Raise Taxes, Fire up the Draft.

[VMFA187]

14 hours ago, jazzdude said:

In theory, this is one of the benefits of a college education; exposure to new ideas and to people from a larger circle of people than your immediate community. Same could be said for athletic programs.

 

Unfortunately this is becoming less so at an alarming rate. 

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

I think you've got it backwards. The identity and mindset existed first, which led to accepting military service as necessary for their survival, and not military service inspiring identity.

I don't think mandatory service drives their identity. They've had to fight for their country and culture to survive for a long while, and have faced attacks and occupations (mainly from Japan, but also the communists) that galvanized who they saw themselves to be.

They also have a real threat on their border that drives a sense of responsibility to their country, which I believe makes them accepting of national military service. Plus many of them remember what Japan did too the last century as well.

There is also the drive to reunify families turn apart by the north/south split, but that's facing fast as the generation old enough to have ties across the border are dying off.

So the factors that make national military service tolerable in Korea don't seem to apply to the US.

 

Yeah wasn't an exposition on the tolerance so much as my impression of the effects. I agree you're partially right on the identity but the mandatory service definitely grew it more. The term has significant meaning there. 

[pawnman]

14 hours ago, Breckey said:

17 hours ago, pawnman said:

Maybe we can revisit the CCC and work on some of that crumbling infrastructure we hear so much about.
We're already spending trillions on Covid bailouts.  May as well get something for those tax dollars.

The issue is that there isn't a lot of infrastructure labor that isn't skilled in some sort of way. We don't need paths cleared through the mountains, we need major civil engineering work.

I'd argue there's plenty of grunt work to be done after the civil engineers figure out what to do.  The guys shoveling a new layer of blacktop onto a highway before the steamroller smooths it out don't need engineering degrees.

[jazzdude]

No doubt on loopholes and deferments/alternatives would be required.
Refining this idea, maybe a draft is part of the solution and really it is a choice of national service programs to provide multiple benefits to the American people, particularly the young.
The Draft/Conscription could be a short military enlistment (18 months) with an overseas tour (Korea, Alaska, Eastern Europe, etc...) or completion of Basic with mandatory Drills following then release from service, thinking 2 months in the summer to allow students to muster and then return to school.  I would open this option to 16 year olds to allow service to begin earlier.  At least 4 drills, no more than 6. 
The 18 month program would come with a bonus to encourage selection but both programs would earn full GI Bill benefits and Veteran status.  This is gonna cost and require further reform at the VA but so be it.
As most young people don't qualify for military service, the military options in my little musings could be selective as I would want them to be the most desired form of national service in this new program.
Young people mostly unqualified for military service and careers (usatoday.com)
Others could be AmeriCorps, CCC, Peace Corps, etc... 2 years of service in these programs would equate to 2 years of college/technical school paid with federal hiring preference in lieu of veteran hiring preference. 
As to the logistical bill of this large influx (primarily to the Army I imagine), I would want to steer that to our heart land and cities that could use a boost in population.  Goal would be to put 300k thru military training/service each year.
Money, imagination and political will; [mention=11373]congressman[/mention] make it happen.

What's to keep someone that doesn't want to do military service from eating a bunch of cupcakes to be deferred to Peace corps or something else that doesn't involve going to the infantry?

I agree with some of the premises in the article you linked-it's not just what happens at 18, but requires an overhaul of K-12 education (and an increased emphasis on physical fitness)

Plus, any veteran or service preference in hiring would likely go away with conscription, for both government jobs and businesses (likely lose tax incentives to hire veterans). It'd be expected to serve, so no bonus points from the government for serving or serving longer.

Ultimately the question comes down to "who pays for this?"
-Upfront infrastructure costs
-Land costs
-Basic pay and allowances for a large, junior force
-Training for that large, junior, untrained force (likely at least half a year of initial skills training, unless you cut quality)
-Feeding that large force
-Equipping that large force
-Purchasing a large amount of transports: probably mostly ships and trucks (a big military does you no good if you can't get them to the fight)
-De facto nationalized healthcare for everyone, at least for a period of time in their life while serving, and perhaps as a kid to ensure they are healthy enough to serve (unless the plan is to "give out 800mg motrin like candy and tell people to hydrate and change their socks" and consider that a suitable medical plan).

It's say your probably closer to acceptable with basic training and follow-on drill periods (like the Swiss). Mustering 16 year olds? That's just JROTC.

It'd likely take a significant tax increase to fund all of this (ignoring any debate on the politics on if this even the right away to go, this would be a tough battle, especially for conservatives), as well as major changes to our education and healthcare systems.

We can't even fund the military and it's operations now without deficit spending, can't imagine growing the force severalfold would be any cheaper.

[jazzdude]

Yeah wasn't an exposition on the tolerance so much as my impression of the effects. I agree you're partially right on the identity but the mandatory service definitely grew it more. The term has significant meaning there. 

Mandatory service reinforces that identity and helps perpetuate and grow that identity. No disagreement there.

Also, being a homogenous society ethnically also helps create a very strong national identity, as the two (nationality and ethnicity) become intertwined. Race doesn't matter, until it does. (If you haven't noticed, asians can be very racist, especially to other groups of asians, furthering that strong sense of identity).

Though South Korea being all in during war is likely practical: they are a small country geographically, and surrounded by water on 3 sides and an enemy on the other, so they don't have much of a choice. Everyone has to play a part, because you just can't hide it escape the fighting. Same with Israel.

Contrast that with us. How many people here would actively push their kids to volunteer for military service as a top option post-high school, even if it's only for an initial commitment before moving on to something else? Do you think making service mandatory would make the service experience any better (and build a positive service experience), or worse as resources are stretched thin?

We're also a fairly diverse nation, with multiple races and ethnicities, so ethnicity doesn't act as a unifying bond. Our unifying bond is an idea, and not a physical characteristic in our population, which makes that bond tenuous when we disagree on those ideas and the direction we are heading.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

What's to keep someone that doesn't want to do military service from eating a bunch of cupcakes to be deferred to Peace corps or something else that doesn't involve going to the infantry?

Unfortunately not much due to the demise of shame in our culture.

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

I agree with some of the premises in the article you linked-it's not just what happens at 18, but requires an overhaul of K-12 education (and an increased emphasis on physical fitness)

Concur and I am totally ok with that, more sports less bullshit.

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Ultimately the question comes down to "who pays for this?"
-Upfront infrastructure costs
-Land costs
-Basic pay and allowances for a large, junior force
-Training for that large, junior, untrained force (likely at least half a year of initial skills training, unless you cut quality)
-Feeding that large force
-Equipping that large force
-Purchasing a large amount of transports: probably mostly ships and trucks (a big military does you no good if you can't get them to the fight)
-De facto nationalized healthcare for everyone, at least for a period of time in their life while serving, and perhaps as a kid to ensure they are healthy enough to serve (unless the plan is to "give out 800mg motrin like candy and tell people to hydrate and change their socks" and consider that a suitable medical plan).

It's say your probably closer to acceptable with basic training and follow-on drill periods (like the Swiss). Mustering 16 year olds? That's just JROTC.

It'd likely take a significant tax increase to fund all of this (ignoring any debate on the politics on if this even the right away to go, this would be a tough battle, especially for conservatives), as well as major changes to our education and healthcare systems.

We can't even fund the military and it's operations now without deficit spending, can't imagine growing the force several fold would be any cheaper.

Yup, it would cost a lot and I am not flippant about that but I'm still a believer in it as a net positive for America.

As to the cost and paying for it, likely I would want a separate funding stream from the NDAA with a designated funding vehicle (tax) that is statutorily limited to only funding these military programs/operations/logistics.  

To limit costs on compulsory service, I'd would not apply that time to TAFMS for the purpose of pension eligibility or calculation, not allow single individuals to acquire dependents while on compulsory service, married individuals would have their immediate family covered but no new dependents and to preclude an unwarranted growth in operational capabilities, I would not plan for conscripted units to be part of an O-Plan that requires less than 72 hour mobility from them.  Most likely, their operational capability would planned on using by being in place in an AOR if we are attacked (in place in South Korea, the Baltics, etc...) and if required for deployment for a contingency or deterrence, I would plan on moving them via the CRAF or NDRF as able.  Basically if they are in place when the shit hits the fan we use them, if they are not there we will get them to the fight or another backfill mission as able if other units are sent forward.

Those are good critiques and as always, my ideas on BO are worth what you paid for them but if we are to bind together our nation or try to it seems to me that we are going to have to work against all the things that driving us to atomized lives, this I think could be one of them and at one of the most consequential periods in a persons life.

[FourFans]

Where is Robert Heinlein when we need him?! 

[Swamp Yankee]

22 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Where is Robert Heinlein when we need him?! 

Heinlein, indeed.  In Starship Troopers you had to serve in order to vote, which is a very interesting idea.  I personally like the idea of compulsory service.  However, the flip side is where do you draw the line between useful and not-useful draftee?  There will be a small, but not insignificant, number of young people with minimal ability to learn.  They'll need to be given make-work projects with questionable return on investment.  Of course, that might be better than 2-3 yrs of welfare.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[ClearedHot]

On 2/15/2021 at 8:29 PM, jazzdude said:

In theory, this is one of the benefits of a college education; exposure to new ideas and to people from a larger circle of people than your immediate community. Same could be said for athletic programs.

Sadly this theory clashes with tenure...

Uber left-wing professors (who outnumber uber-right wing professors by 100:1), now use college to indoctrinate rather than educate, which is a horrible waste of key time in a young persons life where they can think critically and develop their own viewpoints.

I spent some time at a place that is supposed to be the apex of our collegiate educational system, Harvard.  Instead of a great period of enlightenment it was daily hand-to-hand combat defending a viewpoint that dared to drift from extreme liberalism.  It is no shock our political system has become so dysfunctional, as every new administration brings in the Ivy League big brains to solve problems...further entrenching the extremist ideas.

Until we find ourselves back in another situation deemed national survival it will be difficult to employ a Clausewitzian total war approach to service to the nation. 

On 2/16/2021 at 9:08 AM, jazzdude said:

The challenge is getting the average American to buy into us being at risk for survival (at least enough to support conscription), especially when the threats and fighting seem so far away and conscription goes directly against the notion of individual freedom. If it was implemented, sure, long term it could be a shared american experience, but that transition will be very rough, for both the conscripts and for the military.

IMHO a better approach in current times would be to highlight the personal benefit and growth that comes with service to our country.  Whether is be military service, time in the Peace Corps, the National Health Service, working on a Native American Reservation...etc, there is tremendous opportunity to expand your mind and make a difference.

[Clark Griswold]

Commute worthy podcast on the draft

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

On 10/9/2024 at 9:58 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Commute worthy podcast on the draft
 

 

 

 

I second that.  Great discussion that no one is having.

[Clark Griswold]

I second that.  Great discussion that no one is having.

Concur
Not enough of them (discussions) on this and other policies we probably need to bring back or implement, we talk as a society a lot about lost, purposeless young people particularly young men and the gathering storms facing the LIO / American led world order we face from the eastern powers and our own inability to control ourselves so let’s do something to move that needle
The draft, mandatory service, etc… is part of that quiver of arrows needing to be shot IMO
It could be implemented any number of ways: straight up 18-24 months of service, training then X number of musters/exercises, etc…
Vary the training focuses of the exercises, urban, mountain, desert, amphibious, humanitarian relief, etc… and give the conscripts some choice in which they attend
It’s partly to meet a military need for trained mass if required and partly a social program to address cultural issues and build more national cohesion so giving it some sugar to attract more flies / reduce pushback to mandatory service methinks would be necessary, choice in required training events could be this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mp5g]

Completely agree Clark. And to add, I’ve believed for years that one of the reasons we are in this current predicament socially is that people have gotten used to constantly taking from this country and never giving back. They’ve got no skin in the game in striving to continue making this country the greatest country in the world. They will take and take and take and worry about only themselves instead of the greater good. I firmly support mandatory service of some sort. That doesn’t have to be military service akin to the Israeli model, but serving in any type of service that benefits the country you belong to should be a requirement. Forestry service, serving in the Red Cross, counting the number of wild pheasants, whatever the need, people should be expected to serve in some capacity. I won’t go full Robert Heinlein, but on a personal note, I do think serving in the military to become a a full fledged “citizen” would do a number for this country. Just imagine if the people who ran our country were forced to serve in some capacity before they took political office. More skin in the game would at least open up conversations that seem to be overlooked. 
 

“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part...and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.“

- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

[Lawman]

Completely agree Clark. And to add, I’ve believed for years that one of the reasons we are in this current predicament socially is that people have gotten used to constantly taking from this country and never giving back. They’ve got no skin in the game in striving to continue making this country the greatest country in the world. They will take and take and take and worry about only themselves instead of the greater good. I firmly support mandatory service of some sort. That doesn’t have to be military service akin to the Israeli model, but serving in any type of service that benefits the country you belong to should be a requirement. Forestry service, serving in the Red Cross, counting the number of wild pheasants, whatever the need, people should be expected to serve in some capacity. I won’t go full Robert Heinlein, but on a personal note, I do think serving in the military to become a a full fledged “citizen” would do a number for this country. Just imagine if the people who ran our country were forced to serve in some capacity before they took political office. More skin in the game would at least open up conversations that seem to be overlooked. 
 
“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part...and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.“
- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

There is a counterpoint to be made for not turning the military into an access tunnel towards greater social standing and upward mobility in power… and she makes it very detailed in that previous podcast.

The effectiveness of the military we wield is based largely off the degree to which the people within it choose to call it a profession and act as such. While we would most definitely bolster a lot of our manpower issues by turning on the tap of compulsory service, some of us remember the “I just joined for the college money” attitudes that existed when GWOT started demanding return to active duty or extensions of enlistments. I very much see a military filled with personnel that are there to just meet their social contract being more hollow entity than the one we currently have. You’d need a “Pearl Harbor moment” to actually galvanize that population in uniform when the call goes out into carrying on. And honestly with a unifying moment like that against an existential threat you’ll get the personnel you needed. While I agree we need more veterans in the politics above us, connected politicians masquerading as veterans is not the solution.

The harder question is what are we doing right now to prepare and how does that compare to the efforts of Bill Knudsen for the years preceding Pearl Harbor where we started looking to retool our industry for war. I’d say that is the harder technical problem to solve vs the draft. How many JASSMs and GMLRs can we manufacture a week… ok now how do we go about increasing that by a factor of 5, and I’m only gonna have 3 months to do it before it’s not gonna matter anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

There is a counterpoint to be made for not turning the military into an access tunnel towards greater social standing and upward mobility in power… and she makes it very detailed in that previous podcast.

The effectiveness of the military we wield is based largely off the degree to which the people within it choose to call it a profession and act as such. While we would most definitely bolster a lot of our manpower issues by turning on the tap of compulsory service, some of us remember the “I just joined for the college money” attitudes that existed when GWOT started demanding return to active duty or extensions of enlistments. I very much see a military filled with personnel that are there to just meet their social contract being more hollow entity than the one we currently have. You’d need a “Pearl Harbor moment” to actually galvanize that population in uniform when the call goes out into carrying on. And honestly with a unifying moment like that against an existential threat you’ll get the personnel you needed. While I agree we need more veterans in the politics above us, connected politicians masquerading as veterans is not the solution.

The harder question is what are we doing right now to prepare and how does that compare to the efforts of Bill Knudsen for the years preceding Pearl Harbor where we started looking to retool our industry for war. I’d say that is the harder technical problem to solve vs the draft. How many JASSMs and GMLRs can we manufacture a week… ok now how do we go about increasing that by a factor of 5, and I’m only gonna have 3 months to do it before it’s not gonna matter anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid point
I sent this pod to an O6 bud who had essentially the same reservations you and the commentator make but I would argue this is an acceptable risk as part of the preparations for a whole of society response to peer level conflict or sustained contingency.
As you mentioned industrial policy, this would be a manpower policy in addition to several I could see: industrial, manpower, financial, internal security, etc… to be brought to a boil, kept simmering or break glass if needed for use. Looking at you Russia, China, Iran…
A revived and new draft program (and new type of reserve system) would be not only to generate manpower, but to shape the population (no sinister intentions in that) to be able to come together in time of national need. We need a kernel of connection between fighting age males (primarily) & enough buy in from that and adjacent communities so that we can respond with a large force of infantry or various skill sets (cyber, intel, logistics, etc…)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

I think talks about mandatory service miss the point.

I don't think the Israelis have a heightened sense of purpose because of their mandatory service, they have a heightened sense of purpose because there is an immediate and obvious threat nearby. And even then, a lot of young Israelis were succumbing to the same aimless malaise we are in the West... Until October 7th.

 

We're fat, dumb, and (un)happy. From everything I've read, the 1920-30s were the same. Then economic crisis, then total war.

 

WWII was so catastrophic that it provided the West with meaning and identity for the next 70 years. I think WWIII will have the same effect.

Edited October 16 by Lord Ratner

[Milton]

23 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think talks about mandatory service miss the point.

I don't think the Israelis have a heightened sense of purpose because of their mandatory service, they have a heightened sense of purpose because there is an immediate and obvious threat nearby. And even then, a lot of young Israelis were succumbing to the same aimless malaise we are in the West... Until October 7th.

 

We're fat, dumb, and (un)happy. From everything I've read, the 1920-30s were the same. Then economic crisis, then total war.

 

WWII was so catastrophic that it provided the West with meaning and identity for the next 70 years. I think WWIII will have the same effect.

I would tend to agree. There may be a time and place for mass mobilization and a draft, and in all likelihood, a Pearl Harbor-like event would be the pretext for it. Then, it wouldn't need to be so mandatory, and certainly not in a state of relative peace. 

I understand the desire to reshape or reinvigorate civil society and many social ills, but I don't think the military is the right institution for it for two reasons. One, the military is a cross-section of society (for the most part)...you get every type and kind, good, bad, or indifferent. So the notion of bolstering civic pride and responsibility is somewhat moot because that's really not our job as it is. We make recruits capable of doing certain tasks and working as a team, but we have our fair share of $hitheads. The good ones are usually already decent folks before they join. Furthermore, if we are generalizing, there has been a marked decline in culture and social development over the past generation or two...kids are fatter, less engaged, and have a host of mental illnesses (anxiety, depression, need their mom to go to the job interview with them, etc). I don't think the military is capable of fixing this, and I certainly don't have the time (nor do the NCOs) to babysit and play stepdad to a mass of new trainees who need safe spaces and inhalers for every minor inconvenience.  We already have more things to do with fewer people and resources, so giving the military such a grandiose "fix the kids" task isn't going to help. What is that weekly staff meeting slide going to look like...? No thanks.

My second point is that our civil society is (or should be) shaped by the many small, local institutions that foster character formation, civic pride, and responsible adults. This isn't something we should look to the military to do. As a caveat, yes, veterans and military members can influence civil society, especially once they are out of uniform. That can be as parents, little league coaches, teachers, clergy, scouts, the Lions Club, etc. But we shouldn't look to the military to be the guiding force in our culture; if anything it is there to defend it, not influence it. I'm harping on this because one of my recent interests is reading about culture and civil society. There was a book written in 2001 (pre-internet and 9/11) called "Bowling Alone" by Harvard professor Robert Putnam. His main thesis is that civic participation declined markedly from about the 1960s to the turn of the 21st century. Notably, this was before social media, internet culture, and all the recent generational and technological changes we've experienced and it's only gotten worse (psychologist Jonathon Haidt is another good resource here). As a member of recreational bowling leagues, he observed that while the number of people bowling actually increased from ~1960 to 2000, the number of organized leagues declined. He used that anecdote to highlight a broader decline in civic participation from things like religious institutions, social clubs (Lions, Elks, etc), and character-forming organizations (e.g. scouts) as they were the means by which people interacted, developed social bonds, and solved problems. Since he's left of center, he chalks much of it up to wealth inequality, deindustrialization, etc but his point is salient. Interestingly, he also found that immigration and multiculturalism had a negative influence on social capital as there is less trust and cooperation both between groups and within groups. He also doesn't talk so much about the role of the welfare state, sexual/gender revolution, and various counter-cultural movements of the 60s and 70s that started the slow deconstruction of civic traditions and associations.

Long story short, sociocultural issues can't be solved primarily by the military, indeed not by the government. If anything, central planning and social engineering from bureaucrats will only make things worse.  We should use and respect the military for its intended purpose, not as a tool to correct social ills; doing so is likely to yield poor results in both the armed forces and civil society. We should instead heal our civic decline by emphasizing the importance of character-forming institutions, which, if the time comes, will benefit the military because it will have more ready, able, and willing recruits. 

Ask yourself, if we made the Air Force responsible for teaching young Americans math, science, and good character...is this something AETC will f*ck up? 

Edited October 17 by Milton