Do you think that an all volunteer force is sustainable in the future?

I think the all volunteer force is sustainable if we continue to maintain such a small military, in my opinion. What worries me about the young adults that are joining today is how many should not be in the military. The civilian world (main stream media and liberal institutions) has infected them too much and once they get in, they don't get their automatic trophies and promotions or get to do what they want and try to find the easy way out whether it be by saying they have harmful thoughts or life is too hard. This is still the minority of the overall numbers but that number is growing. And there are too many forums teaching these individuals how to work the system. We have an amazing amount of volunteers still but the military needs to be able to be more strict on who they allow in due to their problems and have more leeway to cull the fat quicker. This would save so much time and money and allow us to concentrate on all of our servicemembers that actually need help and not just the 1% taking up all of the time and resources who don't even want to be there in the first place. But I digress...

For a long time I've believed that compulsory service should be instituted. A very short term activation. Send them to basic. Once it's completed they can choose a job they're qualified for, not just automatic infantry orders. It would be hard from the outset, but I believe that within a decade of children growing up knowing that they would be going into service the waters would smooth.

Yes I do. I think we can sustain an all volunteer force for several reasons. 1.) There are a lot of young people out there that will serve because they want to learn a trade and don't want to go to college...they will probably get out after initial term. 2.) There are till a lot of people out there that want to serve out of patriotism...they may stay post initial term may not. 3.) There are those that want to go to college but can't afford it or get loans...they join because of the GI Bill and then leave after initial term to go to college. I think we can sustain the current levels because when we need to go to war we can't keep folks out of the recruiting offices. I believe people will step up and serve when our way of life is threatened...9-11 prime example...couldn't get folks in fast enough. When we need it our nation usually steps up and I think that will continue. I personally believe that everyone and I mean everyone to include physical handicapped (except mentally challenged) personnel should serve a minimum of two years. Those that are handicapped can sit at a desk or a clinic and push papers and open up more bodies to do the fighting etc...just my two pennies. But for the initial question, yes I can see us sustaining without a big divide because in history there has always been a divide.

Maj Marty Hogan
Lt Col Charlie Brown
1stSgt Glenn Brackin
Cpl Craig Morton
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"
LTC Stephen C.
CPL Dave Hoover
PO3 Bob McCord
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Sgt Wayne Wood
PVT James Strait
SGM Erik Marquez
MSgt David Hoffman
MSgt Stephen Council
SGT Elizabeth Scheck
PO1 H Gene Lawrence

Yes, I think there is a civilian-military divide, but I don't think eliminating the all-volunteer forcce is the answer. We have enough problems with integrating many of the volunteers that are coming in now into the military culture. Can you imagine the issues we would face if we were to switch to compulsory service?

Forty plus years of an all-volunteer force would indicate to me that the answer is yes.

This is a great topic of discussion Lt Col Charlie Brown!!! This could lead me into a long dissertation on paper, but I will try to keep is as short as possible...

1st, I am 76-years old, soon to be 77 in September... I graduated from high school, in the top 1/6th of my class of 669, in 1960. The selective service draft registration was still in play... That said, I went off to a liberal arts college after high school and hated it... I am more technically oriented... I left college, and decided that I still wanted an education, I wanted to be free from a domineering father (good man, but tried to run my life for his dream)... I went to all the military recruiters, took all the tests that were provided at the time and looked to learn what I could qualify for in each branch... I very much liked what the USAF had to offer me in terms of education and a chance to make a difference... so I joined the AF and never looked back... The one thing I regret is that I didn't get a degree first and become an officer first... My direction was just the reverse, but I accomplished my overall goals and objectives long term... Back to now!

Again in my view, every male and every female should serve their country for a 2-year period... Why, you ask? Simple!!! The majority of people do not have a clue what real life is all about... Responsibility, work ethic, other people, survival, and a whole lot more... John F. Kennedy began the "Peace Corps" and that was an awesome program for those folks who did not want to join the military, but wanted to do something constructive for their Country... In my time, Joining the USAF changed me from a 'BOY' to a 'MAN'...

I married at 20, and my 1st wife and I had our 1st child a year later, born at a military hospital... 4-more children followed over the years and I left the AF and began my civilian life and my college education and grew along the way... WIthout my total USAF 6-year Commitment and training I don't know what I would have done and where I would have wound up...

So with all that said, I believe we should reinsert a duty to country in the age group of 18-24...with incentives to help defray the costs of an academic degree... same for those with military desires...

I still serve where I can, with the DAV as a life member and as a Chapter Commander, and the VA when I can!

That's my story of the day and I am sticking to it, Charlie! LOL!

I think as long as we stay in a perpetual state of war we're going to have problems finding diverse talent. Pretty much anyone who volunteers now does so with the understanding they are going to war. Not the chance of one, but the reality of getting sucked into a protracted conflict. At this point they are conflicts that are perceived by the public not to do much with our national survival.

So yeah, that's going to quickly start limiting the type of people who are willing to serve. Societal diversity in an all volunteer force really requires long periods of peace interspersed with what the public thinks are 'good wars'.

We have to do a better job of letting the millennials know what types of opportunities a career in the military presents. I understand the military has its risks but life itself is a risk. I am biased because I have an active duty child that is doing very well with her career in the air Force. there are not too many companies out there nowadays where you can have an actual career. It is much easier to hire someone new out of college and hold them for a couple of years and then let them go and hire a new group. All about profit

Yes I do because there will always be people who put their country before six figure incomes. Frankly the days of massed armies on the battleground are behind us. Technology has made that warfighting style obsolete so the military of today does not need the numbers of days past. What they need is a corps of highly trained technicians and fortunately our education ststem still does a good job of producing them. Even with a smaller and smaller percentage of the population choosing the military we can meet the needs IMO.

The answer is above my pay grade but, I have felt for a long time that compulsory service for at least two years should be brought back. I know that with today's young ones there are problems but, perhaps service life will straighten them out. Just my opinion.