In many other threads that discussed conscription vs. AVF.

One, a lot of folks do not know that about 2/3rds of the folks who served in Vietnam were Volunteers.
Two, "Rubber Duck; a conscripted force won't go rotten if it isn't sent off to fight unnecessary wars predicated on lies." RD will use a wind blowing south or stubbing his toe to go on ANY topic and attempt to link it to going back to a conscript force and it is always for the same reason, he thinks that it will erupt into protests on the streets and get us out of Afghanistan, a war that is hardly unnecessary, not sure what lie 9/11 was. Iraq, yup, you can say that but he missed that boat. Nothing else really is ever presented for a reason to go back to a conscript from him based on logic, history and performance and a lot of what he knows about the current military is very out of date. RD is the heat when it comes to subs and submarine warfare though.
Third, the Combat Arms performed pretty well in Vietnam, ask the NVA and VC, they were not broken the way many play it out to be the NVA almost was. Not a shocker that is was mostly support troops in the rear that were involved in most of that acts. Support vs Combat are like two different Armies and it is something that today is still true as far as discipline, ability and esprit de corps go.
Fourth, it really had more to do with leadership over anything else, does not matter if it is an AVF or a Conscript Military, Leadership is and ALWAYS will be what matters.

You are right about 2/3 of troops who serves in Vietnam were enlistees, not draftees.

However, that means about 1 million draftees did tours in Vietnam - a pretty big number.

Eric - were you around in those days? DO have any idea what the atmosphere in the country and in the army was?

The draft army, after a rough start in N, Africa did very well in WW II and eventually in Korea. And they did OK Vietnam too, in a strictly tactical sense.

I think occasionally they've gotten rid of the stupid knockoff SPAM ads that show up now and then.

In my time following Tom's forum I've never seen any editorial hanky-panky. A lot of us take each other to task, and Tom too, but he really is interesting in an exchange of ideas an opinions - in spite of things getting heated sometimes this is one of the most intelligent lists I've seen.

I do not have to be around in those days to know how well the Army, Marines, SOF and others did in the war, on a tactical level the Military never lost a large engagement, even Tet was a huge victory and effectively ended the VC in the South for most of the remainder of the war. It could even be argued that if we had done just a few things like continued air and financial support for the South they would not have lost, this is from Post War Accounts from the North, they were crushed once they tried to mass and assault south by air power. We also could have bombed a lot more dams up North, flooded their rice fields and starved them out but that was not our way. As for strategic, look to the Pols and many of our Flags at home for that one and most of our other screw ups, to include the most recent. Then, as now, we were "Lions lead by Deer".
The point on the 2/3rds of them being volunteers was that the Conscript argument does not really hold water when most of the guys there are volunteers, the 2/3 margin goes up higher once you get into the combat arms. A good read on a lot of the mis-conceptions on the Vietnam War Vets can be found in "Stolen Valor", the author can get over the top in interviews but the book is fantastic.
As to the other poster, if we leave Afghanistan we will be back when we are attacked again from that area, at the very least launching SOF Attacks into it on a constant basis. What is even more of a threat is that the Afghanistan we see today goes to the Taliban and then they start to spread their influence in Pakistan even more so and guess what that Paks have that we would prefer not to fall in the hands of a Radical Islamic State?
Think that the Pakistani's do not have problems already within their own Military and Intel Services? The ISI is loaded with people who are sympathetic to the Taliban and their views.
How about this, feel free to give me an argument as to why we should pull out that does not go along the lines of "It is a needless war", I mean actual logic and looking at the big picture and down the road 20 years, how it will effect Pakistan, our allies, others views of staying power, China, Russia, etc.... If you want to say that it has been ignored due to Iraq, you would have a point. If you want to say that we are starting behind the curve due to the neglect, you would have a point. To say that Afghanistan was needless is silly and not sure how you can argue that point.

Hey Otter, it has always been my belief that as our involvement in Viet-Nam dragged-on, the individual replacement rotation of personnel (12-months Army/13-months Marine) took its toll with unit cohesion and discipline, more so with the Army than the hapless Marines.

Although anecdotal, I further believe we lost some good small unit leaders (both officer and enlisted) early-on, that we never fully recovered from which also saw the Army promote 2ndLt’s to 1stLt in 18 months vice the 24 month minimum for his naval counterpart.

Additionally, the rotating in and out of officers into command billets known as ticket punching was certainly detrimental to the ground forces out front, more so than in the rear commands, with all too many never repeating a subsequent tour, along with poor continuity exacerbated with the lack of rapid information sharing we have now.

One wonders if we had a repeat with the same parameters on the all volunteer force today, whether we would see something similar, or have we on a smaller scale with a smaller force and just haven’t owned-up to it or quantified it yet?

I know you're heading out the door soon - fair wind.

You offer no counter arguments except to think that somehow if we leave that it really won't have any effect on us, who is using the cartoonish argument? That is what is usually called a pie in the sky idea. The OODA loop is hardly a long term planning mechanism and while I am sure you have read Boyd I doubt you have used Boyd's loop or else you would not suggest an OODA loop for any type of COIN since the average lengths is 10 years for any Insurgency. You ignore that I even tip my hat to the fact that we turned our backs on OEF for a long time and then do not really offer any real argument as to what should be done except pull out.
You also fail to address the original comment about Afghanistan being a needless war, do you really think it was? Now, for your other points:

-India? Really? That really is your argument against a very real threat of Pakistan going in the wrong direction and you use a hypothetical scenario of India attacking Pakistan instead of acknowledging the threat? Then you make what I think is a statement that by our Army being there that they could help the two parties avoid conflict? I am confused but I am going to assume that you have read a few books and maybe some blogs but are not really aware of what is going on over there.

-Bear Trap analogy? Again, really? So, if a war is not ended in what YOU feel is a timely manner just get out? Oh wait, I am sorry, if a war is not ended in an OODA Loops timely manner then we should just get out, my mistake. Wow, yet another strong case against OEF or any war that goes on for to long. Also, by putting a time limit on any Counter-Insurgency all you do is crush the entire point of one since the enemy only has to wait it out (That Afghanis are famous for this) and your allies are afraid you will abandond them, which by what you are advocating we would do.

-Somalia, what do you think we are doing via Proxy there? Read up a little on AMISOM. Try reading a little more and understanding the big picture before posting something like that.

-Outside perception, if you do not think we are setting up for future rounds with other countries and that they are not looking at us in this conflict to see how we do and what our will is that is just simply naive. Both our allies and our not so much allies will look to this to see how far they can push us on some things and how much we will have their backs on others.

-Money, this is a valid point but since the TARP cost more than the OIF up to that point I think we will be ok. OEF is not a war that is going to bankrupt us, the DoD as a percentage of GDP spends about 6% with the wars going on, entitlements spend 60% and going to 80% of the entire federal budget by 2020 (Via the CBO) so I would look some other area outside of the DoD for what will bankrupt us down the road.

Look, I think you are someone who no matter what will never agree on the war, if we had been talking about Iraq I would say you have some valid points about wasting money or being needless war but this is not Iraq.

You will never get an argument out of me that the way our Officer Corps run is terrible and I wish I could say that the whole ticket punching thing is gone but it is still there and we have had those conversations before on this blog. I know that the Army and to a lesser degree the Marines suffered a great deal in leadership due to the rotations and we do not have that as much now but not on purpose. The odd thing is that by us having an AVF and because they are going back so many times due to being an AVF is that we do have a lot of experience up to about the 05 level and some 06's. The bad thing is that many of our senior leadership (Flags) and those wanting to get their Col wings or Star are still very risk adverse and not usually out of the box thinkers and that the micro-management they send down the CoC is causing our good 03's and 04's to get out as soon as they are done. My group alone is losing 40% of their 04's due to just such short sighted thinking by Flags and that it will be pretty high among the enlisted soon enough by 2012 or 2013. Nothing to do with not believing in the wars or having faith in their NCOs or Mid-Grade Officers and everything to do with not having that much faith in senior leadership who in the end make the calls.
I do not know what would happen if we had a conscript force to be honest and sometimes I am ok with a draft coming back but not for the reasons RD or others want it. I would like to see one re-instated at this point due to the civ-mil gap and what I think is just a plain old lack of involvement by people in their own country. What do you think would happen if we had the same program now that we had in Vietnam? Always respect your opinion and would like to know.
Oh, not going out the door for a little bit more, don't push me out to soon, this is going to be a long one!

As to how our force would stack-up today were we to step-back over 40 years to Viet-Nam? Obviously the force today would be too small: keep in mind that at the height of our involvement, with over 500,000 in country, we only had 42 or 44 maneuver battalions combined. That means more people were rear support than out stumbling around in the bush. We also had to augment rear area defenses from these maneuver battalions as well, which further tied down combat power. . .all this while keeping forces at reasonable manning levels in Europe as well.

I will chat back channel with you about it, but one interesting thought occurred to me was that the more you have, the more you want. If we had the force today that we did back in the 60's, and the pathetic early 70’s, we would see a much larger footprint in Afghanistan, along with the large logistic tail we can’t seem to disassociate ourselves of in creating truly light flexible infantry. This might allow many today that seem more intent on force protection as opposed to mission (a variable from command-to-command, but a trend from what I’ve heard), our aggressiveness would be greater and thus our casualties greater, which transcends to more public notice back home - maybe?

I probably tapped-danced around the real spirit of the question you asked didn't I as to who was or is better?

Semper Fi

You are right, this is not a spot to really expand and I do not have the time to go line by line or the room for that matter but your overall premise is way off.
The Figures about the Budget are from the CBO, hardly someone who is making up bogus numbers.
The comparison of how we do COIN and what we do to the Soviets is so far gone I am not going to bother, shocked you even used that really.
The comparison of the PI, we beat them, they did not wait and the comparison again is way off. It was worth it just as Guam provides forward projection and as have many other places so did the PI. The mention that they (PI) waited for us to leave and attempting to link that with the TB? Really?
The comparison and analogy of Jordan and Israel is just silly, the cute yet way off remark about being fearful of Pakistan turning Muslim is even more silly. If you did not know what I meant by going in the wrong direction then you are either playing or just not understanding of what goes on. I will spell it out-If the TB or any radical form of Islam spreads to Pakistan and causes an insurgency there then that is a real danger, there are many in the Pakistan Military and Intelligence Services who are sympathetic to the TB, wish I was making that up.
The thought that somehow a DoD contract is wasted? Let's see, that is a job in the US, spent on a US Company and yet somehow that money does not count and hurts the economy and we could spend it on something more useful? Come on man, that is off kilter from the get go.
Man, I can go on and on but I honestly think you need to get a grip on some things, to even say that if we had provided evidence to the TB after 9-11 somehow this would have worked out better? And to imply that we did not have any? That we should not have invaded them and that somehow Somalia or other spots are no less a threat? The TB did support and aid the AQ, they did not launch from any other country, could have sworn it was not Somalia that they launched from. The TB was being fought by people we considered allies (but who we screwed over) before 9-11 and would have fought us not matter what, to think anything else is just naive. You took up the case of Somalia again too, go read on what we are doing with AMISOM at least once before attempting to take that into the conversation.
The OODA loop is used to plan things in a real world application and it works at times and if you have time but it is not the end all be all, it is a tool and I highly doubt that you have used it in a real world application or you would not have used it in the context you attempted to use it in since it was not realistic.
Last point then I have to get back to work, your sentence that if things are not going to end at what you consider a good run of time then we should just give up? Think about that for a minute and go read some Military History and think about how that goes over when you say it.
Brother, I am sure you are well intentioned but the things you post come off odd and naive, very, very naive.

Not only was I around during that time. I was in Viet Nam from May 1970 to Sept. 1971. We had a fragging in my battalion. I was in A CO. One night the CO of B CO got fragged. I was not on the compound that night as our operations went on 24/7. But heard all about when I came in the next day.

The war became unpopular to varying degrees depending on what part of the country you were in. Drug use became very widespread among the youth. There was a low key defacto civil war in America itself.

It was the establishment vs. anti-establishment. In the military it did not matter if you joined or were drafted. It was lifers vs. non-lifers.

Oh BTW this stuff about not hitting their target is pure crap. The fraggers knew exactly who they wanted to hit and where they were at.

Nice to hear from someone who was there and came close to one of the incidents.

I would agree with the lifers vs. non-lifers dichotomy - I heard that a lot in Germany as well, and that was long enough after the end of conscription that I doubt there were any draftees left.

I know that some folks in the military are calling this the long war, but that doesn't mean the American public is going to support it. Unless there are tangible results, the public will continue to question the necessity of being in Afghanistan.

As for preventing any more 9/11s, I would remind you that:

- None of the attackers were Afghans
- BinLaden was a guest of the Taliban and it isn't at all clear that he or his friends would be allowed back in
- That there is nothing intrinsic about Afghanistan that might cause "another 9/11." It could just as easily come from some training camp in Somalia, Sudan, or wherever.

That they were not Afghans is meaningless, they were trained and supported in Afhganistan and used Afghanistan as a launching pad. This did not happen in a vacum and without the total support of the ruling group in Afghanistan at the time. As for the next one coming from those other places, AQ did not get the reception or support that it did in Afghanistan any other place in the world and to ensure that it does not happen we have invested a lot of time, training and money in those countries and AMISOM so that we do not have them launched from Yemen, Somalia or other trouble spots. If we leave Afhganistan we will be back eventually as it again turns into a circus that others will take advantage of to do just what we are talking about, attack the US. What other country possibly gives them that type of atmosphere? Somalia? AMISOM is pushing the main group back and Al Shabab is almost done for, part of Somalia has a funcitoning Govt and the other Eastern African Countries are working towards making sure that it continues do improve with the help of US Money and Training. Yemen is the same thing but things are going on there now, not sure what will happen.
Now, again, this thing got off topic, should have stuck to the topic at hand and things that relate, we have gone down a path that really does not have to do that much with Fragging, Conscript vs AVF, Leadership and how it effects the Military and how it can lead to these incidents.

Well, let's just find Osama bin Laden and frag his butt.

Last point on Afghanistan: the infrastructure that allowed bin Laden to use the place as his private training camp was blown to hell years ago. It's not coming back. I sincerely doubt Mullah Omar and his pals wanted what happened to them and to Afghanistan to happen. Their concerns - as has always been the case in Afghanistan going back to Alexander the Great - are pretty parochial. The Taliban are a local operation.

I would say that the possibility of a bunch of new guys trying to pull another "spectacular" coming from somewhere deep in the desert of the Horn of Africa is much greater.

We can save the cost-benefit analysis argument for another thread.

Fair enough :)

J Thomas,
Again, you do not know what you are talking about with regard to OODA, the PI, the Comparisons and your general tone in your posts tells me you think Christians are a serious threat in this country-Joke. That you think Israel is a problem since you seem to bring it up in analogies often-Joke and you seem to think that because YOU think there is no progress in Afhanistan that we are not. It is not hard to follow, look up and see how we have expanded ourselves and pushed back the TB, it is not hard to do a lot of things research wide really and I am assured in my knowledge by doing this and I can only shake my head at your posts, I am going to assume you are either at the University now or just someone who does not read anything that does not present your views on things already.
Here are some suggestions-
Read "Stolen Valor" for some info on Vietnam, that is on topic for this one and will clear some stuff up for ya in regard to Vietnam.
Read "The Bear went over the mountain" and "The Other Side of the Mountain", this will tell you what the Soviets and the Muj did. The Soviets never tried COIN, if they had instead of slaughtering people they might have done ok. Side not, they still did ok at the tactical level, although not that well due to their rigid Command and Control, the Spetnaz however did very well. WE are doing much better on both the tactical and strategic level but the Strategic Level takes time, something you are not willing to do nor ever willing to do it would seem.
Read "Three Cups of Tea"
Read anything but what you are reading on the PI Insurrection, I cannot believe you just attempted to use that you "heard differently" as to how we lost in that one and used it. Again, re-enforcing my view that you are not one to embrace things that do not agree with your original premise on a topic. What are you going to use next? "Word on the street is.."? Come on.
Now I know you think that anything the military says on anything is BS, so no sense in telling you that COIN is getting results, so I will not bother. I mean sure, I have seen it up close and done it but besides that it is obvious military spin ;) I am willing to concede though that it is to early to tell if this will work long term.
I think it is pretty obvious you are far left, have little to no interaction with the military, your argument relies a lot on not believing in things that do not agree with your premise, your economic model is one of borderline conspiracy since the CBO is wrong and playing with numbers and that military provides no benefit to the economy, odd, hmmm....pretty sure they make money and not sure where you get your economic theory from but no worries. I doubt anything I say again would change your mind and any facts I took to the table would be ignored or that you would think they were made up. As far as out of the box thinking, that is all we do all the time and we get a pretty free hand at it. That comment you made about out of the box thinking might hold water at the Flag Level as far as perception goes or perhaps you just simply go on the age old stereotype of the military which again proves my point that you really have had little to no interaction with anyone in the Combat Arms. You do understand that no matter what we want it is up to our civilian authority to draft strategy right? And even if we do not like it we have to click our heals together and do it anyway and never say that we do not agree with the policy in public, you do know that right?
Finally, if you do not think there is a serious threat of problems going on in Pakistan and that somehow your comparison of Christians in the US being as much of a threat is a valid point of view then honestly you are not informed enough or mature enough to have a debate.
Anyway, cheers kid!

Read "A Better War" also, go look at your postings again and ask if anyone would take some of the things you say seriously-art vs warplanes, justification for economic models, the delay of the invasion, christian threat, etc...etc...It is hard to take you seriously, reasses what you are posting or you will just be another person who posts wild statements that people just shake their head at.
As for the OODA loop, man, this is COIN, you do minor adjustments but you do not need to use an OODA loop to do it, the long term goal and strategy are still the same, don't read a book on something, use 'gestalt psychology" in a sentence and think you know what it is and how to use it. If you think it is a great idea and think you can then apply that method to everything as a cure all or imply that it should become dogma you are mistaken. Real world application is what matters, again, I am sure you are well informed on the topic but have never used it in the context we are talking about, it is theory vs application, two very different things.

This was better, a lot more reason and less pie in the sky, it was hard to take some of it seriously with the art vs warplane and how it effects the econ, etc...anyway, happy to talk offline, I never take things personally, hope you are the same, it is the handle with yahoo.com

Wikipedia has some info, of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_Phillip_Esposito_and_Louis_Allen

Anyone here know more about it? Seems strange that the guilty plea deal was rejected by the XVIII Airborne Corps CG which led to the aquittal but the 42nd ID CG is the one blamed by the widows.