Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've argued for the NS to apply to both men and women before-- I'm not totally against it to be sure. The military would need to become become stricter in discipline regardless of an egalitarian approach or not if it started conscripting..

But that's not a bad thing.

In Finland we have mandatory national service witch I great. Our politicans haven´t been making war pretty much ever since their own sons would also have to go to the front line (though we are next door neigbours to russia so we can´t really pick fight with anyone).

I believe that we wouldn´t even have enought soldiers with out mandatory national servise, this I claim becouse our national servise is optional for women (and compulsory for men). Every year about 500 women start their national servise (half of wich give up, so we have 250 women soldiers) compared to 16 000 men who start their NS. So if going into the army were optional we would propably train only 500 soldiers per year.

By the way I´m doing my national servise next summer.

Monster Rain wrote:

Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.

Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.

The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.

Not sure if we're completely disagreeing with each other here, if you're saying the VA is not very good at managing $, too much red tape, and real problems with handling certain types of injuries, I'm inclined to agree with you.

However, I'd be curious to have a better idea who these "leeches" are that you refer to.

For the record, I'm not a VA hater. My Stepfather and Grandfather have both recieved extensive services from them within the past year alone and the VA is a very important resorce for many vets. I just don't think that it, or the current medical services for active personel are prepared for the issues facing the modern soldier/vet, especialy TBI's and other mental injuries.

I would happily serve myself but wouldn't pass the medical. I agree with National Service, shame we got rid IMO.

As for politicians and wars, boxing match between them to solve it, everyone wins. Especially the people.

Azza007 wrote:I would happily serve myself but wouldn't pass the medical. I agree with National Service, shame we got rid IMO.

As for politicians and wars, boxing match between them to solve it, everyone wins. Especially the people.

"In this corner! In the red, white, and green trunks, At 5' 2", weighing in at 167 pounds.... Mahmoud "The Marauder" Ahmadinejad!


And in this corner! In the red, white, and blue trunks, at 6' 1" and 170 pounds.... Barack "The Rock" Obama!

LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUMBLLLLLLLE!"

Just the politicians beating each other senseless, saves lives, money etc. Hell televise it and make money for the countries involved. More than one country per side involved then have teams or royal rumble style match like WWE. I mean whats not to like, everyone will enjoy it.

MrDwhitey wrote:But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?

Give 'em a gun and send them over?

Yes, even though it would result in more than a few unnecessary wars. For a little while at least.

The idea of national service however seems precipitated on the idea that war is necessarily bad. But if the incentives against war are too high, you could see a decrease in politicians using it to further our national interests. Which entails an entirely different conversation.

I don't like the idea of national service because I like the idea of a professional volunteer army.

On the opening question, there certainly needs to be some debate about the resources that our servicemen and women receive, but compensation shouldn't be open ended.

What you really need is somekind of hi tech UN snatch squad and the Kirk / Gorn scenario. Any leaders who start kicking off are grabbed and stuck on an island to fight it out. You want the bloodshed, you do it! At least a thousand + years ago the leaders stuck their necks on the line as well when it kicked off

Da Boss wrote:My brother is an ex-RM and he's really well adjusted. More so than when he went in, in some ways. He was a sniper in afghanistan and it didn't bother him at all. He went on to work in a call centre and get into management for a couple of years, and is now heading out to do some other work around Somalia.

I reckon certain people have the right mindset to be a soldier - Matty's posts on here remind me a lot of the sort of cheerful pragmatism my brother displays, as well as that sort of humour that RM mostly seem to have. From what my brother said, ex-bootnecks keep in touch too and look out for one and other.

Definitely, my brother doesn't feel hard done by. I guess with badly wounded veterans it's always going to be difficult. I doubt many people will be satisfied if they are badly wounded in a war, because the government will probably not pay to keep them completely looked after forever. However this is similar to any citizen who gets injured working for the state, I guess.

I'd be interested to hear from other branches then, maybe its just the RM who give you a thorough debriefing, a complete mental and physical medical, and a good few months paid leave to sort your gak out. I never met a RM (and im still in touch with about 12) that has left and struggled, and unlike 90% of the AF we actually do crack the war-ry stuff (the fun stuff!) I found the RM to be extremely helpful all the way through, and even long after my career. Im curious to hear others experiences because im greatful for the excellent training and assistance I have always been afforded.

Ive seen all sorts of fethed up stuff, my unit was responsible for over 400 enemy kills on our last tour. My section alone saw the company interpreter get vaporized by stepping on an IED about 20 feet away, and the shrapnel we picked out the Sergeant Major's face and neck turned out to be bone fragments from the blown in half guy. (I suggested we issue Afghan nationals clown shoes to assist with this problem)

I once found a blokes head on a rooftop when I was point man in Iraq, I got to the top of the ladder and he was looking at me right at me, well, not right at me, he had a bit of a squint by this time.

We shot the gak out of people, bombed the feth out of everything, called in some 2000lb air strikes, fired javelin missles at people we seen digging IEDs in.. basically ive got hundreds of gruesome (usually funny) stories about war, but ill not bore you with the details cos they only work in an amusing manner down the pub. The point being, sometimes that gak does give you a bad dream, this is totally normal and you get lectured on how to deal with it when you are being briefed before your post operational tour leave. They teach you and train you! Don't drink alcohol to excess, don't take pills, talk about it, speak to your loved ones, speak to your comrades, see the unit medical officer, keep fit, get into a pattern for rising and sleeping, rest plenty, relax etc. I remember one vividly because it was shortly after my first engagement in Iraq and I had a dream that I was asleep on the floor in the desert and some bearded Arab looking guy was clawing through the sand, and he came through the floor and clawed his way through my stomach, with his head sorta, coming out of my guts but I couldn't move?

Anyway's, I woke up, realised it was a dream, and went back to fething sleep. Then the next morning I told my colleagues about the dream, the lads took the piss for a bit, and then we all shared some similar dreams other people had had, and well. That's the end of it. You get the occasional dream. Big fething deal right? Why do people say they can never sleep and then they become alcoholics, start wearing lederhosen and then strangle their wives?

The point of my long winded story is that I don't believe that nightmares feth you up either if you have been properly trained for it. Just as soldiers seem to struggle more depending on their experience's with resettlement when they quit the service, do you think that maybe the issue is training? Would a better trained person settle easier? Is mental fortitude, something that is essential to even passing UKSF training, but not required to drive a truck for the army, helpful regarding leaving the forces?

Are perhaps National Guards and TA soldiers more prone to PTSD than special forces for example?

I'd bet my ass on it.

Hmm well I left the Engineers with a month's holiday/pay, a whiskey decanter (empty) and a cheerful handshake.

Having said that, I never had much of a problem adjusting to civilian life - in fact, I relished it. But then again, I was never a particularly green soldier.

I would echo the sentiment expressed earlier reference ex-soldiers thinking civilian life not being as efficient - I remember walking into my first civvy job and being utterly amazed at how unproductive and disorganised it was and how nothing seemed to get done. A small part of me still thinks that; I really do think some companies could learn a lot from Army organisational techniques.

filbert wrote:Hmm well I left the Engineers with a month's holiday/pay, a whiskey decanter (empty) and a cheerful handshake.

Having said that, I never had much of a problem adjusting to civilian life - in fact, I relished it. But then again, I was never a particularly green soldier.

Yeah thats way worse than us then. As I said, we attended a week long "Introduction to civilian life" course at HMS Drake in Plymouth based all around resettlement. Me and the other guys leaving at the similar time got bused down there and given accomodation, we did Interview techniques, basic computer skills for a few days, cover letters, CVs.. gak like that. Then after about 6 weeks leave, back to our home unit for a good long chat with a doctor, full medical and dental, and steady leave for a bit more. When I had completely handed all my kit in, left and gone home to Boro for good I still had full pay for about ten weeks.

They should do it the RM way across the board.

I didn't qualify for any resettlement courses because I only did 5 years.

mattyrm wrote:[
I'd be interested to hear from other branches then, maybe its just the RM who give you a thorough debriefing, a complete mental and physical medical, and a good few months paid leave to sort your gak out. I never met a RM (and im still in touch with about 12) that has left and struggled, and unlike 90% of the AF we actually do crack the war-ry stuff (the fun stuff!) I found the RM to be extremely helpful all the way through, and even long after my career. Im curious to hear others experiences because im greatful for the excellent training and assistance I have always been afforded.

My wife worked for about five years with Canadian vets from WWII and Korea. The one's with the most mental health problems were the air force (ie. Bomber Command) and the least were in "communications".

That seems like it may still be true.
http://articles.boston.com/2008-08-08/news/29269485_1_predators-chaplains-operators

mattyrm wrote:The point of my long winded story is that I don't believe that nightmares feth you up either if you have been properly trained for it. Just as soldiers seem to struggle more depending on their experience's with resettlement when they quit the service, do you think that maybe the issue is training? Would a better trained person settle easier? Is mental fortitude, something that is essential to even passing UKSF training, but not required to drive a truck for the army, helpful regarding leaving the forces?

Makes you wonder what happened to those who saw the worst of the WW1 trenches, knee deep in stinking mud fighting off rats and continual shelling on a daily basis before getting into the nasty business of sticking bayonets in people. Of course, some did go mad and we shot them as deserters.

You never really know who will be affected by what. Some people seem to get over it. But then you have people like Audie Murphy, who was a hugely decorated officer, genuine war hero in every sense. But suffered for decades with flashbacks, nightmares and depression and IIRC at times slept with a gun under his pillow which he once held his wife at gunpoint with.

Monster Rain wrote:

htj wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.

Oh sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be military service.

Oh yes it does have to be military service, and force draftees to the front lines. That's the incentive for politicians to not start wars.

I get what you're saying matty, personally I think Aus is pretty decent when it comes to setting up our soldiers (wounded or not) for civilian life afterwards. In fact I was watching something on Four Corners just the other day about an engineer who suffered severe spinal injuries when the better part of a helicopter fell on him. He and his wife both said that his lengthy and difficult recovery would never have been possible without the support of his mates and the Defence Force itself.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Oh yes it does have to be military service, and force draftees to the front lines. That's the incentive for politicians to not start wars.

This sounds less than reasonable.

I thought the idea of national service was to help promote a sense of national unity and keep importance defense positions filled. Never heard the idea that the point of National Service was to learn that war is bad.

The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.

There would most likely be huge Riots over us starting a war if we were required to serve in the event of a conflict (sup, Vietnam)

It would be even worse today...if it was like that, we would never have another War.

Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.

I don't think that is ever been the reason for a national service program. Well, ever may be a bit much. There is a difference between national service and a draft, such as WWII and Vietnam. National Service is everyone serves and always in place, a draft is an "Oh gak" moment and they start forcing people in. Israel and Finland don't do it because it makes people hate war, or at least that isn't the explicit reason. You don't need to be a soldier to have a distaste for war.

Well A) as one of those 'REMF signal' fellas, you're welcome for those phones/internet/satellite link things that make modern warfare possible, and
B) I also do not understand people that freak out about such stuff. We had a couple birds in my unit what flipped out because they *saw* a dead body. I mean... comethef on. This was regular army, not reserves or anything. Maybe it's my natural unflappability, and the fact that I was only signals because a case of goddamn Osgood- Schlatters kept me from joining combat arms as I had originally intended, but I found the whole war situation grimly amusing. My second trip to Iraq, every single person in my platoon had a laptop. Every single one. It was nuts.

As to stuff when I got out - GI bill and that was it. Which reminds me, I need to get on that. The VA could use a little bit of sharpening up from what my friends 'were injured have been passing along, but overall, it's not like we are being spit on in the streets like my dad got. I think soldiers now a days have it pretty all right.

Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.

There would most likely be huge Riots over us starting a war if we were required to serve in the event of a conflict (sup, Vietnam)

It would be even worse today...if it was like that, we would never have another War.

Unpopularity doesn't often stop wars, Vietnam being a notable exception. Case in point, the commencement of the current war Britain is involved in saw the largest organised protest in British history take place against it. It was huge, but it didn't do a damn thing. I'm in favour of service, but I don't think that it will achieve the results you suggest here. As to rioting, well, it seems clear that our government is happy just to let them tire themselves out by this point.

Ahtman wrote:

Karon wrote:The idea is that if you were required to serve, War would instantly become unbelievably unpopular.

I don't think that is ever been the reason for a national service program.

Agreed.
National service usually has to do with an urgent defense need (Israel), preservation of Neutrality (Switzerland pre 1950's) or a tradition of national unity and service to the country ( Ireland).

I for one am glad that the US armed forces are volunteer only.

Forcing a class of people to join, be it the kids of politicians or some other group you have an issue with is just wrong. You don't like your representative? You get to vote every twpo years for a new one. Don't like your senator, every six. Don't like the President's decisions? Every 4.

As for helping our troops? In the US I think we do a pretty good job. There are all kinds of benefits and programs to help veterans and service members leaving the service. Not all trooprs take advantage of all the programs, and you will always have some poor trooper who seems to need more than he is getting, but overall, we actually do a darned good job. And again, if you DON'T think so, vote for the politician that supports what you want done or call/write your current rep and voice your opinion, and get others to do the same.

Every single US enlisted trooper on active duty has either joined up during time of war, or re-enlisted at least once during time of war. They know what they are doing. They are not victims, and most (as in a huge majority) despise being considered as such.

What do you mean a class of people? Surely it would be universal?

Well, reading a bunch of earlier posts it seems folks specifically wanted to target the kids of politicians in some belief it would make war less likely. That is targeting a specific class of person. And it does seem the intent of many of the posters is to somehow punish the political class.

A universal draft would NOT accomplish that if it was actually fair. In WW2 our army was an order of magnitude bigger than now. If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population. Since Federal level politicians are not even a large fraction of 1% of the population, you could expect about the same number of them to be forced as actualy volunteer now.

In fact, right now the middle class economically is very much 'over represented' in the armed forces. A 'fair' draft would very greatly increase the burden on the lower economic quintile of the population.





And again, drafted troops, when we have such a small military, is really not the way to go.

I thought the military took very good care of me when I got out. You can get up to 48 months of GI bill now and the new one pays your tuition as well as a living stipend that is currently ~$1400 a month, and if my credit wasn't so damned bad I would have access to a VA home loan as well. they also set me up with a work study job when I started school answering phones at a local vet rep office, which when added to the GI bill gave me ~$2200 a month untaxed income. And if you were to get hurt VA disability is for the rest of your life, even if you get a job or become filthy rich, that check will be coming every month. I think the people who take advantage of that disability are huge scum bags, but its nice to see the men and women coming back hurt getting something in return.

@CptJake. Ah, I see what you're saying there. I'm not proposing that National Service will solve all war, nor do I suggest sending draftees (even politicians ) to the front before the trained, professional soldiers. I'm just a proponant of national service because I believe it gives one a respect for one's country and an understanding of service to your fellow man.

I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids. I know my wife and I do.

My wife (currently deployed) and myself have a combined 35 years active duty time. We have an enlisted (infantry) son, a son on an Army ROTC scholarship in college, and would not be surprised if our daughter decides to serve in some way. No, I don't think all service has to be or even should be military, some folks are just not cut out for it. I also don't think it should be forced. Encouraged, yes. Compulsory, no. Of course, that is just my opinion. You can't force appreciation and respect for country and service to fellow mankind. Sometimes I feel respect for country is actively discouraged, but that is another topic.

And again, back to the OP topic, I do think, here in the US, we do a darned good job taking care of our troopers and veterans. There is always room for improvement (and sadly always individual cases where frankly the system fails), but you can track programs over the last 10 years and see that we HAVE improved and continue to look for ways to improve.

Jake

CptJake wrote: punish the political class.

Politician isn't a class. If you mean Upper Class and Rich, of which most politicians are, then yes.

CptJake wrote:If you had a truly 'fair' draft, people world be forced into service in proportion to their representation in the over all population.

That is a ridiculous. I'm not even sure how one comes up with that as a definition of fairness.

CptJake wrote:I guess I am old school in that I feel parents ought to instill a sense of service in their kids. I know my wife and I do.

Oh, I agree! I just think too many fail to do so.