DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that most Americans have grown too detached from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and see military service as “something for other people to do.”
In a speech Wednesday at Duke University, Gates said this disconnect has imposed a heavy burden on a small segment of society and wildly driven up the costs of maintaining an all-volunteer force.
Because fewer Americans see military service as their duty, troops today face repeated combat tours and long separations from family. The 2.4 million people serving in the armed forces today represent less than 1 percent of the country’s total population.
To attract and retain recruits, the Defense Department finds itself spending more money, including handsome recruiting and retention bonuses and education benefits. The money spent on personnel and benefits has nearly doubled since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, from $90 billion to $170 billion.
“That is our sacred obligation,” Gates told the audience of compensating troops. “But given the enormous fiscal pressures facing the country,“ the nation must devise ”an equitable and sustainable system of military pay and benefits that reflects the realities of this century.”
Gates, who plans to retire next year, has been using academic-style speeches to outline what he believes to be the nation’s toughest challenges that lie ahead when it comes to defense.
Earlier this year, Gates asked whether troops were training for the right kinds of missions and called into question the utility of D-Day style amphibious landings handled historically by the Marine Corps. He has also embarked on a cost-cutting initiative to prepare for what he says are leaner days ahead for the department.
As is the case in most of these speeches, Gates on Wednesday tried to raise awareness about a long-term problem rather than solve it. He offered no solution to what he described as a growing divide between Americans in uniform and those who aren’t.
“Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most Americans the war remains an abstraction — a distant and unpleasant series of news items that does not affect them personally,” Gates said.
Even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for most Americans “service in the military — no matter how laudable — has become something for other people to do,” he added.
Gates gave his speech in front of some 1,200 faculty and students at Duke, considered one of the nation’s top universities.
Like most elite colleges, only a small fraction of Duke students consider military service. With 34 of its 6,400 undergraduates enrolled in its Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, an officer commissioning program known as ROTC, Duke is actually considered among the more military-friendly elite colleges.
Yale, for example, has only four of its 5,200 students enrolled in ROTC, whereas Harvard doesn’t allow ROTC or military recruiters on campus.
Without calling out any one particular university, Gates said he was disappointed in institutions that “used to send hundreds of graduates into the armed forces, but now struggle to commission a handful of officers every year.”
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered the first large-scale, protracted conflicts since the Revolutionary War fought entirely with volunteers. Most military officials agree that this isn’t a bad thing. Today’s U.S. military forces are considered more professional and better educated than their predecessors.
More enlisted troops hold a high school diploma, or its equivalent, than their civilian peers. Two-thirds of new recruits come from neighborhoods that are at or above the median household income.
But the military isn’t representative of the country as a whole. Recruits are most likely to serve only if they grow up around others who do so. The military also draws heavily from rural areas, particularly in the South and the mountain West.
The trend is reinforced by the location of military bases, which tend to be in rural areas and the South where land is cheapest, rather than close to the big cities and the Northeast and West.
Today, most soldiers who are not deployed are stationed in Texas, Washington, Georgia, Kentucky and North Carolina. Many military facilities in the Northeast and along the West coast, meanwhile, have been shut down for environmental and budgetary reasons.
Whereas Alabama hosts 10 ROTC programs, the city of Los Angeles — with twice the population — hosts only four.
“There is a risk over time of developing a cadre of military leaders that politically, culturally and geographically have less and less in common with the people they have sworn to defend,” Gates said.
The premise underlying an all-volunteer force also has changed. Initiated in 1973, the concept was that such a force would fight in short, conventional conflicts like the 1991 Gulf War, or defend the U.S. and its allies against Soviet aggression.
But after almost a decade of warfare since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, troops who have escaped combat unscathed still faced repeated deployments with long separations from their families. In Iraq at one point, some combat tours stretched to 18 months. More than 1 million soldiers and Marines have been deployed there during the course of the conflict.
The consequences of long deployments in combat zones have been real. Suicide figures have increased, while the divorce rate among soldiers has nearly doubled.
“No matter how patriotic, how devoted they are, at some point they will want to have the semblance of a normal life — getting married, starting a family, going to college or grad school, seeing their children grow up — that they have justly earned,” Gates said.
Without offering specifics, Gates said a system must be created that is generous enough to recruit and retain people without causing the Defense Department to sink under the weight of personnel costs.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (99)
Former Communist
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:21pmThe purpose of the war is to eliminate the enemies and not to try to create new friends. We have to set some limits, like 1 war, max 1 year and maximum 1 Billion in cost. Use all the technology what we have, no gloves on, no nation building, get in, kill the bad guys and get out. Don’t sacrifies our sons and daughters for nothing!
Report Post »Midwest Belle
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:20pmSo. will someone answer a question for me?
If we have [military] bases all over the world, Do we not pay rent to the country where they are located? Do we receive any $$ for all the stuff we do (as in policeman of the world) from countries we help protect?
If we are WANTED in other countries, there should be NO rent on land. If we are WANTED in these countries, there should be monetary considerations (ie PAYMENTS) for the protection of these places.
Wouldn’t that be a novel concept? Charge for our policing of other countries?? How long do you think these other countries can survive without our soldiers?
Report Post »DanStlMo
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:19pmAs a Veteran I must say, no to the draft. I am the father of a SFC and the Uncle of a PFC. they do not want draftees, period. We will take up the slack.
Report Post »ConsiderThis
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:04pmOur Canadian troops are fighting and dying right alongside their brave American brothers and sisters and to think they are going to hear what Woodward said that Obama was looking for a way out while they sacrifice everything and don’t get the tools and support they actually need to win – it’s despicable.
Report Post »If you must go to war you give it everything you have. In my opinion the politicians that are calling the shots seem to be more concerned about hurting the feelings of those that are harboring the enemy.
American politics effect us greatly here in Canada and I for one can’t wait for 2012.
DanStlMo
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:20pmThank you!
Report Post »jds7171
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:02pmI like how he says that the armed forces should stop training in ways that we will use if we actually had to fight a real country that has military. These guerilla warfares do last along time, but we still need the tactics to fight a country that has an actual military. Its like they banned the new fighter jet. They said it doesn’t help fight in the style we are fighting now, guerilla fighting. We still need to have top of the line technology incase we have to fight, china, N. Korea, Russia. If America wants to keep putting their nose in other countries affairs, we better have the ability to back us up.
Report Post »CaptainSpaulding
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:52pmWhat do you expect from a nation where the President is friends with terrorist/“Peace Activists”.
Welcome to Liberal-land.
Report Post »zman173rd
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:52pmNeed to remember back whe Charle “ I had a relapse of Judgement” Rangle went before congress with a request to bring back the Draft. They will use it as an excuse to shut down our efforts to win against the Taliban. I agree, untie our hands and blow away the B*stards. Use the MOAB and Nukes and whatever else we can to keep our troops safe and bury the rest. It‘s God’s job to sort em out, not us. Once they go back to Conscritpion, whould you really like to face them on the street during a protest? It WILL come down to that someday. It’s only a matter of time. I would rather think that a volunteer soldier is one that won’t pull the trigger on his brothers, as opposed to one who isn’t.
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:25pmUnited WE Stand, Divided THEY win
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:37pmThankfully you are not in charge.
Report Post »Miguel Saavadera
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:51pmAlthough I strongly believe in ‘giving back’ to this nation, through service to it, one must understand that from their ‘inner’ core … and that isn’t happening! That moral imperative is not there to volunteer and serve. It is a moral problem, not a forced service problem.
However, believing that each should do service for two years somewhere in the system (military, peace corps, medical, Americorps, Chaplin service, etc.,, a conscription military isn’t it.
With the volunteer force you have a cohesion that was never there in Viet Nam, World War II, Korea or elsewhere. The force today works, eats, and sleeps a a team … a basic unit. A war fighting unit. Even when one is severely disabled, with loss of limb, they feel that they let that team down … and want to go back (return). Several now have. That comes from a ‘volunteer’ force, not a conscripted one. Conscripts just wan’na leave, get out of the fight, never to return. We, today have the best formed, and cohesive units because each individual has a choice, to serve or not to serve ~ and once engaged are fully committed to it and their teammates. That volunteerism has helped us, not hurt.
Forcing all to do their duty to God, Country, and Family isn’t a good idea. That ideal must come from inside each and every American, from the conscience and soul of the warrior. If you don’t see it, you don’t believe in it, and it can not be forced into you. If you do not see that America, right or wrong, is the best hope for a future in this, then Gates telling you “You must serve” isn’t going to get it.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:55amMiguel, sounds like you know from experience what you’re saying. I served during the time there was a draft. I know of what you speak.
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:50pmAs I see it that if the people in the SOUTH and MOUNTAIN areas tend to join the armed forces more than the PROGRESSIVES who are attending elite colleges that would be MORE the reason that a new mandatory credit for a degree is 2 years of military service.. I am a FIRM believer that EVERYONE should KNOW how to use, clean and carry a gun.. defend themselves and their families as well as the country.. what better place to lean than in college..EVEN if they try to use the fact they can’t serve because they are in school they CAN be trained..
Report Post »whitaker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:23amalot of collages wont allow recruiters on campus or an ROTC course.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:46pmMore than half of our military costs of war is simply our giving away truckloads of American cash to our enemies, literally. Billions of American taxpayer dollars are literally shipped out of Afghanistan and Iraq by truck, by boat and by airplane and those boxes of American bucks are shipped to other Mideast countries; Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, where I am sure this money is used for good intent.
American contractors embezzle hundreds of millions of dollars each year from our military. Our CIA gives away “off book” hundreds of millions of dollars to Afghanistan warlords. Providing fancy military jets to Pelosi costs us millions each year. Our military spends billions each year supporting NATO allies who refuse to help us fight terrorism.
Problem is not costs of our soldiers. Problem is crime and corruption within our military command structure.
Interesting we could carpet bomb a country with old fashion iron bombs for a year for the same cost our current wars cost us each day.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
donbcg
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:37pmWho wants to fight a war for a bunch of asswipes. Who wants to fight a war where we are expected to lose. Who wants to stand there and get shot, and then ask them if we were to damned harsh.
The disconnect is that we only want to fight a war we can kickass in. So, Gates here is answer. Fight, win, and get us home. *******.
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:21pm“I will fight where I am told and I will win where I fight” ~ The American Soldier
Report Post »mdalton_5117
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:36pmWell said DONBCG. We could have come home years ago.
Report Post »aesaac
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:35pmbring back conscription. even switzerland has mandatory military service. the participation in the defense of the country is a price of citizenship. if the citizen is unwilling to serve the country cannot stand. we have become a nation of takers, obeise, gluttonous, grotesque; a citizenry of self serving, self important emotional adolescents standing on the backs of those that serve in the defense of this country. there are those that wish the united states grevious harm, that understand only force and the ability and willingness to project it. a country that is not worth serving is not worth defending.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:31pmLets quit being the worlds policemen! Here‘s a perfect example why it doesn’t work in the long term:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyah-d7zvC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psCo6ELnFHA
RandomOne
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:25pmI pay taxes to have a policeman show up when I need one. Maybe the rest of the world should pay taxes to the us military, so a US Military policeman will show up when they need one. If the other places don‘t want a policeman we shouldn’t be there.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:39pmIf you like Glenn Beck you should watch my short video ‘An Atheist for Glenn Beck’. Just click on my name and it’s right on top. I show why basing Rights on “God” simply does not work in the long term.
Buck Bagaw
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 4:19pmActually , you pay taxes to have a policeman show up just after you need him. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:16pmPerhaps if America quit being the worlds policeman, there wouldn’t be such a burdon? Where in the Constitution does it say it’s the job of the American taxpayer to police the planet? I made a video on just one example: Israel. Watch these two 7 minute videos and tell me where I’m wrong:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyah-d7zvC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psCo6ELnFHA
You may also like this one on Glenn Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy0bE8qO-T4
Diane Oliver
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:12pmAs a mother of a son who has served two tours to Iraw and a son-in-law whom has also served a tour in Iraq… I say we do to little to help our countrymen understand what this country stands for…. you go get em Oliver’s….
Proud Mom of 2 Soldiers
Report Post »Buck Bagaw
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:46amOOO-RAH, Mom!!
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:50pmvery true. but a voluntary military is the best way to go. conscription will lead to riots. but maybe riots are what we need….
Report Post »IvanK
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:00pmThe question liberals have to ask themselves is… Do they really want want to waste 18 years of expensive liberal indoctrination to turn their young skulls of mush into rigid, conservative, hard working people who have ethics and a moral code? Who, by the way, overwhelmingly vote republican?
I guess they haven’t thought it out – as usual. The however, would be one of those “unintended consequences” that actually worked in the favor of this country for once.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:30pmi see what you mean. but the left will respond to conscription with indignation and rebellion. as well they should. our military is run by a corrupt and crumbling government. why FORCE anyone to take part in that and lay their lives down for dubious aims and political means. this sword cuts both ways. unless and until our military is engaged in a conflict the general populace understands thoroughly this whole argument is a dead end.—now i GET iraq and afghanistan but it is very muddled and has been from the beginning. the military should not be a wing of indoctrination for political ideas either. this will come back to haunt us. grrrrrrrrrrrr
Report Post »IvanK
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:46pmIf history serves me right, the Socialist Nazi party felt the same way which resulted in the Hitler youth programs for indoctrination. Kind of like today’s public education minus the rigid physical education.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:38pmMaybe the more common folks like us under-stand the honor of defending our country and what freedom really means. Not everyone has what it takes to be in the military. I have nothing but respect for those that enlist. One area that I have no problem with paying taxes for and that is to take care of our brave men and women who have sacrificed . They deserve top medical care. If they are wounded and need help from our government, I have no problem with that in any way. Who would deserve it more?
Report Post »RESTORATION1787
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:37pmI have the utmost respect for our military members. Whenever I am in a place getting coffee and I see a service member in uniform, I always thank them for their service and buy them coffee as a gesture of thanks. I never forget it is they and those before them that allow us to sleep peacefully under the blanket of security and freedom they provide.
Report Post »VegasGuy
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:29pmGood for you. I was at a local pub and a group of 20-or-so servicemen in uniform were having some sort of celebration. I paid for a round. I told me my brother-in-law and the next time he saw a member of our military (woman) he paid for her oil change. Keep it up America. If you are too old to serve the least you can do is let those who do know we truly honor their service to our country.
Report Post »megansmom
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:33pmActually if we became a more patriotic and taught our kids the meaning behind Kennedy’s famous words
Report Post »Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Start by bringing the pledge in schools and the national anthem. Teach them to have pride in our country and that it is worth defending.
wingedwolf
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:38pmYou are absolutely right. The way the demolibersocialcommies have revised history to make white kids feel shame and guilt and black kids feel hate and victimization by America, why would someone grow up to think it was worth fighting for? I can’t wait till november!!!!!!!
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:40pmthat is a great notion and i support it but the sad fact is parents are slowly giving their rights to raise their children with any aspect of the beliefs and morals our forefathers fought for , to the school system and the government, which, with their liberal views and goals have a much different goal in mind
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:57pmA quoye from my blog.
Report Post »Most of our lives we have believed there is actually a middle class in the United States, coexisting with an impoverished minority and an even smaller minority of the so-called rich. I say hogwash!!!! There are clearly, if you have any vision at all, simply the ruling class and everyone else. The annual income or net wealth of any American is irrelevant to which class they will occupy. The real discerning factor in 2010 comes down to power and liberty. There are a lot of wealthy Americans who have less power and liberty than some of the poorest among us and there are millions of poor who have virtually no power or liberty at all and have become the very definition enslaved. There are tens of millions of so-called middle class Americans who are so disconnected from liberty and freedom they don’t even know how enslaved they truly are. And then there are the rulers, the princes and kings, the nobles and the captains who have used YOU and your labor to construct the pyramids of your own captivity. These tyrants reign on high while the rest of US bow in servitude and dine on the scraps of the bounty WE THE PEOPLE created while the Pharos get drunk and worship themselves at the altars of power.
wingedwolf
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:31pmWe need to go in and have the tools and permission to fight to win or do not go in at all. Whether our troops are many or few, the ONE THING we don’t need is a president who never served tying the hands of those who are serving by not giving them what they need to win. Our grandfathers understood this. They did not storm the beach at Normandy for a swim party.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:29pmThose Who Serve are only unknown to the Ruling Class, like Gates. Many of the rest of us are honored to know many of these incredibly brave Patriots. I wonder how Vice President Biden (whose son served in Iraq) feels about these comments? Of course, we all know that this was simply a statement in favor of a certain tax policy. Stop using our service-persons as political pawns, Secretary Gates!
Report Post »13thGenerationAmerican
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:41pmCan you read one story without crying about your rights and taxes. Boo Hoo, they’re out to get me. Grow up and just support the troops for a change.
Report Post »Commonsensical
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:31pmHow about paying the average soldier twice as much as the average public school teacher makes?!? Soldiers risk MUCH more than teachers do, and work MUCH harder. And while teachers stupid enough to work in New York or California occasionally risk being shot at, Our soldiers accept the reality of being deployed to foreign countries and killed every day!
Better yet, pay teachers what soldiers earn, and vice versa. What’s more important… The government Indoctrinating our children(they stopped TEACHING them years ago) or keeping them alive and free???
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:28pmI have the perfect answer. Come home from the 150+ countries where our troops are stationed. sTOP BEING THE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD. That Secretary will lower greatly our defense costs and # of troops needed. And I would predict that more would line up to get in and there would be people wiaitng in line. Our job is to protect the borders of the USA period.
QweeQwa
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:56pmAmen brother.
Report Post »FREE-FOR-ALL
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:22pmFortress America, We tried that and it got us World War 2. by the end of the war Germany was only 6mon from a nuclear bomb. where do you think we would be now if we just kept to ourselfs. We have to stay incaged with the world. “ The only reason for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” I can’t remember the name of the gentleman that said it, but it rings true to freedom.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:04amFree for all, I understand your position but 100% disagree with it. It has morally and finacaially bankrupted America. I think our Founding Fathers were very right.. don’t get involved in foreign entaglements. We geba quickly losing our liberties as we allowed our leaders to take us to war. Since the USA was attacked at Pearl Harbor and FDR followed the Constitution in having a written declaration of war from Congress, that was a necessary foreign war. There has been no war since that has had a written declaration of war from Congress.
Do you think that giving up the Constitution is worth being the policemen of the world?
Report Post »Onward2Victory
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:16amThe 911 attacks have cost the United States over 2 trillion dollars so far in measurable costs, and far, far beyond that in terms of impacts to global markets. That cost could have been completely avoided by being the policeman of Afghanistan back when we knew it was degenerating into a terror training state. It sure would have been worth every penny.
You can’t protect your nation by only protecting your border. Maybe that worked in the 19′th century, but not in this world anymore. You can be anywhere on earth in a day. And they will get through one way or another. 911 only took 19 people to pull off. You need to be much farther ahead of the enemy than that.
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 5:35amI am ex-military (I served during peacetime and consider my service as ‘taking my turn on watch;’ I reserve the term ‘Veteran’ for those who risked life and limb). My current employment involves providing support to the troops every day (including travel to Afghanistan), and I know the challenges and hardships the troops endure. In addition, my youngest son decided to join the military and I applaud his decision. My point is that the war, for me, is not some distant event for which I bear no burden.
But back to the article. When the Gov‘t tells Soldiers that it really isn’t about victory and imposes unrealistic rules of engagement, what is the point of the conflict? Do we really want to use Soldiers as policemen? Especially in countries whose moral, religious and political beliefs are diametrically opposed to our own? Let them fight or bring them home.
Regarding the overseas bases, keep in mind that a reduction in the number of bases is NOT the same as pre-WWII Isolationism. Just as we went through the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) process for homeland bases, we need to take a look at what we have overseas. We need to keep the ones with strategic value and close the rest, especially those that charge us ungodly amounts just to be there. In many cases, the bases in foreign countries are a form of welfare: income from leases, support jobs on-base by foreign nationals, goods and services provided by the local population. Bring the Soldiers home.
Report Post »Onward2Victory
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:01amRight now as we discuss this, Iran is working as hard and fast as it possibly can to develop a nuclear device and an intercontinental delivery system. Would dealing with that situation constitute policing the world or protecting our own lives and fortunes? What exactly does Iran want to do with this device they are making? Well, according to their own military journals, the goal is to successfully detonate an EMP device 200 miles over Kansas and permanently destroy every electronic device in North America. That would send us back to the stone age here in a single day. Analysts predict if this were to happen 80% of our people would die from lack of basic needs — no food, no power, no medical care, etc. — and the United States would cease to exist, not even having any means of recovery. So apart from discussions about bases that have no purpose and ought to be closed — and there surely are these — this is the real meat of this issue. Iran is the 1990′s Afghanistan and worse. So can we deal with Iran by bringing the all troops home? To do that would mean we stake our entire future on State Department negotiations and United Nations sanctions.
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 5:07am@Onward2Victory,
Your point is well made.
Should we revert to isolationism? No.
Should we close all our overseas bases? No.
Should we take action when necessary to protect ourselves and our allies? Yes.
Iran is a problem that was not dealt with appropriately and, mark my words, we will regret our inaction. I do not consider military action, presence or even occupation as ‘policing;’ however, when our rules of engagement favor the enemy over our troops and endow insurgents in the war zone with many of the rights of US citizens, well, that sounds like policing to me. If we are going to take action we must let our Soldiers fight, and fight to win.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:24pmThis was less of an issue when we were not involved in such full-scale conventional conflicts but as the world becomes more dangerous, the all-volunteer army idea may need to be rethought.
Please don’t let the Ground Zero Mosque story die. Imam Abdul Rauf is desecrating a graveyard with his mosque plans.
Did you know there were human remains at the Ground Zero Mosque location? See the video here (not graphic): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUn552ZZmc8
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 9:30pmI also think that if we do stick with an all-volunteer force, we need to embrace the use of asymmetrical, overwhelming warfare. I’m talking about nuclear, chemical and biological warfare imposed on our target. We cannot afford to keep our gloves on with one hand tied behind our backs when our enemies have taken the gloves off long ago. That means civilian deaths in the countries we fight in. I think we need to come to terms with mass collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths BEFORE we decide to go to war. Once the decision is made, we go all out, with overwhelming force to end the conflict as quickly and decisively as possible. Just my opinion but it makes sense if we are to operate with relatively small numbers of human assets compared to the objectives we are trying to accomplish.
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:50pmJust a quick note to address the proposition of conscripts As a veteran of two deployments to Iraq . (2003 and 2006) I can tell you the last thing anybody needs in our Army today is a soldiers that didn’t volunteer and doesn’t want to be there. The last guy I would have wanted watching my back was someone that was forced to be there.
Report Post »staythecourse
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:33pmThere has been a slight of hand and a rewriting of history with respect to our armed forces…and no one seems to have noticed.
During Vietnam it was the draft. Then came the “volunteer army”, but, if anyone remembers, the “volunteer army” was actualy a failure. If I recall correctly, there was a problem with ranks being filled with poor under educated folks and the army /military was not very happy about that. Not long ago, the “reserves” were just that….“reserves” and were under the power and authority of the individual states and they were under the authority of that state’s governor. It used to be the “governor” of a state who would “call up” the national guard. Somewhere along the way, the federal government gained control of these state “militias” and decided these state national guard were now the new “volunteer” army to be shipped out to places like Irag, and Afganistan and were now under the direct authority of the federal government. In the old days, the gov of Arizona would have been able to call up her own national guard, and would not have had to rely on the president. This is just part of the erosion of the rights and sovereignty of the states.
With what Gates is saying, it sounds like America needs to prepare for another draft…but it won’t be called a draft. It will be a citizen’s “duty” to serve. sort of like that youth corps that Obama is talking about. (that youth corp will become the “green police”) I find it interesting that Gates is calling it a “SACRED” obligation. Let’s see…. now who is it that uses that words again, and again, and again? …No….You don‘t think he’s listening to Glenn…. do you????
Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:59amTAY THE COURSE; in the eaqrly days of the volunteer military, pay was very bad. Today, the pay is reasonable so it makes it worth while to give the military a trial to see IF one wnats to make it a career. Having spent 7 years as an weekend Officer with the Indaiana National Guard as well as working in the regular USA for 4 years, I found the National Guard well prepared and able to deploy in 72 hours.
A drafted military would be a bid mistake.
Report Post »Topcat
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:32am@UHADENOUGHYET.COM
Report Post »As a Vietnam Vet we had a draft and voluntary forces . There was no less comradery in that war. Conflict brings all soldiers together as one. It was rare you could not depend on the guy next to you with your life. It was policy that during peace time , the Army would revert back to volunteer from draft. The Reservists career was, states side readiness , in case of attacks on our borders or national emergency , thats why the President often calls on the reserves, after declaring a national emergency, during hurricanes and floods.
This where I start to have a real problem with the present policy of our government , and this goes back to the start of the war in the mideast. Soldiers in our reserves , because of the relatively safe nature of their duty , some were older and many were often married and had families , and civilian careers . They were called for training once a year for two weeks I believe. Thus the term weekend warriors , that was not a negative thing , just the nature of there service. There were reserves during the Vietnam war also , they stayed at home , and carried out their designated service.
It was wrong for our government to send these troops into the war zone for all the reasons above . There were rules the government generally followed during the Vietnam war , for instance most troops sent to Nam were not married , this was kind of unwritten as there were married guys there. If a family had a son or daughter in country , the Army would not send another member into battle . This was almost always followed . Soldiers were drafted at 18 so there was a young , I am indestructible attitude in the fighting force. That gave an edge to soldier in battle ,over one with a family and children. All troops spent 12 months in country , and returning for a second tour was voluntary and rare , I had to have a military psychiatric analysis to return for a second tour. Not too indepth but there just the same.
I feel our government has done a grave injustice to our fighting reservists , sending them into battle having families and sending them for more than a years time. We must respect their sacrifice even more , under these conditions , and tell our government to return to a voluntary , full time , daily trained , regular Military , and return our reservists back to their stateside service. The cost should not be an issue , particularly since we can send billions to foreign countries , instead of maintaining our regular military .
CO-CONSERV
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:01amI think the bigger issue is how the elite (I am not limiting this to Democrats) see the military. If you read some of the blogs the average military person is portrayed as someone who is not smart enough or driven enough to do any other job. They are also seen as a lower class of person. I spent 10 years in the Navy running a Nuclear reactor on submarines and I know how tough the training is for this field (50% drop out rate) and how much you have to learn all the time to stay current. I have worked in the semiconductor field for the last 13 years and can tell you my military time was much tougher. I think there are a lot of young people that are convinced they will be looked down on if they go into the military and choose not to because of the stigma on military service. I know there is a large number of patriotic people in this nation and that this stigma is not nationwide but I do feel it plays a role. I have had ocnversations with everyone from engineers to equipment operators at the company I work for and have almost heard these thoughts word for word.
Report Post »RightWrite
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 3:15amWe need to bring home troops, and close down bases from everywhere we do not have an armed conflict going on. We can‘t afford to be the world’s police — for too long, other nations have sponged off of our charity — time to send them the bill for being the “body guard”. Foreign-aid has got to be shut down in the form of money — send them our farmers food when they are starving, not just hungry; a little hunger would be good for all of them leaching off of us — perhaps they all would stop bad-mouthing us.
We publish a big list, for all to see, of our allies that we would consider partners: send them all a bill for standing by them as the “body guard”, and if they don’t pay a fair share that WE determine, we tell the bad guys to have at it without our interference. See how long they would last without us protecting their asses — including Canada and Mexico.
Report Post »