McCain...Reinstitute the Draft?
- Thread starter Robert J McElwain
- Start date
Citizen Carrier
New member
Yes, it would take probably about 5 years for the military to "get it's money's worth" out of a recruit.
That's about what they said when I was regular Army. When somebody enlists for just two or three years and then gets out, the Army actually loses money. Factoring in the expense of training, housing, feeding, clothing, providing ammunition, medical care, and other costs.
Forget the draft. It's a horrible idea.
Especially when people don't even frame it within the context of national security, but "it'll learn them youngsters some manners" rhetoric.
That's about what they said when I was regular Army. When somebody enlists for just two or three years and then gets out, the Army actually loses money. Factoring in the expense of training, housing, feeding, clothing, providing ammunition, medical care, and other costs.
Forget the draft. It's a horrible idea.
Especially when people don't even frame it within the context of national security, but "it'll learn them youngsters some manners" rhetoric.
JuanCarlos
New member
Um...quick question. Maybe I'm missing something. How are we defining "get its money's worth," and even more curiously, "loses money?" Is it possible for the Army to somehow break even or even make money off a soldier? Last I checked soldiers don't generally provide services or produce goods that can be charged for. The Army (and the government) will just about always "lose money" on a soldier.
And a three-year enlistment (with a stop-loss tacked on the end) could very easily mean two tours in Iraq...how many tours does a soldier have to do before we've "gotten our money's worth" out of them?
Maybe they are firguring the extent that Basic and AIT training takes a soldier before he needs training for the next level of skills he needs.
Ability to meet the standard for a task, is easy to reach, but to combine them all to the level intergrating them all within a unit takes a bit of time.
Just a thought on "getting the money worth" Granted the learning is most likely intensified on the streets of Iraq and the hills of Afganastain.
Ability to meet the standard for a task, is easy to reach, but to combine them all to the level intergrating them all within a unit takes a bit of time.
Just a thought on "getting the money worth" Granted the learning is most likely intensified on the streets of Iraq and the hills of Afganastain.
Waaay back when I entered the USN, in order to participate in the Nuclear Power Program, one had to enlist for 6 years active duty. This is because it took about 1.5 to 2 years of training before you ever reached a ship. Once you reached a submarine, it took about another year to be fully qualified on all watchstations and in submarines. That is also why they used to offer a $35,000 bonus to re-enlist.
So yes, it does take some time for the military to break even on how much they spend to train you vs. how much time they get to use your services.
So yes, it does take some time for the military to break even on how much they spend to train you vs. how much time they get to use your services.
JuanCarlos
New member
/facepalm
Seriously? You're using the Navy's nuclear program as an example?
Yeah, it's true, there do exist occupational specialties in the military that require more time and money to train a recruit for. I've been given the impression that this is even more common in the Navy and Air Force, but I know that many Army MOSs qualify as well (I'm pretty sure 'terps go for at least a year, probably longer).
Not every recruit is going to nuke school, man. There are Army AITs as short as four weeks (on top of nine weeks of BCT, of course...for 13 total). I know that when I went through the 19-series (armor/cav) OSUTs (combat arms basic training, no separate AIT) were like 17 weeks. I'm pretty sure infantry (11-series) was the same.
So yeah, nuke school is long, and expensive. Welcome to the concept of the outlier.
EDIT: Bringing this back to the original topic, do you really think we'd be throwing every (or even any) draftees into nuke school? I see no difference between allowing soldiers to enlist for 2-3 years as a tanker or cav scout and drafting a guy to serve for 2-3 years in the same specialty. At least as far as the cost goes...obviously there are moral/ethical differences. But from a money standpoint, I see no reason we couldn't draft cooks.
As an example of how the military needs to get their money's worth? You bet. Excellent example.
Does not imply the military still cannot use its "bootcamp to Vietnam" cannon fodder method of filling out the rank if they desire.
Besides, this entire argument about drafting is bogus. If you watch "Around the Services" on the Military Channel on occasion, you will note the month after month, they report the various services all meet their recruitment goals. There is no need for the draft.
It would work even if re-instated. Far too many whiners that depend on others to defend their country. "If I can't pick which enemy I choose, I just won't go!"
Does not imply the military still cannot use its "bootcamp to Vietnam" cannon fodder method of filling out the rank if they desire.
Besides, this entire argument about drafting is bogus. If you watch "Around the Services" on the Military Channel on occasion, you will note the month after month, they report the various services all meet their recruitment goals. There is no need for the draft.
It would work even if re-instated. Far too many whiners that depend on others to defend their country. "If I can't pick which enemy I choose, I just won't go!"
How do they meet goals lower standards in education, past crime records and yes the draft is needed, two years of very basic training can provide basic needs if and when a major war should occur and if after two years the draftee wishes to reenlist we then have a volunteer.
We have far too many people who wish not to contribute or serve in any capicity and at some point we will be hiring outside of country to fill our military and that is now done in some minor form.
When soldiers go into battle they don't fight for the government or the greedy politicians in DC they fight for their fellow soldier and their families.
The soldier is not or should never be considered a tool to make money or achieve profit. Some of the post I view in this thread gives me concern for this country and its future.
I agree totally. That is the core of the problem. Too many people just don't care. Far easier to bitch and whine on a Blog than put on a uniform and actually do something.
We need to dump the UN and fight only those wars Congress actully declares. No more "police actions." No declaration of war, no troops. Once war starts, you fight to win.
My, how times change
And yet, some things stay the same. 9 weeks for Army Basic? 30 years ago it was less than 7 weeks. I had 8 weeks of AIT, which was about average for most MOSs at the time. Some were considerably longer.
If you think it takes two years to get something useful from a trainee, you don't understand training or "useful".
Not all the services are lowering their standards. My neighbor's boys were bright boys, but because of social problems, neither one finished High School. The Air Force wouldn't take them. But the Army did. Oddly enough, the gung-ho one who wanted to be a tanker wound up in finance, while the other who wanted to be a patriot missle crewman was denied a clearance due to an ongoing lawsuit (over the sale of a house) and wound up driving a HEMET, in Iraq!
as for this;
And yet, some things stay the same. 9 weeks for Army Basic? 30 years ago it was less than 7 weeks. I had 8 weeks of AIT, which was about average for most MOSs at the time. Some were considerably longer.
If you think it takes two years to get something useful from a trainee, you don't understand training or "useful".
Not all the services are lowering their standards. My neighbor's boys were bright boys, but because of social problems, neither one finished High School. The Air Force wouldn't take them. But the Army did. Oddly enough, the gung-ho one who wanted to be a tanker wound up in finance, while the other who wanted to be a patriot missle crewman was denied a clearance due to an ongoing lawsuit (over the sale of a house) and wound up driving a HEMET, in Iraq!
as for this;
Quite probably true. However, if we had used WWII level technology and training, I would think we would also use WWII level tactics as well. And WWII level tactics include total war and nuclear bombs! Somehow I think carpet bombing of Iraqi cities or the use of Hiroshima size nuclear bombs would have led to our defeat at the hands of Saddam's military, or the "insurgents" either.