc) , should do only a 1 year military service just in case they are needed. And the rest of the military should be consisted of professionals, paramilitaries and volunteers.
By Istanbuller
#15083833
Hellas me ponas wrote: Residents of regions that face danger everyday (van, iskederun, osmaniye etc) should have like a 2 or 3 or even a 5 years military service to be ready to face kurdish attacks or other threats to turkey. On the other hand residenta of the regions that dont face such a threat (izmit, kastamonu, ankara etc) , should do only a 1 year military service just in case they are needed. And the rest of the military should be consisted of professionals, paramilitaries and volunteers.

Turkey has a professional army fighting on borders, cross-border and overseas regions. Turkish troops in Syria, Libya are fully professional and paid.

I had six months basic and compulsory military service. Of course, much away from warzones.
By Subliminal
#15085277
peaclock wrote:hello, what do yoi guys think about military service when you reach 18 years old, pick a number and explain yourself.



It’s a waste of time and money. So glad we’ve abolished it here in Germany.
By snapdragon
#15085479
My dad did his national service just after the war. He was totally against it and spent most of his two years sodding about. It was an expensive waste of everybody’s time.The armed forces need to be professional and should never be used as some sort of social service
By Istanbuller
#15086351
Varilion wrote:Was it useful for your country?

No. It wasn't. It is not a real army. Removing compulsory military service is a hot topic in Turkey. I believe that it will be abolished in this decade.

Militarizing the Moon only makes sense in sci-fi […]

I oppose fascism. I support the opposition to fa[…]

IMHO there's a lot of fantasies going on here. S[…]

It seems to me that the pressure from the Right, […]