Yeah... a little scary.
But I can't make heads or tails of this article (and I'm not sure about my idioms either). Can anyone sum it up for me (prefereably without prejudice)?
I'm all for Economy of force, providing the people practicing the Economy aren't total morons. There's things we need for the military, like continual upgrades of our weapons and defense systems. Particularly on the Infantry level (we could do sooo much better there. And far more cheaply than what we have now).
But the things that will get slashed will probably be the more futuristic weapons and necessities, like the Raptor was (and we ARE going to need Raptors at some point. Unless we have some ultra cheap ultra secret Gen 6 Stealth Fighter in development) not more overpriced jets like the Superhornet and other late gen 4s. Which one got the axe though? The one we needed more of. Not the one we already had a surplus on which is inferior in every way, when cost per unit and unit effectiveness is factored in.
Or Defense Laser systems to intercept Nuclear Weapons, or possibly fry enemy ships. Or the Railgun. I could see both of those getting a slash, and something inferior and almost as costly remains.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of these "low-intensity" conflicts in the future.
And they are turning out to be tougher battles than anticipated...
...IMHO...
The inevitable (and honestly deserved... though I doubt it will be handled with the competence required to pull it off properly) slashing of our Defense Budget.
I'm all for Economy of force, providing the people practicing the Economy aren't total morons. There's things we need for the military, like continual upgrades of our weapons and defense systems. Particularly on the Infantry level (we could do sooo much better there. And far more cheaply than what we have now).
But the things that will get slashed will probably be the more futuristic weapons and necessities, like the Raptor was (and we ARE going to need Raptors at some point. Unless we have some ultra cheap ultra secret Gen 6 Stealth Fighter in development) not more overpriced jets like the Superhornet and other late gen 4s. Which one got the axe though? The one we needed more of. Not the one we already had a surplus on which is inferior in every way, when cost per unit and unit effectiveness is factored in.
Or Defense Laser systems to intercept Nuclear Weapons, or possibly fry enemy ships. Or the Railgun. I could see both of those getting a slash, and something inferior and almost as costly remains.
Pun intended, but economy of force is a double edged sword. I think that it is impossible to find that balance between economy or budget. Either you have an oversized military sitting around being idle for a lot of time or you have a small military that is incapable of doing what it needs to be done in a crisis. And I am a bit torn about this. For the most part I would much rather have a larger than needed military than to have a smaller one that we would have to build up on short notice.
*sigh*
Unfortunately, I see a lot of these "low-intensity" conflicts in the future.
And they are turning out to be tougher battles than anticipated...
...IMHO...
Exactly. Front lines simply do not exist in these types of conflicts. In a sense a conflict like World War II was quite simple. To over simplify it everybody lined up their forces and both sides pushed until one side gave and fell back. I do not think that this style of warfare is dead, but few countries in the world are still geared up for that type of a war, and we are one of them. And given our size and technological advantage most countries realize that fact and while they would put as much resistance as was feasible and would then fade away into the woodwork to start a guerilla war. And quite frankly it is a strategy that can work. Just look at Vietnam. Heck, just look at Iraq. Sure, we beat up Saddam's army and we killed a lot of insurgents, but you cannot really say that we won the war. After all we are pulling out and it is not certain that the goverment is stable or will even last. And there is also the distinct possibility that islamic extremists could take over the goverment, and if that happens then the mission would best be classified as a failure.
Pun intended, but economy of force is a double edged sword. I think that it is impossible to find that balance between economy or budget. Either you have an oversized military sitting around being idle for a lot of time or you have a small military that is incapable of doing what it needs to be done in a crisis. And I am a bit torn about this. For the most part I would much rather have a larger than needed military than to have a smaller one that we would have to build up on short notice.
True. Building up the Reserves and National Guard would help a lot. Of course then you have soldiers that aren't nearly as well-trained as their active duty counterparts, but it beats suddenly trying to double your size and then cut down again.
What I would really like to see is the implementation of one idea I've seen tossed around. There's the active reserve (what you normally think of when you hear Reserves, your weekend warriors) and then there's inactive reserves (you don't train, you don't get paid, but you can still be called back to active duty). Normally people have some inactive reserve time tacked onto the end of their contracts, but once that time is up then they're done. People stay in the reserves, they stay on active duty, but they don't usually stay in the inactive reserves. There's no real incentive to. You get all the unpredictability of the reserves with no benefits.
What has been mentioned is allowing people to voluntarily stay in the inactive reserves. In return, they wouldn't get called up involuntarily. They would only return to duty if they chose to. With this, ther are some obvious disadvantages in that you can't pull them back whenever you want, and their training will be even more out of date than the active reserves. However, they still have their previous training to draw upon so they have a stronger base to work with than a new recruit and for those that made it up in the ranks they should still have those basic leadership skills.
Pun intended, but economy of force is a double edged sword. I think that it is impossible to find that balance between economy or budget. Either you have an oversized military sitting around being idle for a lot of time or you have a small military that is incapable of doing what it needs to be done in a crisis. And I am a bit torn about this. For the most part I would much rather have a larger than needed military than to have a smaller one that we would have to build up on short notice.
True. Building up the Reserves and National Guard would help a lot. Of course then you have soldiers that aren't nearly as well-trained as their active duty counterparts, but it beats suddenly trying to double your size and then cut down again.
What I would really like to see is the implementation of one idea I've seen tossed around. There's the active reserve (what you normally think of when you hear Reserves, your weekend warriors) and then there's inactive reserves (you don't train, you don't get paid, but you can still be called back to active duty). Normally people have some inactive reserve time tacked onto the end of their contracts, but once that time is up then they're done. People stay in the reserves, they stay on active duty, but they don't usually stay in the inactive reserves. There's no real incentive to. You get all the unpredictability of the reserves with no benefits.
What has been mentioned is allowing people to voluntarily stay in the inactive reserves. In return, they wouldn't get called up involuntarily. They would only return to duty if they chose to. With this, ther are some obvious disadvantages in that you can't pull them back whenever you want, and their training will be even more out of date than the active reserves. However, they still have their previous training to draw upon so they have a stronger base to work with than a new recruit and for those that made it up in the ranks they should still have those basic leadership skills.
There really is no need to your inactive reserve idea. If worse comes to worse the government can just re-institute the draft.
With the reserves at least you have the idea of someone who had the training, has the discipline, and the desire, and most likely the physique, to be a soldier.
But draftees have no training, and many of them don't even have the physique to be in the military. I mean I doubt it'd be a good idea to have a 300-pound dude going to war. He'd be a danger to everyone.
With the reserves at least you have the idea of someone who had the training, has the discipline, and the desire, and most likely the physique, to be a soldier.
Sorry, I meant to say that as part of a draft you can call up those inactive reserves even after their inactive reserve time is up. With the technology we have today there is no reason why we cannot specifically target people who have prior military experience as part of a draft.
Yeah you could always do that, but I don't think it'd be very good for your public image. Drafting usually isn't, and if people don't sign up for the inactive reserves, there might be a reason for it (like not wanting to go back)
If our situation is dire enough to re-institute the draft then I think it is safe to not care about public opinion.
Not to mention the dangers of sending people who don't want to be there over people who do want to be there. If it's your only option of survival, then you can always take it... but it should probably be your only option of survival indeed.
Not to mention that if you don't care about public opinion, more and more people might start refusing the draft (unless it's your country being invaded, which I doubt is going to be the case any time soon) and there's only so many people you can lock away for refusing the draft before your country either becomes a tyranny or is overrun with revolution.
But draftees have no training, and many of them don't even have the physique to be in the military. I mean I doubt it'd be a good idea to have a 300-pound dude going to war. He'd be a danger to everyone.
With the reserves at least you have the idea of someone who had the training, has the discipline, and the desire, and most likely the physique, to be a soldier.
Sorry, I meant to say that as part of a draft you can call up those inactive reserves even after their inactive reserve time is up. With the technology we have today there is no reason why we cannot specifically target people who have prior military experience as part of a draft.
We've pretty much transitioned away from having a draft unless WWIII breaks out or something. With draftees, even if you target prior military there's no guarantee about the quality you are getting. With inactive reserves, those people are choosing to remain available for duty, so they are more likely to have stayed in shape, they may have even kept up somewhat in their field (some reservists have civilian jobs that equate to their military jobs), and most importantly, they still want to serve, as opposed to the discipline problems you will get snatching up a bunch of random people that want nothing to do with the military. The last time we used the draft, supervisors could still beat the **** out of their subordinates to keep them in line. That's no longer an option. And inactive reserves is something you can call upon when you want more people but the situation has not grown severe enough that you need to institute a draft and turn public opinion against you.
That depends. The last time was the Vietnam war I think? Public opinion did hurt.
Not to mention the dangers of sending people who don't want to be there over people who do want to be there. If it's your only option of survival, then you can always take it... but it should probably be your only option of survival indeed.
Not to mention that if you don't care about public opinion, more and more people might start refusing the draft (unless it's your country being invaded, which I doubt is going to be the case any time soon) and there's only so many people you can lock away for refusing the draft before your country either becomes a tyranny or is overrun with revolution.
But Vietnam was hardly a threat to America or Americans. I am thinking something much bigger and more serious than Vietnam, or Afghanistan/Iraq.
But Vietnam was hardly a threat to America or Americans. I am thinking something much bigger and more serious than Vietnam, or Afghanistan/Iraq.
I think our wars for the near future are likely to be along the lines of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Sure WWIII could pop up and we have to draft half our fighting age citizens, but that's not a likely scenario.
But Vietnam was hardly a threat to America or Americans. I am thinking something much bigger and more serious than Vietnam, or Afghanistan/Iraq.
I think our wars for the near future are likely to be along the lines of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Sure WWIII could pop up and we have to draft half our fighting age citizens, but that's not a likely scenario.
True, which is why earlier on I said, "If worse comes to worse...."
True, which is why earlier on I said, "If worse comes to worse...."
Yeah of course when the situation is bad enough we have to do whatever we have to do. The point of the reserves and inactive reserves is when you need more people but we're not yet in dire enough straights to need to start drafting.
The point being, military service isn't 4 years and you're done. There is usually an inactive reserve stint that you also have to serve. At least that's how I think it goes.
I don't know if it is still the case, but when you sign up for active duty you usually sign for a 6-8 year gig. Usually, its 4 active with 2-4 inactive reserves. When my brother got out in the nineties and was in college, he had completed his active duty service and could have been called back. Instead, after 9-11 he reenlisted again and has decided to make a career of it.
The point being, military service isn't 4 years and you're done. There is usually an inactive reserve stint that you also have to serve. At least that's how I think it goes.
You are correct, every contract is an 8 year contract. You serve the first portion (2-6 years) on either active duty or in the active reserves and the rest of the portion is IRR (I think it's actually inactive ready reserves) time (assuming you don't reenlist of course). I don't know if this is still being offered, but the Army was offering for a while a chance to reenlist for 2 years in the active reserves, and in return you had no IRR obligation (obviously this deal was only beneficial if you had 3 or more years of IRR obligation remaining).
The reason they are thinking of revamping the IRRs is that very few people voluntarily stay in the IRR after that 8 years total obligation is done. They would rather stay on active duty or reserves and collect pay and benefits or just get out of the military entirely and not worry about getting called up. But unfortunately once you get out of the military entirely it becomes much more of a hassle to get back in later on. If you can find a way to keep people in the IRR you have a force that is still more prepared than your random kid off the street to help out in a time of war and it is much easier, both paperwork and training wise, to get them in and shipped off to wherever they are needed. Personally I think the military is doing itself a disservice right now by not encouraging this.
People will jump through stupid hoops for a tax break, that they would not dream of bothering with if they where instead offered cash of equal value.