Oh man, this is wonderful.

Yes, let’s strip down the AD Army and Marines to their relative size pre-WW2. I’m sure that the DoD will do a fantastic job recruiting people for what will turn out to be back to back to back to back to back deployments. Who needs family when you have the service?

Forcing prolonged deployments on people(as in, multi years) is possible when there isn’t much expectation out of army life because they are “The scum of the Earth”. The era of that is long gone.

Proficiency at arms is a perishable item. Combat skilled veterans teach their hard learned lessons to new recruits. The airborne corp and SF are not good infantry, cavalry or armor. Airborne and SF are trained to fight and hold a very short time and SF is geared more towards training foreign troops and small time scale combat ops. Only infantry is trained to seize and hold for an indefinite time. Only armor is trained to punch through lines and cause maximum destruction in a short time. Only cavalry is trained to move fast, observe and report and harrass the flanks and rear of an enemy.

Deny the Army of these perishable skills at your peril; otherwise you set the nation up for another debacle like Korea in 1950. We damn near lost that peninsula and if it weren’t for the Marines and Navy we probably would have despite the best efforts of Harry Truman.

Most likely for the same reason Reagan continued to invest in SDI – to get us to keep spending our way to economic and political collapse. Our economy is our national center of gravity and it is extremely vulnerable at present.

Further what value has having a large conventional force provided the US? I’ll buy deterrence during the Cold War. Byron used the example of Korea as a debacle – why not include Viet Nam as well. In 10-15 years, I’m sure we’ll be able to add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list of modern debacles involving US ground forces. I hope I’m wrong on the latter but I see no indicators to suggest otherwise. DS was an exception, but then again look at the fight of the adversary. Having a large ground force at the ready only makes leaders of the MICC willing to commit them in wars of choice.

I didn’t call for eliminating these capabilities, I said to transfer them to the reserves. As I’m sure you are aware, the reserves can be activated and used effectively during combat operations. The issue is how do we effectively maintain readiness of the reserves and not let it turn into the reserves of the 1970s. A problem that can be worked through. Balance could be achieved across expeditionary capabilities and those that would needed to be mobilized for a conventional fight. Put a heavy division on a 30 day alert status for a 12 month rotation, if the threat is as ominous as you say.

On a final note URR, if you have an opinion feel free to share it but don’t judge the opinions of others as correct or incorrect – they are opinions and assumptions – I have mine; you have yours. I understand you are trying to stay on message and beat the drums for increased military spending and maintaining a large military but I’ve seen you do this time and time again on this forum and its getting a bit old. Thanks.

To Eagle 1 – perhaps you can ask the General for his thoughts on the current practice of spreading the fiscal pain evenly across each Service instead of leadership actually prioritize missions and functions.

How about the concept in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers?

You know, given this business of required ‘public service,’ we have on one hand a GI bill without military service. And, on the other hand, a neo-VISTA, the perfect draft-dodging hide-a-way for the children of the elite should we ever be face with a real war that will require mobilization of a major percentage of our population under uniform.

But, we could re-organize under a quasi-militia system. Traditionally, we’ve fought our wars with a strong navy buying time for our island nation to fully mobilize. True, in this age of ICBM’s, much damage could now be visited upon our nation from afar. But, winning a war and eliminating an enemy as a viable threat still requires boots on the ground.

So, we would still have to field a Navy of probably 350+ major surface combatants with about 12 carrier groups. And, 12 is not a lot. Between December 1941 and December 1942, we lost every one of our come-dressed-as-you-are carrier force with the exception of the Enterprise.

With the Navy, goes the USMC, at current strength. I would suggest that any contingency that occupies three Marine divisions is by definition a major war.

The USAF is untouched or expanded. This is the other service with an immediate intercontinental reach. It will also be needed for antimissile defense and hitting enemy industrial infrastructure.

Which leave the active duty Army. You will still need to have a core of knowledge and leadership in place ready to effectively expand our land warfare capabilities. And, someone is going to have to keep in immediate readiness a massive inventory of tanks, artillery, engineering logistics and transport. You also must keep intact the ethos and skills of, and in particular, the elite forces now residing in the US Army.

Which brings us to the militia. How about a six month hiatus upon high school graduation for boot camp and training in some combat speciality. To be followed several subsequent summers of re-fresher training. We already have, extant in the civilian population enough firearms to arm every man, woman and child in the US. Bringing in formal training just builds on formidible defense system courtesy the Second Amendment.

How about the right to vote contingent on completion of such service. It might even bring home the concept that voting isn’t a right, but a responsibility.

Easy to do, model is in place. The Swiss are good start with Isreal more experienced. Under the age of 40, deploy in 1 hr. over 40, homeland defense and natural emergencies. All men and women of age, have their military weapons and gear in their home. Side benefits, crime will drop 50-75% less police needed, people will work together to hold politicans accountable for their actions. You will get physical conditioning which most need anyway, and will lower health care costs. The answer” as long as someone else does it.” not applicable.

“But first you need serious people who recognize that defense and readiness for war are serious business, not a piggy bank for graft.”

Grandpa, that is the money line of the year!

Robert, how much military history have you studied or read? Not much, I expect. I’m a career civilian, a high school graduate and I rather doubt I have your education. Hell, you’re probably smarter than I am…but… I read a lot of military history and that history through the ages has taught me that a largely citizen army always gets run over by a professional army. You bring up Vietnam…but ignore the fact the military didn’t lose that war, the damn politicians did. History taught me that too. Think I lie? Ok, then look how long we conducted tactical air operations over North Vietnam for little to no result in the South…until the Christmas bombing campaign when Nixon got mad at the North Vietnamess for screwing around on the bargaining table and pretty much tossed the bombing restrictions out the door. In less than two weeks the NV were back at the table begging for negotiations to stop the bombing. It was a lesson that George H.W. Bush took to heart during Desert Storm: he sent the whole can of whoop ass north and let the military sweat the details.

Smedley Butler was right.

Robert,

Tanks are REALLY REALLY REALLY expensive to maintain and operate. Same with any high performance vehicles like fighters etc.

The guard has already done as much as it can to get the big expensive vehicles out to the active duty guys. AND being a tanker is a 24/7 job there is no point using 10mil dollar tanks and operating them with 100 dollar a month people.

Modern warfare is blitzkreig. What you wana spend 3 months preparing for the war and give the enemy that amount of time to prepare also? We did that its called iraq and they prepared quite well for the insurgency.

Some places can sustain a militia force for a reason. Israel, Switzerland, etc………….DONT GO ANYWHERE. They are forever on the defensive. They could never sustain a offensive in say Iran. The Swiss have the single largest fortress on the planet. They dont have to go anywhere and their entire country is surrounded by people who are a buffer agaisnt agression agaisnt them.

I like the Idea of social currency. Want to get a “free” education? Well sure just take 6 years in the military or 4 active 6 reserve.

One of the things to remember. Yes militia are cheaper Much cheaper sometimes……..and they die. By the hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands. They are also a hit or miss organization. Some will be damn terrible some outstanding.

And you cant use them for long at all.