Any thoughts - on this. . .

BWhite · 2004-11-07 22:05:52

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic … html]Story

John Creighton · 2004-11-07 22:43:31

Well as Kerry said there is back door draft going on right now.

Palomar · 2004-11-07 22:43:34

*Yeah, read about this yesterday. IMO, he's already served his country in one war. He shouldn't be required to serve again; he's fulfilled his obligations and duties, etc.

Is the gov't getting this desperate for more manpower or was this a fluke? I hope the latter and not the former.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2004-11-07 23:00:10

I really don't see why a draft should ever even enter the picture for at least the next four years. We spend more money than any country on our military, have the largest military in the world, and have created armed forces to take on the Soviet Union at the peak of the cold war and win, and we can't even invade a small middle eastern country without calling on draftees? Granted, the military has been significantly downsized over the last ten years, but I'd think that we could take on Iraq without too much trouble.

People love to badmouth the government and say that it's totally neglegant on matters like this, but that's not entirely true. They have hundreds of thousands of troops either on active duty or ready to be called to it, the odds of mistakenly calling someone up who shouldn't be called up in such a vast pool are actually pretty good. In all likeliehood this isn't a trend, it's just a misunderstanding/mistake. At least, I hope.

Rxke · 2004-11-08 00:11:02

...have created armed forces to take on the Soviet Union at the peak of the cold war and win,...

Huh? What do you mean with that?

EDIT, houuuurs later:
nevermind, I read that as comment on a fight during Cold War, which of course confused me, heh.

Gennaro · 2004-11-08 04:46:22

...have created armed forces to take on the Soviet Union at the peak of the cold war and win,...

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. The United States did not constitute the largest armed force in Europe. As far as I know the Bundeswehr had the largest number of divisions. NATO was a huge coalition of several countries, yet back in the day it was still considered doubtful whether these could stop the Warsaw Pact from advancing all the way top the Biscay. US forces alone certainly wouldn't have made it.

They would have had to deploy nuclear weapons and in that case there would be nothing left to claim victory over.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-08 05:30:21

Having the biggest and best military in the world isn't necessarily a guarantee of uninterrupted victories, MadGrad, as I'm sure you realise. Guerrilla warfare can be very effective against even the best-trained troops and terrain plays a crucial role in that kind of warfare.

The biggest army the world had seen up to that point, Persia's army invading Greece in 480 BC under Xerxes, was held up for many days and suffered disproportionate casualties at a narrow pass at Thermopylae. Xerxes' army of some 150,000 were up against no more than 10,000 Greeks, led by 300 Spartans and the Spartan king Leonidas.
While a Spartan soldier was worth any 5 soldiers of any other army of the day, due to their intensely militaristic culture, the Persians should have won easily due to sheer numbers. But the terrain prevented them using their numerical advantage until a Greek traitor showed them a hidden mountain pass which allowed them to outflank the Greeks. [Incidentally, while the great majority of Greek troops withdrew before being surrounded and trapped, the Spartans refused to retreat and fought and died to the last man. When just the three hundred Spartans were left facing insuperable odds, Leonidas, upon hearing the ultimatum from Xerxes that the Persian archers would send a hail of arrows which would blot out the Sun, is reputed to have replied: "Then we'll fight in the shade."! ]

In AD 9 at Teutoburg, three Roman legions, strung out on a narrow marshy track in dense forest and driving rain, were attacked over some days by germanic tribesmen and massacred. At that time, a Roman legion was an unmatched fighting machine and Rome's military strength was formidable. Yet three legions were crushed by a guerrilla rabble, who would normally have presented the Romans with no problem, except for the simple fact that the Romans were unable to marshal their forces in the restricted space available to them.

Vietnam ... well, I don't need to elaborate on that one, do I? ???

The present battle for Fallujah in Iraq could be nearly as difficult, particularly when you consider that there are civilians still in the city and the Coalition is doing its best to spare non-combatants - an almost impossible job.
If the Romans were faced with a city in revolt, they were unconcerned with public perceptions of their methods. In fact, the more brutal their reputation, the more likely their subject peoples were to behave themselves. In addition, they had long since learned that, when you suppress a rebellion, you kill everything that moves. If you kill a rebel but leave his son or daughter alive, that son or daughter will grow up to kill a Roman out of revenge. For that reason, they slaughtered every man woman and child - no comebacks.

As Cindy has said, it's harder for 'the good guys' - us - to make progress against utterly unscrupulous murderers like the fascist Islamics we face in Iraq and elsewhere. We have to play by the rules whereas they haven't the slightest qualms about deliberately killing anyone to achieve their aims - even fellow Arabs and Muslims, and even children.

Being a superpower ain't easy .. in any era.

clark · 2004-11-08 07:11:26

We won the cold war because we out-spent the Soviet Union on nuclear arms production.

The strategy pursued was one of limited conventional might, since we were not interested in out-right conquest and invasion. In fact, the Soviet Union had a much larger conventional army, which was held at bay by the threat of nuclear retaliation.

While we have a big army now, sort of, it is far to small given our commitments worldwide. We need more troops if we wish to maintain our commitments as well as rotate troops in and out of conflict areas.

Right now, the armed forces in Iraq are seeing 1-2 year rotations in theater. These tours show signs of being extended further in order because there aren't enough troops to adquetly maintain the force size and rotate them in and out.

High tempo operations like Iraq and Afghanistan also places a strain on the military in terms of recruitment. While the national army is meeting quota, they are also lowering standards, preventing soldiers from leaving after their contratc is up, and calling up the individual ready reserves.

More importantly though, the war in Iraq is requiring up to 30% of the forces to be made up of National Guard and Reserve forces- these are basically civilians who have lives outside of the military. They make up a great deal of the logistical support of the US armed forces and they are having trouble meeting their quota for new recruits.

As it is, we can tread water in Iraq, but we can't respond with all options if another situation flares up (like Iran or N. Korea). The current situation, without relief in the form of more bodies to ease the length of tours (either from international sources or more troops) the military will see a drop in recruitment which will lead to higher costs in recruitment as well as as continuing eroision of standards.

Eventually, they'll start looking at the cost value of recuritment versus a national draft.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-08 07:36:20

Incidentally, while the great majority of Greek troops withdrew before being surrounded and trapped, the Spartans refused to retreat and fought and died to the last man.

Yes, and we would do well to remember those 300 Spartans, for without their valiant efforts Western Civilization might well have been snuffed out in its infancy.

Or if you prefer, if it weren't for them you'd all be speaking Persian right now.

Vietnam ... well, I don't need to elaborate on that one, do I?

Vietnam had some factors missing from the other examples, the defeat was not the result of military factors to the same degree. As North Vietnamese General Giap himself admitted, the communists would have given up had it not been for the American anti-war movement hurting the effort.

Damn hippies!

Eventually, they'll start looking at the cost value of recuritment versus a national draft.

There's two camps on this, one sees military matters in terms of quantity, the other in terms of quality. Many professional soldiers and upper echelon commanders do not want a draft, it lowers overall quality. A volunteer army is immensely superior to a conscripted one. The volunteer-army crowd isn't going to be sold on the draft and they have a fair amount of influence.

We may end up with a compromise solution, one that is almost tailored to... an imperial power that doesn't want to admit what it's become. We could have in effect two "armies", a volunteer force that does the heavy fighting and a conscripted occupation army for the aftermath. If we're going to have a draft this is the only way that makes sense, but watch the political fight over that one.

clark · 2004-11-08 07:47:50

We could have in effect two "armies", a volunteer force that does the heavy fighting and a conscripted occupation army for the aftermath.

Peace Corps with guns? :laugh:

This sounds about right. 2 year stints of flowers, teaching, and killing insurgents.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 08:23:24

LO
I met one day in a train a french army general, when Brejnev's URSS was deploying so called Euro-missiles. (What USA replied with Pershings)
He told me that USSR army was much weaker than ever annouced in military balance litterature as Jane's.
The fact was that all armored vehicules of Varsaw pact were counted, even obsolete reserves like T38 tanks, making a very impressive number, when Nato counted only his first line stuf.
USSR couldn't be assured of many of its so-called allies like Polishes, Hungarians, Tchecks, which feeled occupied, not allies, and even East germans soldiers who could have been reluctant to fight against West german troops where might have been brothers or cousins.
This french general told me that Nato aircrafts and tanks were superiors by a 5 to 15 years technological gap to their russian equivalents (as an example, German Panther tank was designed to fight 1 against 8 russian T-72s) and that Euromissiles deployment was a consent of weakness.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-08 08:23:36

Peace Corps with guns?

Piece Corps.? ???

clark · 2004-11-08 09:01:00

Pieces of Corpse? ???

BWhite · 2004-11-08 09:54:25

Vietnam had some factors missing from the other examples, the defeat was not the result of military factors to the same degree. As North Vietnamese General Giap himself admitted, the communists would have given up had it not been for the American anti-war movement hurting the effort.

Huh?

Given up? How? Armistice like in Korea or US troops greeted with flowers in Hanoi?

Big picture, isn't Vietnam less of a headache for us today than Korea?

= = =

What has losing Vietnam cost us, except pride?

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-08 10:27:00

Big picture, isn't Vietnam less of a headache for us today than Korea?

Vietnam the nation, yes. Vietnam the war, no. Because of that failure and the misunderstandings surrounding it, the mindset exists in certain quarters that the American military is no longer capable of winning. Every time we send troops anywhere, it's compared to Vietnam. Gulf War 1 was going to be "Vietnam", then it wasn't. Afghanistan, now there was a 'Nam to rant over! Well, not really. Ooh, Iraq! Can we say "Vietnam"? None of these more recent engagements are comparable, in fact in a sense Vietnam wasn't even "Vietnam", in the mythical sense of an unwinnable war. Were it my call we probably would have let all of Indochina go commie if they so chose, just as we probably would have done Iran before Iraq. Real sneaky-like too. But in neither case was (or is) the war unwinnable, yet the spectre of Vietnam leads some to believe otherwise. That is the real lasting cost of the Vietnam war.

Might have to break everyone's 'Nam glasses. :hm:

BWhite · 2004-11-08 10:57:52

Cobra, I feel you have evaded the question.

What was our mission in Vietnam? Armistice or overrun Hanoi?

A blurry, undefined mission is "unwinnable" by the military no matter how proficient the soldiers and officers. If we are blurry about how we define the current mission in Iraq, and therefore cannot articulate clear victory conditions, another Vietnam seems inevitable.

We kill bad guys at a 100 to 1 ratio, or 500 to 1 ratio, or even better, but we will still lose.

Gulf War 1 had a clear mission. Remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Mission accomplished, everyone go home for the parade.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-08 11:26:45

A blurry, undefined mission is "unwinnable" by the military no matter how proficient the soldiers and officers.

Agreed, vague mission objectives are extremely problematic, though there's another side to this.

Gulf War 1 had a clear mission. Remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Mission accomplished, everyone go home for the parade.

Only it wasn't. Overly narrow mission objectives are also problematic in a big picture sense, as Iraq illustrates. We drove them from Kuwait, our mission objective, but we knowingly left it unfinished. "I know they have chemical weapons, hit 'em with sanctions, we're going home." Now here we are, occupying Iraq, the very thing we sought to avoid after Gulf War 1.

It's a fine line one must walk, we need a clear objective but we must not set it artificially low just so we can call it a win and leave. This, coupled with the reality of changing conditions, forces us to have some flexibility and vagueness. What is victory in Iraq? Toppling Saddam? Clearly not. Establishing a free representative secular pro-American government? Sure, how the hell do we do that?

What I'm trying to say is that we need to know why we're in there, but we can't usually pick some easily defined "it" as our measure of success, it ususally isn't that simple. We can't treat this like fixing a car, change the oil and we're done.

But then I'm out to expand the influence of Western culture and civilization, so I already have a vague yet strangely definate objective in mind. :;): If it gets furthered by people trying for something else, so be it.

Let's see how the Ro-- err, US military handles Fallujah over the next few days. :hm:

BWhite · 2004-11-08 11:50:49

But then I'm out to expand the influence of Western culture and civilization, so I already have a vague yet strangely definate objective in mind. If it gets furthered by people trying for something else, so be it.

Over the weekend, I speed-read a new book, European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin. An uneven book, to say the least. Yet it portrays a patently Western vision deeply at odds with the Ameican vision.

Whether George W. Bush represents where Western culture and civilization is heading actually is the real source of US tensions with France, Germany, Spain and Russia.

And poor Tony Blair is the mouse trapped between two elephants.

= = =

I agree with you, Cobra, about Gulf War 1. But there were several conflicting goals.

If containment of radical Islam was the ONLY goal, letting Saddam just have Kuwait would have made much sense. Then Saddam could have been our surrogate to pressure Iran and Saudi Arabia.

However Saddam also threatened the established system of nation-states created by the British in the early 1900s - - we just couldn't let that happen.

Saddam also happens to be a vile MF.

= = =

Choices, choices. No good choices.

Grypd · 2004-11-08 19:14:21

The problem with advanced western armies like the USAs is that to be that advanced they need a percentage of personel devoted to logistics much greater than the actual fighting force to allow such a force to take the field. Modern western armies are designed for incredibly intense warfare destroying or driving the enemy of the field. But when long duration comes into play it becomes a maintenance problem. Equipment must be serviced, clothes washed, dental, chaplains, food, stores delivered. The list is endless. This is why for every man fighting in Iraq there is about 20 behind the scenes supporting him, this is where the manpower goes.

Grypd · 2004-11-08 19:30:55

Over the weekend, I speed-read a new book, European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin. An uneven book, to say the least. Yet it portrays a patently Western vision deeply at odds with the Ameican vision.
Whether George W. Bush represents where Western culture and civilization is heading actually is the real source of US tensions with France, Germany, Spain and Russia.
And poor Tony Blair is the mouse trapped between two elephants.

Tony Blair is between a rock and a hard place and could still be toppled before the general election next year. The only thing that is saving him is that there does not appear to be a strong candidate opposed to him. But what most people on this forum and the world do not realise is that the United Kingdom is not as united as it once was. The soldiers on the British side that are doing the fighting and dieing are tending to be Scottish from a regiment that will likely be disbanded when it gets back and are on there second tour in Iraq this year. Frankly it is not sitting well in Scotland.

Tony Blair has also alienated the increasing public oppinion opposed to more European cooperation and the new European constitution. He has signed up for it but there still has to be a public referendum which if taken today would result in a NO. So what can Tony do he has tried to keep friendly with both the USA and Europe but with the two sides of the Atlantic being pulled apart it is becoming more difficult. Europe has France in the driving seat at the moment and even if Britain was to decide to say no to a constitution then it is likely that the core countries of Europe would still go ahead with closer union. Nor is the British public too happy with closer ties to the USA we seem to be reading a lot of papers with cartoons showing tony Blair as being Bushes poodle. And with the resentment of the war in Iraq it is bound to hit home. So things not all fun and rosy politically over here, but like everything we will get over it.

DonPanic · 2004-11-09 07:54:26

LO
Even in France, a strong opposition is rising against Europe seen as the promotor of wild economic liberalism and destroyer of public services, welfare state, employment, though the European Constitution to be voted should correct economic liberalism in a more social way, and a more parliamentary lead Europe against european technocrats.
The example of wild economic liberalism is British Railways privatization, that led to weak regional railways networks, unable to invest into railways modernisation, and as a result, many railways accidents with many victims.
In France, national railway society isn't seen at all as a transportation monopoly, because of trucks and coaches, and airways transportation concurrence.
Same with the french National Electricity Company, which delivers electricity at the same price to all families whereever they are located, the counterexample is the failure of californian electricity distribution system.
A yes to European Constitution is not acquired in France.

British public opinion on Europe isn't very rationnal, it's been manipulated for years by Murdoch powerful media group, french bashing campaining each time it can.
It's helped by french government attitude, relying on Frenh-German tandem.

Palomar · 2004-11-09 09:22:28

*Bill, I hope you don't mind my putting this here.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Priggee … Cartoonist Coffins

Why the sudden "demise" of all these editorial cartoonists? ??? Even Daryl Cagle (who hosts this at his web site) has a "coffin."

Any thoughts on this? The "coffins" just keep coming in the flash animation -- A LOT of editorial cartoonists "out." Disturbing (and not because of the coffin imagery).

--Cindy

clark · 2004-11-09 10:52:29

Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

John Creighton · 2004-11-09 10:57:20

Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

So then they are being silenced? ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-09 11:19:51

Quote
Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

So then they are being silenced.

It's a business decision. Newspaper publishers aren't out to inform the public or provide social commentary, first and foremost they're out to make money. If a segment of the paper's readership wants them to pull Doonesbury, and they're the only ones the publisher hears from, Doonesbury is gone.

A publisher making a business decision isn't censorship, no one is being silenced.

Well, except the dead ones. Counting the days before I hear "Halliburton death squad".

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-07 22:05:52

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#2 2004-11-07 22:43:31

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#3 2004-11-07 22:43:34

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#4 2004-11-07 23:00:10

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#5 2004-11-08 00:11:02

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#6 2004-11-08 04:46:22

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#7 2004-11-08 05:30:21

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#8 2004-11-08 07:11:26

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#9 2004-11-08 07:36:20

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#10 2004-11-08 07:47:50

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#11 2004-11-08 08:23:24

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#12 2004-11-08 08:23:36

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#13 2004-11-08 09:01:00

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#14 2004-11-08 09:54:25

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#15 2004-11-08 10:27:00

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#16 2004-11-08 10:57:52

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#17 2004-11-08 11:26:45

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#18 2004-11-08 11:50:49

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#19 2004-11-08 19:14:21

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#20 2004-11-08 19:30:55

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#21 2004-11-09 07:54:26

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#22 2004-11-09 09:22:28

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#23 2004-11-09 10:52:29

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#24 2004-11-09 10:57:20

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#25 2004-11-09 11:19:51

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

Board footer