Sunday, April 22, 2012

End The All Volunteer Military?

Perhaps the dumbest column ever, this from Thomas Ricks who apparently actually gets paid for his opinions by the Washington Post:

Since the end of the military draft in 1973, every person joining the U.S. armed forces has done so because he or she asked to be there. Over the past decade, this all-volunteer force has been put to the test and has succeeded, fighting two sustained foreign wars with troops standing up to multiple combat deployments and extreme stress. This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences.

Good idea. Let's screw the finest military in the world in order to . . . . what, make sure we don't use it anymore? In order to insure our soldiers, less professional, take far higher casualties? This really is stupidity on steroids. Ricks has to take some sort of award for this one.


Paul Gordon said...


When I saw that title, I feared it might be your idea; in which case I would have to reply,
"While you've had some good ideas, that ain't one of them!"

"has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences."

Has that idiot forgotten about Vietnam>?

Paul Gordon said...

Ok. In his article, he does acknowledge Vietnam, but his insistence that a resumption of the draft would be good for us makes me feel that he is one of those "liberals" (a true perversion of the word) that really believes that we are not qualified to make our own decisions on this (or any other) matter and that it is the duty of the government to make those decisions for us.

Damn! Talk about a run-on sentence. :(

OBloodyHell said...

>>> what, make sure we don't use it anymore?

Why yes. Yes indeed.

The idiotic notion behind this is that they could not whine with these two wars -- the people in the military all CHOSE to be there. They CHOSE to place their bodies on the line.

If the force was conscripted, then they'd be able to argue that the "victims" IN the military had no choice, they were forced to be there.


PG: I will either use the term "libtard", or, if I'm aiming to be non-pejorative about it, "postmodern liberal" as distinct from "classical liberal".

There haven't been too many classical liberals born since WW*I*, mind you. I can respect classical liberals, I can't respect libtards.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> Let's screw the finest military in the world in order to . . . . what, make sure we don't use it anymore?

Uhhh.... YES.

This is hardly a new idea the libtards have been floating. When they couldn't scream during the Iraq War that the military people didn't chose to be in the military, as they had in Vietnam, they went, "WAIT? WHAT? Nooooooooooo!!!" and started calling for a return to the Draft.

Not only is this idea boneheaded, it's derivative. He's hardly the first dumbass moron libtard to argue for it.

He must've been frustrated that all the stupid memes and tropes he and his liberal moron pals had been working so long on -- the dog, and so forth -- had already and quickly been short-circuited by the opposition and quickly turned to laughing points instead of talking points that he had to dredge up this idiotic idea in deadline desperation.