What does Swampy spending his time in Spec Ops have to do with the discussion?
I think quite a bit..
It doesnt change whether or not the military as a whole has a use, a desire, or a need at all..
but the perspective of the individual can change quite a bit..
as you are well aware, being a former member of the special operations community, the mission is more intense, the operational tempo is more intense, the likelihood of injury or death even in training scenarios is far greater, the personal sacrifice is most often higher, etc..etc..etc.. special operations units today put all the chips on the table, every day.. the requirement for the absolute highest quality of support services is greater now than it ever has been..
this doesnt make a Ranger/SEAL/SF/Force/PJ/CCT life any more valuable or important than a basic leg infantryman in a conventional unit.. but it does heighten the perspective quite a bit if you have served in those types of units and have conducted the types of missions those units do..
Maybe I can help answer some of the questions directed towards Swampy. I also spent most of my time in the military in a Spec Ops unit.
as have I.. I spent 8 years in a variety of assignments within army special operations... I was initially an enlisted man.. then later took a commission.. later in my career (after military service) I found myself in a position to be a direct report to a former Deputy Secretary of Defense.. I now spend a significant portion of my days managing contracted services to the DOD, to include Special Operations Command, US Army Special Operations Command, and Navy Special Warfare Command..
(I think you are a little bit more "old school" than I am based on some of your references in your post.. but I am willing to bet we probably know alot of the same names, have met a few of the same people, etc.. over the years..)
I never had a problem with what you term "losers" fueling the aircraft that carried me into combat. I also don't have a problem with "losers" preparing the meals I eat (not that I had many hot meals prepared for me, most of it was C-rats, lrrps, indigenous Viet rations, and for a change of pace, some K-rats that we managed to swap with the ROK's. As far as repairing the weapons in our arms rooms, the armourers were competent trained personnel, otherwise they wouldn't have passed the armourers course. Logistics were handled by people in the rear who we never met, but we got what was needed. So far I don't see what you term "losers". Maybe the people you term "losers" were all assigned to line infantry companies, but I doubt it. In combat "losers" have a habit of becoming competent people in a hurry, other wise they stayed "losers" and most likely didn't have to worry about anything anymore.
the term "losers" was placed in quotes by me.. because I took it out of Swampys post.. I do not see draftees as "loosers".. I see them as conscripts.. people who as a general rule do not want to be where they are.. this doesnt make them bad people in any way.. it does however mean a large number of them are not going to have their heart in their job or be truely dedicated..
is this always, 100% the case.. absolutely not.. there are exceptions.. the very last draftee from the vietnam era just retired within the last couple of years.. he spent most of his career in special forces.. once he got past his draft enlistment and was eligible to apply to SF, he volunteered for the army, stayed in, and went to the fort bragg school for wayward boys.. he however was an example of the exception, not the rule.. he determined that military service was something he enjoyed and wanted to stick with.. and worked his butt off to be good at it.. the vast majority of draftees, while not bad people, couldnt wait for their enlistment to be up, and did not want to be where they were..
The people that want to be there and actually care about the mission usually tend to join Spec Ops units like the Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, Seals, Force Recon, Delta, etc.. These people will always be there when needed.
absolutely true.. and these people are also 100% volunteers.. in fact they volunteer multiple times... to go SF you volunteer for the army.. you then volunteer for airborne school.. you then volunteer for SF selection.. and you then volunteer to attend the Q course and accept assignment into an SF unit.. you can break that chain at any time you like.. in fact, SF encourages you to break the chain if you are so inclined.. the unit doesnt want anyone that isnt 100% certain that they want to be there..
Things however have changed SUBSTANTIALLY since you were in the service..
with the formation of special operations command, special ops units have become much, much more autonomyous.. they have their own procurement/logisitics systems, their own dedicated aviation units, their own quartermaster units, their own signals units, their own intel units, etc..etc..etc.. they rely on the "big army" very little for anything..
but guess where there support guys come from?
the regular, conventional, army.. the exact same pool of people that go to all the other units..
that said.. I know TONS of people that actually care about the mission, and really want to be in the army.. that have no desire to be in special operations..
a very good friend of mine just retired as an O5 about 7 years ago.. he was an armor/cav officer his entire career.. there was no better place for him.. he loved his job.. loved his mission.. and loved the men that worked for him... He doesnt need/want draftees either.. as they would have inhibited his units ability to perform as well... no different than an SF unit.. (just a whole lot easier to see/feel the pain with an SF unit than with a conventional unit)..
Your comment about; "I didnt join the military to be some other guys baby sitter or to take responsibility for turning some turd into a man..." has nothing to do with the subject, but since you brought it up. I do recall that in the military you do what your told, not what you want to do. Sound familiar? This military tradition tends to teach people respect for authority, and gives them a work (that they may need to perform jobs they don't like) ethic. This attitude is sorely missing in our society today. Maybe those are the losers that Swampy is referring to.
thats correct..
so by your standard I am assuming you believe that the military should be involved with this.. and has nothing better to do?
I would disagree..
the military exists to kill people and break things (on behalf of our government).. it should not be a clearing house for the education of our youth in becoming a man, unless that youth wants to kill people and break things (on behalf of our government)..
The military might not need compulsory service, but having a pool of manpower with prior military service would be a good thing to have in case of a national emergency, or would you rather we start from scratch when a national emergency occurs (like in WW2)?
why do we need to start from scratch?
maintain the force at the size necessary to handle the mission.. then recruit volunteers to fill those positions.. simple as that..
We havent had a problem meeting the needs of the military with man power since the late 1970's.. and the leadership at the pentagon (both civilian and military) dont anticipate that changing any time soon..
What I believe NWBear is trying to point out is that if our leaders had "skin" (their sons & daughters) in the game, they would be more likely to try to resolve a dispute before resorting to the use of our military.
this I can agree with..
but this is a responsibility of the American people.. it is not an issue of compulsary service..
the simple solution is this..
if the guy hasnt served.. and/or doesnt have kids that have served.. and you feel this strongly about the subject.. then dont vote for him..
having a president that only served because he was forced.. or one that has kids that have only served because they were forced.. changes very little..
