The case for a professional standing Army; the Ukraine example
Richard Nixon ended the US conscription program in 1973 and we’ve had a large professional volunteer standing Army since then. When the old Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration because he had made military service so unattractive it became clear that conscription would be the only way that the US could face a threat from our enemies. The eighties came and so did Ronald Reagan who gave the military sufficient pay raises so we could make ends meet, and provide for our families without riding the food stamp rolls. He also spent money on upgrading our equipment and our weapons which defeated the weapons of the Soviet Union in Iraq in 1991.
After three decades of supportive administrations that saw the value of a well-compensated, well-trained and well-equipped professional force, the current administration has decided to buck that trend by reducing pay raises below the rate of inflation. Bonuses for retaining the experienced trained junior leaders are becoming rare. They’re cutting training funds and opportunities as well as cutting proven weapons systems in favor of politically advantageous weapons instead.
Restrictive policies are driving those enlisted ranks to the private sector. The Pentagon thinks that with fewer numbers in the active force, they can fight our enemies on the cheap with Reserve and National Guard troops – but those units are encountering the same retention problems as the active units.
So, we still have the draft with which we can force military-aged youngsters into the service. Well, Jimmy Carter, before he reinstated draft registration, gave amnesty to the draft dodgers of the Vietnam years, insuring that our system of conscription would never work again.
Well, surely if we faced an invasion from a foreign enemy, draftees would patriotically report for service, right? Well, it seems that the Ukrainians are facing a foreign invasion so they reconstituted their conscription system. So how’s that working for them? According to Washington Post, it isn’t;
“We do have some problems in the mobilization,” acknowledged military spokesman Vladislav Seleznev, when asked about cases like Igor’s. “That’s why we are trying to strike a balance: From one side, the government provides benefits to those defending the country; from the other, there are very harsh criminal penalties for draft dodgers.”
[…]
“I would rather sit in prison for three years — and be fed and secure — than serve,” said Andrey, 26, a metal plant worker who was drafted in March. “After a whole year of this government, we still have to work for two days to buy a loaf of bread. I don’t want to go fight for that kind of government.”
Andrey is from Slovyansk, an eastern Ukrainian city that came under heavy assault last summer, with troops eventually wresting the city from pro-Russian rebels. But the local population’s sympathies are still divided, and of the approximately 40 people Andrey knows who recently received draft orders, he says only one is actually responding.
I’m thinking that, given the state of the culture in this country these days, the current generation of military-aged men would rather sit in prison watching cable TV and playing video games than serve, similar to the Ukrainian example provided. Especially if they think that when better men than them win the war, they’re going to be pardoned by the next Jimmy Carter.
Category: Military issues
…Sadly, I think you’re right – the first response to an order activating the Selective Service would be a lawsuit.
Mike
You hit the nail squarely on the head with that one, Jonn.
The first thing that is most likely to happen in the event of a need to bump up the military population to a viable level is that anyone who served previously, especially in a critical rate/MOS will get a recall/report to the nearest military installation letter.
I doubt seriously that a draft will work now.
Originally posted by Ex-PH2: You hit the nail squarely on the head with that one, Jonn. The first thing that is most likely to happen in the event of a need to bump up the military population to a viable level is that anyone who served previously, especially in a critical rate/MOS will get a recall/report to the nearest military installation letter. I doubt seriously that a draft will work now. A lot of people don’t realize that there are laws on the book that identify a large group of people as being in the militia. In Virginia, for example, all able bodied men and women, from 16 to 55, who are not part of the military or national guard, are members of the unorganized militia… a group of people that could receive muster orders by the governor for possible active state militia service in case of emergency. US Federal law identifies able bodied men, between 17 to 45, as members of the militia of the United States. Each state and territory has its own militia law. This means that in addition to the 18 to 25/26 males having to register for the military draft, and being subject to such should the draft be required, larger segments of the population are also subject to state or federal militia drafts. I believe veterans, with no more military affiliation (not in the reserve/not retired) are subject to militia muster orders up to 60 or 64. I have to verify that one though. If an emergency happens, and there are not enough people in the active component, they’d mobilize the reserves. During a full mobilization call up, they’d activate the ready reserve, standby reserve, and retired reserve… those that qualify for active duty mobilization. Ready reserve mobilization, in order: Troop Program Unit/Select Reserve; Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) or similar; and Individual Ready Reserve. Standby reserve mobilization, in order: Active Standby Reserve; Inactive Standby Reserve. Retired Reserve mobilization, in order: Those who retired within a certain time frame; those who retired longer than that said time frame; those who retired with disabilities. Now, not… Read more »
Thebesig, a few years ago I was at the car dealership getting the chariot serviced while I sat in the waiting room. There was a young lady wearing a Navy sweatshirt, so I asked her how the Navy was treating her. She was a PN, a Personnelman, the person who handles records and processes incoming transferees and returnees. She told me that it does not matter what your age is or how long you’ve been out, if you are in a critical rate/MOS, you can be recalled to AD. She had processed three people, two of whom had been out of the service and not in Reserve units, for over 10 years.
Frankly, as dumb as BuPers can sometimes be, I’d expect to see WWII and KW vets recalled just because they served for a few years, because someone ran a search program for ‘people with less than XX years AD’ and didn’t put in date parameters, e.g., beginning/ending. There are people who are that stupid.
Originally posted by Chris Mallory: She told me that it does not matter what your age is or how long you’ve been out, if you are in a critical rate/MOS, you can be recalled to AD. She had processed three people, two of whom had been out of the service and not in Reserve units, for over 10 years. I go by what’s written in law and regulation before I’d take someone’s word. I would’ve challenged her to cite the regulation/instruction, that allows for that. I’ve been in position to where I’ve told career counselors facts from their MOS that they should’ve known, but didn’t, because I used “Control F” or “Control Shift F” on a bunch of Army Regulations and got concrete answers. Even in the military, people who transfer into the IRR think that they’re “out” of the military… even if they reenlist for another IRR contract. You can do that. You could theoretically do 4 years active, and 16 good years in the IRR, to get 20 years for reserve retirement. The people that she brought back in may have been in such an arrangement. Military retirees are mobilization assets for life. For them critical MOS is important. Generally speaking, as they crossover into their 60th birthday, their chances of being mobilized … short of America being “waist deep in poo” … goes down exponentially. There are some exceptions to that, again with critical MOS, but absent serious need for bodies, chances of mobilization declines rapidly after 60. As for veterans who are completely out, there are some exceptions, like legal foul play, where they could be brought back into active duty to face charges. But, calling them back into military after their military contract/military affiliation ended… outside the scope of a militia call up… needs verification. I haven’t found a law or regulation that allows for that. A military retirement pay is a retainer pay on the account of retirees being mobilization assets for life. There is no such “retainer” for a veteran that’s completely out. I don’t see how they could be called in in… Read more »
Ex PH2, not Chris Mallory in the quote. 👿
I have to agree with Mike on this. The system is broken. Veterans like us who served under Carter remember the craptacular way we were treated. I lost 2 very good friends in accidents due directly to his administration’s policies of cutting training funds and thus flight time.
Now we are parents and our own kids have been treated the same way. Those guys who served under W were at least respected by the government and most of the upper echelon leadership. Now, with president mom-jeans in charge, THEY have seen what we experienced and will be cautioning their own kids against joining.
Hell, I’m former Navy. I love my service and being a part of a family tradition of sailors. BUT, seeing what’s happened to my Navy, where training for warfighting has been replaced with seminars on sexual harassment. gay rights, sustainable lifestyles, and a bunch of other bullshit like liberty plans (you have to list who you are going on liberty with, whether or not you’ll be drinking, and how much, where you are planning to go, etc) well, there’s no way I would encourage my own daughter to join the Navy. Not now, not under this administration, not under these Joint Chiefs and service heads.
It’s sad, but I think that the leftists are winning this round.
If you substitute control freaks for leftists, I’d agree with you.
When the weekends came, unless I had a duty section, my time was my own. If I wanted a day of special liberty like a long weekend (in place of taking leave), I had a zone of travel restricted to no more than 150 miles one way.
This military is so busy poking its nose into everything, I don’t see how any real work gets done.
The travel range restrictions have to do with recall times and various “Alert Increments”.
I don’t remember all the specific details but for Bravo and Alpha increments.
At Bravo, we weren’t allowed to leave the base for any reasons. At Bravo level a regiment was expected to be mounted up and on the move to either port or airport within 2(?) hours along with everything it needed for a fight with 72 hours sustainment.
At Alpha Level, we were restricted to the barracks and in uniform. Only boots removed to when sleeping. Weapons were already issued and the 72 hours of chow and ammo were locked up in the company offices and trucks standing by on the grinder. Iirc, mount up was expected to take no more than 30 minutes.
I could be wrong on the times required.
There were other increment levels but those weren’t much talked about since they didn’t disrupt life or training to any significant degree.
Rifle regiments rotated through the increments with one regiment at a time, usually, on bravo and one battalion within that regiment on alpha.
It is easy to forget that once a person signs the contract, that person serves the military. The military does not serve the person.
Women, married, and college students need to be drafted too. That will make it more palatable. A formal, public, and clear declaration of war helps. Objectives matter too. We occupied Iraq, scattered the Iraqi armies, hanged their king, and flew our colors at the capital… but it was still a defeat apparently.
I would 100% oppose any draft for any war outside of US soil.
We won the Iraq War militarily, we won it with a straight cut victory. It was up to the current administration to have the will to sustain what we accomplished. For starters, they could’ve gotten the military what it needed to nurture and develop the Iraqi military, and their infrastructure, to grow and improve beyond what we saw.
There was no political will on the White House’s part. Consequently, we now have Operation Inherent Resolve. If they had given the military what it needed, the Iraqi Army would’ve prevented the need for us to ultimately engage in Operation Inherent Resolve.
It’s like the Vietnam War… we won it military, ended combat operations in 1973, and pulled combat troops out in 1973. From that point, it was on the South Vietnamese. There was no political will in Congress to preserve our victory there… consequently, the events of 1975 that people mistake as the US military being “pushed out.”
It’s a terrible tragedy.
So was the American Revolution, and every war that this country fought since then. Heck, our new Republic came dangerously close to disintegrating in the beginning.
Also, not included in our history books was the suffering that civilians suffered during the American Revolution. There was an influx of American refugees fleeing the revolting colonies and heading west of the Mississippi River… then part of the Spanish Empire.
We were once a fledgling democracy with a high risk of failing from the get go. The main reason George Washington warned us not to get tangled into foreign military engagements was that he, like many of his contemporaries, realized that we were still weak, and that we needed to strengthen politically and economically, and basically get our acts together.
They knew that we were dangerously close to slipping back into chaos and to failing as a nation.
George Washington wasn’t advocating that we never go on the offensive, as he played a role in “going on the offensive” in the time period leading up to the French and Indian war in North America.
Back then, our founding fathers solidly identified as British citizens/subjects of the British crown.
George Washington gained financially because of the French and Indian War via expanded agricultural capability.
Back then, expanding your land holding was like expanding your company’s manufacturing capability.
Strong stable leadership contributed to our not suffering the fate many of our neighbors to the south suffered after they revolted.
There’s a newspaper article titled, “America Losing the Peace in Europe.” It was written in 1946, and it painted a picture of how much of a disaster and tragedy Europe became since Germany’s surrender.
I think you hit the nexus of the draft problem squarely without trying too.
If the Government were ever to re-institute a draft, after spending decades preaching equality, how could they then exempt the groups you mentioned above? Women are not required to sign up for selective service only men.
The military too has backed themselves into a corner by removing combat exemptions (OK, it was the SecDef, but the service Chiefs saluted smartly and moved out!)so how then can they get behind continuing the exemption for females? That’s always stuck in my craw.
You want equal pay and opportunity? Take equal risks.
In the Ukraine, there was a coup by Neo Nazis, supported by the US, that overthrew the elected government. Now those coup plotters are drafting people to try and keep the Eastern areas of the nation from escaping their grasp. Sounds the the Ukrainians are doing the right thing in telling the government to go urinate up a rope.
As for the US, the Founding Fathers were dead set against a standing army. That is one reason why the Army can only have a 2 year spending appropriation according to the Constitution. It is a shame we didn’t heed their warnings and crush the standing army back when we had the chance.
We don’t have a “standing” Army now.
They’re all too busy “sitting” in mandatory classes…
Originally posted by Chris Mallory: As for the US, the Founding Fathers were dead set against a standing army. That is one reason why the Army can only have a 2 year spending appropriation according to the Constitution. It is a shame we didn’t heed their warnings and crush the standing army back when we had the chance. That was before they realized that unless we transitioned from thinking and acting like a militia, we were going to face crushing defeat. We almost lost our bid for independence due to the largely civilian militia losing the will and stomach for a fight. The Continental Congress, partly with the influence of George Washington, stood up the Continental Army. It wasn’t till Van Steuben came in and trained them to act and operate like an actual military till we started to make headway. That and the fact that we had the might of 3 Western European powers jumping in on our side. There was a reason to why the French told the American deligation that France wouldn’t join the war on our side unless the Spaniards also did so. By the time the French joined the war, the Spaniards were knee deep involved in the war on our side. The Spanish declaration of war being a matter of formality that allowed the introduction of Spanish combat Soldiers and militia into the war on our side. History has proven over and over, in the US, that a civilian militia alone won’t cut it against a disciplined standing military. Our founding fathers laid the groundwork for us continuing to have a standing military. They knew, first hand, that you CAN’T rely on a civilian militia alone. All these arguments about “summer soldier” and “sunshine soldier” were partly as verbal dings against the civilian militia of the time. In fact, those the standing army that the founders stood up to fight the regulars adopted a strategy of putting the civilian militia in the front… with orders to shoot any of them who retreated without firing a shot. At the end of the day, they’re civilians… Read more »
Nope. The biannual budgeting for the army was to ensure that a standing army could NOT be formed that would become too powerful. It was set into the Constitution with a 2-year budget so that Congress could yank the funding and disband the army if it felt that the Army was moving into some political realm that Congress wasn’t comfortable with. In comparison, the Navy is required to be kept intact and funded continuously, the only service so designated. Again, it’s written into the Constitution and was put into place so that the new nation would have that far-ranging protection for our business and foreign policy interests in other countries. As to the militia, and who is and who isn’t considered a part of it, I will let George Mason, one of the authors of the Constitution speak upon the issue: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 The various levels of governments may have attempted to pass laws redefining membership, but in the end, the entirety of the people form the militia, and rightly so. For further consideration, I’ll add these two (of many) remarks upon the subject of the militia: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the… Read more »
AW1 Tim: Nope. WRONG. AW1 Tim: The biannual budgeting for the army was to ensure that a standing army could NOT be formed that would become too powerful. It was set into the Constitution with a 2-year budget so that Congress could yank the funding and disband the army if it felt that the Army was moving into some political realm that Congress wasn’t comfortable with. WRONG. The biannual budgeting process wasn’t intended to limit the Army to just 2 years of existing. It was consistent with the way Congress appropriates funds. Congress appropriates money for a year to 2 years with most of the items that they fund. This includes military and other government organizations. Te wit, a move to extend funding for the VA for 2 years. What? By your “logic” that 2 year limit is “intended” to prevent the VA from existing beyond 2 years, and from becoming “too powerful,” and it allows the government to “pull the plug” on the VA to prevent it from becoming too powerful. 🙄 The Constitution restricted the budgeting itself, it didn’t put a shelf life on the existence of the Army. Yes, it can’t be funded, by the current congress, beyond 2 years, but that doesn’t mean that said 2 year run can’t be renewed, which has happened repeatedly with government organizations that the US government funds. THAT’s where the 2 year limitation resides, NOT with the existence of the Army. Second, Congress, specifically the House, can yank funding regardless of the budgeting limitations. They don’t even have to set a “2 year limit” to funding. They could refuse to release funds for something before it gets started. I used to be in the Navy, 2 of my Navy years were spent as the Disbursing Officer for one of the ships that I was on. Those accounting codes that you saw on your PCS orders? In many instances, you had up to 2 years to charge those accounting codes. Sometimes 3, but most of the times, 2. Hmmm, I wonder where that came from. 🙄 I repeatedly saw those 2… Read more »
Actually, AW1 Tim – as written, the Constitution requires the US to have neither an Army nor a Navy. While Article I, Section 8 specifically says that “Congress shall have Power” to “raise and support Armies” and to “provide and maintain a Navy” (among many other enumerated powers), nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Congress MUST do those things. Under the Constitution, Congress’ authority to do those things is discretionary – not mandatory.
In point of fact, it was the Continental Navy – not the Continental Army – that was completely disestablished after the Revolutionary War in 1785. The US had no Navy until the passage of the Naval Act of 1794 on 27 March of that year. Even the Revenue Marine – which became the Coast Guard, not the Navy – did not exist until 1790.
In contrast, the Continental Army was never completely disbanded after the Revolutionary War. A regiment was retained for maintaining security of the nation’s western frontier, along with a battery of artillery to guard the West Point arsenal activities.
The solution for draft dodgers is simple: make the military more attractive by sending draft dodgers to a new gulag. The USA could do it too. All Obummer would have to do is make it illegal via executive order to sue over Selective Service, and decree through executive order hard labor as a mandatory sentence for draft dodgers and anyone who violates the lawsuit ban, along with any attorney that takes said lawsuits. With the threat of war, he could feel the need to be more executive. The odds of that happening are unclear, though.
” … order hard labor …” said hard labor being building a REAL wall on the southern border. Twelve hours a day, six days a week. Those too ill, weak, whatever, get to work on the farm growing food for the inmates.
Or, at least the next administration can.
” … Jimmy Carter, before he reinstated draft registration, gave amnesty to the draft dodgers of the Vietnam years, insuring that our system of conscription would never work again.”
Quote of the Day, IMO.
Of all the crap that jerk Carter did, this is the one that sticks in my craw the most.
Spot on, Jonn. Spot on. Now I’d like to address Jimmy Carter and the Occupier in Chief: fuck the both of you. And fuck you John Kerry you worthless sack of shit.
I would like to add one more “fuck you” to include Cassius Clay aka Muhammed Ali, the draft-dodger whose “religous beliefs” would not allow him to serve in the military yet would be OK with beating the holy shit out of someone in the boxing ring for a lot of money.
What we do at this site can make a person cynical. The constant barrage of bottom feeders that grace these pages can without a doubt make a person question the fiber of our society. When I joined the Marine Corps, Vietnam had just ended. There was no public pride in our military. No call to service. No draft. I remember the Carter years all too well. Marines being held hostage, failed rescue attempts, PLO ranting on TV, Kaddafi drawing his own lines on the map, Soviets taking over Afghanistan, Angola in civil war, and the list goes on and on. Then something happened that I will never forget. Beirut/Grenada. What I witnessed was a lot of young men who answered the call of duty. No draft. They joined because there might be war. By the time most of those Marines finished their initial training there was no war being waged. They served this country anyway. Many of them were fine Marines, better than I in most regards. Most did their time with honor and returned to civilian life. They took their Good Conduct Medal and Sea Service Deployment ribbon and went on with life. No bands awaiting at their home town, no discounts at restaurants, at best a VA loan for a home or some education fund that they had to contribute to. I watched the same thing happen for ODS and OEF. The outcome was most certainly different, but its outcome was not known when many initially answered that call. We are Americans and there always will be Americans. We will always answer the call for duty, regardless the outcome. As most are aware I am somewhat familiar with the Ukrainian culture. It is a rich culture with an ancient history. Home of the Cossacks, a people with a history of war. Make no mistake whatsoever, they are not Americans. Corruption in government is not a headline in the news, it is a fact of everyday life and always has been. It is tenacious and premeditates every aspect of life there. It is impossible to conduct business there without… Read more »
Enough about a draft. We heard this after DS/DS too.
The volunteer military has a hard enough time sorting out gang members, mental illness, sociopaths and drug abusers, AKA Bradley Manning, Chris Kyle’s killer, etc.
I’d rather not have every street criminal get two years of training in combat arms. Just let them buy funyons and 40 ouncers with their EBT cards. Makes them easier to outrun.
Nothing will change till the penalty for avoiding mandatory service is worse than actually serving. The young Ukrainian man who said he would rather sit safe and comfortable in prison would think otherwise if he were forced to wear a pink jumpsuit and have to dig ditches, bust rocks, and clean roadsides for ten to twelve hours a day. No cable television or internet. Only the most basic of food. They shouldn’t be fed or housed better than the troops they refused to serve with.
Remember folks, you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had. Too bad nobody in our government understands that.
Ukraine is different that the US, they are facing an actual military invasion of their homeland, the US needs to recruit volunteers to go overseas to fight terrorists with one arm tied behind their backs. Very different scenarios.
I’m sure that if we were facing an actual invasion, we’d have no shortage of folks signing up, not to mention those who are already armed and ready to defend their homes.
It was always my understanding that retirees had a 30 year commitment, a combination of 20 years AD plus 10 inactive or a combination of the two. Beyond that, it would take an act of Congress to recall someone. Truth be told, if our country were in such deep trouble that they needed me back, I would have already contacted someone to see about getting new, larger uniforms.
I served in the Army from 1970 until 1976. In 1972, I was assigned to HHQ Company 172nd Infantry Brigade. When I started in that unit the chickenshit was ankle deep. Starting in about 1974, it was obvious that the Army had no interest in retaining troops and the chickenshit started to form drifts. It was clear that we would shortly have permanent shitfields that flowed downhill like glaciers.
I hope that you active duty guys don’t have to put up with the crap that accompanied the end of the RVN war.
I voted for Gerald Ford. I did not vote for Carter but I hoped that as a former naval person, he would try to fix the US Military. On his first day in office, Carter pardoned the draft dodgers. Then I knew.
I served with draftees. Some were fine soldiers who did what was required of them. Some gave extra and some sat around waiting for someone to yell at them. Draftees create problems and opportunities. People who enlisted can be motivated by saying, “This is what you signed up for! Get with it!” This doesn’t work for draftees. Draftees require more supervision, they seemed to get into trouble more often. If we reinstate the draft, we will need more NCOs to keep an eye on them. This creates an opportunity. It takes a superior NCO to manage draftees. NCOs who succeed with them are typically excellent leaders — or mean sons ‘o bitches.
What forms of punishment are available to NCOs these days? I guess that KP and Guard Duty are no more. I don’t see many painted rocks on military posts I visited lately.
There was a lot of sentimentality in the Army for the draft when I enlisted in the ’70s… the older NCOs typically said “draftees just had one motivation – getting out. So once you convinced them that keeping their nose clean and their shit together helped them do that, they might have bitched some but they pretty much kept their heads down and did OK. Where we had the most problems was with enlistees who felt like they were John F***n’ Wayne and the Army should kiss their butts because they enlisted”.
By the time I was in, everyone was a volunteer – many were former draftees but had re-upped.
On a lighter note, here is an actual Ukrainian Army recruiting commercial from several years ago:
A greater proportion of our force structure is going to go to the reserve components-this is going to happen. The powers that be have looked at the numbers and the performance of the reserve components over the last 12-14 years and decided that that is the way forward. Big Army seems to be coming to grips with this though I doubt that they are very happy about it.
We’ll probably never have another draft and the political will to support a large professional active duty force isn’t there and almost certainly won’t be there as D.C. struggles with other funding priorities. That’s really all there is to it.
Still think the major thing the Ukraine situation shows is,”Don’t give up your nuclear weapons, to Russia on the promise that they will respect your territorial sovereignty for eternity.”
Except the US’s standing army gets to be a smaller percentage of the population all the time…with less political clout in each passing generation.
I’m not suggesting a draft resolves that, but reality states that the easiest group to screw in a democracy is the smallest group which is the military.
At less than 1% of the US Population 3 or 4 deployments to fight an asymmetric war against third world religious fundamentalists will be the norm moving forward. Those wars will also be a harder sell to a public that wants to use the money spent on defense on something else because they don’t see the value in the military because 99% of them have nothing to do with the military except peripherally.
Again a draft doesn’t fix that, but there needs to be some consideration of an appropriate manpower expansion if we are intent on serving as the stabilizing force for the world on a regular basis…3,000 troops here 5,000 troops there 10,000 guys somewhere else pretty soon you don’t have any guys left for actually defending the United States because they’re scattered all over the war involved in shit that has little to do with the actual safety of the United States.
As long as only 1 out of 99 people are risking their lives though I don’t see any reason for the 99 to give a shit about what happens to, or how we use the 1.
YMMV, as it most certainly should.