Trump is trying to politicize the military

[unapologetic]

Members of the military are not allowed to make political gestures, such as applauding the political speech of Trump, while in uniform.

I prefer to think they just didn't approve of Rump.

Remember the soldiers behind Trump laughing and whooping it up?

Those were the rank and file. Not the generals.

If some are being conscripted, and others are not, resentment will build among the conscripted.

I'm old enough to remember the Viet Nam draft. The military managed to cope with that resentment. It was civilian resistance that caused problems.

 

[Terrell]

Sounds like disciplinary issues waiting to happen. You're forcing millions of people who don't want to be there, may have better options, or both to do military service. It's when and how many, not if, people aren't going to be willing to play ball. Not to mention most 18 year olds are not qualified to be in the military.

Military Times article

At least some of these people will have talents that can be put to better use elsewhere, you're delaying their ability to do so. It's also going to cost a bunch of money, those people have physical needs, that will cost tax dollars to fulfill, and those people are going to want paychecks. They're not going to be happy if they could get higher pay elsewhere and are barred from doing so.

Many disciplinary issues stem from supervisors letting the small things go, the stuff that doesn't warrant action by the commanding officer. People with disciplinary issues or just bad attitudes will have them no matter where they are or what they are doing.

If we want a qualified pool of individuals, mandatory registration and calling up a portion of them as needed will do. Affects to careers that are put on hold can be mitigated by law just as there are laws in place now to protect service members and their family financially. Remember, for the vast majority of the human population, careers in the hard sciences are not going to be disrupted. Most people are just filling cubicles.

Plenty of countries have mandatory conscription Switzerland, Norway, Greece and Finland which I'm told is the happiest place on earth. Finland is six months to a year. That's a high turnover rate and they seem to find the money for it.

Peoples perception of the military must largely come from movies, that there needs to be some warrior attitude to serve. Or maybe it's piss poor marketing on the part of the military. It floors me that people willingly take on a mountain of student loan debt that will take them on average 20 years to pay off when for three years of active duty between high school and college the government would pay for it all for four years and provide a monthly tax free allowance along the way. Here that allowance would be about $1400, in Southern California, about $4000. For most, this is way better than mom and dad can do.

Disciplinary issues aren't going to go away by being more strict; it might make it worse. The issue I'm talking about is resistance from the people who don't want to be there. Some portion of them will do just enough to keep their immediate supervisor off their ass, usually a Staff Sergeant or Tech Sergeant (USAF ranks). Not their best work, just enough to stay out of trouble for a 4 year enlistment, plus an IRR component. Others will actively do stupid shit that might require the 1st Sergeant or the CO to be involved.

No amount of laws will remove the "I don't want to be here" problem that will occur with any type of conscription.

I know what it's like to be in the USAF in the 1990s. I know that most people don't see combat, I had an office job. I'm also aware of the GI bill from that era as well.

Mandatory military service may not have anything to do with those countries' citizens' happiness. That whole correlation/causation thing.

As for recruiting, military recruiters are allowed in all high schools and colleges in the USA by federal law. LIke the article I liked earlier, most teens and young adults aren't qualified for the military. Many that are, aren't interested. Ads on TV, national anthem at most, if not all, sports events, flyovers at some sports events, pledge every day in many schools. Some places even give discounts to active duty, and/or veterans. It's not for lack of recruitment effort.

Money, about 4.2 million kids were born in 2007. They turn(ed) 18 this year. That's more than all branches of the military combined, including guard and reserves. If some are being conscripted, and others are not, resentment will build among the conscripted.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_24.pdf

Deleted Beau. I watched half of it, up until the movement of service members between units or services, also known as "individual augmentation". To this point he was telling me nothing new and his slow way of putting out information grates on my nerves.

Most people will make the best of a situation they cannot change. In a study, 60% college students said as much about the pandemic. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say being drafted for XX months/years isn't as bad as enduring a pandemic of unknown duration. I can't access the full study itself, just an abstract and article referencing it.
People who would complain or do the least amount of work to skate by are mostly people who will do so in any situation. A bad attitude is a character trait more often than a trigger for having to do something one does not want to.
I think you're coming at this from solely a perspective of a change over from an all volunteer force to a conscription model. In this, you are correct. There will be problems but as time passes and graduating high school students know of no other system, it will be accepted as just part of life. This is evidenced by the Finnish model which is widely accepted by the general population. A population that feels more a sense of duty to their country than themself. We should be so lucky. Individualism tears at the fabric of society.

And what of those who don't? They're a potential problem. The military doesn't want to deal with them. Not to mention if you court-martial them and give them Bad Conduct/Dishonorable discharges you now have a new felon on the streets after he gets out of military prison. They're going to have fewer employment options than had they simply been left alone.

Do you really want people who will just skate by when important things, possibly lives, are at stake?

You don't know that a person that will skate in one situation will necessarily skate in another. People might skate on something they feel is a chore, but might excel in something they feel strongly about. Passion means something with regards to individual behavior.

The Finnish model is accepted by the citizens of Finland. Finland is not the United States of America. We're different, culturally, from them. You have a threat on your border in Russia. They don't have the logistics to take and occupy the USA, especially the Lower 48.

I think "those who don't" will be a small percentage and decrease in time as conscription becomes the norm in society. To end up at a court martial a person basically has to commit a crime eligible for a lengthy prison sentence. All other offenses a commanding officer can judge and punish: non-judicial or NJP.
Percentages of discharges that are punitive are rare. Dishonorable .07%, Bad Conduct .49%, Other Than Honorable 2.09%. Only these will lose a person their VA benefits (GI Bill) and still will be judged by the VA on a case by case basis depending on what if any trauma the individual may have suffered in the past.

And for that subset so vehemently opposed to serving in the military, willing to risk it all to stand on principle, I would suggest service in the Peace Corp or similar be qualifying. They can maintain fire roads or perform trail maintenance in the Sierra Nevada Mountains working for the US Forest Service. That's a real character builder and would be most deserving of qualifying for the GI Bill.

Yes, Finland has a mad dog for a neighbor. Their conscription service was born out of this necessity. But it is culturally accepted. As far as I know, has always been accepted for this very reason. As time passes I think there can be cultural acceptance of having to perform some service to country in one form or another. It would rein in individualism and teach people the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

I know about Article 15. Disobeying a lawful order from someone of higher rank (Officer or NCO), going AWOL, desertion, missing movement, can also get you court-martialed. In a civilian job those actions wouldn't be crimes; they can get you fired.

They shouldn't have to join the Peace Corps either. People are not property of the government, let individuals decide their own life path..

We don't have that mad dog neighbor. Neither Canada nor Mexico has any interest, much less the ability, to invade the US. That underlying necessity doesn't exist here. We also often use our military offensively, rather than defensively. Being in our military can involve being stationed in other countries an ocean away. Individualism is a part of American culture. I doubt people will just go with it, especially people subjected to it. Vietnam and the second war in Iraq are examples that damaged, if not destroyed, plenty of trust in the government. Sabre rattling with regards to Iran is not helping.

We also know how these things have historically worked out here, people with money/connections can get out of service. Phantom bone spurs comes to mind.

Either way the money issue is a thing I mentioned earlier. "We have money to conscript people, but not enough to have healthcare?"

 

[bilby]

The primary mission of the military is to defend the country, and to project power against other countries and their militaries.

Babysitting a bunch of teenagers does very little to help that mission in the modern world, where technology has supplanted mere cannon fodder as the way to win wars.

The armed forces certainly need people with a new set of skills; A muscle-bound thug with hand-to-hand brawling skills still has a role to play, but while a century ago that plus a few months of training in rifle and bayonet skills made for a valuable soldier, today a spotty dweeb with FPS skills who can rapidly learn to pilot a drone is probably more valuable.

In my experience, nerds don't do well in environments where they are required to become jocks. The military has to change, and needs a broader base of recruits than it wanted in 1910, or 1970. But conscription is old school, and is likely to do more harm than good.

The old saying has it that "One volunteer is worth ten pressed men". But in a high tech military, that volunteer is probably worth fifty. And doesn't look much like the traditional image of a warrior. Attracting that kind of recruit needs a new approach, and compulsion would be counterproductive.

Conscription may, just possibly, be good for the country, and might even be goid for many of the conscripts; But it's not good for the armed forces, and while they certainly can make it work if they must, it is a distraction they don't need from their primary mission.