Lately I have seen many comments that follow a logic of since we do not have mandatory service in joining the military, service with the military in Iraq is, therefore, voluntary.

My views:

I find such logic appalling. It is a fact that Americans are being made to kill and die in Iraq. Most have no choice on whether they can or can not serve in Iraq.

Bringing up the fact that someone volunteered to serve does not account for the reasons they volunteered, nor does it suggest that a person went to Iraq of his/her own volition.

Bringing up the fact a person died on a mission he volunteered for holds little wait as many people in the military are often voluntold and it would be almost impossible to know when a individual actually volunteered for in mission

Lastly, the extent of the volunteer nature of the military is so minute, it seems disingenuous to call it a volunteer service. Outside of signing a contract saying you will serve, everything else is mandatory. Punishments for not obeying can be fines, house arrest, or even imprisonment.

Any organization that threatens its members or people with imprisonment for inaction fall way short of the term "Voluntary"" It actually compels and coerces unwilling people to act against their will with threats of repercussions.

Questions for Debate

Does the term "All Volunteer Force", while accurate to a degree, insinuate a greater volunteer nature that does/does not exist within our military?

Should the fact that armed forces service members are not made to join the military be enough to reason that any time spent in war is "voluntary"

Since, in war, one truly may be forced to lay down their life, should we truly make service in a war zone of a voluntary nature. Why/why not??

I think that we can answer all of these questions together simply enough.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary


Look...i think people are smart enough to know that when they sign up for the military...that they are in possibly putting themselves in harms way. Thats what the military is and has been used for for thousands upon thousands of years. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a person, even an uneducated one, who does not know what the purpose of the military is and what could happen if you sign up. Once you sign up, thats it...you are a part of the mightiest military machine on the planet. And you have to train and work to maintain that.

I really fail to see what you are trying to say in your preface. Are suggesting that because there is little to no independence in the military it isn't actually voluntary (although the people sign up for it)? You think it would be ok for a soldier to tell his commanding officer No sir, i don't think i am going to wake up that early in the morning...or....No sir, I really don't feel like advancing on that beachead, i think i will stay here. The reason that things are mandatory are there to instill discipline in the troops. Without discipline, the troops are hurting themselves. Its the discipline that keeps them alive and keeps them going when in warzones. There is no choice...there are commands from officers and those commands are followed. Thats how its worked for thousands of years.

I think the logic you have presented truly shows a lack of understanding of the military. If soldiers are somehow acting against their will when thrusted into a warzone...then yes they have the choice to put down their arms and not fight. But they made a pact, not just with the government but with the other troops in his/her unit that they would protect them and fight beside them at all costs.

Bottom Line: Nobody is forced or even 'coerced' into the military because anyone with half a brain knows the repercussions that may occur if they sign up.

I think that because of the long lulls of peacetime between Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current Iraq War, young people were sold on the idea of getting a college education in exchange for military service, without really considering the fact that if war broke out, they would be expected to serve. (Edited to add that, in addition, for many poor and working-class young people, the military has become a traditional means of obtaining the education that would otherwise be impossible for them to pursue.)

During the Gulf War, a doctor in Kansas City, Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, refused to serve although she had received her education due to her enlistment. To me, this is reneging.

Making service in a war zone voluntary seems to me to be self-defeating. If one joins the military, the implied commitment is that one is willing to sacrifice oneself, if that is called for. The administrative hassle of sorting out the Ramboes from the peaceniks would be more trouble than it is worth.

If you do not want to be expected to go to war, don't ever enlist, even during peacetime. With no draft in place, this seems simple enough a philosophy.

I thought this was interesting to this debate. From the NY Post, we see that first-time enlistment and re-enlistment goals for FY 2005 are being exceeded by the Army and Guard. What happened to the gloom and doom about recruitment shortfalls? Not even booting recruiters and ROTC off campuses has had the desired effect.

Does the term "All Volunteer Force", while accurate to a degree, insinuate a greater volunteer nature that does/does not exist within our military?
It absolutely does not insinuate such. There are no hidden clauses when joining the military. Urban legends aside, the degree to which a prospective recruit doesn't know what they are getting into, or what the recruiter tells them is miniscule at best. It's safe to say that I grew up in the Army, joining at the tender age of 17. I have heard every story under the sun of 'my recruiter lied to me'. I'm sure I even used it myself when I thought something was owed to me. But experience and wisdom now tell me different. Of course there are always the exceptions. A stressed recruiter may fudge an ASVAB score, or 'lose' evidence of a civil conviction, but on the whole, Joe or Molly Teenager knows what they are getting into.
That leads us into life after enlistment. When joining, you agree to abide by your enlistment or commissioning contract, and the oath sworn. You have volunteered by joining the military, what is so wrong or disingenuous about upholding your end of the contract? Job reclassifications are possible involuntarily, but never for inherently hazardous occupations. Those duties, such as Airborne, Ranger or Scuba, etc.. are also voluntary. and again once in those positions, you are simply expected to uphold your end of the contract.
Since you brought this subject up droop, and assuming you feel that the military is not actually voluntary, what is your solution for national defense? A force that can pack it up and go home whenever they get too cold, tired or hungry? Or where they signed up for the GI Bill, and never expected to have to go to war?
THE inherent part of a quality military force is loyalty, camaraderie and brotherhood. Job skills and training come automatically within the life cycle of a unit and it's troops. But brotherhood cannot be trained, it has to be lived. You have to know that the guy on your left or right won't sit down and quit when the going gets tough. In the military, we view that like we view breathing. Some on the outside looking in may see that as involuntary, maybe even using rhetoric like 'brainwashing'. But it all comes down to honor. Honoring your brothers, your country and your commitment.

Should the fact that armed forces service members are not made to join the military be enough to reason that any time spent in war is "voluntary"
I guess if I even understand what you're asking, I answered it above.

Since, in war, one truly may be forced to lay down their life, should we truly make service in a war zone of a voluntary nature. Why/why not??
A minor sticking point, nobody 'lays down their life', but I understand your question. I still don't know how you can conceive of an armed forces where service in combat is voluntary. In peacetime we train like we're going to fight the next war......because in the next war, we're going to fight like we trained. There is not only no point to, but no effective way to segregate the military into those that will fight and those that will simply suck up tax dollars during peacetime.


Who exactly is voluntold? Any mission that a soldier is sent on or undertakes, is part of his or her job description, duties or responsibilities. We don't send admin clerks on commando raids, but every soldier is a soldier first and foremost. And as such is expected to be able to perform basic soldier duties, just as they learn in basic training. That means admin clerks can pull guard duty and infantrymen can hand out water. Basic soldier tasks are universal, and don't fall under your clever pretend word of voluntold.

1.) I think the amount of voluntary serve people in this country is just at the right level: one hundred percent.

2.) Yes.

3.) Well, our armed forces do not draft/impress their young people into service- so that is enough to qualify that service in a war zone is already of a voluntary nature. Countries that force their young people into service have significantly lower morale in their armies and divisions than those who allow service to be of the individuals own volition. America allows people to decide if they will be willing to lay down their life, joining the military is a risky business. The point of a military is to fight a war, a person joining during a time of peace is not guaranteed being spared going to the front. It was a risk, I salute those who take it; but those who are not prepared to take the risk of a war zone should never have enlisted.

Alright, in order...

Leder

Firstly, your definitions of voluntary only strengthen my case and makes your case fall flat.

Voluntary

QUOTE

Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.

The military uses both carrots(to entice) and sticks (to maintain) with enlisted in our all volunteer force. Carrots include free health care, tuition assistance, Gi Bill, Housing allowance or free housing, bonus money and pays... Sticks include the many articles of the almighty UCMJ.



Not at all. I am suggesting that the fact that people are coerced to stay in with threats of imprisonment is the reason why the military is not voluntary. I am suggesting that because people can not say "I quit" or "this isn't for me" without feeling there may be serious repercussions suggest that the military is not voluntary.



If it were voluntary... yes. If the military is truly voluntary, then yes, one should be able to say ..."No" I mean, if you volunteered to work at a soup kitchen and you felt as though the smell of bums was too much to bear, shouldn't you be able to say no, I don't want to serve bums anymore??"

That is the difference between voluntary and mandatory... the ability to say "No".



Nice speech... are you speaking from experience??



But you admit they are coerced to stay in, once they are in, correct??

Vibiana


But if they are against going to war they are not sacrificing themselves, they are being sacrificed, correct?? It's a hassle to stop people from being coerced into going to war.... now ,that's some serious troops supporting there.

C-Whey

I think it's way off topic but briefly...




See what I emboldened?? That line is a key indicator that what you posted is *spin* What about all of the rest of the army, besides the 10 divisions how are they doing??


DTOM


Your acknowledgement that our force isn't voluntary is enough for me.



If these things are so inherent, why aren't people allowed to pack it up and go home. Unless you are willing to force any or all of the three inherent parts.



Another good speech, but.... Who's we?? You have a mouse in your pocket??



I can only conceive of an armed forces where service in combat is voluntary if it were an all volunteer force... do you know of any?

I think the problem here is separating the voluntary act of joining the military and whether or not your duties are voluntary when you get in - they aren't, you signed a contract.

The simple fact of the matter is that when you join the military you sign a contract which binds you to certain conditions, a length of time, sets out penalties for breaking the contract and provides certain benefits. If it becomes necessary we could probably find the contract people sign and discuss it.

Anywhere in America you voluntarily enter into contracts but you can't break them just because you feel like it and not expect consequences. You can sign a record contract and then decide you just want the signing bonus and don't want to do the work - you'll end up in court. You can sign a contact with the military and then decide you don't want to fight and you'll also end up in court.

Now if recruiters are deceiving people and getting them to sign without discussing the risks, etc then that might be something to address. Suggesting that you can do whatever you want once you sign that contract and not expect punishment is ridiculous to me.

A soldier could could voluntarily leave the military during wartime. The soldier just can't do it without there being a consequence.

The United States doesn't execute or hand out life prison terms for AWOLS. However, if a soldier gets a 20K signing bonus and some financial assistance for college, I think it would be quite fair for the military to demand full reimbursement if that soldier decides to desert during wartime.

I don't think you understand spin, if you think that is what Leder posted. You may not like the message, but what he said is true, and you may or may not be aware that the Army is formed around it's 10 divisions. The rest of the Army, as you put it, is dwarfed by the personnel and strength of the divisions. Besides, doesn't that actually hurt your assertion, if the people who are spending the most time in the combat zone, are the ones re-enlisting the most?


My that's clever. I'm sorry if I threw you, I am a part of the organization that we are debating about, thus the we comes somewhat naturally when discussing it.


I think the better question is, do you know of any? The only occasions in man's history that it might have been the case as you think it should be, is where those peoples were slaughtered or enslaved. Tell me, since this is your idea, how does a country formulate any kind of coherent policy of national defense if the armed forces cannot ever be counted on? Or would you really not care if we were attacked or invaded?
If a person should be able to pack it in at any time, you don't have a problem with your tax dollars being spent to train a soldier to do a job, only to have them quit when the job needs done?
If soldiers quit during combat, then what would we do with them? Divert additional manpower and resources to spirit them out of theater?
Do you think there is any honor in letting down your comrades because you just don't want to do the job anymore?
Do you comprehend the unrealistic nature of your argument, or is this just an exercise in semantics?

There are multitudes of things in life that are voluntary, but carry repercussions if you fail to honor your end of the contract. Why is it a problem for you with just the military?
CJ hit the nail on the head when he said: The simple fact of the matter is that when you join the military you sign a contract which binds you to certain conditions, a length of time, sets out penalties for breaking the contract and provides certain benefits.
If you think that using the word voluntary is erroneous when speaking about the military, that's fine; but I would think that you are somewhat lonely in that position.

First, it was Carlitos not Leder

Second, it still is irrelevant to the debate, because it neither helps or hurts my argument. What does the amount of personnel of army divisions have to do with whether military service is voluntary or not??

Third, I hope you get a "No Pay Due" so you can see how important support staff is.





Well it shouldn't come so naturally. My service in the military does not make my view the view of people in the military, neither does yours. No doubt, many agree with you and your speech, far more than those that would agree with me. But I speak for me, and you speak for you. You using terms like "we" implies an authority that, frankly, you just don't possess. Instead of saying "we" try the term "I". I do it all the time.



My only... "idea" is that we stop calling our obligated service members volunteers.



And you don't have a problem making/coercing someone kill and die for a cause they don't believe in. Which is worst??



But why would they quit... they are all volunteers, right?? They all sign up to be there. Did you forget your "we" speech so fast.



Even if they were allowed to quit, they wouldn't, because you say that loyalty is an inherent quality of the military.



Do you think it is honorable to kill for a cause you don't believe in, simply cause it was your job and you were told?? I think both are tough philosophical questions? We have abandonment on one end and on the other... "how would you characterize it"



It is the later. There has never been an argument put forth that people should be allowed out of the military at will. I only say that for it to truly be voluntary then there can not be coercion to work.




CJ does hit the nail, albeit, an unnecessary nail. Of course when you sign a contract you are obligated. But have you or CJ ever heard of a contracted worker called a volunteer??



You are absolutely right, it is a lonely position, but is it illogical?? Let's talk semantics. The concept "All Volunteer Force" is more of a PR scheme than anything else. Every day I get up and go to work. No one holds a gun to my head telling me "Go to work!!" Does that make me a volunteer?? Of course not.

They coined "all volunteer force" so that when war does break out and they do make people go kill and die, it can be said... "they volunteered" "they are volunteers". They are not volunteers, they are obligated and bound.

If someone signs a contract without being forced it does not mean that all he does to uphold his end is voluntary... quite the contrary. All he does he does because it is his contractual obligation.

If you want to quit, just go AWOL. It's not like the military is going to hang you or jail you for treason. If you do walk out, just be prepared to pay some kind of penalty like paying a fine to reimburse the military for your training and benefits. Given that you are deeply opposed to the war in Iraq (I am too), I would encourage you to quit the military and stick your middle finger at this so-called God Blessed country.

I don't know if anyone uses that term in relation to contact positions. There are volunteer positions where you have to sign some form of contract such as an NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) - however I don't think that is what you are getting at.


It probably is a PR move but I'm trying to figure out why that is important. In terms of serving in the military putting it this way is the opposite of compulsory military service. Since the concept of compulsory military service even exists I think that effectively distinguishes it from a regular job.

It is factual from a certain standpoint - no one is standing there with a gun forcing you to serve. From that standpoint you are volunteering for service.

I would have to seriously doubt that anyone signing up for the military doesn't realize they could potentially be going to war.

skeeterses,

This reminds me of something that happened in the late 1960s or early 70s. I started my teaching career in a small town south of Fort Worth. One evening a former student I had taught in government showed up at one of my haunts in Fort Worth. He was looking for me. Seemingly he had been drafted and didn't want to go to Vietnam.

I explained to him that it was illegal to advise someone not to report for military service, so about all I could tell him was to follow his conscience. We discussed his options, which included:

1. Serve in the military and risk going to Vietnam.

2. Refuse to go and face jail time. [I have always admired Muhammed Ali for taking this course. Though he was originally sentenced to five years, he never actually served any time. The horrific part was that boxing stripped him of world heavyweight title before he was actually convicted. Howard Cosell was the only major media figure to take Ali's side.]

3. Go to Canada.

I never saw this former student again and have no idea what course of action he took. My students had a pretty good idea that I opposed the war, but I didn't think it was my job to tell someone how to handle a draft notice.

We no longer have a draft. Unless someone were absolutely desparate for a job, I would advise them not to join the military at this time. I don't know what the law is now as compared to what it was when we had a draft, but I'd be cautious about advising people to desert the military.

Droop, no one forces you to join. No one. There's no way you can manipulate or turn that around. Up until you sign those papers, you have (and in fact are given) oppertunities to change your mind. That being said, it is voluntary.

Now, after that time passes, and the papers have been signed, you are expected to fufill your end of the contract, which says you will be trained and go where you are needed. That is the way with any job. If you don't like being given orders, don't work. It's that simple. No one holds a gun to your head in either case, but when you, of your own free will, accept employment, you will accept the responsibilities of said job, or be fired. Plain and simple.

That being said, as DTOM mentioned, when you sign up, you do so with the knowledge that you will be trained first and foremost to fight and kill. Your job comes second. No one joins the military thinking that there is no chance that they will avoid combat or combat zones. That's what soldiers do. Soldiers fight. If you think the Army is an intense paintball league...you need to be seeking other employment.

Now, on to my next issue.





Forgive me for going a scootch off topic, but Skeeterses, you obviously have no clue of the consequences for such an action. I do, from personal experience.

First off, here's what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says on Desertion:

if the offense is committed in time of war, by death[/i] or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

On being Absent WithOut Leave (AWOL):



Speaking from personal experience, I found out I had a Federal warrant out for my arrest after being AWOL for eight months (I was technically a deserter after thirty days). After finding that out, I soon turned myself in, where I was transfered for outprocessing. Since I was not a "permanent party" soldier (a soldier who has completed all his IET (Initial Entry Training, which is Basic, and your secondary school), I was not going to be punished severely. In fact, I was given the chance to return to my unit.

I was given a general discharge and released into the civilian population.

I can tell you that it was the worst thing I could ever have done. To seriously encourage these actions is foolish, as whoever is doing such encouraging has likely no military experience whatsoever.

The psychological and real world consequences are severe. I feel I have missed out to be apart of a group of men and women who's chararcter and bravery make them noble individuals. If I could find a way to somehow go back and convince myself to seek other options, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

You're given the chance to be "weeded out" in basic training, and leave with no consequences, but after that, you had better stick to it. "Financial reimbursement" isn't an option. My secondary school training as an Intelligence Analyst was at least worth about $60,000 plus to the Army.

Try paying that back.

Gee, thanks for the kind sentiments. I don't remember wishing ill will upon you in my posts, but to each his own......
But in response to your assertion:
1. Army Divisions contain the requisite support staff of which you refer to
2. My point was that if the military was sooooo involuntary, akin to indentured servitude, then one would not see such a high re-enlistment rate, especially during a time of a fairly unpopular war. What was your point for decrying it as spin?
3. Dude, I didn't enlist yesterday, I have plenty of experience with no pay due's and working with support personnel, what does what you wrote have to do with your question for debate?


Thanks for the droopian vocabulary lesson, but again irrelevant to the debate.


When WE sign an enlistment or commissioning contract, WE do so voluntarily, knowing that WE may be called upon to fight in a conflict that WE may not individually support. How should that abrogate the terms and agreement of our contract? When one decides to breach their contract, they do so fully knowing the possible penalties that may be conferred upon the breach. How is that still involuntary?


Since you appear to be debating this on a purely technical sematic ground, then yes. When you go to work at whatever job you work at, you are a volunteer. Nobody makes you go to work. Did you sign any type of employee agreement or contract? Are there repercussions if you break the rules or decide to stop working? Likely so. So in the technical sense, you are there voluntarily. If you call yourself a volunteer, you would be correct.
Is the military's use of the term PR? To an extent. The term came about after Vietnam and the end of the draft. I submit that had you been Chief of Staff for the Army in 1973, you may have come up with just such a term to contrast the present and future army, with thy Army of the past, that had had a peacetime draft since 1948. Sure you might have come up with a term that better fit your sensibilities, but either way, the term is understandable by all and correct.
So it now begs the question, why does it stick in your proverbial craw so?

droop24 wrote:

But if they are against going to war they are not sacrificing themselves, they are being sacrificed, correct?? It's a hassle to stop people from being coerced into going to war.... now ,that's some serious troops supporting there.

* * * * * * *

If a person is against going to war, joining the military would not, I think it's fair to say, be the most rational of career moves.

DTOM

First allow me to apologize. I meant to put a smiley face by the "no pay due" comment to show it was in jest. I don't actually hope you get one... I too, have received one they are not a punishment I would wish on you just because we disagree. Here, I usually don't give these to men.....

CJ



DTOM



CJ To what degree must a threat be, before something is no longer voluntary, but coercive? Does it just have to be a life threatening or could other forms of threats be considered coercive? As titus points out, if a military person were to quit for more than 30 days... he/she could face the death penalty at a time of war. (of course if he goes to work, the same could happen) Is the threat of the death penalty meet the burdens of "a threat"

DTOM I'm not arguing on a purely technical semantic ground... you are. I merely admitted it was a debate that dealt with semantics. Look how far you have to go:

QUOTE

When you go to work at whatever job you work at, you are a volunteer.

Now I readily admit that my job as a civilian has less consequences if I decide to not go to work, than a military service member. This is my point. My job is not a volunteer job. A military job has more constraints and less freedom and yet we call them "volunteers"

It may seem that I am the one being semantical, because I am the one bucking the status quo. We have been raised with the words "volunteer force" or "volunteer military" and it is embedded in our minds that such is the case. But upon examination, it really isn't.

How long would you say it takes a person to sign a contract? 10 seconds maybe?? How long would you say the average contract for obligatedmilitary service is?? 4 years, right?

10 seconds... 4 years.... 10 seconds... 4 years.... 10 seconds... 4 years....

Alright let's call the 4 years voluntary, even though it is mandatory, since the 10 seconds it takes to sign their name was done voluntarily. Does this make sense?? Yet that is exactly what we are doing.

I know I am fighting an uphill battle here, but bear with me.



We could have named it what it is. A "recruited force". That's what we are. We were not volunteers. Most of us are recruited. They sell us the military. It's great for your future... It's great for those that need college... It's great for those that need job training... And I am not saying that the military doesn't come through, because speaking from experience the military has been a vessel to my own personnel success.

But, have you seen the commercial that looks like a excerpt from Over * There, where the wounded soldier lies screaming on the ground, with his leg blown off and then the screen fades to black with the the big bold red letters saying SACRIFICE...

Has anyone?? No and you are not going to. That is very bad marketing. It's not about people volunteering for the military, it's about selling the military. That is why I believe recruited force is the most accurate... and honest term to call our military.



Because people carry the faulty idea of volunteer service, then make statements like..."They volunteered to go to Iraq. " or something to that effect. They use the word volunteer to imply that this war is a cause that the soldiers believe in... Why else would they volunteer for the war?

So first, I think I have to attack the notion that they are volunteers, in order to do that I have to attack the idea of an all volunteer force. So that's my beef.

Sure, maybe the person dead did believe in the war, maybe it was a cause worth fighting and dying for to some American soldier. But just as likely it could be some 18 year old kid who needed money for college, didn't agree with the war, but knew he didn't have any realistically alternative choices, but go to Iraq when his unit was called upon. Now, he's dead. He gambled, he lost, he's six feet deep.

And at the end of the day, you have the crowd that says... "well, he volunteered" He may have accepted the possibility he may have to go to war, but he didn't volunteer to go to war. And if it is war that kills him, those who send him are responsible. Whether that be the Bush's, the Kerry's, the Clinton's, the Cheney's or persons in our nation that supported this current war, wars before, and wars to come.

Well I think we can finally find some common ground. I don't see any problem calling the military a 'recruited force'. I don't see 'volunteer force' as disingenuous, as opposed to the 'Draft Army'. But I will definitely meet you in the middle and agree that your definition is accurate as well.

You did leave out the time to read the contract. Heck you can take a copy home, show it to your attorney, put it up on Ebay, whatever. I understand your point, but it's not entirely realistic to condense the recruitment process down to ten seconds.

*ugh* don't even get me started with Over There.

I can also agree that many sides and partisan interests use the volunteer aspect to their own agenda.
I think many of them are misguided, but not all. But should it mitigate the reality that nobody realistically can join the military and not know the risks? I joined at the height of the Cold War, yet a time when nobody really expected conflict. But I joined fully knowing that I may have to be involved in combat, and what do you know, just as I thought I wouldn't see any action, there I was. My experience may not be universal, but it certainly can't be unique either.
I know that many join for many different reasons, but there is certainly no surprise, barring the occasional deceptive recruiter. And even then, the recruit likely didn't fully read the contract.

But overall, I find no more argument with you on this. I think we are closer in thought than our previous posts would indicate.

And I hear you on the , AD should have a more manly emoticon for this. Maybe the will have to suffice. Though I'm partial to the

I pretty agree pretty much 100% with DTOM's post here so there is no need to really write it again. I did want to address this:

I think that'll you have to admit the being in the military is a unique career and there really isn't anything you can compare it to. The reason that things are the way they are is for good reason and hundreds of years of experience with the profession of war.

I don't really know where you are going with the coercion angle though. Are you talking about recruiters being exploitive? If that is what this debate is about then just say it.

During the process of being "recruited" for the military you have ample opportunity to push back from the table, say "no thanks" and walk out the door and no one will think any less of you. Also during the process the benefits of service are clearly explained - pay, education, housing, etc and you are clearly told that you'll have to adhere to certain rules and you'll be obligated to serve for X years. You are also told, even though you shouldn't need to be, that you will be trained to fight and kill and you could be going to use your skills in some part of the world. You are given a contract, and you don't have to sign it right there. You can take it home and decide to never come back, or you can sign it.

However once you sign that contract, and it is in fact a contract, you are agreeing to be bound to the rules of the military and serve a specific term. Signing the contract is voluntary, the recruiter isn't standing there with his side-arm against your head in a dark room.

I don't see the coercion there.

Firstly, what you do not understand is that most people that serve in the United States Armed forces are not in combat roles. The fact is that it generally takes between three and four supporting soldiers to keep one combat arms troop on the battlefield. Frankly, that would mean that the vast majority of operational soldiers have less chance dying in Iraq than they do on the highway. Check out this site:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedica...crashdeaths.htm

There are many voluntary/civilian jobs that are particularly dangerous. Check out this site.
http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm

What I have to say is that in the Marine Corps, there are few jobs that aren't dangerous or combat related. However, the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Coast Guard offer many non-combat arms positions. You could join the airforce and never see a bullet fly in a 20+ year career, or be stationed on a Naval ship with little chance of seeing an enemy, or join the Coast Guard and chances are you'll never leave American shores...

The fact is that the media will never discuss these things with you, as it doesn't bode well for an Anti-War message.

Just as in civilian careers, soldiers choose in the beginning what path (for the most part) their military careers will take. If you want to be a quartermaster or a cook, you so choose. The allure of fighting and shooting at things brings in many young men and women; while true combat may not. True, there have been some non-combat related deaths, but this is natural with an military operation.

I find it hard to swallow that people deem the military non-voluntary. I find it even harder to understand why the reason someone volunteered is pertinent. I personally (as well as every other soldier in the US Armed Services) knew up front what exactly it was that I was getting into. Recruiters use a strategy called selling-in and selling-out. Basically, they hook you in with the positive parts of the military, and once you get to signing, they remind you of all of the negatives. So as to retain you during basic training. (*note- many soldiers "wash out" of basic completely on their own accord).

I think it is possible for you to argue your point here without pulling out the tired liberal media line aevans. It is not the media's job to inform everyone what is involved in military service, it is up to the individual. If you are curious about what the army, air force, etc do then you should ask, you shouldn't be relying on the media to tell you.


That is a good point that I think hasn't been mentioned yet. Even after you sign that contract and your term of service you can still get into basic training and quit. If someone doesn't know what they are getting themselves into after basic training Droop then I'm not sure they can be helped.

First off my service record is:

USAF 1990 - 1996
E4 AFPCA - Pentagon
(The first gulf war started the day I graduated basic training.)


The term All Volunteer Force describes accurately what our military is. When a person volunteers and signs up they agree to a period of enlistment, and sign a contract to fulfill that promise. Since everything you do is covered by your enlistment agreement, then you're entire time in the military is voluntary.

Now, coming and going as you please....sure a person can just leave the military anytime they want, but just like with any contract you sign, when you break it there are consequences to be paid. Society would break down into chaos if there were not rules and laws governing this.

The military really cannot allow it's people to decide when and where they deploy or come and go like a McDonals fry cook. Military leaders make decisions based on dependable numbers. To allow people to just come and go would destroy their ability to do this.

Are leaders responsible for the deaths of the men and women they send to war? To a degree yes...and its a price every leader takes upon themselves. Some handle it better than others. But the price is also shared by the people themselves because they willingly go into the service and agree to follow the leaders.


As to my personal experience..no one ever lied to me about the realities of service in the armed forces, from my recruiter to my final out processing clerk. Everyone in my basic training flight knew we were going to war, and to a man no one wanted out because of that fact.

Sorry for this off topic post. But I felt that some clarification was in order here. I understand your point aevans176, and to a limited degree I can agree with it. However I would like to explain a few things about life in the US Military as it is not quite as simple as many might think. For the record, I will be putting aside all inter-service rivalries for the purposes of this post.

First, job description (Known as MOS or Rating) and duty assignment can be two different things. For example, a friend of the family who has been a mechanic in the National Guard for years was Activated with his unit (a support unit) He is a Generator Repairman (I think that is the title, I have no idea what the number of his MOS is ). However, he and his entire unit was re-trained as MPs (military Police), and sent to Iraq as MPs. Another Example, in the US Naval Reserves I was a Construction Electrician (a Seabee), Now the job of a Seabee can be dangerous (building in or near combat areas and the like) but it is certainly not as dangerous as being in an Infantry unit on the front lines of an Urban Warfare environment. However, I assigned to a port security unit (something I specifically volunteered for when I volunteered to join the reserves). Our job was to protect support ships while they were in port. We provided land based security (the unit was MIUWU meaning Mobile Inshore Underwater Warfare Unit) as well as Electronic Surveillance of Land and Sea, and we operated as a team with a Navy small boat unit (an IBU meaning Inshore Boat Unit) as well as a Coast Guard port security / small boat unit (a PSU meaning Port Security Unit). In an Gorilla warfare environment Force Protection can be quite hazardous.

Second, Rating and Duty assignment still don't mean everything as there are still needs of the unit to consider. For example, all of the units working together the keep the port secure worked under the command of Naval Coastal Warfare. NCW had personnel in other places. Also, there were emergency needs of other units in all services to consider. As a result, several members of each unit were pulled to work convoy detail. This was both to run regular supply runs between Coastal Warfare Units, and to handle emergency runs of supplies for there units (since we were right there when the cargo came in anyway). I spent a portion of my tour there on convoy detail.

Then that is not the end of it either. There are also temporary assignments. The base we were operating at used a few service personnel from each unit at the base to handle various needs of the base. As a result of my weapons qualifications, I spent two weeks on escort detail. Meaning I road armed guard, keeping an eye on the drivers of vehicles that came on the base to do maintenance, make deliveries, etc (the escorts road in the vehicle cabs with the drivers). All of the vehicles in question belonged to private companies doing business with the base. The drivers (and sometimes workers in addition to the drivers) were all "TCNs" (Third Country Nationals) from all over the Middle-East, Africa, and Asia. They were doing this work because all manual labor in Kuwait is handled by TCNs. Security at the gate did an excellent job keeping and eye out for people on various watch lists, possible vehicle bombs, etc. However, the escort detail still had obvious risks.

As you can see, though people are it what is considered support roles, their job assignments, duty stations, assignments, etc can all be and often are dangerous. Not to mention that many support jobs are done right on or very close to the "combat areas" (medical personnel, mechanics, convoys, etc.).

When considering the Marines, of course their combat forces are frequently on the front lines. However, with the exception of medical personnel, the Marine Corps have nearly as many support jobs per combat soldier as the other services (Medical Personnel for the Marines are provided by the US Navy). For Example, A Friend of mine in High School entered the Marine Corps and became a Helicopter Mechanic.

The Army, well they are the most diversified service we have. Every Job you can think of (including SCUBA divers (I met a few of these guys at the Kuwait Naval Base) has someone doing it in the Army. From Ground Combat, to Armor, to SpecWar, to Water Operations (the Army has more boats then the Navy), to Air Operations (the Army has more planes then the Air Force) to Construction (Army Corps of Engineers are the only real competition the Seabees have ), etc, etc, etc. The Army truly is the backbone of any large scale operation.

As for the Coast Guard. Coast Guard Cutters and PSUs have served overseas in every conflict since Vietnam and perhaps earlier. I have served with Coast Guard PSUs, solid, well trained professionals to a man (and to woman).

And then there is the Navy. Well, the Navy has a huge role in any conflict. From providing tomahawks, and carrier based air support, amphibious operations, SpecWar, and of course the Seabees. Not to mention that nearly nothing gets there without the Navy. And consider this, when I was in Gulf War one as an Electrician's Mate (Shipboard Electrician) on board an Ammunition ship supporting the war. That ship had a possible 21 mile blast radius if things went wrong, or we found ourselves targeted by hostile forces (like Terrorists (Remember the Cole)). And lets not forget that every Combat Medic with Marine Corps is actually a Navy Corpsman.

And lastly, a word for our Air Force guys. Air Force Security and any support role in the Air Force (when they are in country) is very dangerous. This is because Airfields are high value targets. If someone can hit them, they will try.

Also, consider the fact that bases (where those providing support functions live and work) have come under mortar attack. Also, convoys (driven and maintained by support personnel) have frequently come under various forms of attack.

Bottom line. Any job in the US Military is dangerous. There are degrees of Danger, and obviously those on the "front lines" are at the highest risks. But, when you hear someone say they were a Cook in a war, ask for more detail. You might just find out that that MS (Mess Specialist) was a Navy SEAL assigned to a LRRP (Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol) in the jungles of Vietnam.


Now, as to the topic. Many have said this, however:

You act voluntarily when you enter into the contract to join the US Military. Entering into the contract is a choice made by the individual, and all choices have consequences. In this case, the consequences are that you voluntarily give up some freedoms to serve in the US Military. In a time of war, you still have a choice. Choose to stick to the contract you signed and serve in the war, the consequences of this choice seem obvious. Or choose to breech that contract and instead face the consequences of that breech. Those consequences technically going as high as capital punishment but realistically as high as imprisonment.

If sticking to a contract as signed, even when you no longer like the terms is involuntary then I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that the majority of Americans are doing business involuntarily. However, since they entered into the original contract voluntarily, I feel that what they face afterwards is the result of their own actions and any consequences that come from those actions are simply their responsiblity.

IMHO, the entire premise of the topic is flawed, or at best it is simply an issue of semantics.

Now, if there were members of the US Military that were pressed into service that would be different. Some may feel they have no other options. Maybe a judge gave them a choice of the military or jail, maybe they are poor and this is their only option to try to get ahead. Whatever the case, they still made a voluntary choice to enter in the contract with the US military. They obligated themselves to that contract, the consequences, regardless of the future choices they make regarding the contract, are their sole responsibility.

CJ


Well let me state clearly for you and everyone else. This has nothing to do with recruiting. That means it has nothing to do with joining the military. Many people, in fact all of you, have continued to state that no one is forced to join the military and that people voluntarily sign their name to contracts as they enlist in the military.

Allow me to agree 100% No one, or at least, no one I know has ever been made or coerced into joining the military. Debate over... sike!!

I don't see how you all can not see the difference between joining something and then being in something. The difference between voluntary signing of contract and the involuntary draft is huge, but it only applies to how people join the military. It doesn't change the status of military service itself. Military service is mandatory, it's always been mandatory that I know of, and likely always will be.

DTOM makes a point:



I can concede to a greater time than 10 seconds. I can concede to the minutes, hours, days, weeks it takes for some one to decide... and since CJ loves Aevans idea about "washing out" in boot camp(which I'll address later) I'll throw in that time too. That still leaves close to 4 years of service that is not voluntary, but obligatory.

But let me quickly address the flawed idea Aevans puts out when it comes to "washing out". Aevans is correct that someone can drop from boot camp and not suffer and repercussions. However, you don't know that when you are in. Enlisted training, at least with Marines, they do tell you that all you have to do is ring a bell and say "I quit". Thy tell you that if you refuse to train you will be dishonorably discharged and you won't be able to work anywhere else but some gas station or 7-11. And when someone in my squad did refuse to et out of the rack in the morning and train, the MP's were called. He was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and dragged up out of the squad bay. So tell me as a 17, 18, 19, 20 year old kid... totally isolated, thinking, "what the hell is going on?", would you be a little afraid to quit??

So my opinion on "washing out" is save it for the officers and special forces.

OLS
Thanks for joining...


And those consequences you speak of, is what disqualifies the service as volunteer work. If I can't leave when I want to leave with out someone putting me in a cage, then I am no longer voluntarily there. That person is now compelled to serve.

The fact that there is a contract, strongly implies that there is an obligation. If i am doing some thing because I have to, then I likely am not volunteering to do it.



It is neither flawed or semantics. Doing something because you have contractual commitments would remove some one from "I'm a volunteer" status, because it obligatory.

What are the antonyms of volunteer??

Force, Compel, Obligatory.

It's not a matter of semantics when you take use a word when the opposite of a word is occurring. We know that the military service can compel, or force someone to remain in the service. We know that it is a contractual obligation, once a person begins their tour of service.

If you can admit that the military are all the things opposite of what volunteer means, yet still say we have a "volunteer force" you take away all meaning of the word volunteer. By this use of the logic I can make a person shot by police a volunteer. watch.

The man knew the consequences of raising his gun at the police. And since he voluntarily raised his gun at the police he volunteered to get shot.

Contractors are volunteers
The guy at McDonalds is a volunteer
Everyday workers are volunteers
Prisoners are volunteers

Droop, I am really at a loss for ways to say this. When you join the military you sign a contract. Period. That basically ends all of this volunteer stuff.

I don't care what we are talking about, once you sign a contract to do something you are bound to doing it and if you refuse to do it there are penalties. Military service is no different. It is made very clear what benefits you'll be getting from the arrangement, what the risks are, what the penalties are, etc. Even if that isn't covered in the recruiting process, it most certainly is required knowledge in basic (where as we have already stated you can quit, penalty-free).

I think the problem here is that I don't really understand the point you are trying to argue here. Maybe that's me, maybe it is everyone. We've covered a lot of angles so far and in your last post you have basically said "that's not where I'm coming from". It would be nice if you could clearly lay out your points, or even your grievances here.

Is this whole thing about semantics and a small (and completely unimportant) PR game? Or is it about something else? I just really don't understand where you are coming from, despite very much trying to understand.

1. No. It describes exactly what we have. There is no draft. People who volunteer for the military do so with sound mind and sound body. The purpose of the military are military matters. In other words, warfare.

2. Yes.

3. They already volunteered when they signed up. They didn't sign up for community service, the Peace Corps, or Air America. They volunteered to become a member of America's fighting forces. The purpose of these forces is to defend the interests and security of the United States by employing whatever means necessary, including extreme violence and exceptional personal risk.

And for that, they have EARNED my highest respect.

Arguably, we should have some sort of mandatory service requirement in this country. Too many people get free rides and get to enjoy the freedoms that these brave volunteers make possible. I think that 2 years of mandatory service to our country, in some capacity, would instill the pride in our country that is sorely lacking in some quarters. This service wouldn't have to be military service, but that would be included. At least, this requirement may minimize the mentality of a growing number of our citizens who have turned JFK's famous speech into... "Ask not what you can do for yourself, but ask what your country can do for YOU!".

Say no more... that is quite enough. All this volunteer nonsense stops the moment you join the military. If all the voluntary stuff ends upon joining the force, why do we call it an all volunteer force?? The force aren't the people joining. The Force are the people already in.

So you believe All Volunteer Force accurately describes a military where there is, in your own words, no "volunteer stuff"



After this debate I would say, yes. All I see is a bunch of people pointing out how voluntary the military really is, while at the same time emphasizing that it is obligatory... , but aren't those words opposites?? "Never mind, Droop there's a consensus"
I mean the term "all volunteer force" has so embedded itself over the last 30 years, look how some answer question 2.



Two people directly answered yes, other people hinted to a yes. Their logic... "well one knows there is a risk of being sent to war, therefore by voluntarily signing a contract you are voluntarily going to war."

This logic would not be practical anywhere else in life. We all know the risks of picking up hitchhikers, right?? So I guess anyone who picks up a hitch hiker, voluntarily, and is robbed, volunteered to get robbed.



Quick points... 1. it is not actually penalty free, penalties can be assessed, it's just not worth the government spending money... after all, you signed the contract prior to boot camp, right?? 2. You don't know it is penalty free, since perception is reality. If someone threatens you with a consequence, the aftermath of whether they will or won't go through with the threat won't be known if you conform, due to the threat.



I've already stated my grievances, maybe you just didn't pay attention to it.

In my first paragraph I said:



I also stated my grievances here with DTOM, !said:



Let me also give you an example of what I mean.

OnBill Maher Real Time this is what the Governor of Arkansas had to say.



I'm also hearing this new talking point on AD more frequently.

In essence, people volunteered to go to Iraq, because they have to go to Iraq. (let me know if you want examples, but I'd rather not call out specific people.) I could challenge this assumption every time I see it, but it would simply take those debates off topic. So, I started a new thread.

One simple question for you Droop - if these Americans didn't want to "kill" and "die" then why did they join the military knowing there was a very good possibility they'd be faced with both of those things? The military isn't some cool thing you join to get a free education, a break on taxes, a chance to see the world and party - it is a very specific career where your job is to kill for your country. As many who have served have said in this thread you are trained to be a soldier first and to do your job second. Anyone who thinks they are joining the military to be a simple mechanic is sadly mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that once you join the military they pretty much own you and you have to do what they say for the term of the agreement. They are up front about that as well as the benefits that you get out of the deal. I don't really have much sympathy for anyone who doesn't know that going into it, it isn't exactly a secret.

So to me this whole thing is much ado about nothing. You apparently have a problem with the way pundits are using the term "volunteer service". Technically it is volunteer service because you elect to do it, but once you sign up you give up your ability to make a lot of decisions. This whole thing boils down to semantics.

I don't agree with the reasons we went to Iraq, but going after it like this seems to be a rather pointless exercise in my opinion.

What is interesting is several legal issues that I have been involved in as an inventor, several good lessons. The first product I licensed 18 years ago I had to go to court to enforce. We had a deal is what I thought. But to find out from the judge that all contracts can be broken. Boy was that an eye opener. Seems to me that should also be true if you sign a contract with the military.

A second one was about 8 years ago in a contract for a license I had said we could put in the contract I would work for a year no matter what. The opposing lawyer told me that was not legal, Slavery ended many years ago, no one can stop me from quitting and no contract ever written could stop that.

It really isn't a simple question, because there are so many various answers. But the answers can be found in all the things that the military offers. The answer can also be found in the make up of the enlisted military.

Why do you believe that minorities make up a disproportionate amount of the military in comparison to their population?? Surely you don't believe that minorities believe they have a better knack for killing and dying.

They join for college, they join for training in a trade, they join because they view little other options, and yes they join for adventure and the hope of the next war. And though I believe the number who join just to go fight a war are small, it could be quite large.

I can only go on personal experience. I have seen only a handful of people with the "ewwraaah, kill" mentality. But most, I met, are just doing what they do, because it is what they felt they had to do.

And they have made the military into something that, if you make it out alive, a field leveler. It's a life changing opportunity. it's your way to college if you have no way. It's your way to a trade, if you don't have one. If nothing else, it is the only feasible way out of some ghetto, some dead end town, or some rural corn field.



Well at least I agree that it isn't "cool". The rest of what you said is dead wrong. People do join for all of those reason... well, tax breaks is a stretch , and many people's job is not to kill for your country, although it is to support those who do.


Whoa... Let's see. Military members are "pretty much owned" and have to do what they are made to do..... yet they are still volunteers. Which definition of volunteer are you using and out of which dictionary? And it's not about your sympathy either. I am not saying you should feel sorry for anyone, I'm just saying a volunteer is a volunteer and that military members are not volunteers. Allow the word volunteer to have some integrity.



Well this really isn't about nothing, nor the Iraq war. It's about bad reasoning.

I voluntarily joined the service, therefore I volunteered for war.

That is bad logic. It would give you a F on a test if you said such a statement were true.

Also, the more you have to go "technically", the more desperate your argument appears to me.

I could just imagine the carjacker using your type of logic.

"Technically, your honor, even though I put a gun to her head she still could have told me 'no' and stayed in her car. Technically, I never forced her out her car, because she had options. Technically, she elected to get out of the car, and volunteered her keys to me."

There is an essence to the word volunteer and it is this: To do something without coercion or mandate and without expecting monetary payment. You shouldn't have to go through this whole little technicality spin you are doing if you were correct.

If someone were to ask me if I do volunteer work, I would say "no", because I am not [I]a volunteer. I would not say "Yeah, I've been doing volunteer work my whole life because, technically, I elect o do it."