World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Army: contracts or conscripts?
date
newest »
newest »
A conscript army may sound a more egalitarian concept than a professional army, but it ends up being an inferior one in these modern times. Why? Because modern military equipment takes months and years of training on it for the soldier to be fully proficient in its use and maintenance/repair. To take a conscript, train him/her for 2-3 years and then release him at the end of his conscription period, just when he is becoming truly proficient with his equipment, constitutes a giant waste of time and money, as you then have to start all over again with a new batch of conscripts. You thus end with a low proficiency, low experience level force, while paying constantly for an increasingly expensive basic training program.
In contrast, a professional army, like the U.S. Army, will typically retain its soldiers for 5 or more years, often up to and past 20 years. Once trained on his equipment, the professional soldier will then be able to concentrate on improving his skills and knowledge, accumulating experience in the field and getting ever better at his trade. This is even more true when it comes to air forces, which demand a high level of skills and technical knowledge.
One last point, but a crucial one: the last few decades have shown that, in a war pitting armies of similar size and equipment quality, professional armies nearly always won the day over conscript armies. The Allied coalition, mostly formed of professional armies, made mincemeat of the conscript Iraki Army in the two Gulf Wars. French forces repeatedly beat a variety of opponents around Africa while fighting Islamic extremists groups, guerrilas and local army mutineers. The British Army, the epitome of a professional force, soundly beat the Argentinian conscripts in the Falklands. The one conscript army that can be said to be of superior quality is the Israeli Army, but it has a solid cadre of experienced officers and senior NCOs.
In contrast, a professional army, like the U.S. Army, will typically retain its soldiers for 5 or more years, often up to and past 20 years. Once trained on his equipment, the professional soldier will then be able to concentrate on improving his skills and knowledge, accumulating experience in the field and getting ever better at his trade. This is even more true when it comes to air forces, which demand a high level of skills and technical knowledge.
One last point, but a crucial one: the last few decades have shown that, in a war pitting armies of similar size and equipment quality, professional armies nearly always won the day over conscript armies. The Allied coalition, mostly formed of professional armies, made mincemeat of the conscript Iraki Army in the two Gulf Wars. French forces repeatedly beat a variety of opponents around Africa while fighting Islamic extremists groups, guerrilas and local army mutineers. The British Army, the epitome of a professional force, soundly beat the Argentinian conscripts in the Falklands. The one conscript army that can be said to be of superior quality is the Israeli Army, but it has a solid cadre of experienced officers and senior NCOs.
That's a comprehensive explanation of pros and cons, thanks!
I agree with Michel in general. The force that prevails is the better trained and better disciplined one, and conscripts are not only there for too short of a time, but they wish they were somewhere else, and if it is peacetime, they do the minimum to avoid trouble and hope they get out of it without having to go fight.However, I disagreed with Michel about the cause of the Iraqi failure, apart possibly that the Iraqis' hearts were not in it. The American equipment and technology was just so superior. Iraqi tanks were destroyed before they could get close enough to do anything, and the Iraqi air force simply fled (and very sensibly too because it would have been essentially no contest). The Falklands was an interesting issue and I suspect with better leadership and the willingness to throw what they had at it, Argentine might have prevailed. The British air power was pretty feeble, having only an antique carrier, and had the Argentinians put their air force at Stanley, the British would have had real problems landing.
To be fair to the Argentinians in the Falklands War, their pilots proved to be both skillful and very brave, pushing attacks against British warships against a hail of missiles and shells and achieving some significant hits. One big Argentine failure was the general incompetence and uncaring towards their own soldiers of the Argentinian Army officers, who had been more accustomed to torture political prisoners than to fight an armed enemy. Those officers mostly let their men down and ran to the rear when things got hot. In terms of equipment, the British and Argentinians were generaly on par.
My guess is that until it was a bit late, the Argentinians did not believe Britain would follow through. I think Michel is right that the higher command was inept and probably cowardly. Even once the British landed, a bit of skilled command would have given the British a problem, but their real problem was they did not prepare well. While the British were assembling their troops and sailing so far, they could have put in a lot of training and reserve dumps so they could move fast, or alternatively, have defences prepared. But that is back to the question. If you are a professional army, you expect to be doing something. It is the conscript forces that sit around waiting for something to happen. Waiting itself is not wrong, but they should be preparing while waiting.
If you're a country that doesn't get into conflict frequently, it may not make sense to build up a massive military force. You spend money on modern equipment and by the time you get around to using it, it has become old and obsolete.On the other hand, and I see the discussion about training in the modern age, but just going back to WW2, the US had to invest heavily and divert much of our industrial output in order to manufacture the equipment we needed for the conflict. If we had faced imminent invasion as our European allies did, would we have been able to build up in time to push it back? That strategy may have made sense to us back then because it gave our leaders some time to formulate their plans.
On a side note, Michel, you bring up the French in Africa, and for all the crap many in the States talk about them, I have a lot of respect for how they handled the situation in Mali. Makes me wonder why our leaders sabotage our efforts by overthinking these conflicts...
How do you prefer your armed forces: as a duty or as a job or maybe - disbanded?
Disbanded??? Right, no defense. Just as well say "Come and walk all over us and take what we have."
Rest assured, Scout. No danger of that. The US military is so powerful nobody else could walk ver you
Because we would never consider disbanding our army. How could Nik suggest such a thing?
Scout wrote: "Because we would never consider disbanding our army. How could Nik suggest such a thing?"According to this site 22 countries (more than 10% of the world's countries) don't have an army and subsist somehow -:): https://www.storypick.com/country-no-...
Utopian now, but maybe feasible one day - if the degree of confidence were higher and enmity and rivalry lesser, a humankind could benefit from a global disarmament - at least until hostile aliens start to directly threaten us
Yeah, well, what happens to you on the playground if you back away from a bully? On the other hand, what happens if he knows you're stronger than he is? Human nature, and we're all human, countries included.
Just because he knows you are stronger does not mean he will give in. This probably needs a different discussion thread but what with what is happening in the Gulf of Oman, my guess is Iran is not going to back down, despite the fact the US is clearly the stronger. As an aside, I do not think Iran is guilty of this act. If it were, why would it come up to a tanker and disable a mine set on it? Wouldn't it merely fire it?
As I understand from local reports, they are filmed picking up a bomb that didn't explode after the attack. Either they don't want it as an evidence left at the site or want to investigate themselves. Iran is a prime and obvious suspect, but it being framed may too be an option.Sure, a different thread dedicated to rising tensions in the gulf can be better
As I see it, there are two suspects: Iran, and anyone who wants to get the US to bomb Iran. No way to know right now.
I'm a strong believer in a fully professional force.(Preferably aligned to a specific governing corporate - whoops, channeling my next futuristic series....)
Hi Graeme,Futuristic corporate forces? Lots of scope there - I have happily trodden that path :-)
Those who have armies usually use one of the following approaches: either have a professional army, where a soldier is usually earning some decent money, or - conscripts, where all (usually male) citizens (maybe with some exceptions) are required to serve the country in its military. Some countries use both types.
Pros make money but are sometimes required to risk their lives for other fellow citizens, but do so voluntarily, while conscripts - rarely have a choice, however the burden is 'equal'.
What's the better approach in your opinion?