At the outbreak of the Civil War, the US had an Army, but it was out west killing Indians. Whole new armies were created to fight the South, staffed with volunteers who joined just to fight the South. Could we do that now? Maybe someone wouldn't normally join the service, but wants revenge for 9/11; or someone would fight in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Your thoughts and comments?
2006-12-13 08:31:01 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
How about a unit dedicated solely to looking for Bin Laden, with no limit on how many can join?
2006-12-13 08:32:21 · update #1
PEOPLE ALREADY DO THAT. THEY CALL THEM MERCENARIES.
2006-12-13 08:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by Rich S 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No way. Deciding where to fight -- or if to fight, for that matter -- is a matter of governmental policy. The reason the average person doesn't have a direct voice in making that policy is that the average person (a) couldn't find half the countries we're engaged in on a map and (b) is so much more concerned with fighting whatever the hell is going on in their neighborhood that anything beyond that is totally out of their focus.
A second reason is that you'd get really lopsided armies. Go clean out a bunch of no-resistance islanders on Grenada? We could probably raise an army of a few million for that. If the other option was some place where you could actually get killed, well,
you wouldn't need a really big plane to move all those volunteers to the battleground. And what about who's in command? A real hard *** is running assignment A while a softy known for treating the men in the trenches well is running assignment B; where do you think the bulk of the volunteers would sign up? (Never mind that the hardass is going to get them out of there three times faster.)
Mostly, though, people in this country would NEVER fight a war if it was totally optional. Like I said, the Soviets, Al Queda and a bunch of Martians could invade this country and the average person would only notice if their garbage wasn't getting picked up every week.
2006-12-13 08:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by DR 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Union and confedrate Armies did DRAFT. That caused the Major draft roits in NY. The armies were not staffed completely with volunteers. The only 3 wars USA has ever fought with out the help of Draftees: Current Iraq, Desert Storm, and the War of Independence. Every thing else had draftees.
Right now you can chose: Either go fight or not. It is our choice.. An Army anywhere in the world in any point in history has never chose what battle or war they wish to fight on the soldier level. That is why we have a chain of command. Why there is one.
America first drafted men into the Army in the War of 1812.
Just a side note of the 9million soldiers who fought in Vietnam only 2 million were drafted. That means 7 million signed up on their own accord. The same all through out history.
2006-12-13 08:44:33 · answer #3 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually there were a lot of guys that did not volunteer to fight in the civil war. They were told to fight or be hung. Some wanted to stay out of it and just work their farms. They were not allowed to do this. Also if you were a deserter you would be hung too.
If you want to make a choice about where to fight than you should hone up on your skills and join the mercenaries.
2006-12-13 08:44:14 · answer #4 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good point and i see where you are coming from.
however i don't agree.
i want our service members to join the military not to get revenge against someone (although i'm sure many do) but rather because they feel a duty to serve our country. a soldiers duty isn't to decide who and why we are fighting, a soldiers duty is to fight when needed.
also, if soldiers could pick and choose their wars it would politicize and fractionalize the military. if half of our soldiers wanted to go to war and the other half didn't there would be a lot of conflict within our military. suppose two sides of the military supported two opposing sides of a war?
i am a firm believer in civilian control of the military, which includes deciding who we go to war with. although i may strongly disagree with the civilian leadership it isn't for the military to decide. this is the main reason i couldn't be in the military, i want to fully be able to argue against that civilian leadership if i so please.
2006-12-13 08:50:23 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. O 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think America and Britain both have faults in their respective justice systems, but at least we are able to see the faults and comment on them and by our vote do something about them, in other country's human rights abuses go undetected with people in prison for years without any form of trial, we can even stand up and shout about things we think are wrong I just wish this was true in most country's of this unjust world.
2016-05-23 20:28:46 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I'm pretty sure that it's understood when you join the military that you may have to go to war. It's not a pick and choose kind of thing.
If you do not want to defend your country, if you do not want to have to go do war (whether you agree with it or not) then you have no business being in the military. It's just that simple.
2006-12-13 08:42:46 · answer #7 · answered by Elisabeth R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
their wars it would politicize and fractionalize the military. if half of our soldiers wanted to go to war and the other half didn't there would be a lot of conflict within our military. suppose two sides of the military supported two opposing sides of a war?
i am a firm believer in civilian control of the military, which includes deciding who we go to war with. although i may strongly disagree with the civilian leadership it isn't for the military to decide. this is the main reason i couldn't be in the military, i want to fully be able to argue against that civilian leadership if i so please
2014-09-26 03:29:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they can choose to join or not join for personal reasons, but once you accept the military life, you willfully give up certain rights, such as your right to choose who to kill. You can't divorce that loss of rights from the choice to serve.
Oh, and I've been overseas for a few weeks. I had some business that took me away. But I'm back, thanks for asking.
2006-12-14 05:05:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's why you have to not be a retard when you sign up. Because you have to be prepared for the contingency that you will wind up fighting in a war you do not believe in. I like your idea, but I'm sure some government officials would throw a big hissy fit because then it would be more likely their pet projects wouldn't be supported anymore.
2006-12-13 08:41:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it is a good idea to do that, but there is nothing wrong with bringing up suggestions. I think that stop loss should be gotten rid of though, i've always considered that inherantly unjust. You can't even vote with your feet then.
2006-12-13 09:51:59 · answer #11 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋