The Call To Serve

[scoober78]

My brother just got promoted to Colonel today and it got me thinking about the nature of service in the "all volunteer" military we are members of.

1. Three of the four of us (my brothers) have served more than 10 years in the military. Numerous others in our extended family have served as well. As the overall percentage of the Nation who've worn the uniform declines, I suspect that this trend of "deep" vs. "wide" service will have to continue. Is it sustainable? If not, what is the tipping point? What are the solutions other than the draft?

2. Does this "deep" service profile say anything interesting socially about us? Are we setting up a privileged or underprivileged class of those who have or are serving? For more explanation consider Sparta, where military training was required for full citizenship versus say, Germany where the Army provided a distinct and different culture from the SS and Nazi party dogma.

3. If we should someday find ourselves in a near-peer conflict, will the current personnel scheme prove sufficient? Where does this threshold lie with regard to opponents? Russia? China?

 

[wlawr005]

I must be completely honest by saying I have absolutely no idea what anything you just asked means. That's usually my case with your posts, but this one is "special".

Maybe some clarification on "deep" vs. "wide" for the layperson.

 

[scoober78]

I must be completely honest by saying I have absolutely no idea what anything you just asked means. That's usually my case with your posts, but this one is "special".

Maybe some clarification on "deep" vs. "wide" for the layperson.

HA! I'll admit, I sometimes take a wander into academia, look around and say "Yeah, this seems legit."

What I mean...If the military needs three people:

Wide...drawing minimally from a wide slice of the Nation. In my example, one brother from three families serving...
Deep...what I am speculating we see now...Drawing more from a thinner slice of the Nation percentage-wise. Three of four brothers in one family serve...

 

[MasterBates]

Deep service: Numbers maintained through a smaller number of people who serve for a medium to long term. Say 6 years to retirement for average service length. Small percentage of eligible population actually serves.

Wide service: Numbers maintained through a large number of people who serve mostly for a short term, with a core of "professionals" who stay for a career. Sweden is like this. Our forces in WWII-Korea-VN were like this. In a lot of countries, everyone or most everyone eligible serves, either through mandatory conscription, patriotism, or a fairly kick ass benefit plan. I forget if it was Sweden or Finland, but I remember talking to some sailors on BALTOPS and they were on a "do two years of voluntary national service, get college for free" plan. Think GI Bill on steroids.

 

[OscarMyers]

I often wonder the same thing, especially with the divide between civilian and military culture increasing. The whole "the military is at war while America is at the mall" comes to mind. I like to think in a larger near peer conflict that a sufficient number of citizens would pony up, kind of like how people did in the days after 9-11. Here is an interesting article that touches on the citizenry divide.

 

[Spekkio]

From a submariner perspective, a two-year enlistment would be useless. For nukes, they'd be on a sub long enough to do their check-in and check-out paperwork. For coners, they'd be onboard long enough to get pinned and leave before they actually got anywhere near decent at doing their jobs.

Infantry might be another story... or might not, but it takes 2 years to make a competent Sailor.

 

[scoober78]

From a submariner perspective, a two-year enlistment would be useless. For nukes, they'd be on a sub long enough to do their check-in and check-out paperwork. For coners, they'd be onboard long enough to get pinned and leave before they actually got anywhere near decent at doing their jobs.

Infantry might be another story... or might not, but it takes 2 years to make a competent nuclear trained Sailor.

Fixed it for ya.

The WWII draft, informationally, ended up as "duration of the war +6 months." Just an FYI.

 

[Flugelman]

From a submariner perspective, a two-year enlistment would be useless. For nukes, they'd be on a sub long enough to do their check-in and check-out paperwork. For coners, they'd be onboard long enough to get pinned and leave before they actually got anywhere near decent at doing their jobs.

Infantry might be another story... or might not, but it takes 2 years to make a competent Sailor.

When I joined the serice in '60 it was for a 3 year enlistment. Draftees at that time were in for 2 years.

 

[Swanee]

From a submariner perspective, a two-year enlistment would be useless. For nukes, they'd be on a sub long enough to do their check-in and check-out paperwork. For coners, they'd be onboard long enough to get pinned and leave before they actually got anywhere near decent at doing their jobs.

Infantry might be another story... or might not, but it takes 2 years to make a competent Sailor.

Unless you are looking for people to chip paint and clean heads for 2 years. You can make them pretty easily.

 

[707guy]

When I joined the serice in '60 it was for a 3 year enlistment. Draftees at that time were in for 2 years.

Question for you Flug - when you were in at that time was there a "divide" between those who were just there because they had to be and those who chose to be there? I guess I'm getting at something like "well that guy's only here for two years so he gets the crap jobs" vs. "you're in for a while so we'll put more effort into your training" type of thing.

 

[Spekkio]

Unless you are looking for people to chip paint and clean heads for 2 years. You can make them pretty easily.

There's just not enough space to fill up a submarine with a bunch of non-qual draftees to clean bilges and heads for 2 years.

It's not just nukes these days that takes a while to train. A-school, bess, plus basic professional schools to meet ship requirements easily eat up close to a year of service time. Throw in 3 months as a crank and you've got 9-12 months out of the guy to get him qualified and stand the watch. That's not very efficient for the investment. For nukes, add another year of nuke school and prototpye on there, which is why I said they would barely have time to check-in.

 

[Flugelman]

Question for you Flug - when you were in at that time was there a "divide" between those who were just there because they had to be and those who chose to be there? I guess I'm getting at something like "well that guy's only here for two years so he gets the crap jobs" vs. "you're in for a while so we'll put more effort into your training" type of thing.

If there was I was never aware of it. My first enlistment was U. S. Army, heavy weapons. Any discrimination was more on a social basis rather than if your serice number started with a US (draftee) or RA (volunteer). I worked under draftee non-coms and later had draftees working for me. When conditions were bad RAs caught some grief (You volunteered for this???) but when things were good (Out in the gasthaus sucking up some primo Herenbrau beer) we all got along. Things may have changed as Viet Nam came along.

 

[707guy]

If there was I was never aware of it. My first enlistment was U. S. Army, heavy weapons. Any discrimination was more on a social basis rather than if your serice number started with a US (draftee) or RA (volunteer). I worked under draftee non-coms and later had draftees working for me. When conditions were bad RAs caught some grief (You volunteered for this???) but when things were good (Out in the gasthaus sucking up some primo Herenbrau beer) we all got along. Things may have changed as Viet Nam came along.

Thanks for the info!

 

[bubblehead]

AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country
http://www.amazon.com/AWOL-Unexcuse..._B001IR1DY6_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351733950&sr=1-1

I believe in mandatory service, of some kind, be it for the government or military.

There are too many 20-somethings who have a complete and utter disregard and lack of respect for the military and the people who serve.

I had 20-something family member who told me that people who are in the military are "sheep." I wanted to bitch slap the person, but had to remind myself that it was coming from a person who was still living with mommy and daddy, and who had a dead-end job and no education. The persons mommy still made their dinner and did their laundry.

And, the lack of military service of many of our elected officials bothers me.

 

[BusyBee604]

When I joined the serice in '60 it was for a 3 year enlistment. Draftees at that time were in for 2 years.

Ol' BusyBee enlisted in the Navy in '52, it was for 4 years, no draftees. Good times...everyone there, wanted to be there. I wanted Submarines (no nukes then). Then sent to ET "A" School (9 mos). Sub volunteers had to finish in top 10% of class in "A" school (all rates except deck), to get orders to Sub School (10 wks). Reporting aboard non-rated or E-3, mess crank or compt clng (3 mos), 6 mos. to qualify (SS Dolphins) on boat, leaving 2 1/2 years of pure production in rate, on a 4-yr hitch. Two year hitches wouldn't have been workable then, and impossible for Nukes as boot camp & schools would eat up over 2 yrs for most rates.

*My Boat, photo courtesy of MasterBates
BzB