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

Yes very much

PO1 H Gene Lawrence SSG Jose M. Hernandezsanchez Sgt Albert Castro SPC Margaret Higgins Jenn Moynihan SGT Elizabeth Scheck MSgt Heather D. SMSgt Thor Merich SSG Diane R. Cynthia Croft Susan Foster Sgt Kelli Mays SPC Robert Coventry CPT Scott Sharon Capt (Join to see) SP5 Jeannie Carle Sgt Vance Bonds SSgt Boyd Herrst SPC Diana D. PO3 Phyllis Maynard

Interesting question. Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball. I certainly hope that we can sustain an all-volunteer force. I do not want to see us return to the major problems we had with the draft.
I think if the military can focus on the opportunities available that would help.

LTC John Shaw CWO3 Randy Weston SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint 1stSgt Glenn Brackin PVT Mark Zehner SPC Diana Rodriguez MSG Tom Earley Sgt (Join to see) CPO Tim Dickey PO3 John Wagner Sgt Wayne Wood SCPO (Join to see) Donna Brickey SSG Donald H "Don" Bates SGT (Join to see)SSG William Jones Sgt (Join to see) SPC Mark Huddleston SFC Pete Kain PO3 Lynn Spalding

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter LT Brad McInnis PO3 Bob McCord CW3 Dick McManus SGT John " Mac " McConnell CWO3 Dennis M. MSgt Stephen Council LTC Stephen Conway LTC Stephan PorterLTC Stephen C. LTC Greg Henning SGT Gregory Lawritson Maj William W. 'Bill' Price Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. SGT Jim Arnold Maj Robert Thornton Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SFC Francisco Rosario LTC (Join to see) Sgt Deborah Cornatzer

Curious as to what and how the other 69% would be described.

Lt Col Charlie Brown we absolutely have a civil-military divide. The military caste is either held on a pedestal and blindly revered or held in absolute contempt by those who do not understand the role of the military amongst the elements of national power: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic and the Clauswitzian politico-military-people relationship in the US. This relationship codified into law in our founding documents and laws.


When people just don't get something they have one of several reactions: strip it of resources and dispose of it; set it aside, ignore vigorously, and maybe it will go away; or dissect it and probe until you get tired of it or you get it.

The conventional response is National Service. This assumes that people love our country and 0will preserve it. After successive generations of post Vietnam nay sayers of exceptionalism; funhouse mirror politics and politicians; and infiltration of roles of authority by the very protesters themselves, particularly in education, cant imagine why this is a tough sell.

I see the one-two punch on the watering down of military service
- Secondary education and parents everywhere have become fixated on college education at the exclusion of skilled trades. Part of this was the move away from a manufacturing based economy to a service economy. Now the pendulum has swung so wide, we cant get people to fix the plumbing or the furnace. The belief that ANY college degree will get you a position in the service based economy is also patently false.
- If you were too stupid to do anything else (including a trade which your guidance counselor or parent has already crapped all over) then you join the military. You wont have to think, oblivious to what the military actually does and the fact that if you have a million people in all three components of the total Army, someone, somewhere has to be thinking just to keep the lights on.

The media depiction of the military is hokey, erroneous, and mischaracterized. If I could start anywhere it would be Beetle Bailey. The military moved on after 1950. But television and film have either imbued us with superhuman abilities and technology that just ain't so; preposterous/hokey/one dimensional story lines; made us all out to be irretrievably broken from our experiences; etc. To the point where you have an fairly accurate depiction and its dismissed as flag-waving tripe, as if patriotism is a dirty word, and I'm sure it is to the Show-Biz elite. Because this is all the public sees, the media gets to fill in the blanks. We have no real voice.

Way to Bridge the Divide: An excerpt from another discussion on this topic of Mandatory National Service:

3.5 million kids were projected to graduate high school in 2016-17. All components of the Army are about one million. We would have to support all these people. Come up with something meaningful for them to do (so they don't resent it). It would be at least 24 months to get anything from them from a utility stand point. The nation would have to really accept the fact that we would take to take off the gloves compared to an all volunteer service and its policies, benefits, and culture. We would have to give carte Blanche to Company Commanders and more importantly, NCOs. Can you imagine the social media butt hurt from draftees? We would also likely have to bring back CCF and local stockades. Americans are able to endure drafted service and the privation (real or imagined) if they see the purpose in it. If they don't buy it, then it will be bad for all the professional centurions who have to keep the Army rolling along. But grass, motor pools, rocks, parking lots, PMCS, command inspection checklists would look great. No excuses, oodles of people to do all that. Part of the soldier task invention we would need to keep them busy. I don't want anyone fighting beside me that doesn't want to be there, resenting the military. Service must be valued, meaningful, and useful.

Equipping all these youngsters. I think the clothing bag value is about $500. CIF will issue them $4-6000 worth of kit. Each one will need to be issued a $500 rifle. Each will receive in aggregate $1M in training just to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We would likely have to invent a few MOS's. Each one getting three hots and a cot every day for 18-24 months. Installation functions could revert to Soldiers by MOS or by BMM. I would prefer the former.

We would have to build installations, possibly out of virgin land, probably done by these same draftees who need something to do. Would need MILCON in the trillions for barracks, motorpools, DFACs just to make the self licking ice cream cone work.

How much more materiel would we need to procure: vehicles, tanks, Bradleys, APCs, aircraft. Can't just have a bunch of millenials running around in the woods with sticks.

Some say national service is the answer. I personally don't think treading water for a year or two cleaning up inner city neighborhoods is going to resound with the same value as surviving the forge of initial entry training in the armed forces. Another option I think has merit is that the UN consistently suffers from the lack of standing formations for urgent humanitarian missions. This could be a source of do gooders to go deal with disaster and genocide rather than people expressing moral outrage for 15 minutes on social media.

The real question is will the nation accept the burden and will the country benefit from the investment?

We need a draft system in case of total war. Citizens need to be prepared for national service if it comes to that. To your question, I think the problem is "we protect what we love". Each successive generation since Vietnam doesn't really feel that love of country in the passion and volume as before. They have been raised in a time and climate where people in authority have out right contempt for our government, and political leadership hasn't given them much to cheer about. Robert Heinlein once said that if no one wants to serve we should let the whole damn thing fall. At the end of it all, I think people will benefit and be better citizens if they had some skin in the game. Frankly most Americans today, have no idea how good they have it. I didn't realize fully how good we had it until I saw other places, ironically the Army is how I got to see t with my own eyes and no agenda driven narrative to go with it. I took it on faith that I was raised with that we had the best thing going, however flawed and problematic our system is. No one enjoys the freedom or security we take for granted.

- if you disqualify large swaths of the conscription pool, you would negate much of what you are driving to achieve. This and liberally applied exceptions is what rotted the system out in the 1960s. We would have to expand the content and duration of IET to handle the poor physical conditioning. Those that test positive for drugs after conscription would need to finish the duration of their federal service as a military corrections prisoner, discharged with a felony record. Made further troublesome with the ongoing liberal agenda marijuana legitimacy experiment.

The question on the upfront cost is whether the nation is willing to bear it. I think the result could be worth it. The government would have to raise it and spend it, the people pay it. Perhaps with a VAT instead of income taxes.

Introduction of a larger military would be an economic win in the economies of towns and cities with existing or new bases. We could have more forces forward deployed and afloat. Of course we'd need a Naval build out that American shipyards are hard pressed to deliver.

In other posts I have proposed having an Army equivalent to Fleet Week where you plop and Army BCT on say Boston Common and say here ya go. I see it as a big target in the budget process, but a possibility, if we all agreed that our public needs to be formally introduced to our military.


I dont know how we ultimately bridge that gap. We could let it boil over and let a national emergency galvinize the nation. A gamble. as Mobilization of the people is only the last part of national preparedness. The industrial and materiel preparation must be years in advance. With technology in war fighting systems where it is, I think we cant wait to mobilize, we need a targetted and measured warming pad system that keeps materiel, R&D, and low rate production going continuously so that we can ramp up and know where the capacity/capability gaps are with mitigation plans and risk acceptance in place. I have merged strategic preparedness into the civil-military divide, because they go together. If you dont have skin in the game then you dont care. Plain and simple.

Lt Col Charlie Brown We have a three generation military family. Three of my uncles fought in WWII. I served, and My son just retired as a Colonel. Proud family.

I pray that we never get involved in a global conflict. During Vietnam at one point we had over 650,000 serving there. BTW, 60,000 were women! 70 % who served were "regulars". And as you know, we lost over 60,000 soldiers. And BTW, Pres. Johnson was so frustrated w/ Vietnam quagmire, over a 72 hr. period he considered using nuclear weapons. Glad he did not!
Rich

Sorry to say this, but there should be a national draft with the service obligation of 2 years active and 4 years in the active reserves. Some may think that this thinking is wrong, but every American should be willing to serve for this country. The all-volunteer military isn't working out as well as the hats in the Pentagon thought it would and the Generals today are looking for more ways to augment the forces. Bringing back the draft would be the way to do that. And 1-AO status could be brought back for those who are against weapons and killing someone who would kill them.