Here's A Military What If?

[ThomWV]

Let's say our military was divided into two groups. One group would volunteer to serve but only to serve over seas. The second group would volunteer to serve within the US. At any time any person in the service would be associated with one group or the other and they could change their association any time they liked. That is to say a person who had chosen over seas service might find themselves in a war zone and not like it so they could simply fill out a form and chance their affiliation and the service would automatically and immediately (as soon as at all possible) send them back to the states. Same thing going the other way.

So, what do you thing would happen at a time like this? I know there are always base-camp-warriers who will clammor to to to war, but those same unstable sorts tended to be the ones who whined wanting to come home first in my experience. How so you think the free shift of troops would play out?

Thom

[Sir_Shrek]

1. That'll never happen....

I think you overestimate the number of folks who would "clamor to war".

But mostly, it runs counter to pretty much what the military is based on. Think of how screwed up the military would be if a soldier could say yes or no to the orders of his commanding officer. Same thing applies here.

[ThomWV]

3. No, not like that

I don't mean that they could say yes or no to orders as they chose. It would just be that there were two Commands, and they might at their own option, exercised as they saw fit at some reasonably often interval, say 4 times a year, choose which of the two Commands they chose to serve in. I think there would be lots of guys who would be perfectly happy to serve over seas, and by the way, that could just as easily be in Germany as Japan, as Brazil, as Italy, as Greenland, as Iraq, as Austrailia. Lets face it, to some extent we have military everywhere, even if just laison duty. But if they chose the Overseas Command then they were at the mercy of the military as to where they were needed. No choice to that level of detail.

Thom

[KG]

2. what if - we changed our constitution

to prohibit the use of the US miltiary to protect US corporate intrests outside of the US.

the japanese did something similar after WW2 and that country seems to be doing ok.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. Yeah, as long as they have their mercenaries like us and ROK

to do all the heavy lifting for them, they do. Must be nice to be protected and supported in all manner of ways without having to fork over any serious $$$ for anything except national police and Coast Guard.

[jmowreader]

4. I never liked the stateside military, so I would have joined for overseas

This would work, at least in peacetime, if a soldier's election was irrevocable--you sign up for the overseas branch and there you stay.

In wartime the military needs the flexibility to send people where it's needed.

As for finding themselves in war zones and not liking it, only officers like war zones; they look good on your ORB. As for the enlisteds, not even grunts and snake-eaters like war. Too easy to be made dead.

[Knoxville_Bob]

5. Well...

I never met a soldier who clamored for war. But I knew a lot, including myself, who were ready to the job they signed up for.

As far as finding themselves in a warzone, and not liking it, well, as a non-commissioned officer, I pointed out to one of my guys that his ID said "Department of Defense," not "Department of Education."

You enlist in the military, go through basic training, wear the uniform - you have to expect that there may come that moment when you are asked to engage the enemy. To think otherwise is just stupid.

[Elidor]

7. It actually used to be like that

The first group was called the Army, the second the National Guard. All those names mean anymore is how much you get paid and how you're treated and equipped. They're all overseas positions now.