To: Chuck Pelto
Re: items
“But it all boils down to closing with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to kill or capture him. And to repel his attacks by fire and close combat.” –Chuck Pelto
But it is indisputable that not everyone in the armed forces is called on to close with the enemy in ways that require the physical fitness of the young. Many of the jobs in the logistical, intelligence, and maintenance branches can be done by older Americans and may even be done better by older Americans. A mechanic with 30 years experience maintaining commercial jets may well be more useful than a younger conscript or volunteer just out of training. Someone who has run a major company’s distribution network for most of his working life might very well be more valuable in a supply unit than someone recently commissioned.
I also wonder whether older conscripts would get more out of their training than younger ones. Over the course of a lifetime people tend to learn how to learn.
Granted, there will always be a need to close with the enemy, but it is also true that as war becomes more and more automated fewer and fewer people will be put in harm’s way. For example,UAVs are currently providing some close air support, which is a mission that requires pilots, if not to close with the enemy, at least to get in harm’s way. Many of those UAVs are flown by pilots stationed in the United States, on the other side of the world from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no reason these aircraft couldn’t be flown by middle aged conscript pilots, some of whom might well have thousands of hours of flight experience. As ground based remotely operated combat robots reach the battlefield, they could also be operated by older conscripts.
My point is not that there is no need for young soldiers, only that a very large number of military jobs — the 80 percent or so that do not involve combat — can be done by middle aged ones, and that in some cases the armed forces might be better served if they were. I never suggested that a draft of the middle aged would be a substitute for younger volunteers, only that conscription would focus on the middle aged not the young.
I’ll grant you that older Americans would not be as fit as younger ones, but I think it is wrong to assume that they could not perform most support roles and, for that matter, a number of missions at the sharp end involving indirect fire. I think it would also be wrong to assume they wouldn’t perform well under attack. Part of what comes comes with getting old is learning how to perform in a crisis and not crack. Many of the old already have learned it. Many of the young have yet to learn it.
“And, whereas C3 is part an parcel of that, it doesn’t do much to just stand there and shout orders to “GO AWAY!” in order to get an enemy out of a position or defend a position.” –Chuck Pelto
Again, most older conscripts would never get anywhere near a battlefield. But assume for a moment that they did. It would be wrong to assume that the middle aged would be incompetent in combat. They would on average be less fit, but in many ways more experienced. It’s easy to envision scenarios where more fit is critical, but it is also easy to envision situations where more experienced is also critical — particularly situations involving urban counter-insurgency in which insurgents operate in intimate contact with the people.
“The idea of Universal National Service is to turn ‘boys’ INTO men. Something the vaunted American public education system has been failing to do for several decades now.” –Chuck Pelto
The advocates of Universal National Service be selling that, but I’m not buying. I’m not arguing for Universal National Service. I’m arguing that if we are to bring back conscription it should be only as a wartime measure in a time of formally declared war, and that it focus on older men rather than younger ones.
The central mission of the United States Army is not to make boys into men. It is to defeat or destroy the enemies of the United States. The only reason to have conscription is to further that mission.
If the Army can instill character and civic values among its recruits, that’s all to the good, but making boys into men is not the reason we have an army — and it is certainly no reason to have a draft.
Regards,
Paul Danish
