|
Notice, the catch phase, if properly motivated. The chief problems with Draftees is they are best motivated by how the military action benefits how the people back home live, NOT how the rulers what to live. The best example of this is Ancient Rome. Rome used a "draftee" army to defeat Hannibal and then to defeat Macedonia to become the major power in Greece (and by defeating both Hannibal and Macedonia became the sole super power of its time).
After the above victories, the Roman Elites wanted more, but found that the Roman Citizen saw no benefit for them in those wars of aggression. The Slaves the wars produced reduced the wages of the poor Roman Citizens (and the money permitted the rich to take over the land of the poor and then work those lands with Slaves). Thus in the Third Punic War, where Rome do to the urging of Cato the elder, destroyed Carthage so the Roman elite could take over the African Trade (which provided no benefit to the Roman Poor) the poor basically went through the motions of serving (It took three years to do what their grandfathers would have done in three months, but that is the difference between an motivated Army and an unmotivated Army).
As the Second Century BC Continued, the situation of the Draftee Roman Army went down hill even further (and Fear of the Draftee Army spread among the Roman Elite for the draftees support of the Reforms of the Grachaii). Marius turned the Roman Army into a Mercenary Army so to recruit and motivate the men who served under him. Sulla then took that Mercenary Army and established the First Roman life time Dictatorship (In which Marius, who was of the "people" ended up being executed by Sulla).
The Key to Marius Reforms was that recruited "Volunteers" not draftees who would do as they were paid to do. Sulla just paid his men to march on Rome and make him the Dictator of Rome. This Mercenary Army became the Army of the Late Republic as various Roman Senators raised their own Armies and looted the Mediterranean World while keeping the peasants down in Italy itself. This lead to increased tension in Rome, a class struggle where the poor were stripped of their ability to organize into any form of Resistance (Arms were NOT a concern, those could be produced as needed, what was feared was people willing to be organized to fight, such an organize poor would over throw the Roman Elite so every effort was made to make sure the poor stayed divided).
Caesar stepped into this mess as the High Priest of Rome (Which included controlled of the Bridges in Rome AND control of what we would call "News sources", thus the reason for his "Commentaries" which were designed to be read to the Common People of Rome by Roman Priests and other readers to show how he was supporting Rome and them). Caesar took his Mercenary Army, after looting Gaul of all of its Gold, and made himself Dictator of Rome. He has support of the poor so had a stronger hold on the country then Sulla had 30 years before, thus when he died, the poor made sure his successor, Octavian, took over (While Mark Anthony's first wife was making sure Caesar's troops received their pay, including any pension the troops were entitled to, an act Octavian support her in doing).
Anyway, notice how the Army became more and more important as to who ruled the Roman Empire, as its ability to fight declined. The Army of Caesar could not have defeated Hannibal for Caesar would have run out of Money to pay them while before he engaged Hannibal (Hannibal's Army were all Mercenaries, and were driven out of Italy by Roman Draftees by the Draftees determination to drive him out, no matter how many time they lost, a concept Hannibal had trouble accepting, it took him 16 years when he finally realized he could NOT conquer Italy and thus left Italy to defend Carthage from Scipio's Draftee army, which smashed Hannibal's Mercenary Army at the Battle of Zama).
The key to getting a Draftee army motivated is to get the poor and working class at home to support whatever the draftee Army is doing. If the poor and working class oppose the war (Is both do today not only in the US but in Germany) then the army will do a very poor job. If, on the other hand the Draftee Army is doing what the poor and working class wants done, then it will do the job quite well. The US Army did quite well in Vietnam, till the majority of Americans came to oppose the war in 1968, then the US Draftee army went into a rapid decline (The US had to pull out of Vietnam by 1972 do to how bad the US army had become by that date). People tend to forget that the Majority of Americans supported the war in Vietnam till the middle of 1968, it is only in the middle of 1968 that you had the majority of Americans against the War (and the worse Anti-War protests were under Nixon, elected in 1968, not LBJ who was president 1963-1969, through under LBJ you did have some Anti-War protests).
I am concentrating on Draftee (Universals Military Service) vs Volunteer (Mercenary) armies and only mention the opposition to a war to explain why a Draftee Army was viewed as "failing" while a Mercenary Army was viewed as succeeding. Germany has had a problem since the end of the Soviet Union, Germany does not see itself going to war with any of its near neighbors, thus an army designed to fight on the plains of Central Europe is an army no longer needed by Germany. On the other hand, an army designed to go to Afghanistan has no support among the German people, thus a draftee army to be sent "overseas" has no support and will do poorly when sent "overseas" (i.e. outside of Central Europe). Thus the switch to a all volunteer army, an army that can be motivated by pay and thus sent anywhere in the world even if the Germany people oppose the move.
Side-Note. Every army has had mercenaries, The Romans hired Spanish Horsemen during the wars with Hannibal. The US Pilots of Vietnam were all Volunteers (as where the Special forces of the time period). Some of these volunteers volunteer AFTER being Drafted (if they had to serve, better to serve in a branch of the services they wanted to serve in rather then be assigned into a branch). Thus Mercenaries have their place even in all volunteer armies, but they can NOT be what you depend on when its comes to strength vs Strength, Mercenaries are notorious for disappearing before such fights (Generally do to a lack of pay) if there is nothing else to take the blow. Thus the above comments is NOT to use any mercenaries, but that the main part of your troops can NOT be mercenaries UNLESS you make sure they are NEVER place in a position where the choice is to between they personnel well being AND the Country they are protecting (in such a choice the Mercenaries will support whoever is able to pay them). Thus as colonial troops, mercenaries have excellent reputations, for they are never sent in if the other side has a decent chance of winning (either the mercenaries never agree to go in, or go in go through the motions of fighting and then retreat and demand they pay). Thus Europe in its expansion into Africa in the 1800s used almost only Mercenary troops (The fame of the French Foreign Legion is from this time period and it is the Classic Mercenary unit), while keeping the troops intended for use in Europe as draftees (England was an exception to this rule, but it is an island and as long as it had the largest fleet an invasion by foreign troops was unlikely).
Just a comment on why Germany is doing this switch, it reflects that the German elite wants an army it can send anywhere in the world and be effective even if the German people oppose sending the troops. You can do that with volunteers-mercenaries but not draftee troops and thus the real reason for the switch. This has the risk of making it easier for Germany to intervene in wars that its former dependence on a Draftee army made impossible, something we should regret more then praise.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
