Apart from a fascination with military history, I had a small part in one of the roadshow tours some years back. It ain't all book-learnin'; I did it live, too.
When I was in GErmany, I was assigned to the Aid Station of a Combat (Heavy) Engineer Battalion. Their job was to build base camps, etc... In Saudi and Somolia we built and manned refugee camps. The Army has phased out the Combat Heavy batallions. I tend to question the logic in this decision, since the whole idea is that while building these facilities they were also able to defend them. From what I've read about Bechtel, et al, they refuse to show up until it is absolutely "safe." What about the troops who are already there? I have also read that cooks (!) are being phased out, in favour of civillian contractors. If the civilian catering facilities also refuse to show up, it is no wonder morale in Iraq is terribly low. MRE's should be declared a war crime! A steady diet of MREs over months and months is a good way to develop a bowel obstruction!
As P Diddie said on another thread, Let's stay on topic. The topic is:
Will there be an active draft in the US?
Hobibit thinks so.
I am very much afraid that he is not correct.
According to reports from the military services, all of the services are meeting their goals.
quote
"early in the global war on terrorism,many predicted the US would have to return to the draft to man the forces.
The Army, Navy, Air Forces and Mariness are on course to make their recruitment goals by 9/30/2003.
Furthermore, the retention figures are good also.
The Army, for example, needed 13,883 soldiers to re-enlist to meet retention goals.
Instead, 14, 599 re-enlisted. This was 106% of the retention goal"
end of quote
hobitbob, I agree there is a need for combat engineers, bith heavy and light. I hope the Army sees the need as well. The Navy, and by connection the Marine Corps, apparently do. The Airfoce's need for such is less critical by far. I do feel the Army's need for combat-capable engineers can be met with significant, even primary, foucus on positioning that requirement within the Ready Reserve/National Guard as opposed to full time active duty formations.
As to commisary and mess requirements, medical services, and other logistic necessities, if the civilian sector is able to provide effective service at cost advantage during peacetime, fine, and it certainly should be encouraged to do so. The military should however be able to assume its full wartime logistic and support load quickly and efficiently should the need for wartime operations arise. That, available additional capability beyond normal peacetime requirements, is what the reseves are supposed to be about, after all ... isn't it?
Under Reagan much of the Combat Arms load was shifted to the Reserve Component. Under Bush I Combat Support and Combat Service Suport followed. By the Clinton presidency, further drwadown had shifted the majority of troop strength from active duty to reserves (no, Italgato, I don't have a link). The Bush II administration, under Rumsfeld, has continued this trend. The difficulties currently being encountered by the simultaneous deployment activities in South Asia, Mesopotamia, and the Balkans are showing just how thinly stretched resources are.
Oh, I'm not tryin' to put a brave face on it; I feel the Active Duty Military is currently at less than optimal strength. I don't see a crisis immediately at hand, but resources indeed are being pushed to undesireable limits. I would very much like to see more funding for both Active and Reserve personnel recruitment and retention, such funding to include a restorastion of recently curtailed benefits and perqs.
Did you know that in order to boost enlistment, the Army is contemplating offering one year active duty enlistments? This seems silly to me. Since most MOS' require at least twelve weeks of AIT, after eight weeks of basic, that leaves seven months total for active duty (one would hope there is an active reserve commitment, instead of IRR after ETS!). This seems to me like it would be disruptive to unit cohesion (I also admit being appalled by the current "army of one" ad campaign! Commonly heard during Basic and AIT: "What are you, Private...an individual!?!").
I know what ya mean. Glad neither my kid nor I were in the Army. Jarheads are still pretty much "The Real Deal", though things are a lot cushier for the troops than in my time, and my old man looked with barely suppressed contempt on the feather-lined, milk-fed, tamed-down Marine Corps his kid joined. And Grandpa ... well lemme tell ya, son. gettin' rid of horses was the damned-foolest idea ever was, and an officer or noncom whose sword wasn't suitable for shaving with wasn't worth spit.
Have t agree with the "army of one" comments. I had really thought that was settled between the English and Scottish at, where, Culloden, or something like that?
