WASHINGTON (AFP) — Twelve former US army captains Tuesday urged Washington to either abandon Iraq or dramatically increase its military presence there by reinstating mandatory military service.
The article, published in the Washington Post, also criticized higher-ranking officers for believing they can still hold Iraq together with the force available.
"There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq," wrote the ex-captains, all of whom saw service in Iraq between 2003 and 2006.
"To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately.
"A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition," they wrote.
The Iraq war "is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start," the authors wrote, stating bluntly that "Iraq is in shambles."
The authors say they have "seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out."
The captains describe widespread corruption in the Iraqi government, a country where the infrastructure is in "deplorable condition."
Iraq's oil industry "still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction," they wrote.
Even with the 'surge' of US forces this year there are not enough troops in Iraq. Temporary regional success "may brief well on PowerPoint presentations," but in practice "they just push insurgents to another spot on the map."
Millions of Iraqis "correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely.
"Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts."
After widespread anger over the draft during the Vietnam war, the United States went to an all-volunteer military force in 1973. Currently there is little support to return to compulsory military service.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...IspoZrnru49qDA

So what do ya think fellow Americans? Is it time to return to a draft? In another thread even Chief Bones, staunch opponent of all things Bush, admitted there seems to be no answer to putting a final chapter on Iraq. These captains have BTDT and among others also out there make a good argument for returning to the draft. NOT for political reasons but strictly to meet the manpower needs for things like eliminating the need for augmenting our forces with private contractors and having boots on the ground long enough to get the job done without totally tearing apart families.

No, like I said, I think if Army personnel just wore a few more hats, this would be solved to a great extent.
I don't think the current generation of Americans will be able to stand a draft. It is true that draftees in the past have done very well in war and that draftees in various other countries are surprisingly of high caliber but I think if we pull away the current Joe from his MTV and Playstation we'll be worse off.
Having bad people around you can get you killed.

I am still for an American Foreign Legion

What makes them think more boots on the ground will lead to victory? We need a political solution, sure Iraq will be stabilized in the short term, but otherwise the military will have to stay there forever and act as a police force.

Also, whoever instates a draft for an unpopular war is pretty much shooting their political career in the face.

ML, on purpose I put this is the military related forum, not the political one. We're discussing this topic divorced from any political considerations. I'd like us to try to just discuss this from a purely martial aspect.

I don't really know about a draft but from my perspective something has to be done especially from the Guard and Reserve standpoint. Alot of NG and Reserve units are hemmoraging. They are down enlistments and reenlistments. Simply do to the fact of the deployment schedule and the finanical strain on the families.

My own unit has lost a good number of SNCO's, NCO's and a bevvy of Spec's as well as a couple Officers. Some took retirement others just pulled the pin. Not a big deal for me I know why I joined and knew what was expected.

I feel like the AD guys should look at it like I do. It's your job and you deploy at the pleasure of the Service. Guard and Reserve guys IMO take a bigger hit. I had a Speedy 4 in my team who went from 60,000.00 a year to E-4 scale. That's a helluva hit to take and to his credit he did 2 pumps and was a good troop. But finanically he just couldn't reenlist.

You can make the argument that AD,Reserve or NG they all know what their signing up for and I'll agree with you. My question is this. When these guys come due for reenlistment and decide to get out rather than face another pump, then who trains and leads the cherries that are going with me next time?

I hear ya 03. I see the need to return to something very much akin to the kind of Army we always had for most of the 20th century.

1. Lose this asinine reliance on Reserve and Guard troops. It was a stupid assumption from the get go.

2. Maintain a corps of career NCOs. This is the backbone that trains and leads.

3. Reinstate the draft so that the numbers of troops on Active Duty can be managed as needed.

4. Eliminate the Officer ticket punch roulette which sees them constantly changing disciplines and never becoming proficient in any branch to be of use. If you branch Infantry, you stay infantry.

5. Return BASIC training to its brutal and realistic levels as it was prior to the end of Vietnam. No yellow card time outs and wall to wall counselling when a troop ****s up.

6. If we go into combat, everyone stays and gets the job done. No one rotates home until the job is FINISHED and then EVERYONE comes home. Shades of WWII.

Simple - an all volunteer force has many positives and few negatives.
I would want a volunteer and not a draftee covering my six, enough said.

Originally Posted by Tsunami

Simple - an all volunteer force has many positives and few negatives.
I would want a volunteer and not a draftee covering my six, enough said.

Except those few Negatives are coming out to bite us in the a** right about now. Volunteer Armies work as long as you don't have prolonged engagements, otherwise you start having manpower shortages. We have seen this happen saw in the Civil War, in WWII, in Vietnam, and now in Iraq. I agree its better, but history proven that its not always feasible.

I believe its the Swiss who have an interesting system. Its a conscript army but soldiers only show up for duty a few times every year for a set number of years. Its not a Fully Trained Army, but they aren't completely 'green' either.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I believe its the Swiss who have an interesting system. Its a conscript army but soldiers only show up for duty a few times every year for a set number of years. Its not a Fully Trained Army, but they aren't completely 'green' either.

This is fine for defence of homeland, and i guess that suits the Swiss. Nice work if you can get it.

The only trouble with conscription is that it is possible to lose the cream of a young generation in quick time, particularly that of smaller countries.

Foreign Legion? I think I might warm to that idea, if it meant a really crack force of hard-bitten pros, hunting for action.