• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If The Draft Was Reinstated Would You Favor College Deferrments?

ObamacareFail said:
That is an overly pessimistic view.



You are actually wrong on all counts.






Again, wrong on all counts. We have the most able and professional military force on the planet And we would not need half a million troops to win in Afghanistan. Less then half that can actually get the job done. We would just need to turn them loose and let them get the job done without micromanaging it in Washington D.C.
Click to expand...


Kindly spare the lectures on MAD plse thx as everyone is familiar with it -- some of us have lived it for three score years and then some. When you posted using the expression 'all hell breaks loose' you you opened yourself to all hell breaking loose and now you're flapping your arms over my post about all hell breaking loose. The United States is not prepared to win a major war in a major theater of war due to the AVF being too small. Further, there is no time for the nation to mobilize to stop an enemy army of significant capability advancing against an allied nation by our putting boots on the ground in sufficient force while having the will of the nation behind the operation or the formally declared war.

AVF is too small to win a major conventional war in most major countries. That AVF could invade Mexico and defeat it would not alter the reality -- presuming the AVF could overrun Mexico to the point of actually conquering it and holding it. Iraq was the largest country geographically the US has invaded. It wuz a bust. The Pentagon used terms such as Operation Desert Storm which went well enough as a 100 hour ground war that did not approach Baghdad. Saying the mission did not include Baghdad or taking out Saddam is an excuse and an apology, not a strategy, nor was it a successful operational plan beyond the near horizon. When GW of the Bush War Tribe of Chieftans decided to go for the kill and seize Baghdad and Saddam Pentagon called it Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Others of us called the whole of the Iraq war plan and purpose 1991-2011 Operation Desert Disaster. Conquering and transforming Iraq was always beyond the AVF capabilities. Rumsfeld and youse guyz internalized the AVF True Believers Gospel that a small compact highly mobile technological force of crackerjack professionals could and would conquer Iraq, do it in a short order and that we would have Mission Accomplished. What we got instead was Operation Desert Disaster due to AVF Mission Impossible. AVF can hold a hill or a village but it cannot hold a country or, as in the case of Afghanistan or Iraq a major section(s) of these big countries to the point of making the strategic geographic holding decisive to the outcome.

Rules of engagement is the cure-all of the right and the ROE have been the magical solution over there since the Vietnam War. The ROE in Vietnam limited the armed forces in a civil war that the US never should have been in and wasn't ever going to win. Major divisions at home about the war meant we couldn't be successful in a civil war we weren't going to be successful pursuing in the first place. Had the US abandoned the limited ROE and gone for WW II ROE divisions at home would have both intensified and become more widespread. We'd have lost allies besides. ROE are subordinate to the nature of the war and the character of the conflict, its combatants, the civilian population in the theater of war and at home, among other determining factors in the decision to go to war and to prosecute it. And the cost of it in every respect.

AVF could give North Korea a bloody nose just as AVF executed Desert Storm and just as it swept to Baghdad in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, if the US were to venture to bloody the nose of Pyongyang the American population back home would not support an all out war on the Korean peninsula. The casualties on the peninsula and in the northeast Asia region would be beyond the pale -- civilian casualties in particular. There is also the additional factor of Japan being involved in this one -- as we recall Japan was not directly involved as a combatant in the Korean Conflict of 60-plus years ago. Rules of engagement in an Operation Bloody Nose against Pyongyang would be to hit and run and pray.

It is anyway the case that Robert Gates when he was SecDef initiated the doctrine of 21st century Air-Sea Battle which is how new US conflicts will go. The strikes against Syria were air-sea based strikes. No ground maneuver forces of the US all volunteer army were involved in any significant or substantial way. This is the present and the future of US warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan are the past, i.e., large numbers of boots on the ground supported from the air and also somewhat by sea forces. A NK Operation Bloody Nose let's call it would be 80% Air-Sea Battle (ASB) by any name (and Army does not like the name so Army got it changed to a long and winding new mumbo jumbo of JAM-GC).
 
Tangmo said:
Kindly don't take being blown away by the post personally or professionally. The post was anyway in reply to another poster. I wrote a strategic view and an operationally analytical post. Which is to say way above your pay grade. Considerably so in fact.

The Command Sergeant Major of the Army John Wayne Troxell (real name) has a master degree in strategic assessments and he is a graduate of NCO command programs at the National Defense University and also of the Army War College. CSM Troxell also has the same seminars on national security and strategy in his professional development as generals have -- that is, from Harvard, Columbia, Princeton and the like.

Many posters here are retired career NCO who after retirement went to a four year degree granting institution. Whether a retired career guy is politically right or left his subsequent college education promotes a good deal of discussion that is often thoughtful and at a higher plane. The NCO career experience also provides a valued perspective in matters of policy, programs, strategy, force composition and strength, and more. In this instance the thread is focused on conscription which, while many here never experienced it is nonetheless clearly understood by the many and comprehended as a national defense policy, strategy, posture. So my bottom line reply to your post that is written as an active duty sergeant must needs be that there are sergeants and there are sergeants. Sergeant.
Click to expand...

What you wrote was an opinion based off of a lack of knowledge and virtually zero experience. You have no pay grade so everything is above your pay grade. And Noone is impressed with the couple years you spent in a ceremonial unit over half a century ago.
You have proven over and over that you can do little more then ramble on about things you have zero real understanding of. And this last post of yours is a perfect example
 
Tangmo said:
Kindly spare the lectures on MAD plse thx as everyone is familiar with it -- some of us have lived it for three score years and then some. When you posted using the expression 'all hell breaks loose' you you opened yourself to all hell breaking loose and now you're flapping your arms over my post about all hell breaking loose. The United States is not prepared to win a major war in a major theater of war due to the AVF being too small. Further, there is no time for the nation to mobilize to stop an enemy army of significant capability advancing against an allied nation by our putting boots on the ground in sufficient force while having the will of the nation behind the operation or the formally declared war.

AVF is too small to win a major conventional war in most major countries. That AVF could invade Mexico and defeat it would not alter the reality -- presuming the AVF could overrun Mexico to the point of actually conquering it and holding it. Iraq was the largest country geographically the US has invaded. It wuz a bust. The Pentagon used terms such as Operation Desert Storm which went well enough as a 100 hour ground war that did not approach Baghdad. Saying the mission did not include Baghdad or taking out Saddam is an excuse and an apology, not a strategy, nor was it a successful operational plan beyond the near horizon. When GW of the Bush War Tribe of Chieftans decided to go for the kill and seize Baghdad and Saddam Pentagon called it Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Others of us called the whole of the Iraq war plan and purpose 1991-2011 Operation Desert Disaster. Conquering and transforming Iraq was always beyond the AVF capabilities. Rumsfeld and youse guyz internalized the AVF True Believers Gospel that a small compact highly mobile technological force of crackerjack professionals could and would conquer Iraq, do it in a short order and that we would have Mission Accomplished. What we got instead was Operation Desert Disaster due to AVF Mission Impossible. AVF can hold a hill or a village but it cannot hold a country or, as in the case of Afghanistan or Iraq a major section(s) of these big countries to the point of making the strategic geographic holding decisive to the outcome.

AVF could give North Korea a bloody nose just as AVF executed Desert Storm and just as it swept to Baghdad in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, if the US were to venture to bloody the nose of Pyongyang the American population back home would not support an all out war on the Korean peninsula. The casualties on the peninsula and in the northeast Asia region would be beyond the pale -- civilian casualties in particular. There is also the additional factor of Japan being involved in this one -- as we recall Japan was not directly involved as a combatant in the Korean Conflict of 60-plus years ago. Rules of engagement in an Operation Bloody Nose against Pyongyang would be to hit and run and pray.

It is anyway the case that Robert Gates when he was SecDef initiated the doctrine of 21st century Air-Sea Battle which is how new US conflicts will go. The strikes against Syria were air-sea based strikes. No ground maneuver forces of the US all volunteer army were involved in any significant or substantial way. This is the present and the future of US warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan are the past, i.e., large numbers of boots on the ground supported from the air and also somewhat by sea forces. A NK Operation Bloody Nose let's call it would be 80% Air-Sea Battle (ASB) by any name (and Army does not like the name so Army got it changed to a long and winding new mumbo jumbo of JAM-GC).
Click to expand...

More nonsensical ramblings by someone with no knowledge or relevant experience on the topic. It's also a good example of why people should notread an article or two on the internet and then pretend like they actually know what they are talking about. JAM-GC is not how future conflicts will go. It is how some future conflicts under specific circumstances will be fought. It is simply one tool in a toolbox of many.
Maybe if your military career consisted of more then just frill and ceremony you would understand that.
 
Tangmo said:
Sorry but that's saying let's not have a sheriff and deputies until the James Gang shows up at the town line then let's assemble everyone in the county, arm 'em all, equip 'em and train 'em, transport 'em in, get the ammo and MRE stocks handed out and yell charge. All on the same day if not the hour. By the time you got on your horse to raise the first cry the James' would already be riding out of town with their complete haul -- to include all the women. Fast forwarding one thinks too of Poland 1939. Hell in 1967 it took the Israeli nation in ready reserve six dayze to set the Arabs back 500 years. You sound instead like you want to repel the Russians, Chinese and Iranians together from scratch and on a stopwatch.
Click to expand...
You seem to be interpreting my answer as saying we shouldn't have a military, which is not what I said.
 
Tangmo said:
Kindly spare the lectures on MAD plse thx as everyone is familiar with it -- some of us have lived it for three score years and then some. When you posted using the expression 'all hell breaks loose' you you opened yourself to all hell breaking loose and now you're flapping your arms over my post about all hell breaking loose. The United States is not prepared to win a major war in a major theater of war due to the AVF being too small. Further, there is no time for the nation to mobilize to stop an enemy army of significant capability advancing against an allied nation by our putting boots on the ground in sufficient force while having the will of the nation behind the operation or the formally declared war.

AVF is too small to win a major conventional war in most major countries. That AVF could invade Mexico and defeat it would not alter the reality -- presuming the AVF could overrun Mexico to the point of actually conquering it and holding it. Iraq was the largest country geographically the US has invaded. It wuz a bust. The Pentagon used terms such as Operation Desert Storm which went well enough as a 100 hour ground war that did not approach Baghdad. Saying the mission did not include Baghdad or taking out Saddam is an excuse and an apology, not a strategy, nor was it a successful operational plan beyond the near horizon. When GW of the Bush War Tribe of Chieftans decided to go for the kill and seize Baghdad and Saddam Pentagon called it Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Others of us called the whole of the Iraq war plan and purpose 1991-2011 Operation Desert Disaster. Conquering and transforming Iraq was always beyond the AVF capabilities. Rumsfeld and youse guyz internalized the AVF True Believers Gospel that a small compact highly mobile technological force of crackerjack professionals could and would conquer Iraq, do it in a short order and that we would have Mission Accomplished. What we got instead was Operation Desert Disaster due to AVF Mission Impossible. AVF can hold a hill or a village but it cannot hold a country or, as in the case of Afghanistan or Iraq a major section(s) of these big countries to the point of making the strategic geographic holding decisive to the outcome.

Rules of engagement is the cure-all of the right and the ROE have been the magical solution over there since the Vietnam War. The ROE in Vietnam limited the armed forces in a civil war that the US never should have been in and wasn't ever going to win. Major divisions at home about the war meant we couldn't be successful in a civil war we weren't going to be successful pursuing in the first place. Had the US abandoned the limited ROE and gone for WW II ROE divisions at home would have both intensified and become more widespread. We'd have lost allies besides. ROE are subordinate to the nature of the war and the character of the conflict, its combatants, the civilian population in the theater of war and at home, among other determining factors in the decision to go to war and to prosecute it. And the cost of it in every respect.

AVF could give North Korea a bloody nose just as AVF executed Desert Storm and just as it swept to Baghdad in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, if the US were to venture to bloody the nose of Pyongyang the American population back home would not support an all out war on the Korean peninsula. The casualties on the peninsula and in the northeast Asia region would be beyond the pale -- civilian casualties in particular. There is also the additional factor of Japan being involved in this one -- as we recall Japan was not directly involved as a combatant in the Korean Conflict of 60-plus years ago. Rules of engagement in an Operation Bloody Nose against Pyongyang would be to hit and run and pray.

It is anyway the case that Robert Gates when he was SecDef initiated the doctrine of 21st century Air-Sea Battle which is how new US conflicts will go. The strikes against Syria were air-sea based strikes. No ground maneuver forces of the US all volunteer army were involved in any significant or substantial way. This is the present and the future of US warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan are the past, i.e., large numbers of boots on the ground supported from the air and also somewhat by sea forces. A NK Operation Bloody Nose let's call it would be 80% Air-Sea Battle (ASB) by any name (and Army does not like the name so Army got it changed to a long and winding new mumbo jumbo of JAM-GC).
Click to expand...

Streamline those points and I will respond. I am not obligated to go into a series of Part 1, Part 2, etc. There is about a 5000 character limit per post. To answer all the points you just made, I would exceed that.
 
Putting the draft back in would be political suicide, because it would mean the POTUS would have to explain each and every kind of undeclared war he puts people into.
 
Old Trapper said:
During Vietnam over 90% of the Republicans that supported the war avoided the draft either by deferments, or joining the Nat. Guard. The Liberals fled to Canada, or used the defense of "conscientious objector"

When the invasion of Iraq came around over 90% of the Young Republicans that supported the war did not enlist.

For me it is no deferments, no excuse, and no war without a Constitutional declaration of war. In fact, I would support a mandatory two-three years military service for all able bodied men directly after graduation from HS.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I have no objections to deferments for good reasons. The important part, as you note, is no war without a Constitutional declaration. The AUMF was Bush era sophistry, and a huge mistake.
 
PoS said:
Putting the draft back in would be political suicide, because it would mean the POTUS would have to explain each and every kind of undeclared war he puts people into.
Click to expand...

Point being?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Streamline those points and I will respond. I am not obligated to go into a series of Part 1, Part 2, etc. There is about a 5000 character limit per post. To answer all the points you just made, I would exceed that.
Click to expand...

Your reply in post #75 to my post #59 to include quoting me didn't total 1000 words.

In other words, you can do it. Just continue to be efficient with words and thoughts. I mean, so what that youse guyz don't have arguments and that youse have only opinion. It's badly informed opinion but that hasn't stopped youse before -- and not for a long time. It is a given youse don't argue the points of contention or get specific concerning the merits. Yet avoiding the thread topic question and issues material to it is the wrong way to go innit. Running away from the topic and issues makes it worse.

So I continue to look forward to your active reply. As I said, youse can do it. If you really try.

Argue the merits that is. You can believe me when I say no one expects youse guyz over there to sound like a colonel at West Point conducting a seminar on national security and strategy. Your opinions of the issues are all we could ask for. So run with it.
 
braindrain said:
What you wrote was an opinion based off of a lack of knowledge and virtually zero experience. You have no pay grade so everything is above your pay grade. And Noone is impressed with the couple years you spent in a ceremonial unit over half a century ago.
You have proven over and over that you can do little more then ramble on about things you have zero real understanding of. And this last post of yours is a perfect example
Click to expand...

braindrain said:
More nonsensical ramblings by someone with no knowledge or relevant experience on the topic. It's also a good example of why people should notread an article or two on the internet and then pretend like they actually know what they are talking about. JAM-GC is not how future conflicts will go. It is how some future conflicts under specific circumstances will be fought. It is simply one tool in a toolbox of many.
Maybe if your military career consisted of more then just frill and ceremony you would understand that.
Click to expand...


As I'd noted, the Command Sergeant Major of the Army John Wayne Troxell has a master degree is strategic assessment and he has graduated command and strategy programs at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington DC and also at the Army War College, Carlyle Barracks, Pennsylvania. CSM Troxell is at the vanguard of a new trend of armed forces NCO earning college degrees in or before their service and graduating programs previously open to upwardly mobile field grade officers only.

Yet there is easily recognizable and comprehensible reason NCO are not faculty at West Point, Annapolis, the AF Academy in programs of national security and strategy. The reality includes the 400 Rotc programs at civilian universities. Colonels and ltc teach and conduct these courses and seminars, to include at the National Defense University and the Army War College and the War Colleges of the Navy and the Air Force.

In the 1890s Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahon founded the Naval War College and in so doing RAdm. Mahon overturned Washington's maxim to avoid foreign engagements. Adm. Mahon introduced to the US and the world the Navy we have today and that won World War II. Mahon advocated successfully for a global navy to establish free and open seas and routes to make the USA both prosperous and free. It wasn't an nco who conceived of this grand strategy and who implemented it successfully. Never happen in fact. Sergeant.

You function in your lane and others will function in their lanes thx.
 
Tangmo said:
I wuz on active duty during conscription -- I entered service as a 2LT butterbar in 1966 and was separated as a captain in 1970. Career nco to the man said conscript US grunts were very fine soldiers until the Vietnam war. Until Vietnam the conscripts took their military obligation of two years active service as a duty of citizenship. Nco had good things to say about draftees such as, for instance, the conscript soldier accepted being drafted, he'd already decided to do his duty, i.e., make the best of it, be conscientious, follow orders, keep himself and his stuff straight and be a credit to himself and to his unit. In a word, nco said the draftee was mature. I'm sure you get the picture here so I'll leave it at that.

Career nco on the other hand said the RA volunteer was a crappy soldier. Not that the RA volunteer didn't obey orders or failed to keep his nose clean and himself and his stuff straight etc. He did do that and he did it well. The problem nco found in the RA was his attitude. Nco universally advised their platoon and company officers the problem with the RA wuz that he signed up voluntarily to parachute into Normandy and save the world from tyranny. The RA volunteer was full of WW II legend and fact, had listened to his father, uncle, neighbor, coach etc insofar as they talked about the war as a just war and the experience of a lifetime. Saving Europe and saving the Pacific-Asia -- saving the world.

The Rosie the Riveter mother, aunt, neighbor were other heros of the Big One. So when the RA volunteer didn't get that he got let down -- felt cheated even. And each time the RA got latrine duty he went from a bad attitude to a foul disposition. After all, the RA wanted to kick ass not polish the seats. Sweep the barracks, dig a latrine in the field...etc etc. Virtually every nco I worked with swore without my asking he'd take a US to an RA every time to get the job done, the mission accomplished -- to get it done right, with the least hassles, sorehead grumbling, griping and RA cussing the Army for it.

I'm certain in the absolute the AVF continues the ages old traditional military assertion that it's every soldier's right to gripe. We won't find that in the Constitution, the UCMJ or in the Manuals but we know it's in there somewhere. The principle includes officers too and for sure. Still it is more than obvious to all of us the AVF is an entirely different beast than the conscript Army wuz. I'm confident I'd prefer the attitude and demeanor of the AVF over the conscript force. Still however, there is a great deal to be said of the citizen-soldier armed force, especially given it's a standing army that we have. I notice anyway that in my unit at Ft. Myer, when I look to see if there is any difference in the quality of the force between back then and since the AVF came on, there isn't any. Quality is quality, pride is pride, competence is competence -- and a mission accomplished and well done besides remains exactly that. It's a continuum of the generations, i.e., the senior guys show what they inherited from their seniors and the junior guys pick it up cause they know its their mission to preserve it, improve it and to hand it on. All we need to know indeed is that the 3 IR The Old Guard is the oldest active infantry regiment because the fact is forever. That is, no change.
Click to expand...

Cool story....
 
Tangmo said:
In the nuclear age all hell breaking loose means there is zero time to mobilize a nation to fight your standard conventional war OD in color. Either everyone gets zapped right off or escalation occurs at a pace that precludes completely a national mobilization (from basically scratch). Or a standoff occurs.

That said the AVF is too small to fight a regular war and win it. AVF can do a Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom but it can't go the whole nine yards into it and through it. To win in Afghanistan for instance we'd need 500,000 forces there full time over several years minimum. Americans are not going to mobilize to do that so we have small wars instead of big ones. We have long small wars that are very long in time and always small. It's what the AVF does because it is all the AVF can do. (Whinging about it changes nothing and ignores the reality of it.)

Our being in Afghanistan denies to China the country's estimated $1 Trillion of natural resources the Boyz of Beijing would grab in a heartbeat. It keeps neighbor Iran out. It precludes China and India tussling over dominance and control of the country and the region. It allows Putin to say we told you so which is meaningless in the post Soviet world so let him say it. People who say the US aiding the Mujahadeen created the problems we have know they're talking out their arse.

We're never going to have the 500,000 total forces in country to spend ten or so years there transforming it into Texas. So we've got what we've got, which is the AVF and it is doing the only and best job it has been assigned to do in Afghanistan. It's also too much for Trump to comprehend or deal with so the beat goes on for us there. The generals know this is our only and best course of action as do the civilian strategists and public policy makers in Washington to include in the Congress. So supporting this is good. Reality is that nothing better is going to come along. Which makes the status quo in Afghanistan the only and best option.
Click to expand...

Why lie?
 
Tangmo said:
As I'd noted, the Command Sergeant Major of the Army John Wayne Troxell has a master degree is strategic assessment and he has graduated command and strategy programs at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington DC and also at the Army War College, Carlyle Barracks, Pennsylvania. CSM Troxell is at the vanguard of a new trend of armed forces NCO earning college degrees in or before their service and graduating programs previously open to upwardly mobile field grade officers only.

Yet there is easily recognizable and comprehensible reason NCO are not faculty at West Point, Annapolis, the AF Academy in programs of national security and strategy. The reality includes the 400 Rotc programs at civilian universities. Colonels and ltc teach and conduct these courses and seminars, to include at the National Defense University and the Army War College and the War Colleges of the Navy and the Air Force.

In the 1890s Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahon founded the Naval War College and in so doing RAdm. Mahon overturned Washington's maxim to avoid foreign engagements. Adm. Mahon introduced to the US and the world the Navy we have today and that won World War II. Mahon advocated successfully for a global navy to establish free and open seas and routes to make the USA both prosperous and free. It wasn't an nco who conceived of this grand strategy and who implemented it successfully. Never happen in fact. Sergeant.

You function in your lane and others will function in their lanes thx.
Click to expand...

And you have no lane in regards to the military. So you should follow your own advice. Spending a few years in a ceremonial unit over a half a century ago doesn't qualify you for anything.
 
HELL no on reinstating the draft. Our soldiers already come back broken, mentally and physically, and we don't take care of them.

What was it George McGovern said?

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."

Yeah. Me, too.

Sorry to the OP, but it's hard for me to answer this question because I am so vehemently against the draft. I couldn't be more against the draft if you paid me to be. For that reason, I can't answer the question without strong bias.
 
Tangmo said:
Your reply in post #75 to my post #59 to include quoting me didn't total 1000 words.

In other words, you can do it. Just continue to be efficient with words and thoughts. I mean, so what that youse guyz don't have arguments and that youse have only opinion. It's badly informed opinion but that hasn't stopped youse before -- and not for a long time. It is a given youse don't argue the points of contention or get specific concerning the merits. Yet avoiding the thread topic question and issues material to it is the wrong way to go innit. Running away from the topic and issues makes it worse.

So I continue to look forward to your active reply. As I said, youse can do it. If you really try.

Argue the merits that is. You can believe me when I say no one expects youse guyz over there to sound like a colonel at West Point conducting a seminar on national security and strategy. Your opinions of the issues are all we could ask for. So run with it.
Click to expand...

Oh my! I'll just hit a few bullet points. You clearly do not have the foggiest clue about either war or the military. You do not even understand the basic differences between for instance Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, and you clearly do not know what "Mission Accomplished" means. You do not understand what today's professional military can and can't do. All you have is a very pessimistic view based on left wing literature. FYI, I did not suggest that an all volunteer force would be enough for a world war three scenario, however it can handle just about anything else if not hindered by overly restrictive Rules of Engagement. That includes Afghanistan. We have the most powerful and able military force on the planet, however it takes allowing them to do what is is necessary to win a war. And Iraq was not a wash. it was not easy and there are still obstacles in their path, however they are now electing their own leaders.
 
braindrain said:
And you have no lane in regards to the military. So you should follow your own advice. Spending a few years in a ceremonial unit over a half a century ago doesn't qualify you for anything.
Click to expand...


Still in it.

And still in contact with the commanders and the troops.

At one reunion barbecue outdoors at Ft. Myer with the troops one of us said what's true, "The Old Guard is the best job you'll ever have."






Every member of The Old Guard does military honors funerals at Arlington National Cemetery adjacent to Ft. Myer and the Pentagon. TOG rotates funeral duty by company, roughly each sixth week. During my virtually four years in 3 IR I did approximately 1200 military honors funerals. So perhaps you might stop to think about who exactly you might be offending in your comments of disrespect toward the duties of TOG. (Hint: it isn't only me or any Old Guardsman past, present, future.)























My company E Honor Guard Company comes next up once the colors pass. The Commander in Chief Guard replicating Gen. Washington's select guard is Company A Alpha of 4th Btn, The Old Guard. TOG always passes in review to The Old Guard March American Soldier.





You'd be appalled to hear what most of 'em say about Potus, his wars, Putin and so on.

Each service has its ceremonial unit in the Military District of Washington. While each service guard has two companies, except CG which has one, the Army Old Guard regiment has seven line companies so it is always (and forever) the dominant service. While youse guyz flail away out there in Asia especially the ceremonial units in MDW cover for you by dazzling the public with the magnificence of our army and all of the armed forces. In other words we've got your back here at home, i.e., we are who and what the public sees and we make it all look good. You're welcome to discuss strategy sergeant but you're not educated or versed in it. Your expertise is small unit weapons and tactics while getting the locals out there to love us back here. My advice to you is to keep at it until you get it right. No matter how long that takes.
 
rhinefire said:
For me attending college should not be a reason to not serve if called in the future.
Click to expand...
What about something like the Israelis? Universal military service? Get out of high school, do two years, and then either extend or get on with your life. Maybe even remain as a reserve or National Guard?
 
Old Trapper said:
During Vietnam over 90% of the Republicans that supported the war avoided the draft either by deferments, or joining the Nat. Guard. The Liberals fled to Canada, or used the defense of "conscientious objector"

When the invasion of Iraq came around over 90% of the Young Republicans that supported the war did not enlist.

For me it is no deferments, no excuse, and no war without a Constitutional declaration of war. In fact, I would support a mandatory two-three years military service for all able bodied men directly after graduation from HS.
Click to expand...
Just curious where do you get the statistics to back those assumptions. Just curious because several years ago I saw a study that refuted the "Vietnam was a poor man's war" by examining the demographics of the country vs the military - turned out there was a pretty strong correlation.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Oh my! I'll just hit a few bullet points. You clearly do not have the foggiest clue about either war or the military. You do not even understand the basic differences between for instance Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, and you clearly do not know what "Mission Accomplished" means. You do not understand what today's professional military can and can't do. All you have is a very pessimistic view based on left wing literature. FYI, I did not suggest that an all volunteer force would be enough for a world war three scenario, however it can handle just about anything else if not hindered by overly restrictive Rules of Engagement. That includes Afghanistan. We have the most powerful and able military force on the planet, however it takes allowing them to do what is is necessary to win a war. And Iraq was not a wash. it was not easy and there are still obstacles in their path, however they are now electing their own leaders.
Click to expand...


People in Iran vote for the candidates approved by the ayatollahas. In Russia voters can vote for the few guyz Putin has not thrown in jail or poisoned. American Conservatives and their guy Trump consider the two sham democracies an inspiration.

As for your reply post I said you could do it and you did although you just barely slipped through under the bar. Rules of Engagement are not determining in a war. RoE are an essential tool of a sound and effective strategy. The US getting into Vietnam was a strategic blunder and disaster. Pursuing the RoE adored by the right in Vietnam or currently in Afghanistan would be destructive all the more to the United States. Likewise concerning Operation Desert Disaster in Iraq. While the Vietnam War was fought by conscripts and volunteers, all of these disasters were Mission Impossible for the USA and for the AVF of the post Vietnam Era. That the AVF was willing, eager and enthusiastic to prosecute wars of strategic blunder is a major factor in why many Americans consider the AVF to be an American Foreign Legion, i.e., apart from the 99% of us.

Q: What is the AVF in Afghanistan?

A: Republicans in a truck.


Youse over there can meanwhile pronounce to your desperation that I know nothing about the military or war. That's cause it's what many right wing retired nco do. It is self exposing over there and it is very helpful thx.
 
The next draft I am getting me some bone spurs, Ya know, the type that allow you to play college sports, and kick up your heels at Studio 54. Hmm perhaps a new Trump product. But, will those bone spurs be manufactured in China?
 
Tangmo said:
Still in it.

And still in contact with the commanders and the troops.

At one reunion barbecue outdoors at Ft. Myer with the troops one of us said what's true, "The Old Guard is the best job you'll ever have."






Every member of The Old Guard does military honors funerals at Arlington National Cemetery adjacent to Ft. Myer and the Pentagon. TOG rotates funeral duty by company, roughly each sixth week. During my virtually four years in 3 IR I did approximately 1200 military honors funerals. So perhaps you might stop to think about who exactly you might be offending in your comments of disrespect toward the duties of TOG. (Hint: it isn't only me or any Old Guardsman past, present, future.)























My company E Honor Guard Company comes next up once the colors pass. The Commander in Chief Guard replicating Gen. Washington's select guard is Company A Alpha of 4th Btn, The Old Guard. TOG always passes in review to The Old Guard March American Soldier.





You'd be appalled to hear what most of 'em say about Potus, his wars, Putin and so on.

Each service has its ceremonial unit in the Military District of Washington. While each service guard has two companies, except CG which has one, the Army Old Guard regiment has seven line companies so it is always (and forever) the dominant service. While youse guyz flail away out there in Asia especially the ceremonial units in MDW cover for you by dazzling the public with the magnificence of our army and all of the armed forces. In other words we've got your back here at home, i.e., we are who and what the public sees and we make it all look good. You're welcome to discuss strategy sergeant but you're not educated or versed in it. Your expertise is small unit weapons and tactics while getting the locals out there to love us back here. My advice to you is to keep at it until you get it right. No matter how long that takes.
Click to expand...


No you are not in your lane. If the conversation changes to fancy marching or dress uniforms then that would have been your lane years ago but no longer.

Tell me why I care what job a former old guard soldier says was his best job. Nor could I really care less what they think of Trump as I don't like him either.

Virtually none of the general public really cares one way or the other what the old guard or an other ceremonial unit does. Get over yourself. I guarantee more regular civilians have more of an interest in my unit and what we do then they care about the old guard

Your specialty was marching around and looking fancy so sorry if I don't care to much about what you think my specialty is.
 
Bullseye said:
Just curious where do you get the statistics to back those assumptions. Just curious because several years ago I saw a study that refuted the "Vietnam was a poor man's war" by examining the demographics of the country vs the military - turned out there was a pretty strong correlation.
Click to expand...

During the Civil War it was a common tactic for the wealthy to pay a poor man to serve in their place. Thus came the saying "Rich Mans War, Poor Mans Flight". Virtually every war we have fought has had that same trait, and if Vietnam taught us anything it would be that that unless it is a total war the draft is a failure. Student deferments, and other various loopholes, are viable for the wealthy and influential, and then the burden falls on the less fortunate seeking a better life to take their places. With the all volunteer army this has changed slightly even though the wealthiest, and the poorest, are not highly represented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom