I have thoughts on this topic forthcoming in two different places, but broadly I think this is correct. American civ-mil has real problems and we need to course correct. I increasingly think the AVF itself is not the right force for the road ahead, but also issues at home.https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1383805599154991121 …
-
(I am very interested in the issue, coming from both Israeli and American backgrounds.)
An AVF opens up strategic options for longer military involvement far-away at lower 'will' cost. It is not clear to me that is always a good thing. But near-peer conflicts tend to demand mass conscript armies and rapidly converting from an AVF to a mass conscript army is hard.
-
-
A standing professional AVF is expensive, it forces a focus on current capabilities rather than future capacities. But if you are thinking there is a near-peer conflict possibility in, say, 10 years, or 15, you need to be focused on current deterrence and future capabilities.
-
Please include some discussion in your piece about how to go about reinstating the draft. It sounds increasingly reasonable, but remilitarizing (a large chunk of) America's youth seems a very intense undertaking.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
The introduction of the AVF, though, came in the late Cold War - much closer to the latter case. That historical transition is the part that's really interesting to me - was that the desire for small wars without a public opinion hit outweighing the USSR peer threat?
-
(The end of the AVF in the face of possible confrontation with China, like the similar process in Germany WRT Russia, makes much more sense to me than the reverse transition in the '70s.)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.