Who will fight the next war?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Interesting yet sad state of affairs article about the lack of recruitment for the US military.
The Economist | Civil-military relations: Who will fight the next war? http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21676778-failures-iraq-and-afghanistan-have-widened-gulf-between-most-americans-and-armed?frsc=dg%7Cd
During the Korean war about 70% of eligible men in the US actually served in the military. During the Vietnam war around 43% served. Today fewer than 30% even qualify and of them , about 21 million 9.5 million can't pass rudimentary academic qualifications.
So less than 1% will actually serve and our once technological advantage no longer exists.
The question is who will actually fight our wars and will they be qualified to even read and write?

I'm not advocating for more war or even the wars we're currently engaged in, just asking what as a nation do we do? The draft, while seems like the obvious choice doesn't address the academic shortcomings.

[stromboli]

Interesting yet sad state of affairs article about the lack of recruitment for the US military.
The Economist | Civil-military relations: Who will fight the next war? http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21676778-failures-iraq-and-afghanistan-have-widened-gulf-between-most-americans-and-armed?frsc=dg%7Cd
During the Korean war about 70% of eligible men in the US actually served in the military. During the Vietnam war around 43% served. Today fewer than 30% even qualify and of them , about 21 million 9.5 million can't pass rudimentary academic qualifications.
So less than 1% will actually serve and our once technological advantage no longer exists.
The question is who will actually fight our wars and will they be qualified to even read and write?

I'm not advocating for more war or even the wars we're currently engaged in, just asking what as a nation do we do? The draft, while seems like the obvious choice doesn't address the academic shortcomings.

From my personal viewpoint its worse than that. The current all volunteer service has managed to waste a generation of highly trained soldiers; killed them, crippled them, disillusioned them and more. The promises made to them were not kept. They can treat draftees different than professional volunteers. They are there whether they want to be or not. Ask any Vietnam vet that got drafted.

[Baruch]

Most American young men are not fit physically nor mentally for military service.  But this has probably always been true.  Wars traditionally were fought with small numbers of volunteers and draftees before Napoleon.

The conspiracy theorist in me, is that the situation since 2001 was invented to destroy the volunteer professional military ... by those who never wanted it in the first place.  Autocracy prefers a draft, not only during the Cold War, but also into the future.  Professional soldiers in large numbers are a potential threat to the regime ... just ask any Emperor overthrown by the Pretorian Guard.

Scifi afficionadoes of course believe that wars will be fought by robots ... then you no longer need to worry about underfunding the VA.  The greatest ideal would be the Star Trek classic episode of the planets who fought mathematically, and had passive citizens who had been theoretically killed (this is even better than neutron bombs) without any property damage, simply show up at termination stations.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It should seem apparent to even the stupidest citizen that spending trillions of dollars for a fighting force consisting of less than 1% of our population is well beyond absurd. While our infrastructure crumbles we're dumping half of our national treasure into 1% of our population to fight in wars we have zero need to be in. It's so utterly absurd we have to invent a foe so utterly horrible that they'll crucify people. If they were as bad as we're all being lead to believe and anywhere near the threat they're portrayed to be young men and women should be lining up for miles to fight them off.

[aitm]

In my opinion and I am not going to look up the statistics to support this because I think I am somewhat sure of their accuracy. Vietnam became a black mans best option for not only getting out of poverty but the chance at a later education. Mostly though they had nothing else to do. The draft notwithstanding blacks opted to volunteer somewhere over 25% if I recall.

Over the years, the critical educational level of the volunteer has become less and less an issue as technology more and more was able to replace personal decisions and removed the question of human screw ups. I think the boots on the ground campaign is understood by the hierarchy as simple sacrificable manpower that has little value outside of the combat zone. I cannot speak for the medical treatment of the vets prior to the Bush's mideast incursions but it has been my understanding that the medical treatment of vets has never been great but is now, due to social media, has become not just a rallying cry of vets but a definitive "disclaimer by proxy" not to join the military. Smarter people get this, impoverished still have little options. Poverty and higher education in general are not comfortable bed mates.

[Jack89]

I'm sure the standards will become quite flexible when necessary.  If one of the disqualifiers is visible tattoos, I imagine the quota numbers aren't too terrible yet. 

[Baruch]

It should seem apparent to even the stupidest citizen that spending trillions of dollars for a fighting force consisting of less than 1% of our population is well beyond absurd. While our infrastructure crumbles we're dumping half of our national treasure into 1% of our population to fight in wars we have zero need to be in. It's so utterly absurd we have to invent a foe so utterly horrible that they'll crucify people. If they were as bad as we're all being lead to believe and anywhere near the threat they're portrayed to be young men and women should be lining up for miles to fight them off.

The upper class has always been absurd.  It is absurd giving 99% of the assets to 1% of the population.  And what inherited wealth in particular thinks ... has always been tragedy.

[Baruch]

I'm sure the standards will become quite flexible when necessary.  If one of the disqualifiers is visible tattoos, I imagine the quota numbers aren't too terrible yet.

This is why we have had people unfit to serve, committing atrocities in the combat zones.  But as long as the other guy's civilians suffer, it doesn't matter.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is a deep and difficult question.  Empire needs to thread a very fine line in educating the populace, just smart enough to manage empire, not smart enough to question empire.   They need to be able to think well enough to operate equipment, not not smart enough to ask why and just obey orders.

A very difficult balance.  Veer too far one way you get a populace too incompetent to help rule the empire.  They can't manage the locals, they can't operate the equipment, etc.  Veer too far the other way you get a populace that will question the very basis of the empire.  They will ask why we are managing the locals and what is the purpose of all the freedoms sacrificed to achieve empire.

The US cannot maintain that balance.  Our leadership is just not good at it.

[Baruch]

This may or may not match Jonb's politics ... but Britain is different from the US ... there is an actual Left there ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKdq6jC0Jk ... this is factual, as to why Nato does what it does, in Libya and elsewhere ...

Neither Left nor Right matches my politics, but for many Americans ... the KKK is considered not R-wing enough ... and John Birch is considered Leftist ... because Hitler isn't Right enough.  There is no Left in the US in absolute terms ... and so the neb-lib/neo-cons can't be brought to account.