You've got the psychological logic totally wrong, asshole!

Non-Admin Scott blithers:

I think a volunteer force more likely to be susceptible to public opinion than a conscripted one.

How the heck d'you reckon that?!?

A professional force, consisting of professional soldiers, would logically, on the whole, hold views and interests common to... professional soldiers. While a force conscripted from among the general public would, essentially, be the general public.

A conscripted force, on the other hand, would have a much longer timeline before they would have to make changes due to lack of personnel.

Oh. You somehow see a difference between "A force" -- conscripted or not -- and its "personnel". That's a funny way to look at it. I see it differently (and I bet the BOx does too): The views and interests of a military force are identical to those of its personnel, because "a military force" IS "its personnel".

At least, I'd argue, as far as questions like "should I participate in this military coup or not?" are concerned, because that's a question of conscience for each and every member of the force; that's not something that its appointed officers can implicitly trust every man to obey orders on. Well, not in a "citizen army", at least. In a "volunteer" (i.e, professional; ergo, "mercenary") force, though... perhaps a little more so.

Stands to fucking reason, dunnit? How the heck are you suggesting their minds work, to arrive at any other conclusion, you fucking moron?!?

[Edit: Oops, forgot where we're at -- properly flamified now.]

A conscripted force, on the other hand, would have a much longer timeline before they would have to make changes due to lack of personnel.

Oh. You somehow see a difference between "A force" -- conscripted or not -- and its "personnel". That's a funny way to look at it. I see it differently (and I bet the BOx does too): The views and interests of a military force are identical to those of its personnel, because "a military force" IS "its personnel".

I guess the GRAMMER NATZEE GAWD has been slacking off on teaching me how to write clearly.

By they in my statement, I meant the generals and the politicians and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon that makes decisions about when to go to war and how to carry it out. The professionals and politicians who make the decisions. Versus the soldiers who carry out the orders.

I would have thought that was clear from the preceeding sentence:

I think a volunteer force more likely to be susceptible to public opinion than a conscripted one. Lack of new people is putting pressure on the Pentagon and the government to modify their tactics. A conscripted force, on the other hand, would have a much longer timeline before they would have to make changes due to lack of personnel.

But maybe not.

Basically, my point (to use small words) was:

1) If a draft is in place, the terms of it are changed by Congress. Congress works slowly. Draft decisions change slowly.

2) If the military is volunteer, Johnny Reb could change his mind about signing up on Sunday evening after seeing a report on [link|http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml|60 Minutes] or Tuesday evening after seeing a show on [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/|Frontline] about how badly things are going for US troops in Iraq. Volunteer decisions can change instantly. If enough people don't volunteer, then options and tactics change. And policy changes as a result.

Clear enough now, you long-haired, granola eating, tie-dyed T-shirt and Birkenstock wearing, Volvo driving, fool, you?

Cheers,
Scott.
(Ummmm. Toasty.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!