6
6
0
The article is pretty long, but really interesting.
It points out the disconnection between the U.S population and its military, making the process of going to war “too easy”, yet not effective as previous U.S engagements were mainly paradoxically supported by a rising chickenhawk society, although not operationally and economically fully victorious.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
Thoughts?
It points out the disconnection between the U.S population and its military, making the process of going to war “too easy”, yet not effective as previous U.S engagements were mainly paradoxically supported by a rising chickenhawk society, although not operationally and economically fully victorious.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
Thoughts?
Politics
DoD
Warfare
Economics
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 7
1LT (Join to see)
I find it pretty ironic that France had encountered a serious bump in citizens requesting information to join the armed forces (up to a 240% increase in some recruitment centers) following Paris attacks, but still no major growth in the States..
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
There's a lot of meat on this bone and I think that you'll have a long wait for serious discussion. I too thank you for sharing and hope you'll be patient with the rest of us. However, I will comment that the premise is something that I've thought long and hard about ever since the all-volunteer force came into existence. One the one hand it has provided us with one of the finest and most professional military organizations in the world, possibly in all of history. On the other hand it has lowered the price of placing the military in harm's way. I suspect politicians are less inclined to do so when conscription places all military-age persons at risk. The other issue that colors my opinion is that in all my study of history, I have found scant few examples of competency in diplomacy and military actions almost always result when diplomats stumble. Keep in mind that those two thoughts are not based on reading this article, but rather on reactions to its stated premise.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Hope not-but we have a 'golfer in chief', a Congress that cares ONLY for themselves and a bunch of punk kids roaming the streets flashing gang signs for fun. Here is my idea...reinstate Jail or enlist for misdeamenors, mandatory enlistment for at least 2 years like in israel; and if you want to be in a gang children-ENLIST!!!! The greatest gang my Drill Sgt. told me was the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Even the DS that threatened me with Chapter for being too old was shaking my hand when i graduated. There you get an education that is useful outside the service, run for office and make changes for the better and put a stop to the BS. You can tell I am frustrated, but the time is NOW to put an end to the "Wimpizing of the US" and return the Eagle to her place where the chickens are now.
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I am not sure a mandatory service would be adequate to our society.
Today's wars aren't won by manpower, not anymore. If we look at the last two major U.S. military engagements, sending a lot of boots on the ground didn't make it easier.
Would you risk to fight with someone that doesn't want, to be there? With our budget cuts, the army doesn't want to take care of liabilities. This is even truer when recently, SMA targeted non-deployable soldiers.
Then, you cannot make a reasonable comparison between the U.S. and Israel. Different demography, different culture, and different challenges. What happened in Paris two weeks ago, happens 24/7 there.
Finally, if mandatory service becomes the norm, if it doesn't come from the people, it won't last. And I'm not even talking about efficiency.
Today's wars aren't won by manpower, not anymore. If we look at the last two major U.S. military engagements, sending a lot of boots on the ground didn't make it easier.
Would you risk to fight with someone that doesn't want, to be there? With our budget cuts, the army doesn't want to take care of liabilities. This is even truer when recently, SMA targeted non-deployable soldiers.
Then, you cannot make a reasonable comparison between the U.S. and Israel. Different demography, different culture, and different challenges. What happened in Paris two weeks ago, happens 24/7 there.
Finally, if mandatory service becomes the norm, if it doesn't come from the people, it won't last. And I'm not even talking about efficiency.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When I first read your post 1LT (Join to see) my thoughts drifted to cartoons. As Foghorn Leghorn used to say "Get away from me boy, your botherin me" to the small chickenhawk.
Decades ago the military was restructured so that a President could not launch a major war without Congressional support. Much of the military support capabilities were moved from the active rolls to the reserve component rolls.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The USA has generally been opposed to fighting other nations's battles since its founding. Early on we went to war against the Barbary pirates because they were messing with our shipping and ships bringing goods to us. The Monroe Doctrine asserted we were essentially responsible for North and South America and the defenders of those territories.
We were very reluctant to get involved in WWI and WWII. In this nation support for the military bottomed out during the Vietnam. There are many in this nation who are opposed to war in all cases and many in this nation who are supportive of the military personnel. Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.
Decades ago the military was restructured so that a President could not launch a major war without Congressional support. Much of the military support capabilities were moved from the active rolls to the reserve component rolls.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The USA has generally been opposed to fighting other nations's battles since its founding. Early on we went to war against the Barbary pirates because they were messing with our shipping and ships bringing goods to us. The Monroe Doctrine asserted we were essentially responsible for North and South America and the defenders of those territories.
We were very reluctant to get involved in WWI and WWII. In this nation support for the military bottomed out during the Vietnam. There are many in this nation who are opposed to war in all cases and many in this nation who are supportive of the military personnel. Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes... the gap between military service member and citizen that don't even hold a gun is getting bigger and wider. The population of the chicken is growing and more of them taking charge of the Hawk :). How to change that? nothing ... it is the nature order of a society. if a society have enough hawks ... they survive. IF the society have too little hawks they destroy by outside force. IF the society have too much hawk they destroy themselves.
Is a very fine line to walk. That is why USA is a blink of abnormality for humanity, and we will never know how long can it last.
Is a very fine line to walk. That is why USA is a blink of abnormality for humanity, and we will never know how long can it last.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google