They Bought Their Tickets, They Knew What They Were Getting Into. I Say, Let 'Em Crash

New at Reason: Stop-loss orders are a strange way of supporting our troops. So why don't you hear more about them?

Comments

[MFRR]

I kind of lump this into the realm of "anyone stupid enough to volunteer to support the whims of a future, unknown admistration deserves to get screwed."

Yes, stop-loss is still wrong the way it's being sold. But it's also why I don't really "support out troops", at least not all of them.

[joe]

That's a wicked cool Airplane reference.

[Russ]

The one thing I learned from my 9 years of service (Navy) is not to believe a single word from the mouth of anyone employed at a recruiting office.

[Warren]

"For all the public encomia to our troops and Veteran's Day platitudes about how freedom isn't free, American service people get screwed hard, fast, and often."

AMEN! There's a sentiment that needs to be reiterated louder and more often.

For the record I served three years on active duty in the USN during the mid 80s. Also three years in the active reserve during Gulf War I (I was not called up)

[fyodor]

What's the Airplane reference, Joe? (or anyone?)

[david f]

that came up during the "counterpoint" tv segment during the movie. remember how they had different news flashes about the impending disaster? including one where the person banged on a drumb-type-thingy (technical term)... the other good one was the feminist talkshow where they explained that this was the consequence of a society that's run by flesh-eating men. so there.

and don't forget the Princess Bride reference yesterday...

good call joe!!!

cheers,
drf

[Argyles]

My fave bit of that "Airplane" sequence was the aboriginal anchorman. It was great when he shifted on cue from camera 1 to camera 2 without missing a beat. A true TV professional. He'd still be better than O'Reilly.

[s.m. koppelman]

Assuming the administration wants to keep troop deployments at the current level (500,000 or so, last I heard), they have few choices. Raise pay sharply until it's enough of an incentive to stay in the line of fire? Hardly. Reinstate the draft? Not with Charles Rangel out there ready to pounce with his wry draft reinstatement proposal, which closes off most of the old deferments and exemptions and would send off the middle-class and the affluent in equal proportion to the poor.

For as long as they can get away with it, they'll be issuing stop-loss orders.

[dj of raleigh]

I don't see a big issue in the stop loss,
other than as a device in the package against the war.
Once the war is over, the long held ability & use
of the services to extend time will live one,
and the issue will die

Despite having dreaded it for years, I support a draft.
I have NO fear of a draftee army ever staging a military coup.
I support a universal draft without deferments.
I'm way liberal on this one.

I was number 38 in the first lottery,
was promptly drafted into the Army,
but joined the Marines to avoid being a draftee,
(jumping from the pan into the fire),
but the USMC recruiters didn't lie to me.

They said it would be hell on earth,
and it was,
but I would survive training,
and I did,
and that training would help me survive Vietnam,
and it did,
for while I was at Parris Island, SC,
President Nixon pulled the Marines out of Nam - 1970.
If I had been drafted into the army,
we might have won that war!
or the one with my name on it might have found me!

One thing, tho, you can't quit the fire department
when the bell sounds, or when your shift is over,
and enlistments don't end when you pick,
or even after you are discharged.
Don't think you can't be called back up
for some time to come, 'cause you can.

Recruiters are like politicians with four parties.
They make it all sound good while you are deciding what to do.
They all say they are the best one to join.

Anyone who thinks they aren't being sold,
is due a lesson they are going to get.
People hear just what they want to hear,
no matter what they are told, see, or read.

I will say that I went to an Air Force recruiter,
saying I wanted to be a pilot and fly jets,
but I didn't want to drop bombs on non-military targets.
The guy told me that IF I qualified to be a pilot,
about 1 in ten thousand,
I would have training wasted on me if I thought that way.
He said join the Marines and you can see who you are killing. I did, but didn't.

As far as I can tell, recruiters are thriving,
and there is no shortage of people joining up.
And raising this issue to 'resist' the war,
is going to appeal to people who wouldn't join anyway,
not to fight Hitler, himself, even from a M*A*S*H unit.

[Will Spencer]

As I curently understand the problem, the Congress (not the administration) needs to approve troop levels above 500,000 -or- stop asking the military to accomplish tasks that cannot be safely accomplished by 500,000 troops.

During the American Civil War, General Nathan Bedford Forrest stated that in order to win a battle, "you had to get there the firstest with the mostest".

The lesson here is that lower troop counts often result in higher casualties.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Reinstate the draft? Not with Charles Rangel out there ready to pounce with his wry draft reinstatement proposal, which closes off most of the old deferments and exemptions and would send off the middle-class and the affluent in equal proportion to the poor.

There are many reasons to oppose Rangel's idea, but this is not one of them. I wanted to put a long digression about this into the article, because there's no such thing as a draft without deferments, nor should there be.

Will they really be drafting sole-breadwinner fathers? How about single mothers? Hardship farm boys? Other kinds of parents? People supporting disabled parents? Are they really going to press graduate students in engineering and medical school scholars into mindless national service positions?

A draft will always be "unfair" for the same reason a graduated tax system will be "unfair." The government can put itself into the position of stealing the citizens' lives, liberty and property, but it also wants to maintain the illusion that it is not inhumane, incredibly stupid, or needlessly destroying the national prosperity. Nothing would reveal the monstrousness of government faster, or be more obviously monstrous, than a truly fair draft. The deferments Rangel talks about didn't come about in a vacuum, nor were they concocted by scheming plutocrats.

If they actually start drafting people without deferments, the stories of wrecked lives, understaffed hospitals and police forces, and abandoned children will pile up so fast that the full array of Vietnam-era deferments will be back within a year. And obviously, people of means will always have ways of taking advantage of them. The more fair they try to make it, the more unfair it will be, which is why they shouldn't start the process at all.

[Andrew]

I guess I am in sympathy with the title on the blog-- as opposed to the article. They made me take my enlistment oath twice, and it seemed like any mildly enterprising recruit could bail in basic.

Maybe we rely too much on part-time soldiers. Nobody joins the full-time military for job training, much less the paycheck. Is the preference for NG/ER partly because it's perceived as a social program? (Yeah and cheaper-- you get what you pay for.)

Nice to hear Albright say something astute.

Some doves would have had troops stationed around Iraq for years-- to "intimidate Saddam".

I am confident that the troops will return home proud of their service and their leaders-- the real disaster facing the Democrats.

(Yeah, I know, the guy YOU know stationed there is due to be a viet-era crybaby-psycho...I have heard that crap from liberals in every intervention since viet-nam.)

[Charlie]

When you join up, it's made clear that it's x years "or at the pleasure of the President." They can RIF you any time, and they can hold you in if they need you.

If yo weren't listening and get disappointed, the more fool you.

[thoreau]

About a draft:

I can think of no better way to win the war on fat. Think about it: We could require all 18 year-olds to spend a year in military training and service. During that time they'd be required to perform considerable physical exercise, and at least during basic training they'd have to eat their meals in the military's mess hall. It would be a great way to control diet and exercise!

I don't see anything that could go wrong if we used our armed forces for social engineering instead of national security. If we're going to reshape the conditions in the Middle East, can't we use the armed forces to also get our youth in shape?

It's for the children...

[a penguin]

"I am confident that the troops will return home proud of their service and their leaders..."

Well, they're usually proud of their service, but what makes you think they're proud of their leaders? Are you proud of our leaders? If so, why?

Also, why do you believe that people who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder are "crybabies"?

[Ruthless]

I was baited and switched here.
I thought you were discussing the stop-loss order that my favorite domestic doyenne--wwmd?--should have had in writing.

Nevermind.

[Rick C]

If they actually start drafting people without deferments, the stories of wrecked lives, understaffed hospitals and police forces, and abandoned children will pile up so fast that the full array of Vietnam-era deferments will be back within a year. And obviously, people of means will always have ways of taking advantage of them. The more fair they try to make it, the more unfair it will be, which is why they shouldn't start the process at all.

Tim, isn't that Rangel's point?

[Isaac Bartram]

"Tim, isn't that Rangel's point?"

Uh, no it's not. Rangel's an authoritarian bastard who thinks you're the property of the State and that he and his cronies know best.

[dj of raleigh]

> in order to win a battle, "you had to get there the firstest with the mostest".
The lesson here is that lower troop counts often result in higher casualties.

[dj of raleigh]

> there's no such thing as a draft without deferments, nor should there be.

[Jean Bart]

AJMB,

Well, I was never in the Legion, but at one point the Legion did certainly admit deserters from both the French military (as well, as those discharged with dishonor) and foreign militaries (they likely still do - though there are some classes of people that they will not admit today - murderers, rapists, etc.); whether they actively sought them out, I cannot say. But I would suspect that they didn't have to. Today the Legion is (and has the luxury of being) selective in who it admits into its ranks; plus the initial "weeding out" process is so rigorous that only those with a lot of physical and emotional character tend to survive it. There is a natural rivalry between the Marines and the Foreign Legion; so there can be a bias from both sides; but the Legion is still one of the world's most elite fighting units.

[Jean Bart]

AMJB,

BTW, France (like Britain and other European countries) has a long history of enlisting the aid of foreign troops in its defence (and offence) - Scots under Charles VII, Napoleon's heroic Polish Lancers, etc. Indeed, I am the offspring of Catholic Scots who fought for Louis XV; Le Royale Ecossais.

The colors in 1744 of Le Royale Ecossais: http://www.scotwars.com/html/images/royalecossaiscolours1744.jpg

[AJMB]

Merci beaucoup.

[Jean Bart]

British Navy 'sinks behind France'

LONDON, Jan 6 (AFP) - Cuts in British defence spending are about to leave the Royal Navy with fewer surface warships than its historic enemy, France, for the first time in 400 years, the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday.

Four destroyers will be mothballed within three months as part of a series of cuts imposed by the ministry of finance, the paper said.

This "deeply demoralising blow for the Navy" would reduce the number of its escort ships to 28, compared with France's 32, and leave it unable "to mount major operations unless it is fighting alongside the Americans or the French," it said.

"What would Nelson have said?" the Telegraph's editorialist asked, referring to Admiral Horatio Nelson, who died a national hero at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1815 after annihilating the French fleet and confirming Britain's naval supremacy for the ensuing century.

The four destroyers are Type-42 ships armed with Sea Dart missiles which play "a vital role in escorting and protecting the (aircraft) carriers and amphibious fleet," the paper said. It noted that Type-45 destroyers are not due to enter service until 2007.

"The maximum number of destroyers and frigates the Navy could keep at sea, at a time when the war on terror is dramatically increasing its workload, is 23," it said, adding that keeping 26 such warships at sea was "the absolute minimum" necessary to carry out essential peacetime duties.

The editorial asked why, if sea power was obsolete, the United States put so much importance on it and why Japan maintained a larger fleet than Britain merely for coastal defence.

"In a dangerous, uncertain world, sea power remains an indispensable method of projecting force, deterring aggression and protecting sea lanes," it concluded.

? AFP

[Phil]

I believe that a large majority of citizens could serve so that both the country and person would benefit.

I believe that a large majority of your paycheck or pension could help me by giving me extra money to pay my bills, but that doesn't give me the legal or moral right to help myself to it.

This idea that people exist to serve the State, and not the other way around, is so sickening that it's hard to put it into words.

[LauraN]

Just a few notes...
Caveat Emptor, indeed. When you sign your name on their paperwork, you had better be very clear on and have in writing precisely what you are willing to die for.

The pay that our military personnel receive is appallingly low. Put an end to social welfare waste and use tax dollars for what they are meant to pay - the defense of the country.

Lastly, one of my personal favorites...Heinlein's Starship Troopers idea: no service, no vote. One may live in society without serving with little loss. However, if you want a say in how things are run and by whom, well, you have to put up or shut up. Unfortunately, I suspect the ranks would shrink rather than swell what with the sheeple so accustomed to taking without having to give a damned thing.

[dhex]

having grown up in a household with a father who was an enlisted marine from '67 to '71, i can second the notion that we exist to serve the state is deplorable.

unless, of course, you actually trust the judgement of politicians. which is how people got fucked by the stoploss orders in the first place.

[Jean Bart]

I am in full agreement Cavanaugh's argument. France recently rid itself of the draft (the last year of conscription was in 1996, and those conscripted cycled through by the latest in 2001); while in some ways the draft was cheaper (especially since the age of entry was flexible, thus many with higher education came into it) and gave the French military a far greater pool of talent from which to draw, it also bloated the size of the military (especially the Army) in an era when France simply no longer needed a million person military. Its end has led to a decrease in the size of the military, but an increase in the development and buying of more advanced weapons systems, that are more effecient than a mass of conscripts. Furthermore, as a marine, and a volunteer, I would say that a volunteer military has a greater esprit de corps than a conscript military. As to the false advertising of the U.S. military (or the French military), well, caveat emptor.

[david]

"The white zone is for loading and unloading of passengers only..."

"Nick! Heath! Jared! There's a fire in the barn!"

"Roger, Roger."

"Me John...big tree."

[AJMB]

Zut allors! I agree with a Frenchman. Esprit de corps is definitely higher in a volunteer military. How could it not be so? If someone doesn't want to be at the sharp end, then I don't want him beside me. JB, is it still true that the Legion does not actively search for deserters? Or is that myth? I've always been curious.