All Volunteer Military a Failure

Are you against wars unless absolutely necessary?

What if there aren't enough volunteers, as with WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and apparently now Iraq?

Then we'll have to drag your screeming, kicking arse in, put a uniform on you and kick you out in front of the enemy. You'll either fight or provide a alternate target for those who do. In one form or another you will be useful.

I have no problem admitting one-on-one combat is a very frightening prospect. But that type of warfare is quite rare today. We throw missles at objects from miles away and hardly ever get close enough to see the "whites of their eyes" anymore. I also agree with you that specialized close-quarters combat requires additional training than you get in boot camp. At least this is true in respect to the training we got in boot camp.

However I completely disagree with your assertion that if you didn't engage in a combat during your time of service you aren't worthy of being a true soldier. You play the cards you are dealt at the time. Being in the military yourself you should know you "serve at the convenience of the government" and they send you where THEY want you. And as a soldier, you can't create a war just to get involved in combat and make yourself look good to fellow newsgroup contributors years down the road. The only thing you CAN do is avoid military service altogether or trump up scratches you received when shaving and get three Purple Hearts.

Ummm....WHAT? Our soldiers in Iraq often have to kick in doors and "meet" people.

Former Secretary of Army Thomas White wanted at least 400,000 GIs for the war. He was fired.

Former Army Chief of Staff Erick Shinseki thought we needed "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of GIs. He was fired, and at his "retirement" ceremony said, "We need more troops".

In 1999 or 2000, a war game that simulated an invasion of Iraq indicated that we wouldn't be able to control Iraq even with 400,000 GIs, and I'll bet the Pentagon assumed that the Iraq military and civil service wasn't fired.

The Iraq war is still going on, over four years since its start.

The US military, except for the Marines, lowered the mental requirements to let in twice as many recruits who score in the lowest quintile on mental tests.

So please explain why there's no shortage of military personnel.

BTW al Qaeda raised its standards a few years ago to require all new recruits to possess at least a high school diploma.

I was wrong about you larry-moe, you couldn't become a Al Qaeda member after all.

That's what should be done with you and the other chicken hawk rightwingnuts.

. .

Iraq is an urban war. Urban warfare is ... Oh never mind.

If they take me I'd be more than happy to serve. I already have significant years in the military, a few more would enable me to receive military retirement. Hell, I'm almost 65 and I still jog. I'm likely in better shape than many of the 20 somethings. So bring it on!!

I wonder how golfputz has managed to miss 4 years worth of information about the urban warfare. Oh wait...I know how: It requires reading more than just headlines, or watching news coverage designed for adults.

But still, I recall that in the first days of the invasion, when we were besieged with news coverage, several people IN AMERICAN MILITARY UNIFORMS were interviewed and they commented on how challenging this urban warfare was, compared to other forms of combat.

So, golfputz, how did you miss this?

Something tells me you don't know anything about modern battle tactics, except what you read from msnbc and moveon.org.

I said it was quite rare. I didn't say it doesn't exist. No doubt Marines and Special Forces require close combat training but regular Air Force and Navy personnel rarely get close enough for that type of combat. The Air Force made it possible for the Army to just march to Baghdad against hardly any resistance. They were the first ones on the scene and softened up the Iraqi military enough to make them completely ineffective. That required lobbing missles and Sidewinders from long distances.

The point remains the same. There is little close-quarter combat needed if we make use of the weapons we have without being afraid of what others think. This administration started out right in Iraq but quickly gave into political pressure on how to mop up afterwards. If they had applied a heavy hand upon the upstarts in Fallujah we wouldn't be talking today about how to lose this war the best way and still save face.

The days of trench fighting are for the most part over. If the enemy is dug in we have weapons that when used will not require mop-ups.

I think it's time for you to define close quarters combat, please. Is it measured in feet to the person you're about to shoot?

Dude, most warfare today is still the low tech shoot-IED-stab type. You've been reading too many Tom Clancey novels.

Dude larry-moe, we're not talking about IED stuff, it's about fighting in the trenches and door to door stuff. If you've been keeping up, the IED's have been fewer. We, without your help or support have been winning, not whinning like you are so good at.

That was why H.W. Bush didn't go into Bagdhad or occupy Iraq. That was why Cheney (yes, the very same Cheney) said it would be a disaster militarily and economocally if we tried to occupy Iraq. Everyone warned against occupying Iraq except for the lunatic Neo-cons. Loose the neo-cons and the republican party might stay viable.

Neither MoveOn.org nor MSNBC talk about the details of any sort of combat. But some of my reading comes from: